MIGRATORY BIRD POPULATIONS. Wetland Wildlife Populations and Research rd Street Bemidji, MN (218)

Transcription

1 MIGRATORY BIRD POPULATIONS Wetland Wildlife Populations and Research rd Street Bemidji, MN (218)

2 94

3 2008 WATERFOWL BREEDING POPULATION SURVEY MINNESOTA Steve Cordts, Wetland Wildlife and Populations Research ABSTRACT: The number of breeding waterfowl in a portion of Minnesota has been estimated each year since 1968 as a part of the overall inventory of North American breeding waterfowl. The survey consists of aerial observations supplemented by more intensive ground counts on selected routes to determine the proportion of birds counted by the aerial crew. Procedures used are similar to those used elsewhere across the waterfowl breeding grounds. The 2008 aerial survey portion was flown from 5-12 May. Spring wetland habitat conditions were generally good and much improved from recent years. Wetland numbers increased 24% compared to 2007 and were 32% above both the 10-year and long-term averages. The estimated numbers of temporary (Type 1) wetlands increased 115% from 2007 but were similar to the long-term average. The mallard breeding population index (298,000) increased 23% from the 2007 estimate (242,000) but was statistically unchanged (P = 0.18). Mallard numbers were identical to the 10- year average but 34% above the long-term average of 222,000 breeding mallards. The blue-winged teal breeding population index (152,000) was 23% above the 2007 estimate (124,000) but remained below both the 10-year (-28%) and long-term (-32%) averages. Populations of other ducks (290,000), excluding scaup, increased 151% and were above the 10-year average (28%) and the long-term average (65%). Much of this increase was due to the record high numbers of ring-necked ducks observed. Ring-necked duck numbers increased by over 100,000 birds from last year and accounted for 43% of the other duck total. Many of these were likely migrant birds still present in the state due to the late spring weather conditions. However, totals for other typical late nesting species (i.e. blue-winged teal, scaup) that are often inflated during late springs showed different results and remained below average in Wood duck numbers more than doubled from last year but estimates remain lower than levels recorded in the late 1990s. The estimate of total ducks (740,000), which excludes scaup, increased 51% compared to 2007 and was identical to the 10-year average and 19% above the long-term average (623,000). Canada goose numbers (uncorrected for visibility) decreased 28% compared to 2007, were 20% below the 10- year average but 65% above the long-term average. Spring phenology (ice out, leaf-out, temperatures) was 1-2 weeks later than average this year. Based on the social status of mallards observed (number of pairs, lone males, and flocked birds), the survey timing was adequate and similar to recent years. For other species (i.e. ring-necked ducks), the late spring contributed to a large number of migrant birds still present in the state. METHODS: The aerial survey is based on a sampling design that includes three survey strata (Table 1, Figure 1). The strata cover 39% of the state area and are defined by density of lake basins (>10 acres) exclusive of the infertile northeastern lake region. The strata include the following: Stratum I: high density, 21 or more lake basins per township. Stratum II: moderate density, 11 to 20 lake basins per township. Stratum III: low density, 2 to 10 lake basins per township. Areas with less than two basins per township are not surveyed. Figure 1. Location of waterfowl breeding population survey strata in Minnesota. 95

4 Strata boundaries were based upon "An Inventory of Minnesota Lakes" (Minnesota Conserv. Dept. 1968:12). Standard procedures for the survey follow those outlined in "Standard Operating Procedures for Aerial Waterfowl Breeding Ground Populations and Habitat Surveys in North America (USFWS/CWS 1987). Changes in survey methodology were described in the 1989 Minnesota Waterfowl Breeding Population Survey report. Pond and waterfowl data for were calculated from Jessen ( ) and Maxson and Pace (1989). All aerial transects in Strata I-III (Table 1) were flown using a Cessna 185 (N105NR). Wetlands were counted on the observer s side of the plane (0.125 mile wide transect) only; a correction factor obtained in 1989 was used to adjust previous data ( ) that was obtained when the observer counted wetlands on both sides of the plane (0.25 mile wide transect). Data were recorded on digital voice recorders for both the pilot and observer and stored as WAV files. Visibility correction factors (VCFs) were derived from intensive ground surveys on 14 selected routes flown by the aerial crew. Many of these routes use a county road as the mid-point of the transect boundary which aids in navigation and helps ensure the aerial and ground crews survey the same area. Ground routes each originally included approximately 100 wetland areas; however, drainage has reduced the number of wetlands on most of the routes. All observations from both ground crews and aerial crews were used to calculate the VCFs. The SAS computer program was modified in 1992 to obtain standard errors for mallard and bluewinged teal breeding population estimates. These calculations were based upon SAS computer code written 500 by Graham Smith, USFWS-Office of Migratory Bird Management. We compared estimates for 2007 and using two-tailed Z-tests. SURVEY CHRONOLOGY: The 2008 aerial survey began on 5 May in southern Minnesota and concluded in northern Minnesota on 12 May. The survey was completed in 8 days of flight time, which was the shortest span since the survey was initiated in Transects were flown each day and flights began no earlier than 7 AM and were completed by 12 PM each day. WEATHER AND HABITAT CONDITIONS: Wetland conditions in spring 2008 were improved from Ice out on most lakes across the state was 1 to 2 weeks later than average, particularly in the northern regions of the state. Some ice was still present on portions of large lakes (Leech, Bemidji) on the final day of the survey but no ice was present on any of the aerial transects. April temperatures averaged 2.7 F below normal statewide; regional temperatures ranged from 1.4 F below average in northeast Minnesota to 3.6 F below average in west central Minnesota ( April precipitation was 1.6 inches above normal statewide and ranged from 0.3 inches above normal in southwest Minnesota to 3.1 inches above normal in southeast May ponds (1,000s) Year Fig. 2. Number of May ponds (Types II-V) and long-term average (dashed line) in Minnesota, Breeding ducks (1,000s) Year Figure 3. Mallard population estimates (adjusted for visibility bias) and long-term average (dashed line) in Minnesota,

5 Minnesota. May temperatures averaged 3.8 F below normal statewide. May precipitation was 0.2 inches below normal statewide and ranged from 1.0 inch below normal in northwest Minnesota to 0.5 inches above normal in southwest Minnesota ( From 20 April through 18 May, which normally would coincide with peak spring migration time for most duck species, average temperatures were near normal in mid-april (1 F above) but well below (2 F to 7 F) normal for the next 4 weeks throughout the state. Precipitation across the state averaged almost 2 inches above normal during this time period. Additional temperature and precipitation data are provided in Appendix A. In early May 2008, statewide topsoil moisture indices were rated as 1 % short, 67 % adequate, and 32% surplus moisture. In late May, statewide indices were rated as 9% short, 81% adequate and 10% surplus moisture. (Minnesota Agricultural Statistics Service Weekly Crop Weather Reports, For comparison, in early May 2007 statewide topsoil moisture indices were rated as 8% very short or short, 79% adequate, and 13% surplus moisture. Planting dates for row crops were later in 2008 than recent years. By 4 May, 8% of the corn acres had been planted statewide compared to 58% in 2007 and 65% for the previous 5-year average. By 1 June, 7% of alfalfa hay had been cut compared to 29% in 2007 and a 5-year average of 20% (Minnesota Agricultural Statistics Service Weekly Crop Weather Reports, Wetland numbers (Type II-V) increased 24% from 2007 and were 32% above both the 10-year and long-term averages (Table 2; Figure 2). The numbers of temporary (Type 1) wetlands increased 115% from 2007 but were similar to the long-term average. Leaf-out dates were considerably later than average, which greatly improved visibility from the air, particularly compared to recent years. The emergence of wetland vegetation was also much later than average, which also improved visibility from the air. Breeding ducks (1,000s) Year Figure 4. Blue-winged teal population estimates (adjusted for visibility bias) and long-term average (dashed line) in Minnesota, Breeding ducks (1,000s) Year Figure 5. Other duck (excluding scaup) populations (adjusted for visibility bias) and long-term average (dashed line) in Minnesota, Breeding ducks (1,000s) 1,200 1, Year Figure 6. Total duck (excluding scaup) population estimate and long-term average (dashed line) in Minnesota,

6 WATERFOWL POPULATIONS: The number of ducks, Canada geese, and coots, by stratum, are shown in Tables 3-5; total numbers are presented in Table 6. These estimates are expanded for area but not corrected for visibility bias. The 2008 waterfowl breeding population estimate of mallards was 297,565 (SE = 27,787), which was 23% higher but statistically unchanged from 2007 (Z = 1.37, P = 0.18) (Table 7, Figure 3). Mallard numbers were similar to the 10-year average and 34% above the long-term average of 222,000. In 2008, 2% of the total mallards were in flocks compared to 6% in 2007 and 7% in Pairs comprised 13% of the mallards observed, compared to 9% and 12% in 2006 and 2007, respectively. This suggests that survey timing was similar to recent years based on their social status. Breeding geese (1,000s) Year Figure 7. Canada goose population estimates (not adjusted for visibility bias) and long-term average in Minnesota, The estimated blue-winged teal population was 152,359 (SE = 24,157), which was higher than 2007 (123,000) but statistically unchanged from last year (Z = 0.92, P = 0.36). Blue-winged teal numbers remained 28% below the 10-year average and 32% below the long-term average (Table 7, Figure 4). In 2008, 11% of the bluewinged teal were observed in flocks compared to no teal in flocks in Pairs comprised 74% of the blue-winged teal observed, compared to 64% in 2007 and an average of 55% counted as pairs since This index of social status suggests that migrant blue-winged teal were still present in the state (flocked birds) and few had begun nesting (low numbers of lone males). Typically, this can result in higher than average population estimates but blue- winged teal estimates were below average this year. Breeding geese (1,000s) Year Figure 8. Canada goose population estimates (adjusted for visibility bias) and long-term average in Minnesota, Other duck numbers (excluding scaup) increased 151% to 289,629 and were 28% above the 10- year average and 65% above the long-term average (Table 7, Figure 5). Much of this increase was due to record numbers of ring-necked ducks counted. Ring-necked ducks accounted for 43% of the total number of other ducks and estimated numbers increased by over 100,000 from last year, reflecting large numbers of migrants present during the survey. Scaup numbers, however, were identical to the 10-year average (43,000) and 36% below the long-term average. Although scaup are only rare nesters in the state, spring migration patterns are generally assumed to be similar to ring-necked ducks. Based on the record high number of ring-necked ducks present this year, scaup numbers were considerably lower than expected. The total duck population, excluding scaup, was 740,000, which was 51% higher than 2007, identical to the 10-year average and 19% above the long-term average (Table 7, Figure 6). Visibility Correction Factors (VCFs) were lower in 2008 for mallards (9%), blue-winged teal (11%) and other ducks (22%) compared to 2007 (Table 7). Mallard VCFs (2.88) were lower than last year (3.15) but 34% above the long-term average. The blue-winged teal VCF (3.74) was lower than last year (4.20) and near the long-term average. The VCF for other ducks (2.91) was also lower than last year (3.73) and near the long-term average. The late leaf-out conditions and/or ideal flying conditions (light winds, overcast skies, no precipitation) may have contributed to better visibility from the air and lower VCFs this year. 98

7 Canada goose numbers (uncorrected for visibility) decreased 28% compared to 2007 and were 65% above the long-term average (Table 7, Figure 7). The VCF for Canada geese was 1.99, 35% higher than 2007 but 15% below the long-term average. The population estimate of Canada geese, adjusted for visibility, was similar (-3%) to last year (Table 7, Figure 8). There were no Canada goose broods observed during the aerial survey compared to broods each of the past 3 years. This may be related to the late spring chronology and a delayed nesting effort by Canada geese, or simply the timing to complete this year s survey (8 days vs. >20 days the past 3 years). The estimated coot population, uncorrected for visibility, was 56,000 in 2008 compared to 6,000 in SUMMARY: Overall wetland conditions were improved from 2007 and above the long-term average. Mallard abundance in 2008 (298,000) was higher than 2007 (242,000) but statistically unchanged (P=0.18). Mallard numbers were 34% above the long-term average (222,000) and at the 10-year average (299,000). Blue-winged teal abundance (152,000) was higher than 2007 (124,000) but not significantly different (P=0.36) and remained 28% below the 10-year average (212,000) and 32% below the long-term average (225,000). Duck abundance for all other species increased relative to Total duck abundance (740,000), excluding scaup, increased 51% from 2007, was identical to the 10-year average and 19% above the long-term average. Much of this increase was attributed to large numbers of migrant ringnecked ducks present in the state, likely as a result of the late spring phenology. Canada goose numbers, unadjusted for visibility bias, decreased 28% from 2007 and were 65% above the long-term average. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Special thanks to the pilot and all the efforts of the ground crews. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) Air Crew: Tom Pfingsten, MNDNR Conservation Officer Pilot, Steve Cordts, MNDNR Waterfowl Staff Specialist Ground Crew: Sean Kelly, Asst. Chief, Migratory Bird & Refuges, USFWS, Region III, Twin Cities; Wayne Brininger, Wildlife Biologist, USFWS, Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge; Jeanne Holler, Wildlife Biologist, USFWS, Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge; Rich Papasso, Refuge Operations Specialist, USFWS, Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge; Tony Rondeau, Wildlife Biologist, USFWS, HAPET, Fergus Falls; Tom Cooper, USFWS, Region III, Twin Cities; Jim Kelley, USFWS, Region III, Twin Cities; Dan Hertel, Wildlife Biologist, USFWS, HAPET, Fergus Falls; Sally Zodrow, Biological Science Technician, USFWS, Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge; Kim Bousquet, USFWS, Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge; Lowell Deede, USFWS, Tamarac National Wildlife Refuge; Paul Soler and Greg Dehmer, USFWS, Sherburne National Wildlife Refuge; Fred Osland, Luke Anderson, and Gina Houdek, USFWS, HAPET, Fergus Falls; Jeff Lawrence and Steve Cordts, MNDNR, Bemidji; Steve Lewis and Jane West, USFWS, Region III, Twin Cities; Steve Wilds, USFWS, retired. 99

8 LITERATURE CITED: Jessen, R. J Waterfowl breeding ground survey, Minn. Game Research Proj. Q. Prog. Rep. 29(32): Jessen, R. J Waterfowl breeding ground survey, Minn. Game Research Proj. Q. Prog. Rep. 31(2): Jessen, R. J Waterfowl breeding ground survey, Minn. Game Research Proj. Q. Prog. Rep. 31(2): Jessen, R. J Waterfowl breeding ground survey, Minn. Game Research Proj. Q. Prog. Rep. 31(2): Jessen, R. J Waterfowl breeding ground survey, Minn. Game Research Proj. Q. Prog. Rep. 32(2): Minnesota Conservation Department An inventory of Minnesota Lakes. Waters Section, Division of Waters, Soils, and Minerals, Bull. No pp. Maxson, S. J., and R. M. Pace Summary and evaluation of Minnesota's waterfowl breeding population survey, Minnesota Wildl. Rep pp. USFWS/CWS Standard operating procedures for aerial waterfowl breeding ground population and habitat surveys in North America. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Canadian Wildlife Service. 100

9 Table 1. Survey design for Minnesota, May Stratum Total Survey design Square miles in stratum 5,075 7,970 17,671 30,716 Square miles in sample - waterfowl Square miles in sample - ponds Linear miles in sample ,089.0 Number of transects in sample Minimum transect length (miles) Maximum transect length (miles) Expansion Factor - waterfowl Expansion Factor - ponds Current year coverage Square miles in sample - waterfowl Square miles in sample - ponds Linear miles in sample ,089.0 Number of transects in sample Minimum transect length (miles) Maximum transect length (miles) Expansion Factor - waterfowl Expansion Factor - ponds Also, 8 additional air-ground transects (total linear miles = 202.5, range miles) were flown to use in calculating the VCF. 101

10 Table 2. Estimated number of May ponds (Type 1 and Types II-V) during Minnesota waterfowl breeding population survey, Year Type I Number of ponds , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , year average ( ) 43, ,100 Long-term average ( ) 69, ,500 Change from: % 24% 10-year average 59% 32% Long-term average 1% 32% 1 Type II-V, correction factor from 1989 (123,000/203,000=0.606) used to adjust pond numbers. 102

11 Table 3. Minnesota waterfowl breeding populations by species for Stratum I (high wetland density), expanded for area but not visibility, Year Species Dabblers: Mallard 29,686 25,854 28,770 23,327 22,160 20,494 25,104 26,992 33,157 26,576 26,604 28,742 29,297 25,937 29,381 19,050 16,829 16,357 25,104 Black Du ck Gadwall 2,694 2,721 2, ,055 1, ,111 1, , ,250 2,111 1,166 1, ,166 American Wigeon Green-winged Teal Blue-winged Teal 23,771 15,940 15,274 10,358 9,164 7,609 6,720 6,387 8,220 6,998 11,247 7,387 14,218 9,664 23,771 9,303 5,665 5,332 9,942 Northern Shoveler 778 1,777 1, ,277 1, , , , ,000 Northern Pintail Wood Duck 14,468 10,775 10,941 11,636 7,359 6,831 6,498 9,497 12,302 5,582 10,219 6,720 2,888 4,499 8,081 5,498 3,555 2,666 6,665 Dabbler Subtotal 72,063 57,568 59,040 46,932 39,906 36,461 41,127 45,154 55,790 41,711 50,459 45,043 48,958 42,017 65,565 35,629 27,772 25,523 44,322 Divers: Redhead 3,305 2,555 3,499 1,416 1, , ,389 Canvasback 1,972 2,305 2,111 2,777 3,166 3,860 1,166 1,333 1,777 2,971 1,222 2,027 1,833 1, ,000 2,277 Scaup 8,970 9,858 23,854 6,748 19,661 7,192 13,829 3,416 9,247 1,750 7,415 5,832 2,444 2,055 5,971 4, ,276 Ring-necked Duck 1,638 1,777 4,721 2,222 3,582 1,583 3,166 2,694 2,749 2,360 4,776 2,444 2,777 1,361 5,165 1,722 2,055 1,555 21,494 Goldeneye Bufflehead ,611 Ruddy Duck 1, , , , , ,027 Hooded Merganser Large Merganser Diver Subtotal 17,580 17,245 36,184 14,746 29,853 13,886 20,078 9,360 26,325 9,442 14,608 13,107 9,997 6,915 13,801 9,525 4,803 4,693 35,351 Total Ducks 89,643 74,813 95,224 61,678 69,759 50,347 61,205 54,514 82,115 51,153 65,067 58,150 58,955 48,932 79,366 45,154 32,575 30,216 79,673 Other: Coot 27,326 11,108 11,386 1, ,055 5, ,999 1,722 2,888 2,666 21,411 2, ,829 Canada Goose 16,523 9,803 10,914 13,135 12,802 14,413 12,774 10,330 16,967 19,495 22,160 24,882 24,104 22,160 23,160 22,938 21,633 29,797 18,

12 Table 4. Minnesota waterfowl breeding populations by species for Stratum II (medium wetland density), expanded for area but not visibility, Year Species Dabblers: Mallard 39,682 39,215 45,585 37,111 42,896 42,896 48,507 54,643 53,942 52,247 49,559 44,650 43,773 34,715 44,474 26,883 25,130 24,779 27,935 Black Duck Gadwall 2,805 1,870 2,045 1,286 1,403 1, ,519 3,039 1, , , ,039 American Wigeon , Green-winged Teal Blue-winged Teal 31,208 24,663 26,766 18,818 19,227 10,636 13,851 13,792 13,208 10,578 19,637 9,701 21,390 15,955 30,624 11,513 9,000 8,416 12,740 Northern Shoveler 2,104 3,857 1,636 1, ,636 2, ,104 4,675 1,052 2,221 1,403 1, Northern Pintail Wood Duck 14,903 8,065 11,221 9,468 9,409 6,662 8,708 11,338 10,520 19,753 13,792 7,831 5,143 4,558 8,766 3,273 1,753 2,221 6,546 Dabbler subtotal 91,637 79,072 87,838 68,671 74,572 62,298 75,157 83,631 80,592 86,435 91,404 65,221 73,696 57,566 91,929 42,604 37,636 36,235 51,079 Divers: Redhead 4,325 1,519 3,097 2,279 3,799 1,403 1,110 1, ,636 2,805 2, , Canvasback , , , Scaup 25,189 13,383 22, ,085 7,831 21,916 18,935 4,032 3,331 6,779 3,039 5,961 2,279 7,188 2, ,097 Ring-necked Duck 2,513 2,104 2,922 3,156 3,331 1,403 7,714 3,565 2,279 2,221 5,610 3,799 6,370 2,455 5,377 1,929 3,331 1,578 13,149 Goldeneye , Bufflehead , ,403 Ruddy Duck 1,227 4,558 1,227 3, ,870 2, Hooded Merganser , Large Merganser Diver subtotal 34,073 22,499 30,799 11,571 24,079 11,572 33,136 26,708 7,714 9,409 17,765 11,281 17,007 10,110 15,196 6,606 4,617 4,676 20,338 Total Ducks 125, , ,637 80,242 98,651 73, , ,339 88,306 95, ,169 76,502 90,703 67, ,125 49,210 42,253 40,911 71,417 Other: Coot 11,630 5,552 11,162 5,201 1, ,013 5, , ,909 1,519 8, ,961 Canada Goose 11,279 8,591 7,305 9,409 12,565 12,682 13,559 16,364 19,812 18,585 25,831 24,604 20,688 22,091 28,461 20,688 26,825 25,890 19,

13 Table 5. Minnesota waterfowl breeding populations by species for Stratum III (low wetland density), expanded for area but not visibility, Year Species Dabblers: Mallard 71,511 63,246 69,771 63,333 73,425 79,166 79,862 78, ,873 90,390 81,690 72,642 72,121 55,156 84,561 36,539 30,884 35,843 50,371 Black Duck Gadwall 8,787 2,262 2,436 1,218 2,610 3,306 3,306 2,436 3,045 2,436 2,610 10,701 3,306 1,566 6,960 2,001 5,568 4, American Wigeon , , , ,566 1, Green-winged Teal ,218 1, Blue-winged Teal 52,198 50,893 51,067 35,494 41,932 29,492 36,625 25,316 26,360 18,530 29,405 20,618 56,374 21,140 39,758 27,578 23,663 15,659 18,095 Northern Shoveler 23,663 5,568 11,048 1,914 2,784 5,307 12,701 11,049 4,176 4,002 20,444 10,701 6, , ,002 Northern Pintail 696 1, , Wood Duck 25,055 17,747 24,185 25,229 23,228 16,355 27,926 14,268 23,837 20,531 25,055 17,225 13,572 12,702 20,705 7,482 7,308 5,394 14,442 Dabbler subtotal 183, , , , , , , , , , , , ,377 91, ,900 75,340 68,815 62,812 88,476 Divers: Redhead 3,219 2,610 6,438 1,827 2,958 7,134 1,044 1,044 2,001 3,480 2,523 3,654 1, ,740 1, Canvasback 1, , , , ,131 2, ,566 Scaup 5,916 17,486 20,009 4,176 23,924 13,397 29,840 8,787 15,137 8,961 18,182 6,873 4, ,747 5,307 1, ,481 Ring-necked Duck 2,088 3,480 3,654 2,871 5,568 1,044 12,875 3,654 2,958 1,479 8,178 8,526 7,395 1,479 5,133 10,179 6,699 1,392 8,526 Goldeneye , ,479 1, ,044 1,566 3,132 1, ,044 1, Bufflehead , , , ,218 Ruddy Duck 1,218 9,396 6,786 1,218 2,175 2,349 1, , , Hooded Merganser ,044 1, , , ,740 1, Large Merganser Diver subtotal 14,268 35,264 39,323 11,832 37,670 26,795 51,415 15,225 25,142 16,182 34,799 22,011 39,932 5,916 34,190 20,358 11,832 5,307 19,053 Total Ducks 197, , , , , , , , , , , , ,309 97, ,090 95,698 80,647 68, ,529 Other: Coot 11,918 47,587 62,463 12,179 12,788 3, ,953 24,620 5,133 14,702 67,684 3,132 14,007 7,134 77,427 8,613 14,702 5,742 15,137 Canada Goose 30,623 23,837 15,746 21,314 23,228 30,971 34,537 33,755 42,368 41,933 57,940 39,932 33,407 43,412 46,717 39,758 27,230 42,629 31,

14 Table 6. Minnesota waterfowl breeding populations by species for Stratum I-III combined, expanded for area coverage but not for visibility, Year Species Dabblers: Mallard 140, , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,416 82,472 72,843 76, ,411 Black Duck Gadwall 14,286 6,853 7,258 3,282 4,457 5,413 5,324 3,515 4,740 5,733 6,482 13,670 4,951 3,400 12,635 3,752 8,064 5,298 5,075 American Wigeon 1,413 1, , , , , , ,634 1, Green-winged Teal , ,613 1,564 1, Blue-winged Teal 107,177 91,496 93,107 64,670 70,323 47,737 57,196 45,495 47,788 36,106 60,288 37,706 91,982 46,759 94,152 48,394 38,328 29,407 40,777 Northern Shoveler 26,545 11,202 13,684 3,311 3,997 6,236 15,614 15,120 5,377 6,661 26,175 12,058 9,762 2,550 6, ,273 1,276 5,469 Northern Pintail 1,841 3,004 1,326 2,180 1, , ,449 1, , Wood Duck 54,426 36,587 46,347 46,333 39,996 29,848 43,132 35,103 46,659 45,866 49,067 31,777 21,603 21,759 37,553 16,253 12,616 10,281 27,652 Dabbler subtotal 346, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,876 Divers: Redhead 10,849 6,684 13,034 5,522 8,729 9,176 2,876 3,809 3,880 5,616 5,911 7,552 2,289 1,092 3,656 2, ,373 3,107 Canvasback 3,250 3,118 2,111 3,709 4,914 4,034 2,792 2,034 5,200 3,262 6,072 2,549 2,996 3,516 3, ,517 4,311 Scaup 40,075 40,727 66,071 11,801 57,670 28,420 65,585 31,138 28,416 14,041 32,376 15,743 13,016 5,117 30,906 12,397 1,971 1,894 14,854 Ring-necked Duck 6,239 7,361 11,297 8,249 12,481 4,030 23,755 9,913 7,986 6,060 18,565 14,768 16,542 5,294 15,675 13,829 12,085 4,525 43,169 Goldeneye 1,016 1,514 1,617 1,391 1,706 2,291 3,834 1,340 1,041 1,687 1,684 2,367 3,477 1,539 1,269 1,383 1,216 1, Bufflehead , , , ,609 1,011 2, ,231 Ruddy Duck 3,945 14,315 8,513 5,858 3,223 2,633 1, ,052 1, ,054 3,192 2,567 2,443 1, ,114 Hooded Merganser ,143 1,154 1,275 1,439 2,411 1,719 1,202 2,641 2,392 2,299 3,432 1,209 2,251 1,785 1, ,947 Large Merganser ,032 Diver subtotal 65,921 75, ,306 38,149 91,602 52, ,629 51,293 59,181 35,031 67,173 46,396 66,937 22,942 63,186 36,487 21,253 14,675 74,741 Total Ducks 412, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,617 Other: Coot 50,874 64,247 85,011 18,546 14,777 4, ,021 34,700 6,331 15,020 72,793 5,321 21,804 11, ,845 11,641 15,633 6,290 55,927 Canada Goose 58,425 42,231 33,965 43,858 48,595 58,066 60,870 60,449 79,147 80, ,932 89,418 78,200 87,663 98,339 83,384 75,688 98,316 70,

15 Table 7. Estimated waterfowl populations during the Minnesota Waterfowl breeding population survey, Mallard Blue-winged teal Other ducks (exc. scaup) Year Unad. PI VCF PI SE Unad. PI VCF PI SE Unad. PI VCF PI Averages: , ,701 61, ,141 41, , , ,789 45, ,871 34, , , ,945 31, ,343 30, , , ,470 42, ,218 29, , , ,158 49, ,895 34, , , ,832 53, ,292 33, , , ,826 39, ,169 38, , , ,774 45, ,375 34, , , ,806 89, ,607 39, , , ,164 37, ,187 18, , , ,781 28, ,923 22, , , ,704 28,668 46, ,167 62,226 39, , , ,957 22,312 50, ,616 40,571 47, , , ,844 16,402 64, ,258 23,835 30, , , ,527 17,078 42, ,167 34,503 32, , , ,762 15,419 42, ,980 20,809 32, , , ,149 24,065 89, ,821 33,286 40, , , ,908 32,935 90, ,607 33,369 35, , , ,598 30,384 68, ,338 28,204 38, , , ,289 23, , ,718 32,289 76, , , ,718 38, , ,532 39,512 81, , , ,968 26,508 90, ,760 39,834 88, , , ,059 26, , ,659 44, , , , ,953 28,832 91, ,138 42,057 93, , , ,870 43,621 93, ,679 53, , , , ,838 31,103 64, ,070 36,307 82, , , ,455 66,240 70, ,256 82,580 85, , , ,433 48,124 47, ,043 40,531 66, , , ,816 53,461 57, ,913 64, , , , ,413 65,771 45, ,408 67,526 76, , , ,450 61,513 47, ,848 33,855 91, , , ,394 51,651 36, ,499 36,124 80, , , ,134 36,857 60, ,055 32, , , , ,560 39,541 37, ,742 19,631 91, , , ,625 46,264 91, ,934 87,312 92, , , ,517 34,556 46, ,269 36,176 46, , , ,313 57,591 94, ,209 56,539 95, , , ,500 28,595 48, ,125 37,358 46, , , ,715 24,230 38, ,674 60,353 42, , , ,481 30,020 29, ,588 20,055 30, , , ,565 27,787 40, ,359 24,157 99, , year ( ) 128, ,659 39,873 53, ,094 41,959 73, ,526 Long-term ( ) 103, ,280 36,215 60, ,827 42,730 59, ,025 % change from: % -9% 23% -7% 39% -11% 23% 20% 222% -22% 151% 10-year average -20% 20% 0% -30% -23% -7% -28% -42% 35% -14% 28% Long-term average 0% 34% 34% -23% -33% -4% -32% -43% 67% -9% 65% 1 Unad. PI - unadjusted population index, VCF - Visibility Correction Factor, PI - adjusted population index, SE - standard error. 2 Calculated from data in Minn. Game Res. Quarterly Reps. The 1968 and 1969 other duck VCF is total duck VCF. 3 Calculated from data in Maxson and Pace (1989). 107

16 Table 7. Cont. Scaup Total ducks (ex. scaup) Total Ducks Canada geese Year Unad. PI VCF PI Unad. PI PI Unad. PI PI Unad. PI VCF PI Averages: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,580 1, , , , , , ,806 8, , , , , , ,257 5, , , , , , ,405 5, , , , , , ,616 7, , , , , , ,314 7, , , , , , ,364 4, , , , , , ,663 6, , , , , , ,220 10, , , , , , ,399 6, , , , , , ,219 11, , , , , , ,790 14, , , , , , ,328 16, , , , , , ,465 19, , , , , , ,864 29, , , , , , ,791 39, , , , , , ,669 1,021,606 51, , , , , , , ,761 58, , , , , , , ,191 42, , , , , , ,083 1,127,262 33, , , , , , , ,921 43, , , , ,477 1,115, ,147 1,320,095 48, , , , , , , ,241 58, , , , , , ,204 1,062,408 60, , , , , , , ,971 60, , , , , , , ,612 79, , , , , , , ,465 80, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,267 89, , , , ,951 1,171, ,967 1,224,143 78, , , , , , , ,925 87, , , , ,673 1,008, ,579 1,099,250 98, , , , , , , ,320 83, , , , , , , ,431 75, , , , , , , ,575 98, , , , , , , ,758 70, , year ( ) 15, , , , , ,029 87, ,768 Long-term ( ) 22, , , , , ,947 42, ,661 % change from: % -22% 512% 77% 51% 86% 58% -28% 35% -3% 10-year average -5% -13% 1% -6% 0% -6% 0% -20% -17% -33% Long-term average -35% -8% -36% 9% 19% 5% 13% 65% -16% -15% 1 Unad. PI - unadjusted population index, VCF - Visibility Correction Factor, PI - adjusted population index, SE - standard error. 108

17 Appendix A. Temperature and precipitation at selected cities in, or adjacent to, Minnesota May Waterfowl Survey Strata, 20 April - 18 May 2008 (Source: Minnesota Climatological Working Group, Precipitation Temperature (F) for week ending: departure 20-April 27-April 4-May 11-May 18-May Total weekly precipitation (inches) from normal Region City Avg.1 Depart 2 Avg.1 Depart 2 Avg.1 Depart 2 Avg.1 Depart 2 Avg.1 Depart 2 20-April 27-April 4-May 11-May 18-May 1 Apr-18 May NW Crookston NC Grand Rapids Itasca WC Alexandria Fergus Falls Montevideo Morris C Becker Hutchinson St. Cloud Staples Willmar EC Aitkin Cambridge Missing Msp Airport SW Pipestone Redwood Falls Worthington SC Faribault Waseca Winnebago Statewide Average temperature ( F) for the week ending on the date shown. 2 Departure from normal temperature. m = missing data 109

18 Waterfowl information is taken from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report Waterfowl Population Status, 2008 by Pamela R. Garrettson, Timothy J. Moser, Nathan Zimpfer, and Kathy Fleming. The entire report is available on the Division of Migratory Bird Management home page ( Table 1. Canada goose population indices (in thousands) of the eastern prairie flock, (from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Waterfowl population status, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. U.S.A.). Year Population a,b , , , , , , , , n.a , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,600 a Surveys conducted in Spring. b Indirect or preliminary estimate. 110

19 Estimated Number of Canada Geese Thousands Year Figure 1. Breeding ground survey estimates of the Eastern Prairie Population of Canada geese, (from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Waterfowl population status, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. U.S.A.). Surveys conducted in spring. Indirect or preliminary estimates. Data not available for

20 Table 2. Estimated number of May ponds (adjusted for visibility) in Prairie Canada (portions of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba) and north-central U.S. (North Dakota, South Dakota and Montana) (from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Waterfowl population status, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. U.S.A.) Ponds (thousands) Year Prairie Canada North Central U.S. a , , , , , , , , , , ,390 1, ,320 1, ,599 1, , ,622 1, ,859 1, , , ,185 1, ,906 1, ,473 1, ,283 1, ,025 1, ,524 1, , ,693 1, , , , ,261 1, ,769 2, ,893 2, ,003 2, ,061 2, ,522 2, ,862 2, ,422 1, ,747 1, ,439 1, ,522 1, ,513 1, ,921 1, ,450 1, ,040 1, ,055 1,534 Average 3,439 1,538 % Change in 2008 from: 2007 Long term Average a No comparable survey data available for the north-central U.S. during

21 Figure 2. Estimates of North American breeding populations, 95% confidence intervals, and North American Waterfowl Management Plan population goal (dashed line) for selected species and number of water areas in May in Prairie Canada and Northcentral U.S. (from: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Waterfowl population status, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. U.S.A.) 113

22 May Ponds Figure 2. (continued). 114

23 INTRODUCTION MINNESOTA SPRING CANADA GOOSE SURVEY, 2008 David Rave, Wetland Wildlife Populations and Research Group This report presents results from the eighth year of a spring helicopter survey of resident Canada geese in Minnesota. The survey was developed to comply with a Mississippi Flyway Council request to produce a statewide population estimate of resident giant Canada geese having 95% confidence intervals (C.I. s) that are within + 25% of the estimate. METHODS The original survey was initiated in 2001 using a double sampling design where an annual stratified sample was randomly selected from 900 plots in each ecoregion (Maxson 2002). We eliminated the double sampling design this year by stratifying all potential plots in each ecoregion, and randomly sampling from the entire sampling frame (i.e., it is now a simple stratified sampling design with new sample plots drawn each year). However, stratification criteria and survey protocols were the same as in previous years; thus, results should be comparable among years. As in the original stratification, the state was divided into three ecoregions (Prairie Parkland, Eastern Broadleaf Forest/Tallgrass Aspen Parklands, Laurentian Mixed Forest) hereafter referred to as Prairie, Transition, and Forest. The 7- county Metro area was excluded from the Transition ecoregion. Similarly, Lake and Cook Counties plus the Boundary Waters Canoe Area and the Northwest Angle were excluded from the Forest ecoregion. Four Statewide ArcView shapefiles were then unioned together: National Wetlands Inventory circular 39, DNR 1:24k lakes, Public Land Survey Quarter section Boundaries, and ECS provinces, to assign each quarter section plot to the appropriate strata. Four new fields were then computed: total acres of Type 3, 4, and 5 wetlands per quarter section (Circ39_acr), total acres of 1:24k lakes per quarter section (Lakes_acr), total acres of type 3 wetlands per quarter section (Sum_type3_acr) and total acres of river per quarter section (Sum_Riv_acr). A summary table was created with text fields for each of the 8 strata (habitat-quality class x ecoregion). Using the query builder in ArcMap, quarter sections in each ecoregion were assigned to habitat-quality classes for resident geese: 1) not nesting habitat expect no geese, 2) limited nesting habitat habitat capable of supporting 1 or 2 pairs of geese, 3) prime nesting habitat habitat capable of supporting 3 or more pairs. Habitat-classification criteria for each ecoregion was: Prairie No geese = Type <0.5 acres and rivers <10 acres or plot is all water. (n = 61,597 plots). 1-2 pairs = Type > 0.5 acres but Type 3 <15 acres or Type <0.5 acres and rivers >10 acres. (n = 30,874 plots). 3+ pairs = Type 3 >15 acres, but plot is not all water. (n = 9,537 plots). Transition No geese = Type <1 acre and rivers <8 acres or plot is all water. (n = 39,484 plots). 1-2 pairs = Type = 1-25 acres or Type >25 acres, but Type 3 <15 acres or Type <1 acre and rivers >8 acres. (n = 31,091 plots). 3+ pairs = Type >25 acres, but Type 3 >15 acres and plot is not all water. (n = 7,988 plots). 115

24 Forest No geese = Type <2 acres and rivers <2 acres or plot all water. (n = 75,835 plots). 1-2 pairs = Type >2 acres, but not all water or Type <2 acres and rivers >2 acres. (n = 51,155 plots). 3+ pairs = None. Plots in the no geese class are not flown and there are no plots in the 3+ pairs class in the Forest ecoregion. Each year 30 plots are randomly selected in each of the 5 remaining strata using ArcView s AlaskaPak extension, and these 150 plots are surveyed at low level using a helicopter. Ideally, the survey should be conducted during mid-incubation. Pilot John Heineman and I flew the survey 23 April through 5 May, Canada geese seen within plot boundaries were recorded as singles, pairs, and groups. We also recorded whether singles and pairs were observed with a nest. The number of singles was doubled when the total number of geese per plot was calculated (unless 2 singles were observed to associate as a pair after being flushed). RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The total Canada goose population estimate in the surveyed area for 2008 was 276,697 (+71,564). Adding 17,500 for the Twin Cities metro area (Cooper 2004) yields a statewide estimate of 294,197 (Table 1). Relative error (95% CI half-width) was 25.9% of the estimate, close to the target of 25.0%. The survey tallied 38.4% singles (after doubling, as noted above), 55.4% pairs, and 6.2% groups (Table 2). Typically, many of the pairs seen on this survey are not associated with nests and are likely nonbreeders. An index to nesting effort (i.e., Productive Geese) can be obtained by combining singles (after doubling) and pairs associated with nests. In 2008, 42.6% of the geese seen were classified as Productive Geese (Table 2). While confidence intervals overlap among years, a linear trend line applied to these data suggests the population in the surveyed area has been stable over the 8 years of this survey (Figure 1). The 2008 Canada goose breeding population estimate for the surveyed area was unchanged from the 2007 estimate. The goose number estimates from the Transition and Forest regions increased somewhat, whereas the estimate from the Prairie region decreased slightly compared to last year (Table 1). While the survey design is robust, results potentially could be influenced by other factors. Survey methods were the same as previous years, but the sampling frame was restratified in Although the same criteria were used for habitat classification, ecogregion boundary assignments may have changed slightly for some plots because the data sets we used better defined ecoregion boundaries than data sets available in Furthermore, we eliminated double-sampling for stratification, which may also have contributed to some of the observed changes in stratum sizes (total plots per stratum per ecoregion) and, thus, total estimated geese in each ecoregion. Finally, weather conditions in 2008 were characterized by a late spring with several April winter storm events, and unusually late ice-out on lakes in the northern half of the state. Late springs typically result in a poorer goose reproduction effort. However, the number of geese observed on nests this year indicates that 2008 will likely be a more productive year for Canada geese than Weather conditions throughout May and June will influence goose productivity. Regardless, the 2008 Canada goose population estimate was 18 % above the state Canada goose population goal, and indicates that the goose population in the state is healthy. Wetland and habitat quality were variable in the state this year. Water levels throughout the state appeared to be normal to above normal. The unusually late spring and ice out may influence production by affecting egg hatchability, gosling survival due to exposure, and amount of food available to goslings in the form of green vegetation. This may result in fewer and/or smaller goose broods in the state. Based 116

25 upon the number of productive geese from the survey, I expect average to above average Canada goose production throughout the state, depending upon May and June weather conditions. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Frank Martin (Univ. of MN) and Steve Maxson were instrumental in the original design of this survey. Steve also was the principal observer during the first 6 years of the survey. Tim Loesch, Christopher Pouliot, and Shelly Sentyrz set up the original 2,700 ¼-section plots using ArcView and were very helpful in getting the survey up and running in Shelly Sentyrz was also instrumental in helping to restratify plots statewide for the 2008 survey. John Giudice helped design the 2008 survey, wrote the SAS program and analyzed the survey data. Shelly Sentyrz provided GPS coordinates of plots to the pilot, and printed out maps of the 150 plots flown this year. John Heineman piloted the helicopter and served as the second observer. BIBLIOGRAPHY Cooper, J Canada goose program report Unpublished report. 20 pp. Maxson, S.J Minnesota Spring Canada Goose Survey. Unpublished Report. Table 1. Spring Canada goose population estimates in Minnesota, Year Prairie Transition Forest Subtotal 95% CI Metro TOTAL ,360 95,470 92, , ,500 20, , , ,900 33, , ,286 20, , , ,290 56, , ,428 20, , , ,609 95, , ,303 20, , , ,286 57, , ,541 17, , , ,085 67, , ,436 17, , ,151 99,274 25, , ,167 17, , , ,341 30, , ,564 17, ,

26 Table 2. Percent of Canada Geese seen as singles, pairs, groups, and productive geese on the Minnesota Spring Canada Goose Survey, Year Singles 1 Pairs 1 Groups Productive Geese Numbers of singles and pairs were doubled before calculating proportions. 2 Productive geese equals Singles + Pairs with nests Population Size Upper CI Lower CI Estimate Trend Year Figure 1. Spring Canada goose population estimates (+ 95% CI) in Minnesota, (Does not include Metro area.) 118

27 Mourning dove information is taken from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report by Dolton, D.D., K. Parker, and R.D. Rau Mourning dove, White-winged dove, and Band-tailed Pigeon population status, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA. 43 pp. The entire report is available on the Division of Migratory Bird Management home page ( ). Figure 1. Breeding and wintering ranges of the mourning dove (adapted from Mirarchi and Baskett 1994). (From: Mourning dove, White-winged dove, and Band-tailed Pigeon population status, Dolton, D.D., K. Parker, and R.D. Rau. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA. 43 pp.) 119

28 Figure 2. Mourning dove management units with 2007 hunting and nonhunting states. (From: Mourning dove, White-winged dove, and Band-tailed Pigeon population status, Dolton, D.D., K. Parker, and R.D. Rau. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA. 43 pp.) Figure 3. Mean number of mourning doves heard per route by state in the Central Management Unit, (From: Mourning dove, White-winged dove, and Band-tailed Pigeon population status, Dolton, D.D., K. Parker, and R.D. Rau. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA. 43 pp.). 120

29 Table 1. Preliminary estimates of the number of hunters, days hunted, and total bag from Harvest Information Program surveys for the , , and seasons. (From: Mourning dove, White-winged dove, and Band-tailed Pigeon population status, Dolton, D.D., K. Parker, and R.D. Rau. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA. 43 pp.) Management unit / State Hunters Days Hunted Birds bagged CENTRAL 470, , ,729,800 1,605,900 1,803,900 9,891,400 ± 8,887,000 ± 9,180, ,900 ± 8% ± 9% ± 9% 9% 9% ± 9% AR 43,400 ± 31,300 ± 147,300 ± 77,500 ± 115,900 ± 861,600 ± 621,500 ± 791,700 ± 15% 16% 2 16% 24% 18% 23% 20% 20% 24% CO 18,400 ± 7% 19,800 ± 11% 21,800 ±11% 48,700 ± 9% 45,700 ± 13% 57,800 ± 14% 263,400 ± 10% 270,300 ± 19% 315,000 ± 14% KS 32,400 ± 8% 35,400 ± 8% 36,300 ±8% 109,500 ± 12% 116,400 ± 11% 119,100 ± 11% 680,400 ± 11% 711,800 ± 12% 725,100 ± 13% MN 6,000 ± 34% 8,000 ± 33% 7,700 ± 35% 14,700 ± 43% 24,200 ± 39% 27,600 ± 49% 48,800 ± 61% 50,000 ± 46% 67,400 ± 52% MO 40,200 ± 10% 44,700 ± 7% 42,600 ± 8% 113,400 ± 16% 129,800 ± 12% 124,400 ± 13% 641,800 ± 20% 709,500 ± 15% 603,300 ± 15% MT 2,000 ± 34% 1,800 ± 36% 1,700 ± 31% 4,800 ± 38% 3,900 ± 38% 4,000 ± 34% 17,800 ± 44% 14,800 ± 33% 20,900 ± 43% NE 17,800 ± 10% 15,000 ± 12% 17,000 ± 12% 64,300 ± 14% 43,000 ± 12% 55,300 ± 16% 361,100 ± 15% 249,700 ± 12% 319,600 ± 18% NM 9,300 ± 17% 7,100 ± 20% 8,600 ± 18% 42,000 ± 20% 33,900 ± 28% 40,100 ± 33% 250,100 ± 22% 226,900 ± 33% 198,700 ± 25% ND 3,100 ± 27% 4,000 ± 23% 3,200 ± 27% 11,800 ± 38% 10,800 ± 24% 9,900 ± 26% 55,500 ± 48% 56,400 ± 25% 48,700 ± 27% OK 34,500 ± 9% 36,100 ± 9% 24,600 ± 14% 111,500 ± 16% 108,300 ± 17% 73,100 ± 19% 828,500 ± 20% 704,400 ± 24% 480,000 ± 24% SD 7,100 ± 18% 6,400 ± 16% 6,000 ± 20% 25,200 ± 26% 19,600 ± 17% 18,200 ± 25% 127,700 ± 28% 103,300 ± 18% 104,000 ± 30% TX 257,200 ± 10% 258,900 ± 10% 275,200 ± 10% 1,030,000 ± 13% 986,200 ± 14% 1,149,600 ± 13% 5,710,700 ± 15% 5,138,700 ± 14% 5,463,300 ± 14% WY 2,500 ± 27% 2,300 ± 29% 4,000 ± 20% 6,600 ± 27% 6,500 ± 36% 8,800 ± 24% 34,100 ± 31% 29,500 ± 37% 42,600 ± 27% 1 This represents the 95% confidence interval expressed as a percent of the point estimate. 2 This total is slightly exaggerated because people are counted more than once if they hunted in more than one state. 121

30 Figure 4. Trends in number of mourning doves heard per route by state in the Central Management Unit, (From: Mourning dove, White-winged dove, and Band-tailed Pigeon population status, Dolton, D.D., K. Parker, and R.D. Rau. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA. 43 pp.). Figure 5. Trends in mourning doves heard per route by state in the Central Management Unit, (From: Mourning dove, White-winged dove, and Band-tailed Pigeon population status, Dolton, D.D., K. Parker, and R.D. Rau. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA. 43 pp.). 122

31 Figure 6. Population indices and trends of breeding mourning doves in the Central Management Unit, Heavy solid line = doves heard; light solid line = doves seen. Light and heavy dashed lines = predicted trends. (From: Mourning dove, White-winged dove, and Band-tailed Pigeon population status, Dolton, D.D., K. Parker, and R.D. Rau. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, Maryland, USA. 43 pp.) 123

32 American Woodcock information is taken from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report American Woodcock Population Status, 2008 by Thomas R. Cooper, Keri Parker, and Rebecca D. Rau. The entire report is available on the Division of Migratory Bird Management home page ( ). Figure 1. Woodcock management regions, breeding range, singing-ground survey coverage, (from: Cooper, T.R., K. Parker, and R.D. Rau American woodcock population status, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD. 15pp.) 124

33 Table 24. Trends (% change per year a ) in number of American woodcock heard in singing-ground survey during , as determined by using the hierarchical log-linear modeling technique (Sauer et al. 2008) (from: Cooper, T.R., K. Parker, and R.D. Rau American woodcock population status, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD. 15pp.). Management Unit/State Number of ( ) Routes b n c % Change ( ) % Change ( ) % Change CENTRAL IL IN MB d MI MN OH ON WI a Median of route trends estimated used hierarchical modeling. To estimate the total percent change over several years, use: 100(% change/100+1)y)-100 where y is the number of years. Note: extrapolating the estimated trend statistic (% change per year) over time (e.g., 30 years) may exaggerate the total change over the period. b Total number of routes surveyed in 2008 for which data were received by 28 May. c Number of routes that could be used for trend analysis, routes with <2 years of data were not used. d Manitoba began participating in the Singing-ground survey in

34 Figure 2. Adjusted index of American woodcock recruitment, Dashed line is the index based on all average. (from: Cooper, T.R., K. Parker, and R.D. Rau American woodcock population status, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD. 15pp.). Figure 3. American woodcock singing ground survey long term trends and annual indices, (from: Cooper, T.R., K. Parker, and R.D. Rau American woodcock population status, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD. 15pp.). 126

35 Table 25. Preliminary estimates of woodcock hunter numbers, days afield, and harvest for selected states, from the , , and Harvest Information Program surveys. (from: Cooper, T.R., K. Parker, and R.D. Rau American woodcock population status, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD. 15pp.). Management Unit / State Active woodcock hunters Days afield Harvest Central Region n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. 366,100 ± 15% 356,100 ± 14% 344,262 ± 12% 358,480 ± 14% 234,800 ± 20% 225,000 ± 19% 232,557 ± 17% 214,162 ± 16% IL 1,200 ± 74% 2,100 ± 79% 1,973 ± 87% 3,111 ± 73% 3,500 ± 78% 5,300 ± 89% 8,944 ± 115% 7,644 ± 72% 1,900 ± 96% 3,900 ± 196% 2,171 ± 160% 3,819 ± 149% IN 1,100 ±104% 2,100 ± 55% 1,000 ± 58% 1,788 ± 71 5,300 ±124% 7,400 ± 69% 4,377 ± 75% 3,342 ± 58% 7,900 ± 145% 4,400 ± 91% 2,403 ± 69% 1,203 ± 53% MI 31,200 ± 13% 28,000 ± 13% 30,017 ± 14% 28,412 ± 13% 147,000 ± 14% 151,200 ±17% 155,333 ± 17% 138,881 ±15% 102,500 ± 21% 106,800 ± 27% 116,216 ± 27% 86,825 ± 17% MN 14,500 ± 27% 12,000 ± 31% 14,934 ± 24% 15,295 ± 29% 67,000 ± 33% 60,200 ± 42% 60,160 ± 31% 62,810 ± 36% 38,500 ± 53% 42,200 ± 54% 38,738 ± 41% 34,400 ± 38% OH 2,600 ± 82% 4,700 ± 65% 2,249 ± 68% 2,611 ± 73% 18,200 ± 126% 15,800 ± 79% 9,764 ± 67% 9,259 ± 72% 4,600 ±101% 6,900 ± 83% 4,060 ± 51% 2,598 ± 68% WI 15,700 ± 30% 15,600 ± 25% 19,390 ± 22% 17,258 ± 23% 61,100 ± 30% 73,100 ± 31% 72,365 ± 25% 79,139 ± 31% 47,300 ±50% 37,600 ± 28% 42,958 ± 25% 48,027 ± 31% a Regional estimates of hunter numbers cannot be obtained due to the occurrence of individual hunters being registered in the Harvest Information Program in more than one state. 127

36 . Figure 4. Short-term trends in number of American woodcock heard on the Singing-ground Survey; (from: Cooper, T.R., K. Parker, and R.D. Rau American woodcock population status, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD. 15pp.) Figure 5. Long-term trends in number of American woodcock heard on the Singing-ground Survey; (from: Cooper, T.R., K. Parker, and R.D. Rau American woodcock population status, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD. 15pp.) 128