BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 3 9999 063 7 683 6 WATERFOWL STATUS REPORT 1969 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE BUREAU OF SPORT FISHERIES AND WILDLIFE Special Scientific Report- Wildlife No. 128 UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, WALTER J. HICKEL, SECRETARY Leslie L. Glasgow, Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife j Parks ^ and Marine Resources Fish and Wildlife Service, Charles H. Meacham, Commissioner Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife, John S. Gottschalk, Director WATERFOWL STATUS REPORT 1969 Compiled and edited by R. Kahler Martinson, Chief James F. Voelzer and Sharon L. Meller Branch of Management DIVISION OF MANAGEMENT AND ENFORCEMENT in collaboration with DIVISION OF WILDLIFE RESEARCH Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Special Scientific Report — Wildlife No. 128 Washington, D. C. • December 1969 CONTENTS Page WINTER SURVEY 1 BREEDING GROUND SURVEYS 5 Alaska and Yukon Territory 5 Northern Alberta, northeastern British Coliunbia, and Northwest Territories 7 Northern Saskatchewan, northern Manitoba, northern Ontario, and Saskatchewan River Delta 10 Southern Alberta 12 Southern Saskatchewan 16 Southern Manitoba 18 Montana . 20 North and South Dakota 23 Minnesota 26 Chippewa National Forest, Minnesota 27 Washington 28 Oregon 29 Idaho 30 California 31 Utah 32 Wyoming 33 Colorado 34 Nebraska 36 Missouri 37 WATERFOWL KILL SURVEY 39 APPENDIX 43 A. Waterfowl winter survey tables 43 B. Waterfowl breeding ground survey tables ...... 47 C. Waterfowl harvest data tables 131 Ll WATERFOWL STATUS REPORT 1969 Information from surveys of the breeding and wintering grounds of waterfowl coupled with data from mail surveys of hunters play a major role in the development of annual hunting regulations for waterfowl. This report presents tabulations of the 1969 waterfowl population and habitat surveys and the results of mail surveys of waterfowl hunters for the 1968-69 season. Credit has been given to each individual or organization that submitted a report. Although many of the narrative statements have been briefed, and a few tables deleted or shortened if they con- tained data submitted previously or in another form, the essential information from each report has been retained to the greatest extent possible. WINTER SURVEY During the first half of January a survey of waterfowl on their wintering grounds was completed by the Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife with assistance from State conservation departments, other Federal agencies and private individuals. All important waterfowl areas in the United States were surveyed. These data are presented in Tables A-1 and A-2, PACIFIC FLWAY Data supplied by John E. Chattin, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Weather conditions during the 1969 winter survey were rather extreme in most areas. Temperatures were low and ice and snow were prevalent. Delays in survey initiation and completion due to the inclement weather were common in many areas. The survey of the west coast of Mexico was for black brant and therefore did not cover all waterfowl areas. The count of total waterfowl for the Flyway was about 12 percent below the total for 1968. Dabbling ducks were down 10 percent from the previous year but diving ducks were 1 percent above their 1968 winter level. Survey counts of large Canada geese were little changed from 1969. Lesser Canadas were down nearly 49 percent while cackling geese showed a 64 percent increase from a year ago. The count of white-fronted geese was about 61 percent higher than in 1968 and black brant, counted in Mexico as well as in the States, decreased 7 percent from 1968. The extreme changes indicated between 1968 and 1969 for several of the above goose populations likely reflect incomplete counts in one year or the other rather than real changes in population size. As has been indicated in previous reports, goose surveys in the Central Valley of California have been incomplete in several recent years because of bad weather, haze, and/or smog. CENTRAL FLWAY Data supplied by Raymond J. Buller, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Although adverse weather was encountered in much of the Flyway at some time during the survey, frozen habitat, and the late mallard drake season in Montana, Wyoming, and Colorado served to concentrate birds to make surveying easier in the northern and western parts of the Flyway. Winter habitat and food conditions ranged from severe in North Dakota to excellent in central and southern portions of the Flyway. The interior highlands and east coast of Mexico were not surveyed in 1969. The winter survey count of total waterfowl in the Flyway suggested a 15 percent decrease from 1968. Dabbling ducks appeared to be about one-third below last year while divers showed an increase of 7 percent from 1969. Canada geese were about 15 percent below their level in 1968 but whitefronts increased 40 percent from that year. Blue and snow geese showed increases o£ 99 and 30 percent, respectively. As in the Pacific Flyway, goose counts in the Central Flyway sometimes do not reflect true population changes but rather reveal incomparability in surveys between years. A related problem has been that varying proportions of birds occur in Mexico from year to year at survey time. MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY Data supplied by Arthur S. Hawkins and Rossalius C. Hanson, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife The 1969 winter survey in the Mississippi Flyway was completed during the scheduled period with only normal operational diffi- culties in contrast to the difficult experience of 1968. Winter weather, ranging from near zero temperatures and blowing snow to freezing drizzle, delayed the start of the survey in the north but did not prevent its completion under favorable conditions later in the week. Most northern lakes and streams were frozen with snow depths up to 20 inches in Minnesota. These conditions plus wide- spread fall plowing restricted the winter range for waterfowl drastically in northern areas. The southern wintering grounds had cold clear weather and flooded river bottoms at survey time. The 1969 winter survey suggested an increase of 17 percent in total waterfowl from 1968. Dabbling ducks showed a 5 percent increase from 1969 while divers were up 71 percent from a year ago. The survey count of Canada geese suggested an increase of 25 per- cent from 1968. Counts of white-fronted geese indicated a 14 percent decline from last year. Together, blue and snow geese appeared to be down about 24 percent from 1968. ATLANTIC FLYWAY Data supplied by C. E. Addy, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife During the survey period, waters were more open than they were in 1968 when most tidal marshes from Virginia north were frozen. Coastal marshes were mostly open this year but many shallow inland fresh waters were closed from North Carolina north. Although birds were not concentrated to the extent of last year in the northern half of the Flyway, field observers felt that coverage was adequate and comparable. Drought conditions from South Carolina to northern Florida probably made birds more visible by forcing them onto open water. Southern Florida had extremely high water which had the reverse effect. Due to inclement weather, the survey was interrupted in various parts of the Flyway, but the general 1969 coverage is believed to be reasonably comparable to a "normal" year. However, a special Canada goose survey was made in the principal concentration area of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and North Carolina. Dabbling ducks showed a 9.4 percent increase over last year. Game divers increased 29 percent from 1968. Fewer sea ducks were tallied this year, due primarily to the lack of eiders being present close to shore at the time of the survey. Canada geese showed an increase of about 10 percent from last year. However, this figure may be a bit inflated compared to last year due to the fact that a special survey was made in the principal concentration areas. Over a third fewer brant were recorded than in 1968. On the otherhand, snow geese and swan showed increases. In Puerto Rico, 315 ducks and coot were recorded compared to 2,000 last year. Of the total, 173 were coot and the rest largely widgeon, blue-winged teal, and ruddy. BREEDING GROUND SURVEYS ALASKA AND YUKON TERRITORY Data supplied by James G. King and Wesley Moholt, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Spring weather and habitat conditions The past winter was extremely cold over most of Alaska with deep ice and light snowfall. Winter broke early, most of the snow evaporated and the ice went out at Nenana eight days earlier than the fifty year average. Arriving birds found plenty of open water and bare, dry habitat in most nesting areas. We have not had as early a spring since 1958. There was no flooding anywhere this year. The big rivers remained very low and by the time of the survey we could not even find a creek that was out of its banks. Without flooding or run off lakes in the interior (stratiim 38) continued to dry up and we have lost quite a few lakes in the past year. On the Yukon flats, water levels were still not as low as they were in 1960. The lakes of the tundra country (stratum 37) appeared normal in nxunber and water level. This year, the willows, aspens, and other deciduous trees were all leafed out at the time of the survey except in the Bristol Bay area. In the recent past very little green has been out by this time. Survey timing, however, was optimum as we were right behind the retreating ice in all areas. By contrast, the Old Crow flats (stratum 05) did not have an early spring. There was a great deal of ice there and the birds were poorly distributed at the time of survey. To get an optimum survey we should have waited about a week and done it on June 14, as we did last year. In short, weather and habitat appeared to be optimum this year in all areas except Old Crow which may be a little late. Breeding populations (tables B-1 through B-5) The Alaska duck breeding population appeared to be down by 26 percent from last year. However, in 1968 we speculated that we had had a big influx of drought displaced ducks from the Canadian Prairies. This year's survey coupled with the knowledge of good conditions in southern Canada would tend to confirm that theory. The overall duck population was about at the point of the ten-year average and is up 28 percent from 1967. All species were up from 1967 except bufflehead, eider, and scoter. These species are probably unaffected by conditions in Canada and the decrease in bufflehead and eider may only indicate the sample is inadequate. The decrease in scoter may result from the fact that the survey was about a week earlier than in the past several years and many scoter had not completed migration. Dab- blers were up 38 percent from 1967. All species were down from 1968 except goldeneye and bufflehead and here again sample size may be too small on these two species. On the Old Crow flats, breeding populations were close to the ten-year average but down somewhat from 1967 as well as 1968, ^ Poor survey conditions (too much ice) could account for some of the apparent decrease. The Yukon flats 100 miles southwest down the Porcupine River were 100 percent ice free on May 22 and the Old Crow flats were still 60 percent ice covered on June 7 so possibly some ducks remained or diverted a few miles south. Summer weather and habitat conditions June and July were extremely dry in the interior and on the Yukon flats lakes continued to dry up. Forest fires raged through the interior in the worst fire season since 1957. Nearly one-third of the Yukon flats burned during this period. Some nests were un- doubtedly burned but duck broods were observed on most lakes within the burn area. None of the thirty-four lakes where we conduct brood counts were within the burn; however, water levels were down about one foot in all lakes and nine of the thirty-four lakes (22 percent) had dried up completely. Lakes not dried up appeared to be in optimum condition for ducks. Water levels in general were still above what they were in 1960. Conversely water levels in the Tetlin area were up slightly, possibly due to thunder shower activity. On the Yukon Delta, July was unusually wet following the early, dry spring. The net result is that weather and habitat conditions are not uniform or typical rendering an assessment of production rather difficult. Production (table B-6) Since the low of 1964, there has been a steady increase in numbers of broods observed on the study plots at Tetlin and on the Yukon flats. The breeding population this year appeared in excellent condition in spite of a marked decrease from the inflated population of 1968. Moderate increases in production of all species was expected. Such increase appears to have occurred in mallard, widgeon and lesser scaup. Green-winged teal and canvasbacks seem to have held their own and pintail and shoveler may be down somewhat. The brood counts on the Yukon flats plots were particularly interesting because about 27 percent of the lakes had dried up. Of the remaining lakes, the mediiun sized lakes generally produced fewer birds than last year and the large lakes produced much more. In short, there appears to have been a considerable redistribution of the breeding population, but our study areas are not large enough to be sure that we accurately documented this redistribu- tion. Even with the reduced water areas within the plots there were more broods than we have ever recorded before. NORTHERN ALBERTA, NORTHEASTERN BRITISH COLUMBIA, AND NORTHWEST TERRITORIES Data supplied by G, Hortin Jensen and James F. Voelzer, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Spring weather and habitat conditions Generally, winter precipitation over our survey area was light and below normal — north central Alberta being the exception. Flow in the rivers reflected this precipitation deficit. Some larger lakes in central Alberta were free of ice at survey time. However, Margaret Lake in northern Alberta and all larger lakes to the north were still frozen. Edges of larger lakes were open and these, along with ice-free smaller lakes, provided avail- able habitat for waterfowl. At the end of the survey Great Slave Lake was about one-third open and gave portent of an early, com- plete opening. Only the northeastern section of stratum 10, the northern, treeless Mackenzie Delta of stratum 11, and the western part (Eskimo Lakes) of stratum 12 were still in the throes of winter and of little service to waterfowl at survey time. The Mackenzie River opened very early and the water level was down five feet. Only small remnants of floe ice were observed, and the channel to Inuvik opened just prior to our arrival, June 5. Many inner ponds of the Mackenzie Delta were still ice-covered. Snowfall of 3-6 inches occurred at Fort Nelson, British Columbia, and across northern Alberta in late May. In early June, rain, freezing rain, and snow were evident in northern strata. Remnants of a morning snowfall were present at Inuvik on our arrival. Low clouds, rain, and snow were prevalent for several days followed by unseasonably warm weather (70-90 degrees) over northern sections around Norman Wells, Inuvik, and Fairbanks, Alaska. The general aspects of these weather patterns and their effects on the habitat allowed waterfowl to move northward earlier this year. Thus, early nesting species — primarily puddle ducks — were able to initiate breeding activities by mid-May. (Two broods were observed at Yellowknife on June 9.) Later migrations were greeted by a recession, and limited areas were still unavailable for water- fowl activities in June. Small, residual flocks of northern species (swan, snov7 geese, and white-fronted geese) were observed farther south this year. Swan are nesting farther south, as regularly frequented areas of tundra and delta were unusable because of ice and snow. In the Northwest Territories, the flush of spring, followed by a recession, leaves the northern Alberta season advanced over normal; the southern Northwest Territories and down the Mackenzie River to Fort McEherson is a little advanced or normal; and the Mackenzie Delta and the north coast are later by approximately two weeks. Breeding populations (tables B-7 and B-8) With habitat improvement in the prairies and parklands, waterfowl were induced to remain and breed therein. With reduced continental populations, we had fewer ducks in the north. As a result, nearly all northern strata showed a decrease in dabbling ducks. Their index dropped 27 percent from last year and 50 percent from the ten-year average. The only important species to increase over last year was the widgeon (+50 percent). Otherwise, the general situa- tion with other species was a decrease of over 25 percent from 1968, as well as significant decreases from the ten-year averages. Total diving ducks increased over last year by 14 percent but were only 1 percent higher than average. The primary increase was in scaup. Sea ducks and mergansers were 57 percent above 1968 but 6 percent below the average data. Coots occurred as far north as the Athabasca Delta but their population was low. Swan apparently adjusted to weather conditions and were nesting in normal ntimbers but a little farther south. White-fronted geese were easily spotted this year, with the ice and snow background on the tundra, and the indicated increase is the probable result. Indexes for geese are always suspect because of fragmentary data. Slimmer weather and habitat conditions Abnormally cold conditions persisted In the Yukon and the adjacent area of the Northwest Territories from January to March. Portent of an early spring was apparent, due to above normal temperatures in April. This early advance of spring weather continued in south- ern sections and the waterfowl breeding season was early, especially in northern Alberta. Colder, below-normal temperatures of May normalized the season in the lower Mackenzie Valley, and to the east the spell of winter was evident as late as June. The summer brood- ing season of late Jtaly and August was colder than normal by as much as 7 degrees F, and mean temperatures were in the 50 degrees range in the south to 40 degrees near the Arctic coast. Precipitation was light and below normal over most parts of the survey area beginning in January and continuing into the beginning of summer. Lack of run-off caused minimum flow in rivers, and shipping along the Mackenzie River experienced navigation problems by mid-summer. This pattern was changing in late June and by July and August precipitation was heavy in the northern Arctic. After two days of rain, snow appeared on higher eminences around Normal Wells on July 26. This pattern continued into August. Inuvik reported 6.46 inches of precipitation which was the greatest monthly amount ever recorded. Also, an 18 inch snowfall was recorded in August . In suHHoary, a season, initially early, remained so in the south- ern parts of our survey area; but the northern sections tailed off to normalcy during the egg-laying and incubation periods. Brooding seasons north of Great Slave Lake experienced frequent rainy periods and temperatures were below normal. The late break-up of the Eskimo Lakes and associated area to east and south bordering the precambrian removed this area from effective waterfowl produc- tion this year. The southern sections of the survey area were favorable to waterfowl production. Production (tables B-9 and B-10) Total broods observed was 7 percent belov; 1968 but 29 percent above average. The 1969 duckling index for combined strata was 768,000 compared to 856,000. The percent change was a decrease of 10 percent from 1968 and a decrease of 3 percent from average. The brood size was identical for both years and this year the age classes were well advanced, 81 percent being Class II and III. Seasonal aspects for 1969 were similar to 1968, except that the brooding season was cooler with more rain and some snow. Brood surveys were initiated this year in strata 13 and 14 of northern Alberta. Expansion of these data estimate 990,000 ducklings were produced in stratum 13, and 318,000 in stratum 14. With an early season and no subsequent adverse factors, these estimates should represent good to excellent production from the breeding pairs present. Approximately 75 percent of broods observed were Class II and III. Comparative data will have to await accu- mulation of several years data. NORTHERN SASKATCHEWAN, NORTHERN MANITOBA, NORTHERN ONTARIO, AND SASKATCHEWAN RIVER DELTA Data supplied by Arthur R, Brazda, Robert W. Slattery, E. B. Chamberlain, and E. G. Wellein, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Spring weather and habitat conditions The winter was characterized generally by normal to slightly above normal snow levels and below normal temperatures. Spring came early and rapidly to the North with an ice breakup that was probably as early as any year on record. Temperatures were high in April, with more normal readings being evident in May and June. Precipita- tion was generally lacking during the entire period, except for two snowstorms at Lynn Lake and Thompson, Manitoba, on May 30 and June 11. The latter deposited up to four inches of snow at Thompson and was accompanied by temperatures in the mid-20 's and low 30' s. At no time through the conclusion of the survey were there extended periods of drizzle and cold temperatures. Habitat conditions and water levels can be summed up as being optimum in Manitoba and the Saskatchewan River Delta, good in eastern Saskatchewan, and fair to good in western Saskatchean. Very little vegetative development was observed during the first half of the survey; hov/ever, by the time we arrived in western Saskat- chewan, leaf development on the birch, poplar, and willow was almost complete. As in 1968, habitat conditions in the Grand Rapids impoundment southeast of The Pas were excellent. 10 In western Saksatchewan, north of 55O00" latitude, water levels in most of the larger lakes were still two to four feet below normal, although there has been some improvement over the poor conditions of 1968. Breeding populations (tables B-11 and B-12) For the third year in a row, the duck breeding population indexes for these five northern strata remained high. The total duck index was less than 1 percent above last year, but 51 percent higher than the ten-year average. Dabblers increased 10 percent over 1968 and 68 percent over the average. Of primary interest were the moderate increases over 1968 shown for the mallard and pin- tail, 18 percent and 26 percent respectively. For the same two species, the percent change from the ten-year average was plus 71 percent and 56 percent. Divers decreased 14 percent from 1968 but indicated an increase of 37 percent above the ten-year average. Dabbling ducks indicated increases in strata 16, 17, 36, and 48, decreasing in 18. Divers decreased in all strata except 16 and 17. The decrease in the coot index, minus 93 percent from 1968 and 68 percent from the ten-year average, was as phenomenal as was the increase in 1968 over 1967. There have been substantial fluctua- tions before, but nothing as drastic as this. Summer weather and habitat conditions Weather conditions and temperatures reverted back to normal in June and July from the abnormal high temperatures of April and May. Ice breakup at many localities in this general area were the earliest recorded. With the exception of the snowstorm on June 11 and 12 in the Lynn Lake-Thompson, Manitoba area, precipitation in measurable amounts was lacking in all strata. The waterfowl habitat deteriorated throughout the region surveyed, with the most noticeable effect being observed in the northwest quarter of Saskatchewan. In this area, water levels in many of the large lakes were reaching the low ranges of 1968, and many forest-type potholes and tamarac-dwarf birch marshes were dry or nearly so. Although nesting conditions were optimum during the breeding pair survey, much of the habitat in the Saskatchewan River Delta was inundated by the time of the production survey. Permanent loss of habitat through drainage is continuing in the Meadow Lake region and the Saskatchewan River Delta. 11 Production (tables B-13 and B-14) The duck brood index was approximately 29 percent below 1968, but 10 percent above the eight year average. The average brood size was the same as the previous year and just slightly below (2 per- cent) that of the long-term average, "Oie 1969 coot brood index was 70 percent lower than that of 1968 and 39 percent below the average. Data for Canada geese is lacking from the tables, but nine broods were observed in all strata as compared with six in 1968. The late nesting index for all species was 81 percent above 1968, though about normal when compared with previous years, 1962-1969. Dabbling ducks were 76 percent higher than 1968 and 20 percent over the eight year average. For divers, the increase was 88 per- cent over the previous year and 21 percent below the long-term average. Considerable difficulty was experienced in determining lone drakes in the eastern portion of the Saskatchewan River Delta as the western fringe of the Grand Rapids impoundment was congested with a multitude of moulting birds of all species, though mallards and scaup were most numerous. The fall flight from these four strata will probably be less than that of 1968, but not to the degree that the 1969 data indi- cates. Due to the extremely early nesting season and the relative- ly large number of broods observed in early June during the breeding pair survey, it can be assumed that a certain percentage of the broods were flying by the time the production survey was conducted. Also, some production will be exacted from the late nesters, especially in the southern regions of the four strata. SOUTHERN ALBERTA Data supplied by K. Duane Norman and R. David Purinton, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Spring weather and habitat conditions (table B-I5) Spring began on the first of April. The mean high was 57.2 degrees — normal for the month is 49.2 degrees. Most of the 2,22 inches of precipitation fell after the 22nd. There was little precipitation during May and the temperatures were mild. 12 From all reports, we expected to find habitat conditions the best they have ever been. However, instead we found conditions in stratum 28 very similar to those normally encountered during July. The pond index decreased 25 percent from last year and was 27 percent below the 10-year average. Conditions did not measurably improve until we had progressed northward to the Red Deer River, Islands of good habitat were found around the Brooks-Tilley area, near Conrad, Calgary, and the Milk River Ridge. North of the Red Deer River conditions were excellent and perhaps the best they have been for the past five or six years. The numbers of wetlands were not greatly increased but the quality was improved measurably. Good quality wetlands were found northwest of Empress in an area not normally expected to be good waterfowl habitat. The water index in Stratum 26 increased 107 percent from last year but was only 3 percent above the 1 0-year average. The numbers of stratum 27 ponds were 8 percent belov^ the long-term average but 3 percent greater than last year. A pond count was made in stratum 13 this year and it indicates that there are about 4 ponds per square mile as compared to 15 ponds per square mile in stratum 27, All of the major lakes were brim full or nearly so, Sullivan Lake now extends about five miles farther north than it has for the past five years, Dowling Lake although not filled to capacity was greatly improved over last year. Aquatic vegetation had already gotten a nice start by May 1, This year's growth of whitetop had emerged between 6 and 8 inches above the surface of the water by mid-May. Last year's growth was quite heavy and covered the water's surface. Visibility however was not appreciably reduced by this factor. Ice was observed only on Pigeon Lake this year and it had completely disappeared by May 10. This year's season appears to have been about 17 days ahead of normal. Breeding populations (tables B-16 through B-20) The total duck population index increased 46 percent from last year but was still about 4 percent below the average. The most dramatic increase was in the pintail index which increased 297 per- cent, l-lallards increased 17 percent. The blue-winged teal index was 28 percent below last year and 51 percent below the average. Green-winged teal decreased 14 percent from 1968 and gadwall 17 percent from last year. Ruddy ducks decreased 35 percent from last year and 45 percent from the average. The redhead breeding population index doubled while that for canvasbacks increased 25 percent from 1968, 13 In stratum 13, the duck index decreased 12 percent from last year and is 42 percent below the average. Mallards increased 10 percent, bluewings 40 percent, shovelers 133 percent, and pintail 39 percent. The other dabblers decreased nearly 50 percent causing the overall dabbler index to drop 3 percent from last year. Scaup decreased 29 percent and redheads decreased 20 percent. The total decrease in the diver index is 12 percent from last year. The coot index increased 100 percent from last year in the lower three strata but decreased 76 percent in stratum 13. The long-term decrease in stratum 13 was 74 percent. The long-term increase in the lower three strata was 41 percent. The Canada goose population increased 100 percent but no change is indicated in the long-term average. A survey of the rivers south of Red Deer indicates an increase of 12 percent from last year. The lone drake index of 84 compared favorably with the indexes recorded during the early 1960 's and late 1950's. The mallard index in stratum 13 was slightly higher at 90. These high indexes confirmed other observations indicating a normal or slightly early nesting season. Summer weather and habitat conditions (table B-15) May, in southern Alberta, was pleasantly warm and very much like spring. June was a record breaking month with periods of very warm weather as well as four days of record low temperatures. July was generally cloudy and cool. Waterfowl habitat conditions as reflected by the pond indexes indicated an increase of 36 percent in May over last year. The July ponds also increased over last year — 24 percent. July ponds increased 36 percent in stratum 26 and 43 percent in stratum 27, but decreased 38 percent in stratum 28, The decrease in the pond index since May has been 43 percent in the survey area. In stratum 28, good habitat existed, as usual, in the Milk Ridge and at Murray Lake. Other islands of good habitat were found in the western third of the Cypress Hills, in the southwestern part of Pakon^ki Lake, near Conrad, and immediately south of Stirling Lake. The areas of good habitat in strattmi 26 v;ere relatively few and were found in the Brooks area at the DU projects and in the large lakes, in the Crowfoot drainage east of Calgary, in the Berry Creek reservoirs, in the western edge of the Wintering Hills, and in the Sounding Creek drainage. Aquatic vegetation v/as quite heavy in most of the type III wetlands and in some instances completely choked the pothole. Recent thunderstorm activity has brought back many tjrpe III potholes that had already gone dry this year. 14 In 27 there were permanent wetlands. The results of recent thunderstorms were not quite so obvious in this stratum as else- where. Most of the type III wetlands were heavily choked with vegetation making it difficult to see the ducks and more than a glimmer of water. Sounding Lake, Wavy Lake, and Beaverhill Lake contained heavy concentrations of adult birds as well as young of the year that are already flying. Production (tables B-21 and B-22) The unadjusted breeding pair survey data indicated an increase of 44 percent from last year in southern Alberta. The production data indicate a slightly greater increase of 50 percent. The average brood size increased from 5.2 to 5.9. The duck brood index in- creased 74 percent in stratum 26 from last year and increased 27 percent in stratum 27. The greatest increase is found in stratum 28 — 167 percent. The survey area brood index was still down about 43 percent from the average. The coot brood index increased nearly 681 percent. The class composition of the broods in the survey area indicated that Class I and II broods each comprised 33 percent of the total broods. There were more Class I broods than there were last year and fewer Class II broods. However, there were considerably more Class III broods which comprised 26 percent of the total. The late-nesting index for southern Alberta increased six percent from last year and almost 180 from the average. Mallards and gad- wall indicated a decrease from last year of 48 percent and 70 percent respectively. Widgeon and canvasback each indicated about a 25 percent decrease. The greatest increases were noted in the indexes of greenwings (185 percent), pintail (129 percent), blue- wings (70 percent), scaup (62 percent), redhead (17 percent), and shoveler (15 percent). 15 SOUTHERN SASKATCHEWAN Data supplied by Rossalius C. Hanson and Walter S. Okamoto, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Spring weather and habitat conditions (table B-23) The wet fall of 1968, coupled with above~normal snow, put the pond count up considerably over last year. The May pond index for the area this year was 1,862,700, This was 133 percent above last year and 12 percent above the average. The spring was early and probably was a week to two weeks ahead of normal. Early nesters got a good start in mid-April and hatching was evident by mid-May, The weather, especially temperatures during this period, was favorable for satisfactory nesting. A little light snowfall occurred on May IS and 19 and there were one or two mornings of below freezing temperatures. Neither of these factors appeared to have done any appreciable harm to the early nesting effort. Near the end of our survey period, vegetative growth came along rapidly. Breeding populations (tables B-24 through B-26) The breeding population index of all ducks this year was up 31 percent over last year and down only 10 percent from the long-term average. The index was higher than at any time since 1960, How- ever, mallards showed no change from last year and were still 32 percent below the average. Pintails were up 125 percent and shovelers were up 56 percent over last year, Canvasbacks showed some gain over a. year ago, but most divers were down from the long- term average. Indications were that many ducks had spread out from the better watered parkland areas of past years into the newly watered areas. Dispersal from the parklands could not account for the entire increase in pintails and other dabblers. It must be assumed that the prairies siphoned off birds that have gone farther north in past years, maybe even Alaskan birds in the case of the pintails. Even so, the birds were sparse and well distributed. We had many ponds with no ducks. Canada geese noted this year in singles and pairs, indicating nesting efforts, were seen in the largest number ever recorded in the history of the aerial survey. The index was 6,900 compared to the previous high of 3,600 in 1963. Coots with an index of 141,300 vere the best since the late 50 's. The lone drake index based on three species — mallard, pintail, and canvasback — ^was the highest on record. It compares with the year 1960, the second highest on record. It would appear that the early nesters were taking advantage of the good water and not standing idly by, 16 Sumner weather and habitat conditions (table B-27) Shower and thunderstorm activity helped to maintain water levels in temporary and permanent ponds in areas affected by them. This was fairly general but, by no means, did it cover the whole prairie area. Precipitation was generally near normal at most reporting stations. If it hadn't been for good general rains in the areas south of Saskatoon at the end of June and in early July, we would have been short of pond water in those areas. That section had dried out considerably in May and early June. At the mid- June date, shortages were evident in most areas. In late July, habitat was in good shape except in parts of the parkland areas north and east of Regina to Yorkton, locally around Wynyard, Kamsack, Hudson Bay, Melfort, and Nipawin, In those strata, there are still some excellent water areas apparently replenished by local thundershowers. The pond index was 972,300 ponds. This was 161 percent over last year but still below the 11-year average by 33 percent. Vegetation in ponds was heavy with adequate nesting and brood cover during this period. No shortage of cover or food was evident. Farm crops were slightly behind during the early part of the period but caught up later. Production (tables B-28 and B-29) The duck brood index was 195,000, a IW percent increase over last year and only 22 percent below the 11-year average. This was the largest brood index since 1958. The average brood size was 5.6 which was an increase from last year of 12 percent from the long-term average of 10 percent. The 1969 Class I broods made up 13.4 percent of the hatch. Class II 53.4 percent, and Class III 33.2 percent. This compared to 1968 figures of Class I 33.8 percent, Class II 42.9 percent, and Class III 23.3 percent. This substantiates aerial and other ground observations of a successful early hatch and a sizeable show of strength with later nesters (Class II broods). The 1969 Class I broods were lower percentage-wise but numerically were as strong as last year. This indicates that the late nesters, certain divers and other second nesting attempts, will be equally important in the total hatch. Early in the season, we did not have much hope for a strong late nesting effort because of the excellent early nesting season. This later evidence gives hope to a well rounded hatch including early, middle, and late nesting efforts. We know that we missed a nxnnber of early hatched flying pintail broods . They were reported both by ground observers and noted by the aerial crews. It was impossible to record them from aerial 17 observations because o£ the inability to separate them as distinct broods when they were in flight. In other instances, masses of Class III broods on the water were so intermingled that separating them to broods was impossible. In addition, heavy vegetation obscured Class I and II broods still using this type of habitat. Therefore, the brood count can be considered to be a conservative count. Species-wise, we know from ground reports and observations that canvasbacks and pintails were very successful in early brood pro- ductions. Such other species as gadwall, shovelers, and scaup were equally successful later in the season. We expect other species to have done equally well but cannot substantiate their success. The mallard situation was a perplexing one. We had about the same number of breeding pairs in May as were present a year ago. Mallard broods were in evidence but not in such numbers as noted in other species. It's difficult to determine just what their situation was. We can speculate that they were eqxially successful as the other early nesters— canvasbacks and pintails — but their numerically reduced numbers didn't attract our attention as it has in years of former abundance. The coot brood index was 40,600. This was 67 percent over last year but still 42 percent below the long-term average. The late-nesting index was 178,200. This compared to a long- term average figure of 98,600, an Increase of 81 percent. Compared to last year, it was up 127 percent. With water conditions holding up, generally, the success of late nesters should be assured, SOUTHERN MANITOBA Data supplied by Morton M. Smith and Richard C. Droll, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Spring weather and habitat conditions (table B-30) The summer and fall rains in 1968, plus the heavy winter snow, produced an acctimulated moisture surplus in Manitoba this spring, A good frost seal formed last winter and the runoff this spring was very fast. The result was generally good to excellent water 18 conditions for waterfowl in southern Manitoba. Growing season precipitation, that since April 1, 1969, was below normal at selected stations in southern Manitoba. May 1969 was characterized by cool nights and mild days. Early morning temperatures were generally near freezing during the survey period. Mean temperatures for May were below normal across south- ern Manitoba. The first hot weather occurred the fourth week in May. This season was early. A heavy snow pack covered the ground until early April when a warm spell, with temperatures to 68°, melted all of it in a week. Potholes were open when we arrived on May 3 and aspens and willows were starting to leaf in the southern areas. The phenology this May is a week to 10 days ahead of 1968 (considered a normal year). Due to the wet fall in 1968, very little land was fall plowed. The extensive runoff this spring, plus early May showers, kept farmers out of fields until the second week of May. Field opera- tions in Manitoba are quite late this year. Soil moisture is generally excellent but some lowland areas are waterlogged and will not be planted this year. There are many ponds in southern Manitoba and water levels are generally high. The 1969 pond counts were 27 percent above those of 1968, but are 31 percent below the average of the last 16 years . Breeding populations (tables B-31 through B-33) Breeding duck numbers in southern Manitoba in May 1969 were 28 percent higher than in 1968 but still 22 percent below the average of the last 16 years. Counts for most species increased in Manitoba this May compared to last. The important mallard was up 19 percent over 1968, yet remains 39 percent below the average. The 1969 pintail, blue- winged and green-winged teal, shoveler, redhead, and canvasback populations were all up substantially over those of May 1968. Of this group only the greenwing index was above the long-term average. Coot ntjmbers increased by 26 percent this year in southern Manitoba. The coot index declined slightly in stratum 25, but a marked increase in stratum 24 resulted in the overall gain for the survey area. Slimmer weather and habitat conditions (table B-30) Late June and July were wet in southern Manitoba, but growing season precipitation in southern Manitoba was only slightly above 19 normal as of July 17, Temperatures for May, June, and July have been below normal in southern Manitoba. The mean temperature for June at Winnipeg was 54 degrees and was the coldest on record. The July 1969 pond count was 110 percent above the 1968 count but remained 19 percent below the long-term average for southern Manitoba. Vegetation was sparse in May, but many ponds were grown through with emergents and aquatics in July. "Brood visibility" was below average this July due to heavy vegetation and increased water levels in July. Production (tables B-34 and B-35) The 1969 brood index for southern Manitoba was 63 percent higher than that of 1968 but 23 percent below the 15-year average. The average brood size, 6.1 ducklings per Class II and III broods, the largest since 1960. The 1969 coot brood index was 447 percent higher than that of 1968 and 98 percent higher than the 15-year average. It was obvious that there were many coots in southern Manitoba this year. The 1969 index to late-nesting, x^hich is the "bieasure of broods to come" was 172 percent above that of 1968 and very near the long- term average. This was surprising, since 1969 was an early nesting season in southern Manitoba and in early years we do not expect substantial late nesting or renesting efforts. Most of the late nesters were found in the central portion of stratum 25 and were counted in the period following the heavy rains of late June and early July. We saw little indication of late nesting during the last week of surveys in stratum 25. MONTANA Data supplied by Alva E. Weinrich and Eugene V. Ckjfer, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife and Dale Witt, Montana Fish and Game Department Spring weather and habitat conditions (table B-36) The past winter was one of the coldest on record over most of northern and eastern Montana, and it remained cold into April. The last major storm occurred the last week of April. Snowfall 20 was unusually heavy with several stations reporting record or near record totals. When the weather warmed up, vegetation greened up and grew rapidly. Crop outlooks are generally good. Water indexes were up 42 percent from the 1965-68 average. The stock dam index in stratum 40 and 41 is the best it has ever been as were stream indexes. The pothole index in stratum 41 was slightly below the record since the surveys began. It should be pointed out that the major increase in stream and pothole indexes were of the temporary and semipermanent category and their useful- ness depends upon additional storms. The overall water index is 116 percent above last year. Breeding populations (tables B-37 through B-39) The total population index increased 34 percent from last year, but is still 10 percent below the average. Mallards were well above last year and as good as they have been since the surveys started. Pintails were above last year, but below 1967. Scaup showed a marked increase this year and divers as a whole were well above the 5-year average; however, divers make up roughly 10 percent or less of the total population. Canada geese made a good increase and each year more are observed. This year's lone drake index on mallards and pintails was well below the average, as was the total lone drake index. This indi- cates that the breeding season was not very well advanced, generally, yet groups of up to 6 and 8 lone drakes were observed. Canada goose broods were not showing up either until towards the end of the survey indicating that they were behind by about two weeks. The long cold winter and spring retarded both duck and goose breeding activity. This year's nesting should be a successful one and I doubt that late nesting will be as great as in previous years. Summer weather and habitat conditions (table B-36) With the exception of the local area north of Great Falls and east of Cut Bank, Montana precipitation was 1 to 2 inches over normal for the survey area with most of this falling in July. Late May and the month of June were quite dry and crop and range conditions were not as good as they should have been. During the period of June 7-13, snowfall of up to 5 inches fell in Great Falls and there was freezing weather with temperatures down to 24 degrees at nights in the Lewistown and Billings area which also affected range and crop growth. A number of severe hailstorms occurred throughout the survey areas in July. 21 Vegetation in potholes and around the edges of stockdams appeared heavier than usual making it difficult at times to see ducks and/ or broods. The water index was the highest it has ever been for July with increase of 84.3 percent over 1968 and 58.6 percent above average. Production (table B-40) The production data indicated a duck brood index increase of 60 percent over last year and 32 percent above average. Average brood size was up 21.1 percent to a record 5.33 from last year. The coot brood index decreased sharply from last year but is relatively unimportant in this survey area as is diving duck production. The broods in the survey area were predominately Class III — 57,4 percent of the total. Class II broods were 27,3 percent and Class I were 15,3 percent of the total. Many of the Class III broods were flying, Stratxnnwise, 24 percent of the broods were in stratxim 40 and 76 percent were observed in stratum 41, The total late nesting index increased from last year 122.3 per- cent and was 113 percent above average. Mallards increased nearly 300 percent for the greatest change. Widgeon and blue-wing teal were up 72 percent and 30 percent, respectively. Pintail were up 70 percent and shovelers were up 171 percent. Scaup were the only diver observed with a slight late nesting index. Canada goose populations and production (table B-41) Hi-Line Unit ! The trend during the early nesting season was down slightly from last year. This year's population would be about the same or slightly higher than the long-term average. The production trend in this unit was increased from last year. This year's production in this unit is one of the best ever recorded. South Central Unit; The population trend during the nesting season for this unit is up again from last year. No reliable pro- duction data are available. Banding is still needed in this area to determine if these geese are part of the Hi-Line population. Banding attempts last year were unsuccessful. East Slope Unit; The population trend during the nesting season was similar to the previous year. The production trend in this unit was down slightly from last year but was still improved over the long-term average. Production fell off greatly on Tiber Reservoir and appears to be associated with the low water levels on the spillway and will remain low for an indefinite i)eriod. This 22 lower reservoir level and the weed growth coming in on the mud flats may be the reason for the increased use of the area by non- breeding geese. Helena Unit; The population trend during the nesting season was nearly the same, or possibly down slightly from last year. The production trend for this unit was up considerably from the pre- vious year. Tliis increase was the result of improved production on Canyon Ferry Reservoir and the section of the Missouri River imnediately above the reservoir. The geese nesting on the river between the reservoir and Toston bridge apparently use Canyon Ferry for a brooding area. Upper Missouri Unitt The population trend during the nesting season was up from last year. No production counts were made in this unit. Flathead Valley Unit; The breeding population and production for this unit was up from recent years, but is still down from peak years. No. goslings 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 577 448 357 358 365 360 380 396 495 It is the feeling of workers in the areas that the recent restric- tions on the season length may be instnimental in lowering the mortality rate and thereby permitting the population to increase. NORTH AND SOUTH DAKOTA Data supplied by Gerald Pospichal and Donald N. Frickie, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Spring weather and habitat conditions (table B-42) Below normal temperatures, high winds, and heavy snows, prevailed through January, February, and March. Drifting snow filled pot- hole basins and in excess of 18 inches of snow on the level was coinnon in parts of both States. The cold weather continued through the first week in April in South Dakota and until mid-April in North Dakota. Warm south winds arrived to bring off one of the fastest melts and runoffs in recent years. Extensive flooding. 23 causing high property loss, occurred in most major river systems in North Dakota and worked southward as the month progressed. What appeared would be a late spring, became one that was "normal to advanced" in most of the area. Initial migrants were behind schedule in arriving, but when they did appear in mid to late April, they began nesting efforts immediately. Broods of pintails and mallards began to emerge by May 20th and more broods were observed during this survey than at any time during the past five years. The pond indexes showed increases of 98 percent from 1968 and 124 percent from the long-term average. Year by year comparisons show numbers of potholes in 1969 to be higher than any year since 1959. Water quality, except for scattered pockets in south-central South Dakota and eastern and northwest North Dakota, was excellent. Trees leafed out early and pond vegetation had growths of 4 to 6 inches by May 25, however, because of the high water levels visi- bility was not adversely affected. Breeding i>opulations (tables B-43 through B-46) Breeding population indexes were the highest since records began in 1960, up 103 percent from 1968 and up 75 percent from the long- term average. All species except coot, which dropped 36 percent from 1968, but were up 18 percent from the average, showed sub- stantial increases. Both ducks and coots appeared to be nesting this year (observed as pairs, as single birds, or in the case of coots, on nests) whereas last year a large portion of both coots and ducks v;ere present in large flocks on the larger water areas. Mallards and gadwalls showed increases of 62 percent and 17 percent, respectively from 1968 and increases of 28 percent and 74 percent from the average. Bluewings, shovelers, and pintails were present respectively in numbers 106 percent, 206 percent, and 230 percent over 1968 and 75 percent, 106 percent, and 89 percent over the long-term average. Similar high increases of 146 percent and 296 percent were noted for redheads and canvasback over 1968 and 130 percent and 238 percent over the average. The less common species, widgeon, green-winged teal, and ruddy also showed large increases. The area lone drake index for 1969 was slightly above 1968 and quite comparable to the preceeding years. This indicates a slightly advanced season from 1968 which is further substantiated by the above-normal numbers of broods observed toward the end of the survey period. Summer weather and habitat conditions (table B-42) Except for the northeast section of South Dakota, a below- normal precipitation cycle began in March and continued into late 24 June, Soil moisture had reached a critical point as far as crops, hay land, and pasture were concerned. Above-normal, heavy rains began in late June and continued through mid-July in northern and eastern parts of the State, Pothole levels in eastern, central, and north-central South Dakota were restored to near-spring levels. Vegetation was dense and aerial observations were hampered to a greater degree than in past years. In North Dakota, the dry-spell also began in March and continued till late June. Soil moisture reserves were nearly exhausted and crops were at a critical stage when saved by the heavy timely rains in late June and early July. Unfortunately, high winds and hail accompained these rains and damage to crops and waterfowl production occurred in scattered parts of the State. Except for eastern North Dakota (stratxan 29) and scattered areas in stratum 30, water levels were restored and are much improved over July of 1968. These should hold for the current broods on the water and for late nesters. North Dakota July ponds were up 85 percent from 1968 and up 84 percent from the 1967-68 average. South Dakota showed an increase of 82 percent from 1968 and 41 percent from the average. Hay cutting was nearly completed in South Dakota by mid-July and the small grain harvest had begun in the southern parts of the State. Haying began in North Dakota by this time and grain swathing was in progress by the end of the month. Production (tables B-47 and B-48) The July production survey showed an increase of 82 percent in duck broods over 1968 and an increase of 30 percent over the 1959- 1968 average. Duck brood size increased 7 percent from 1968 and increased 8 percent as compared to the average. Coot broods in these strata showed increases of 146 percent in both comparisons. North Dakota increases in duck broods of 88 percent from 1968 and 34 percent from the 1967-1968 average were noted. Coot broods increased 153 percent from 1968 and 36 percent from the average. In South Dakota, duck broods were up 86 percent from 1968 and 77 percent from the 1967-1968 average. Coot broods indicated respec- tive increases of 108 percent and 74 percent. As indicated by the age distribution of the broods, (Class 1-12 percent. Class II - 50 percent. Class III - 27 percent, unaged - 11 percent), the early nesting attempts were very successful. Banding crews in both States were much more successful in trapping locals than in 1968 wheji the effort was disbanded for lack of bandable birds. A strong late-nesting effort was indicated in both North and South Dakota in 1969, The index was up 194 percent over 1968 and up 54 percent over the 1959-1968 average in strata 30 and 33, 25 South Dakota probably because of its greater recovery in pothole numbers and quality over the past few years, shows a stronger late-nesting effort than North Dakota. MINNESOTA Data supplied by Robert L. Jessen, Minnesota Department of Conservation Weather and habitat conditions Extensive spring flooding, especially in south-central and south- western Minnesota, was followed by below normal rainfall over most parts of the State. A notable exception to this was sizeable region extending roughly in a triangular fashion from Benson to Morris to Graceville in western Minnesota. Here, heavy rains flooded marshlands well above ordinary high water levels, roadways were under water and many temporary ponds created in fields. Temperatures above normal in the early portion of the spring were followed by below normal temperatures in late May and June. Foliage development of trees was perhaps a week early due to the warmer than normal early spring temperatures. Aquatic plant growth, however, was not so noticeable because of high water levels in the more permanent pond basins. The estimated number of natural ponds containing water increased from 165,000 in 1968 to 217,000 in 1969, an increase of about a third more ponds this year. Breeding populations (tables B-49 and B-50) The unadjusted waterfowl breeding population index for Minnesota was 60,000 mallards, 47,000 blue-winged teal, and 7,000 ring-necked ducks. The total number of all ducks was 158,000. The unadjusted coot index was 20,000. Adjustments of the breeding population index for visibility of birds indicate that 60 percent of the mallards were seen by aerial census, 29 percent of the blue-winged teal, and 72 percent of the ring-necked ducks. This is higher proportions of birds seen by the aerial crew this year than in 1968. 26 The adjusted number of breeding waterfowl in the State is estimated at 360,000 birds, a number which closely approximates those seen in 1968. The number of mallards, blue-winged teal, and ring-necked ducks remained little changed from those estimated in 1968. The numbers of pintail and shoveler noted this year, while few in total, were greater than last year's. The proportion of lone drakes in the census was noticeably greater this year than last. Ninety percent of the mallard pairs were evidenced by drakes this year in comparison with 75 percent last year. CHIPPEWA NATIONAL FOREST, MINNESOTA Data supplied by Jay Janecek, Robert Chesness, and Robert Greig, Minnesota Conservation Department, John Mathisen and Gary Sieren, U.S. Forest Service, and Lew Cowardin, David Gilmer, and Harry Pinkham, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Habitat conditions Due to heavy snow conditions throughout the winter months, the water levels have remained quite high in the Chippewa Forest area during the spring. On July 9, 1969, the water level at the Winni- bigoshish Dam was 10.40 feet which is normal high for water levels in the summer. Submergent vegetation was about the same as the past two years and the wild rice growth appears to be good to excellent in most areas. Breeding papulations and production (tables B-51 and B-52) The six main species of breeding ducks on the Chippewa National Forest area have been the mallard, widgeon, goldeneye, blue-winged teal, ring-necked duck, and wood duck. Other ducks will include merganser, redhead, scaup, and green-winged teal. 27 The brood average of Class III mallards for the total survey area in 1969 was 5.7 as compared to the all time average of 6.6. In- complete broods and maternal hens have not been included. This year's waterfowl survey indicated a 60 percent decrease in the total number of observed and calculated ducks as compared with the par year of 1939-40. Slightly above normal water levels through- out the census area and high winds which prevailed over the area for three days preceding the survey may be factors which have influenced the count. WASHINGTON Data supplied by Robert G. Jeffrey and Ellis L. Bowhay, Washington Department of Game Weather and water conditions Abundant snowfall and a good runoff in eastern Washington filled potholes to their highest levels in twelve years. May pothole numbers were 96 percent above that of 1968 and 63 percent above the 1962-68 average. Statewide, warm weather and good soil moisture produced better-than-average nesting and brood conditions. Breeding populations (table B-53) In 1969, there were about 147,000 adult ducks on the breeding grounds of Washington. This was 22 percent more than in the spring of 1968, Mallards responded to the renewed breeding habitat, but not to the extent that pintails, shovelers, and the three teal species did. The wood duck population and the small breeding population of gadwall both declined. Production (table B-54) The State production index for all ducks was 430,500, up 40 per- cent from that of 1968, Young ducks made up 65 percent of the index, up from 61 percent in 1968 and 59 percent in 1967. By far the largest increase, a plus 134 percent, occurred in the far eastern pothole area. Douglas and Okanogan County potholes showed 28 moderate gains in duck production, as did western Washington. Production from irrigated lands and in the northeastern highlands changed but little. The production index for Canada geese was 13,200, up 13 percent from that of 1968. Nesting success was improved in the river habitat, with the exceptions of hydroelectric construction areas on the Snake River, and on the newly formed John Day Bool, OREGON Data supplied by Chester E. Kebbe, Oregon Game Conmission Weather and habitat conditions The drying trend of the past four years in southeastern Oregon, the region containing the major waterfowl production areas in the State, was broken to some extent in 1969, Heavy spring runoffs from deep snowpacks and late spring rains caused most of the lakes, potholes, and reservoirs to fill to capacity and created the best waterfowl habitat conditions since 1965. The cool wet spring prevented rapid evaporation and stabliized water levels in the newly created ponds and marshes. Production (tables B-55 and B-56) Canada goose production surveys were conducted on 19 ground tran- sects and covered the major breeding areas in the State. Results indicate production to be comparable with 1968 but 20 percent below the previous five-year average. Duck production on a Statewide basis is approximately 5 percent greater than in 1968 and up 30 percent fron the low production year of 1967. A major shift of breeding birds apparently occurred from permanent v/ater areas to newly restored habitat. Production in the Klamath Basin declined 75 percent while in the improved marshes of Malheur Refuge production jumped 70 percent from 1968. Production of dabblers increased 25 percent with teal, gadwalls, and pintails showing the greatest improvement. All divers showed a decline in overall production. 29 IDAHO Data supplied by Elmer R. Norberg, Idaho Fish and Game Department Weather and habitat conditions A heavy snow pack accumulated in the mountainous portion of Idaho during the early part of the 1968-69 winter period. Relatively low temperatures during the winter allov/ed the snow pack to accxmu- late at the lower elevations as well as in the high back country areas. From approximately mid-March on, comparatively dry weather condi- tions prevailed. The runoff from the lower elevation streams was quite rapid and produced flood conditions in portions of southern Idaho during a part of April and early May. This period was followed by a cooling trend which again stabilized the runoff and reduced stream flow fluctuations. Breeding populations (table B-57) The Canada goose breeding population in the Snake River portion of southwestern Idaho was down 28 percent from that of the previous year and down 20 percent from the previous year in the Lower Payette River drainage. It was down 20 percent and 9 percent respectively from the long-term average for these two areas. The available breeding population trend information for southeastern Idaho indicates that the population was slightly above that of last year and the long-term average. Production (table B-58) Western Idaho Canada goose production was down 20 percent in 1969 from 1968 and 26 percent from the long-term average. Eastern Idaho production was down 13 percent from 1968 and down 27 percent from the long-term average. Combined eastern-western production was down 18 percent from 1968 and 26 percent from the long-term average. In eastern Idaho, reduced Canada goose production was particularly noticed on both the Henry's Fork of the Snake River and Island Park Reservoir. Duck brood production in the Blackfoot Reservoir area was excel- lent. A total of 138 observed broods averaged 7.2 young per brood. 30 CALIFORNIA Data supplied by J. R. LeDonne, F. M, Kozlik, Harry George, H, McKinnie, and V. Simpson, California Department of Fish and Game Weather and habitat conditions Water and habitat conditions in northeastern California were good this year and were similar to the excellent conditions of 1967, Almost all of the permanent water impoundments and marshes were full from runoff. In addition, many swales and low-lying meadows had ample water to produce birds. The spring was late and delayed Canada goose nesting about two weeks. The Central Valley received above normal amounts of rainfall and this , together with the record snow pack runoff from the Sierra Nevada Mountains, caused flooding in many valley areas. Similar to 1967, floodwater poured onto the farmlands in the basins of Tulare, Hacienda, and Buena Vista Lakes, Thousands of ducks and coots remained to nest in these areas that are normally dry farm- lands and not usually covered by the survey. This flooded area has water and weather conditions ideal for botulism and as a result much of the production can be nullified with botulism losses, Normally most of the nesting habitat in the Central Valley is composed of artificial and regulated water impoundments such as rice fields, grasslands, and pasture areas. This year with good water conditions many birds scattered out to nest in a variety of temporary habitat. Wintering populations of waterfowl left the State on schedule with most of the birds leaving the Central Valley by the first part of April, Rice planting was delayed about two weeks because of the wet fall and winter which held up ground preparation. Most of the waterfowl production occurring in California is found in northeastern California and on the rice lands of the Sacramento Valley, Other areas covered by this survey are: the Suisun Marsh, the Grasslands, and rice and pasture areas of the central San Joaquin Valley, Normally, other areas are of little significance; but this year, as mentioned above, birds were attracted to these outlying areas to nest. Breeding populations and production (tables B-59 and B-60) Nesting pairs of Canada geese were about the same as in 1968, while a 12 percent increase in the fall population was noted. 31 Ducks showed an increase of 25 percent in nesting pairs and a 19 percent increase in the fall population index. Nesting pairs and the fall population index of coots were down 11 percent. UTAH Data supplied by John E. Nagel, Utah Division of Fish and Game Weather and habitat conditions The winter of 1968-69 provided Utah with above average amounts of precipitation. Heavy runoff created optimum nesting conditions for waterfowl throughout the State. All managed marsh areas were in excellent condition when breeding waterfowl returned this spring. Natural marsh areas around the Great Salt Lake and wetland areas in eastern and southern Utah were enhanced by heavy prerunoff . Wetland habitat throughout the State remained in excellent condi- tion throughout the spring and early summer. Continued periods of rain through the end of June has placed little demand on waters stored in irrigation reservoirs. This has resulted in sustained high flows into managed marsh areas in northern Utah and slower than average deterioration of natural marsh areas. Average amounts of precipitation during the summer should allow wetland habitat to remain in excellent conditi.on throughout the rest of the summer and into the fall hunting season. Breeding populations and production (tables B-61 through B-63) Aerial surveys indicate a substantial increase in breeding ducks on northern Utah trend areas. Ground counts on managed marsh areas also reflect no increase in breeding birds from 1968 levels. Better habitat conditions throughout the State and especially in areas immediately adjacent to developed marsh areas accounted for significant increases in the number of birds utilizing these areas and in the amount of habitat available to breeding waterfowl. This is essentially the same type of situation experienced in both 1967 and 1968. 32 Breeding populations of mallards, ruddy ducks, and shovelers on major census areas can be considered as normal. Redheads and gadwalls increased from 1968 levels. No major shift in species composition between northern and southern breeding areas was noted, Canada goose brood counts made during this spring indicate below average production of Great Basin Canada geese throughout the State. Major production areas in northern Utah including Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge indicate substantial decrease in numbers of breeding pair and goslings. Production areas through- out the same dovmward trend. Breeding pairs of geese are down approximately 24 percent and the number of goslings produced de- clined 33 percent from 1968 levels. WYOMING Data supplied by George Wrakestraw and Leonard Serdiuk, Wyoming Game and Fish Commission Weather and habitat conditions Generally speaking, habitat was definitely limited over much of Wyoming this year, A dry fall and spring resulted in fewer water areas throughout much of eastern Wyoming. Some runoff from spring snow storms replenished water supplies in a part of northeastern Wyoming, but this occurred after the peak of migration and was not general over the major nesting areas. During the breeding pair survey, a great deal of pessimism was felt for the welfare of duck broods which were soon to appear. This pessimism was dispelled by heavy rains throughout much of eastern Wyoming during late May and early June. Conditions improved significantly during a three week period and there appears to be adequate water areas to assure brood survival. Weather and habitat conditions were generally ideal for Canada geese. Some nest flooding occurred on the Snake River and Green River, but was limited to short stretches of both streams. Breeding populations (tables B-64 and B-65) The estimated duck breeding pair population for 1969 showed a decline of 8 percent from 1968, but recorded an increase of 33 47 percent from the long-term average. Only mallards, teal, scaup, and ruddy ducks showed an increase over 1968. Grouped birds observed during the survey were added to the pairs observed to arrive at a total duck figure by species. A decrease of 20 percent was recorded for total ducks from 1968. However, we did find 29 percent more ducks than the average. Coots and mergansers were also less abundant than in 1968. A slight drop from 1968 is recorded in total number of geese observed, but the count is still considerably above the long-term average. A comparison of pairs observed on the survey areas for the past seven years showed that paired birds, the productive segment of the population, continued to increase. Production Below average water and habitat conditions existed this spring. Many reservoirs and stockponds were recharged by late May and early June rains, but this occurred long after the peak of migration. However, these storms did insure adequate water for brood survival. Production success has remained good throughout Wyoming, It is concluded that the fall flight of ducks from Wyoming will be below that of 1968, but will still be above average, Canada geese in western Wyoming showed a decrease from 1968, Eastern Wyoming flocks offset this to a great degree. The decline appeared to be in the yearling age class. Breeding pairs were in plentiful supply and it is concluded that production remains high, but the fall flight of geese from Wyoming will be somewhat below the 1968 level and above average. COLORADO Data supplied by Michael R, Szymczak, Colorado Division of Game, Fish and Parks Weather and habitat conditions Weather and conditions for waterfowl nesting were generally good in most areas of the State. The winter snow pack was considered normal in most areas with heavy snows on some west slope drainages. 34 High water created some goose nest flooding problems on the Yampa River, Water conditions were considered better than average for duck nesting in North Park, Brown's Park, and the Yampa and Cache la Pbudre Valleys. Water in the South Platte and San Luis Valleys was not as favorable as in the previous year. Breeding populations and production (tables B-66 and B-67) The total duckbreeding population was down about 5 percent from the 1968 level. Only North Park and the Cache la Poudre Valley showed increases from 1968 levels. The most significant decline occurred in the South Platte Valley where the number of pairs recorded were less than one-half of the previous year's total. A significant change in species composition of breeding ducks was recorded in 1969. The percent of mallards in the breeding population declined and the percent of teals, particularly green- winged teal, increased, A change in observers may have been partially responsible for this change in composition. Total flock size and production of Canada geese in northwestern Colorado show a decrease from the record high numbers of 1968, Fewer adult birds were present on all sections except the Little Snake River, More nesting pairs were recorded in 1969, but brood sizes were relatively smaller resulting in a decline in total production. Undoubtedly, high water on the Yampa River had a detrimental effect on production. Figures presented for 1969 for the Green River may not be comparable to those of 1968 as a less intensive survey was conducted this year. Expected fall flights of ducks from Colorado's 1969 production will be above average but slightly less than in 1968. Water conditions appear very favorable for brood survival. Production of geese in northwestern Colorado was below the 1968 level indicating a slight decline in the fall flight. 35 NEBRASKA Data supplied by John T. Sweet and George Schildman, Nebraska Game, Forestation and Parks Ck>imnission Weather and habitat conditions Water conditions were generally poor throughout the sandhills during both the May breeding pair survey and July brood survey. Some portions in the west and southwestern areas were in fair condition due to water carried over from the previous season and from some local spring and early summer rains. The May water index was 4 percent below the 1968 May index, but 6 percent above the 1967 index. The 1969 July water index was 14 percent below the 1968 July index and 38 percent below the 1967 index. Water conditions in the rain basin area were the best since the drouth began eight or nine years ago, and are good in the western portion and excellent in the eastern. The water index was 40 percent above last year. Except in the northeastern part, the water conditions were excellent through July. Weather conditions were comparatively cool during most of the spring and early summer until the second week of July. Most of the sandhills production area received freezing temperatures on June 2 and on June 14. Breeding populations (tables B-68 through B-70) Breeding pair transects were flown over the sandhills production area during the period May 11 through May 19, 1969, and on May 23 in the rain water basin area. The 1969 sandhills breeding popula- tion index was calculated to be 100,592 ducks. This figure represents a 4 percent increase from 1968. In the rain basins, the duck breeding population was calculated to be 14,035, a 25 percent increase over 1968. The two areas combined have a calcu- lated breeding population of 114,630 ducks, a 6 percent increase over 1968. Production (table B-7 1) Aerial brood transects were flown over the sandhills production area during the period July 9 through July 17, 1969. A total of 33 broods with 162 ducklings was observed. Good counts were obtained on all broods. The number of broods was down 3 percent. There were about 5 ducklings /brood as compared to 6 in 1968. 36 The hatch in the sandhills production area has been irregular, with both flying young and newly hatched Class I ducklings in evidence during late July. Age class percentages for the ducklings sighted on the aerial survey were 52, 32, and 16 respectively, for the age Classes I, II, and III. Blue-winged teal had a poor production year, but mallard and shoveler had a good production year. Brood transects were not flown in the rain water basin production area. Ground observations indicated excellent production of mallard, blue-winged teal, and shoveler. Duck production in the sandhills will be essentially the same as that of 1968, and in the rain basin area it will be increased several times that of last year. Statewide production will be significantly greater than 1968. Calculations based largely on ground determination indicate an increase of 8 to 10 percent. MISSOURI Data supplied by Richard W. Vaught, Missouri Conservation Department Weather and habitat conditions Weather and water conditions have been definitely unusual this year. Daily maximum and minimum temperatures fluctuated drastically from February on through June. Temperatures of 18 to 19 degrees occurred throughout the State during the normal waterfowl laying period. Heavy and continued rainfall broke all existing records for northern and southwestern Missouri, Rainfall in south central and southeast Missouri was below normal. Prime brood habitat did not appear to be seriously affected. Production The stream float method was used primarily for evaluating data on wood duck production in Missouri. Some streams could not be checked due to flood conditions. Wood duck nesting box studies in southeast Missouri provided measurements in an area of good production and one subject to almost drouth conditions. 37 The number of wood duck broods noted per mile on 231 miles of stream floats was 0,2U for a new high. Average brood size was the highest noted in seven years. Population counts on the streams were also higher than normal. Wood duck nesting attempts and success in artificial nest boxes were also higher in the marsh areas checked in southeast Missouri, Most waterfowl area managers indicated they believed wood duck populations to be equal to those of last year. However, their opportunity to observe production this year was seriously hampered by flood conditions. Nesting efforts of mallards and blue-winged teal are insignificant although successful production is noted in all parts of the State. Wood duck production in Missouri this year is higher than last year. Production by any other species of duck is insignificant. 38 WATERFOWL KILL SURVEY Data supplied by Elwood M. Martin, Samuel M. Carney, Robert L. Croft, and Charles H. Lobdell Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife Scope and Methods This report presents estimates of waterfowl hunting acti- vity and success, including bag by species, for the 1968 waterfowl season and compares each estimate with its 1967 season counterpart (Special Scientific Report -- Wildlife No. 122). These estimates are based on information obtained through the Bureau's annual Cooperative Waterfowl Parts Collection and Mail Questionnaire Surveys of United States Waterfowl Hunters. Duck stamp sales figures were provided by the Post Office Department. Preliminary estimates, based on reports of duck stamp sales through the third quarter of fiscal year 1969, were made available for the annual water- fowl regulations meetings in early August in Administrative Report 172. Final estimates, based on total sales for all four quarters, are presented here. Survey procedures are comparable to those used previously (Special Scientific Report -- Wildlife No. 99). As usual, except for Washington, D. C. , all hunting activity and har- vest estimates have been assigned to the State in which the hunter purchased his duck stamp. In most cases, this is also the State in which the hunting occurred. When it is not, the indicated distribution of hunting effort among States may be somewhat disproportionate as appears to be the case with the very conservative goose bag estimate obtained for Illinois this season, compared to the registered goose kill (unpub- lished data). Corrections in the Minnesota duck species composition have resulted in adjustments in the species totals for 1967, and incorrect entries for canvasbacks and for total ducks in the Atlantic Flyway which appeared in the previous re- port have also been corrected. For more detailed species composition data by State, see Administrative Reports 169 (ducks) and 173 (geese). The latter report also contains information on goose age ratios, while additional data on the duck bag appears in Administrative Reports 170 (sex ratios) and 171 (age ratios). 39 Separate reports provide estimates of waterfowl hunting activity and success during the 1967 September teal season (Administrative Report 155), the whistling swan season in Utah (Administrative Report 168), and the experimental October season in Colorado's San Luis Valley (Adminis- trative Report 175) which are not included in this report. However, hunting activity and harvest during the various special scaup seasons, the extended sea duck season of 108 days in most coastal areas of the Atlantic Flyway, the 1967 late black duck season in Maine, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire, and the 1968 late mallard drake season in the Central Flyway portions of Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming are included in the estimates presented here. The species composition of the bag in these States has been adjusted by weighting parts collection survey data with fig- ures from special season questionnaire surveys. Weighting factors for the late mallard drake season were supplied by Colorado, Montana, and Wyoming State wildlife agency per- sonnel. Results Table C-1 summarizes bias-adjusted duck and coot bag estimates by species for each flyway and Alaska, together with unretrieved and total kill figures for ducks and coots. Table C-2 presents information on retrieved, unretrieved, and total goose kill in the same manner. Approximately 8,090,000 ducks were bagged in the United States during the 1968 season, 35 percent less than during the previous sea- son. The number of coots bagged during the 1968 season is estimated to have been about 426,000, 44 percent fewer than during the previous season. The total 1968 season bag of 934,000 geese is 18 percent below the 1967 figure. With the exception of the wood duck, for which a 6 percent in- crease was recorded, these rather substantial decreases were reflected in the bags of all major and most minor species of ducks and geese, as well as coots. Daily duck bag and possession limits, season lengths, and estimated numbers of potential adult waterfowl hunters, together with average and total numbers of days hunted and ducks and geese bagged, unadjusted for response bias, are presented by State for each flyway beginning with Alaska and the Pacific Flyway in table C-3. Duck stamp sales records, together with figures showing their breakdown into nonhunters and active and successful waterfowl hunters, are also summa- rized by State for each flyway beginning with Alaska and the 40 Pacific Flyway in table C-4. Final reports indicate that 1,829,631 duck stamps were sold in 1968, 5 percent less than in 1967, and that waterfowl hunting provided about 10,397,000 hunter-days of recreation in 1968 for a decrease of 14 percent from the previous season. A brief resume of hunter activity and success by flyway for 1968, showing degree of change from the previous year, follows. Alaska Duck stamp sales totaled 12,411 (+20 percent) and 70,100 ducks (no change), 400 coots (-20 percent), and 10,300 geese (-6 percent) were bagged during 54,400 hunter-days afield (+4 percent). Those persons buying duck stamps for hunting hunted an average of 4.1 days (-15 percent) and bagged a total of 6.9 ducks (-17 percent) and 0.9 geese (-23 percent) each. The estimates for Alaska are contained in tables C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-4. Pacific Flyway An estimated 3,026,600 ducks (-31 percent), 87,100 coots (-43 percent), and 284,800 geese (-11 percent) were bagged in 2,492,800 hunter-days (-5 percent), with 395,387 duck stamps (+4 percent) being sold. Potential adult hunters reported averages of 5.8 hunter-days (-8 percent), 9,3 ducks bagged (-33 percent), and 0.8 geese bagged (-14 percent). Pacific Flyrvay estimates are shown in tables C-1, C-2, C-3, and C-4. Central Flyway Duck stamp sales totaled 323,693 (-10 percent), with 1,194,400 ducks (-41 percent), 31,100 coots (-52 percent), and 184,200 geese (-34 percent) having been bagged in 1,757,000 hunter-days (-24 percent). Potential adult hunters hunted an average of 5.0 days (-15 percent) for a total retrieved kill of 4.7 ducks (-35 percent) and 0.6 geese (-27 percent) each. Figures for the Central Flyway are shown in tables C-1, C-2, C-5, and C-6. 41 Mississippi Flyway With duck stamp sales of 713,378 (-12 percent), 2,435,500 ducks (-46 percent), 246,400 coots (-44 percent), and 248,000 geese (-26 percent) were bagged in 4,104,100 hunter-days (-20 percent), and averages of 5.4 days (-9 per- cent) 4.2 ducks bagged (-38 percent), and 0.4 geese bagged (-15 percent) per potential adult hunter were recorded. Esti- mates for the Mississippi Flyway appear in tables C-1, C-2, C-7, and C-8. Atlantic Flyway Totals of 1,362,900 ducks (+1 percent), 60,600 coots (-40 percent), and 206,300 geese (+7 percent) were bagged during 1,988,300 hunter-days (+4 percent), with averages of 5.0 days (-2 percent), 4.0 ducks bagged (-5 percent), and 0.7 geese bagged (no change) being registered per potential adult hunter, as duck stamp sales reached 384,762 (+7 percent). The Atlantic Flyway figures are recorded in tables C-1, C-2, C-9, and C-10. 42 APPENDIX A. WATERFOWL WINTER SURVEY TABLES TABLE A-1. — Winter survey, January 1969 - waterfowl by species and flyway /nearest hundreds/ Species Pacific Central ; Mississippi Atlantic Total Flyway Flyway Flyway Flyw^ Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard l,li05,700 1,662,100, /2, 123, 700 216,700 5,1408,500 Black duck — Tr.i ' 1149,100 330,700 1479,800 Mottled duck ~ 10,200 70,200 800 81,200 Gadwal I 39,900 70,500 987,200 20,900 1,118,500 American widgeon 638,800 86,500 1435,800 98,100 1,259,200 Green -winged teal 222,700 137,800 l,10li,000 75,600 1,5140,100 Blue-winged teal 14,300 2,100 146,300 13,500 66, 200 Shoveler 258,200 30,500 270,700 21,800 581,200 Pintail 1,685,200 1405,500 687,1400 131,500 2,909,600 Wood duck 900 — — — 900 Subtotal 14,255,700 2,1,05,500 5,87l4,l400 909,600 13,141,5,200 Divers: Redhead 6,200 1145,700 26,900 8U,800 263,600 Canvasback 62,700 6,500 31,100 133,300 233,600 Scaup 102,000 143,300 1,1421,1,00 7143,300 2,310,000 Ring- necked duck 3,300 3,700 226, 500 131,1400 3614,900 Goldeneye 143,900 17,700 143,700 80,300 185,600 Bufflehead 143,200 6,000 6,000 149,300 1014,500 Ruddy duck 159,700 2,700 28,100 1,7,800 238,300 Subtotal 1421,000 225,600 1,783,700 1,270,200 3,700,500 Miscellaneous: Eider and Scoter 108,1400 ~ 100 128,700 237,200 Old squaw 900 — 2,800 14,700 8,aoo Merganser 20,100 55,000 56,900 39,200 171,200 Subtotal 129,1400 55,000 59,800 172,600 1,16,800 Unidentified 143,200 11,200 3,000 23,1400 80,800 Total ducks 14,8149,300 2,697,300 7,720,900 2,375,800 17,61,3,300 43 TABLE A-1.— Winter survey, January 1969 - waterfowl by species and flyway — continued Species Pacific Central Mississippi Atlantic Total Flyway Flyway Flyway Flyway Snow goose ^13,300 327,300 51,300 62,800 851t,700 Blue goose — 126,500 223,500 900 350,900 Ross' goose 19,600 100 — ~ 19,700 White-fronted goose lllj,200 16,700 21,000 — 151,900 Canada goose lii2,800 262,000 555,200 678,800 l,93li,600 Cackling goose IOI4.OOO ^2 ZZ 10U,000 Total geese 793,900 732,600 851,000 7U2,500 3,120,000 Brant: 1)43,200^/ — — 130,900 27l4,100 Swans: Whistling swan 7li,900 Tr. — 62,000 136,900 Trumpeter swan 8OO 100 21 II 900 Total swans 75,700 100 — 62,000 137,800 Coots: U02,100 155,700 1,023,100 356,1400 1.937,300 Grand total 6,261i,200 3,585,700 9,595,000 3,667,600 23,112,500 - Tr. = less than 51 —' Includes west coast of Mexico 44 TABLE A-2. — Winter survey, January I969 - waterfowl by state and flyway /nearest hundreds/ State Ducks Geese Brant Swans Coots Total Pacific Flyway: Washington 787,200 35,800 10,100 1,600 10,500 8I45, 200 Oregon 225,200 55,200 aoo 3,700 17,100 301,600 Idaho 512,700 7,800 — 300 10,500 531,300 Nevada 21,800 6,100 -- 2,000 6,000 35,900 California 3,U8,900 679,100 200 66, 200 335,000 14,229,1400 Utah liii,100 2,900 — 1,1^00 14,600 53,000 Arizona 15,900 3,600 — Tr. 9,800 29,300 Montana 70,800 1,1400 — ■ Uoo 8,700 81,300 Wyoming li,200 500 — Tr. Tr. 14,700 Colorado 9,000 1,200 — — — 10,200 New Mexico 10,000 200 — . — Tr. 10,200 Mexico (west coast) — 132,500 — — 132,500 Flyway total l4,8l49,800 793,800 1143,200 75,600 1402,200 6,26l4,600 Central Flyway: Montana Wyoming North Dakota South Dakota Nebraska Colorado Kansas Oklahoma New Mexico Texas 59,700 148,900 2,900 82,500 260,200 273,300 5814,700 2l4l4,000 85,000 1,056,000 2,800 600 Tr. 9,800 6,500 56,200 155, uoo 146,300 15,700 h39,l400 100 Tr. Tr. 14,100 14,600 1147,000 62,500 149,500 2,900 92,1400 266, 700 329,500 7140,100 29U,l400 105, 300 1,6142,1400 Flyway total 2,697,200 732,700 100 155,700 3,585,700 45 TABLE A-2.— Winter survey, January I969 - waterfowl by state and flyway— continued /nearest bundles/ State Ducks Geese Brant Swans Coots Total Mississippi Flyway: Minnesota 10,000 9,000 — — — 19,000 Wisconsin 27,900 3,300 — — — 31,200 Michigan 70,800 8,100 — ~ — 78,900 Iowa 37,700 1,500 ~ — — 39,200 Indiana 10,li00 900 — — — 11,300 Ohio 115,800 22,100 — — 100 138,000 Missouri 2^4,000 lh5,U00 ~ — — 389,l»00 Illinois I6l4,600 233,600 — — — 398,200 Kentucky 17,700 39,000 — — — 56,700 Tennessee 382,800 5U,l400 — — 9,000 14146, 200 Arkansas 1,030,500 5,800 — — 21,300 1,057,600 Louisiana 5,29h,l400 289,900 — — 956,300 6,5140,600 Mississippi 227,200 2,100 — — 18,600 2147,900 Alabama 87,100 35,900 — — 17,800 1U0,800 Flyway total 7,720,900 851,000 — — 1,023,100 9,595,000 Atlantic Flyway: Maine 50,700 700 — — — 51,1400 New Hampshire 3,900 1,200 — — — 5,100 Vermont 1,800 -- — — — 1,800 Massachusetts 110,900 9,300 Uoo — — 120,600 Rhode Island 23,100 1,000 — ~ .- 214,100 Connecticut 29,900 500 Tr. — — 30,1400 New York 166,300 5,200 20,000 — 200 191,700 Pennsylvania 16, 300 8,600 — — — 214,900 New Jersey 179,700 5,100 78,200 — — 263,000 West Virginia 3,900 — — ~ — 3,900 Delaware 17,600 60,700 3,100 Tr. — 81,1400 Maryland 381, 200 1409,100 1,500 36, UOO 2,200 830,1400 Virginia 13U,600 101,700 27,1400 Tr. -- 263, 700 North Carolina 226,1^00 121,1400 300 25,600 80,500 14514,200 South Carolina 295,200 12,500 — — li3,100 350,800 Georgia 52,800 500 — — 11,100 6i4,l400 Florida 681, 500 5,000 — — 219,300 905,800 Flyway total 2,375,800 7li2,50O 130,900 62,000 356,1400 3,667,600 46 ^ CO O M 0) H H VO 0^ r-l I O VO ON CO 0) •H U Q) O. to .O CO (U T3 ■w OQ JJ ^ « t^ l-< *M >^ a. 1 o r •r-l •a 0) (U M ,a e •i-i •c c 0) I.- 0) I c i-i I PQ I c CO 3 O CO u -i § 0) d 1-1 I u > 60 <: CO VO <7v CO VO VO ON vO vO ON m VO VO vO ON CM VO ON VO ON ,-< I o VO ON 0! 1) •i-l o 0) CO m iTi vo vo m r-< 00 VO en -^ r-4 .-( sd- . in 1-1 <^ CM ON ' i-l CM I I VO CO lA CM .+ -* O CM <)- r-( 00 en vo en en in CM en (Jv CJN in 00 in vO 00 VO CO o 3 CO 00 -+ <}■ cjN i-< r-l CM CM m i-H GO ON vO' CM 00 en CM I en 00 in I-H -l CNI r-l CM' 1-1 tn cTv on! CM m cmI en I ! I— I CM C3N CM 1-1 vD en m r-^ in o r^ 1-1 00 1-1 en in r^ r~ m ON in en en' VO ! vo r^ vo iH in CM en VO CJN 1^ t^ <)■ r-l ON CM CM in o CB CO CO > 5 cu d 3 T? CO 1-1 o o U CO O pq in 00 m m C3N in C3N CO 1-1 -J- i-H vO C3N C3>. CM -+ 00 o cmI (J\ i-l 1 O VO ON <-> **^ < w 0) 3 13 O C J3 •H 4J c c o •^ •H J-i m rt 1-1 .-1 0) 3 -% o 3 tx C 00 X c 0) •H -o -d c J ,Q rj CIS & n 00 c •H i-l JJ 03 iH ^ 1 1 ^ w « r-l 1-H W ON vO ON 00 I v£> I ON t I-l ON ON O ON o 04 fN4 in 00 \o o ON CNJ 00 CNj ON 00 vn o vO cs o 00 .-I o CNJ CNJ NO in CNj CNJ 00 CM NO O ON in in o in CO CM •n CM NO 1-1 o CO m NO in ON (1) 1 r-' 1 Qj [ B XI * <0 01 ' w •o •3 ( I « o « o\ i-l r-l » m 0 4) «> iH to ?^ 1 .a 1 ^ 1 JS c 1-1 n M 0) § X •o c I 0^ ON CO VO VO VO vO Ov ,-1 I r vo VO VO • VO I 0^ VO ON O VO ON 4J 1-1 o 0 (^ I OvJ --< H I F-l OV I I Cvjl I I [ ,-1 in I I 4 CM Ov tn o in St?'*-: Vi fa Cfl r-l iw o CM 00 CM I m CM I I CO I j CO r-l C\ CM I CM oo; r^ I CO r-l I o I r^' CM I I CM I -* CO I Cvl I r-l m I rH 00 I VO VO I CO % 3 ^ U C7' r-l 0) Sh CO r-l .'-) OJ , 3 O e o c p o o O O u > I- o CJ A! I PQ PQ 0) M d e 00 Cfl O vO S^ 00 1^ Bl \o ■d VO o o u n U1 o B5 ~3- CO vO tC o <^ ■?? >■! «^ ON VO 03 13 O O « O o 00 VO I vO VO to vO CM VO CO g) vo 00 r^ CO ■-< <)• CM T— I 00 ov 00 <^ r-i a> 00 m r-t 00 CM --I ov m OV vd" in i-H i-i i-i «d- CJV OV 00 CO VD CO CM CO >— I t— I ■— I 1— I CO -< r-. CO cv vO O CM CM --I CO t^ r-( >o i-l i-l CO Q CM i-l i-( CO 00 I—I r-l .-H OV ~d" r-l CM O CM >-l CJV vO VD I 00 vO O CO vO I ■-! CO r^ vO I CO CO CvJ vO 'TV I u > CO 1-1 -d s o c a eg -i-i • ,G -i-l n) g s o I-l + m CO CO CJV CM tn CM o CM CO CM CM ? CM O I-l CM 00 in CO CM CO in CO O C3V > u 3 CO CO Pk U 1^ iJ o H u o d -g 4J CO CJ 52 u 0) m a> ^F^ u o 4-> ••-< C3> t-< vO u Ox 0) 1-4 H 1 o +J VO en » cn ^ ,o TJ CO C •H CO CO * OJ CO S X 3 3 Q) O i-i X) Si O c 4J O •M c JZ c •r4 CO o •i-l •r^ cn 4-^ *J u •i-t CO a) ^ f— 1 XI P3 3 D. J3 C O C t-i a a X 4-> bO Q) cn c T) CO •r-( C 0) •o M £ Q) N^ •P 0) l-i I-l O ja c r-H •> 3 CO O 4^ cu U I-l z 4-1 1 PQ PQ ON c» vO o\ vO (TV in VO Ov vO OV vO ov CM VO Ov VO o\ o ov vo ij r-t vo r-i Ov in ^ E-i <^ <^ >-i CO CN rH CO U ^ to r-l 00 CO ^ H oo (» CO (» CO rN. CO o r* r-i m 1-1 Ov ov » .-• CN t^ O 4- -:t m 00 ^ CN r-4 r-t ,-1 O "-I CM O vO Ov ^ (O CO f-< <-i CN in :J r-l I-H (— I vO ^ CN CM ::t "^ ■-• ^ ^ in CN CN r^ J' <-< I-" in CM r^ r^ .-I 00 «o o\ r<» CO in CN hv r>. CN r-l -H it CN CO r~ 00 O <-• CO Ov CN m f»» m CN ^ CN 00 ^j-coooinoi-i in CO r>s r-l r-( in H ov m vo vo Ov fo Ov u 00 CM J- in CM r-l CO H 00 VO CM r-l ct d- CO ov CN vo 00 Ov m CM ov r-l r-l in r-l r-l CO m rv r-l o\ CN (^ ^ CO o in o m ^ CN ^ o vo r-l in 00 00 vo r-l 00 00 m o vo Ov r^ CO CO CO CN CN O m CO CM m t^ CO r-l in CN Ov 00 00 in 00 00 >o CN r-l CN CO J- ^ ^ r-l CO CN CO rH vo CM 00 -O -a .r4 0) -O CO 3 t3 4J 3 r^ r~* •o a) a) 3 O c CO to x; > ti -o c J«! a) aj c o >. a) 0) £ c a; -_ . 01 rH >^ 3 bO t3 <4-l TJ CO C rH IM -U a) a) CO o -n Q 3 3 >B:UC0CiiOPQP:S o 4J X) 3 CO 53 u « 0) >, o -a r-t Q) 3 1 e •w m -u 0) C •H 0 u o O I 4J 1 ■f-i a> u vO (J CT> 0) ^ H 1 O .p VO 0) o\ 4) r^ » ^ « 4J 10 U 0) O -H Z O (U -o o- C to CO ^N >. (0 O.Q •o CO c •r* m to Xi (U CO § X P 3 0) o rH T) x: 6.5 ■p c 4J B ••-t m O •r* 'H m 4-> 'P u I-l r- z « a a 9 B O c w. a. d) X 4J W) a) 0) c •O Cfl -r^ c d) -O h-l ji +J r-l CO < s c c IJ "^ Q) JS -O +J C ^ OJ 0 t- 1 1 1 • r^ 1 CQ 3 A < H ON 00 vO ON ON m VO Ov vO CO vO o\ CN VO o» VO OV O vO Ov »0 rH ^ in ov CO r>. CN in ov vo rH in I-l in rH ov rH VO Ov CN rH ^ CO CN OV CN o» t«» <» in CN CN r^ VO rH CN r^ rH rH CN I CO r*. ov tV. i-> in m CN CO OV vo 00 r^ ^ CM Ov O CO r«. m o CO CM vO to 3 rH O t-> to a> 3 0) p c CO (0 o (0 u 3 C 4J rl Q) T CO A r^ P to bO 3 0) O "O IH OT • • u u S^ to to W M •H O s 0) to 8 12 bo -o 3 0) (U -o 4-> to rH % § CO l-i W) P

ffl u v > < § 00 u o\ U4 " U (U D a> to >. u t Qi o > " GO r) *o i-i o\ ui CO f-s rO CN OS 9t 00 •-' •-• fO O O (S O 00 (O ^ CO 00 CO 00 to ^ o rt en Jt I CN ^ I .^ O w I O ^ I I I CO I cs ^ I • 1 • « 1 1 1 ■^ 1 1^ m 1 1 o o o CM \0 ^ I • • I rt CM C (Q ^ 0 0) (It 0) 4-> 0) tao V •O TJ •p^ 0) 13 3 M 0) C bO C 'p^ c u " TJ --^ 4-> -^ ^ -c ft) (u 3 0 c m^rcS-SOCQOT ••-1 Ji CO U Q •^ CN •-• tn fi^ *0 i-l ^ CO 4- C*4 CN • •••••• ^ CM 00 CM >0 CO ^ •-I <0 i-« ^ CO (N CO Ot 04 lA O 00 CN O -^ >-l C^ O^ 9t in • •••••• d- ^ CO rs. ^ ^ O (O r^ ^ (^ if I ^ I I I I .-I to rs. r*. rv I • • • • • I GO «0 O O O M m « rx I • • • I • I I r-i r^ O I ^ I I I o\ ^ I in I • • I • (N fH 1 O O o\ O^ rv r^ >o lA • •••••• ^ CN 0» O O ^ O irt lA in oo M O eg ■O XI u >^ S w ecu £9 a I a) f-i >» > 3 00*0 <« -o C CD C '-< , u CO CN 1 0) o > ^ < o r-< in I-* m r-l so -^ ^ m ON CI CM Jj i-< tn I o Ov ^o rs, r-H l-l n 00 in o\ 4- ^ 00 ? 11) ■p S m o u 3 c 4-» a) CT ci XI +J » bO 3 0 -o l-i Cfl u r-l G) 00 o z o 4 in 00 in d- *o o Jo J CO tN. r-^ o\ en I • • I I CN ^ I I CN I O j U '^ 43 •-5 CO •H •s ■P CO •H 0) !m X PQ V T) C C u •H (U +3 t:! to O cS o a; ^ ^ ,Q +> u X o V c 3 Ti •\ 0) c t •H <1> tJ fi C ^ 0) +> c u 0) g XI (U 4J -P fn 1 O bD S C o 1 H 0^ 1 n w 1-^ U3 05 CO O § (U 0^ X) ON ^ IS. OJ No ON ■p (S ■P CQ CO VD IPv 00 o vo CO ON CVJ CO vo ON on oo l-t cn OJ OJ 00 CVJ J- t- o CVJ rH (M H O ITN t-- OJ ro -:t OJ ITN ^ rH ON OJ VO OJ l/N o o LTN -* CQ o c- J- OJ OO o o M3 t- OO t^ LTN OO ,H OJ ON ON OO VD ON t^ ON 00 t— O -d- f- t^ CM 1^ H OO 00 CO vo OO Lf^ ITN OO OO rH I-l C7N OO OO t- OJ CO OO ON OJ OO cu i-H CM LTN LTN OO J- OJ t^ C3N f- O OO CVJ H -4- OO C7N ON CVJ OO LTN LfN vn O o CTN O O 00 VO LTN OO CJN -=1- OJ o o C7N On oo OO LTN OO VO ON CO p O EH 57 to « (U TJ 'C •H 'd O o u o :^ I CQ 0) •H U o +3 •H ^H U H) -P vo 05 ON 0) r-l g o QJ 03 0) I ^ 3 C H O O H u •^ S (Q O) •H -P QJ -P CO OJ -p Oi ^ o C -P 05 0) (U Pi 5 I pq ^ Eh ^ o ^ 0) u o^ Ph "^i 03 § 03 O c H 03 EH Q) M 03 U 0) CO in -P ON o o o ON on (M + 1 o I ON s CO oo oo 00 OO vo o CO H LTN 00 On ITN VO CO J- [>- C- ON CM CM VD VO O OJ CVJ l^ t— C7N OO OJ VO ITN CO ITN on (-1 H CO -i J3W 4JQ) M-H O U c v a T3 CO c ■^v^ cd >, (0 J3 T3 A c cd CO Cd .n 91 CO O M 3 4J (U O ■HT3 J= C S 4J Cd-H S c B •H C O h-f-l in 0) u Vj j= Cd (U Wr-I J3 >4 9 o a. c o C a *> X C 00 (U Cd a t3 S-H c r»CNCMvoro^r-iro •^ CVIfnOCSIONfOl-H O rn r-» \o ON m rn rH ro CN CM aouioo«a-OOcMO r~- CN CSI i-H fO r-4 CN vO iri n r-i fN I— I ,-( OOiOCMvO-^vOr* CM n 1—1 CM m CM CMO.-lv3-\OOOvOO in >-< — I o o r^ vo 00 vO vO CO 00 O 00 CO CO ON CM ON O 1—1 CO ,-( r-l O vo o 3- CN O CN vo r-l r-- r^ v3- .-I en in CN -<3- CN CN .-( 1-1 .-I m CN m o r-( f— I 1— I en On r-l ^ rH CM r-l CM o ^ in en CM r^ CN m 1— I r-l r^ CN CM >3- en CJN rH tN r-l I cn o o rH en 1 r-l CSI l~~ 00 CJN o 00 in m CM m o •-a- CN On -3- m r-l in O o -3- O ON cn C Cd rH ^ O 0) CO o ID -VJ 0) 3 ClO 4-1 ■d -a -o •rH (U 13 T3 J-l <-l O 1 3 r-l •rH 4-1 , (U rH y s 1-1 0) (U > 4-1 3 CO x: > 3 ao -a >4H -a r-l r~* CO -a Q) (U 3 O c W u T3 c cd C rH 14H -a • • Xi to r-l cd a u r-« x; -3 o CO w •H V lU td o •-( O 3 3 to (d m o IX > •H C«i u CO c4 a ca Di V 3 Q Q a td u o 4J -O 3 CO 59 •a c 0) M 4J U c9 U ^ 1 O f-l -O 1 . •H XI c (0 CO s (U X c 0) u •o a> c: ^ •H 4-1 u c o o c •H 4J «l to cn r-l U CO 00 3 o • • to M (U O 13 l-l CO H (U c CO o tj O r-H (U CO CO u CO CO o a (U U o •r-l 5 o 60 o <*^ u u 3 M 3 u ta *J ON U) \0 0\ (U rH > •H •• w 6 Q 3 M ^ CO n) a u e 4J O M "'"^ o CO •a ■a 1 c c . tn C8 J3 M (U « 05 43 XI a) E O X 3 W OJ C i-( T3 C C X ca -M CO M <: CO 0^ oo ej\ ON eO to NO M ON ON 0) >-< i-l > C M 0) CO ^ tU 1.1 >. 3 i-H U <0 4-) o M H 3 O M -H CO > CU 01 >^ u p^ I 4J CO u 4-1 CO vO ,-1 ON O ON fO CM r-l I r~i-(Or^i-iONcsiNO I i-H 1— I m + I + + + + + + OOPNjrOr-imOi— ivO I ,-( c*1 I-l ir\ ro ro On) I + I + I + I + + vDvDrOoo>X5iri-a"tA I l^tN»-irOrHCNr-3-<»r^t3N I r~cv)c-)vOfO-a-i-icn I CNlr-(rOONCNCTNro,-( 1 o C.C^^^iNOCNNO>-IC-^ 1 NO <• NO O I -•3' ON ON r-4 CM I I 00 I _l I I On I nO O vO r-H m nO I m I CM rH I vO 1 to (X3 NO ~3- -^ -* I m t fS| ,_( pH r-l I ON ^ I I-l I I I m I m {SI 1 III I C3N I i-l O rO CN nO NO I r^ I r-H I-l I-l I-l I 00 vO o r-l + ^ o^ fo ON CO r^ c^ CSI \D n CM <• 00 d I I + + + + I 00 CTn >3- CM O O 00 lO NO I-l cN en r» I I -«- I I I I en NO CM i-H to O -3" O f~» NO CM m r~ 00 to en CM to 00 •-T ON -vT l~- O O r~ NO 00 ■vj- r-l NO 00 \o rH m en 00 00 en en ctn CM o^ ON r-l en rH O ON vj- rH nO rH ,-t cn CJN esi NO m CM en to lO oo O rH CM rH CM en c-vi lo t^ NO NO CM ^ rH rH •-I I 00 NO en 00 I <• en rH O <■ c^ rH en -J- <• r-i lO rH 1-^ cn I cn o lO NO CJN cn 00 e3N O CM NO o en CJN c to rH ^ o 0) CO u eu 4-1 (U 3 tJO 4-> •a -a -a •iH 0) tJ -o ii. 3 to . % XI 4J •3 3 cn x: > 3 60-0 '*-! •T3 3 rH rH CO -o (U (U 3 o c O Cfl V4 T) c CO c: rH tlH ■o CO • • 43 CO r-t CO B M rH jr •H O erf u CO :iS CJ CQ o: ^ to •H O a Q 3 a 61 •o 0) 3 a •H U C CO O 3 cj 4J 1 ca 1 4J C^ U vO cy> 0) i-H > •H •• '<-' G nJ 3 l-l u CO cfl i-^J O CO a T3 1 c CO o '^'^ •H M CO 1-1 (U •3 CO -H 3 •u o CO St CO 3 CO O 13 x: c >. 4-1 CO XI 3 CO CO •H XI S M O >w z o 1 k 1 n M J § cu 60 *J cu CO 3 00 S >^ (U 3 o CU CJ CO u > V4 x: U-t <: 0) r-l r-l > <: 4-1 3 >-l CU CO U CU M >^ 3 r-l O CO 4J o CO H P O U •H CO > CU CU >> l-l PL, 4J CO U 4.1 LO 00 vO 00 CO 0) •H a (U Cu c/l r-l + + vD 1 On fO I r-l r-l I m o I CO vD I v£> vO I O I r-l r-l I r-) r CO 3 O ^1 es CM 00 CM 00 o CO 4J o 4J Xi 3 CO CM 00 CN CN CM CO CI 3 o H 00 00 vD + ' CM 1 CN in CN VO 00 r-l in CN r-f rH ro 1 m o-i CJN 1—1 r-l VD i ro C < to J= a to 4J 3 c o h (U T^ tB o > OJ M 0) >. (d vo Vi fO ON 0) vO r-l > tT> < 1— 1 a Wi (U to M 0) ^ t-" 3 U r-l to 4-) to O 3 H O u •H nj > < t-i Pi (0 (U •H o (U a t/i o o m o tN4 r^ .-I I m + I a\ o o • • ■ 00 o o CNi o r^ t I O iri 00 t*l iri in i-i m r^ O —I in m r-l £) ^ ^ +++++++ OO-^tMt^f^f^'^i— I m ovotNvoinr^r--s3- sr r-t i-l ON ro tN CN ~3- en I -l CM i in O Vi in I H CM r-l H I I I rH C r-l <• I I r-l r-J tJ >-< in CM M >-l f-< fri H H I r-l r-» cn r-l en I I 00 r-- CM ^ I I r-l o CM 00 00 <3> CJ^ CM tN in CM M c to r-l ,:% • (U n) a 1 lU rH >» .o to 4J a 3 to ^ > 3 60 -a >+H T) 3 (U r-l r-l T3 tu ai U CO OS O « Oi c < Ifl ^ u 03 4J 3 c O u (U •r< n) o > 0) M 0) >^ (U ^ PL. PU 0) o CO u a^ n) vO u o^ < .-H c VJ 0) 0) >-l t-l PL. vO CO (U •H O a) a. 10 00 + 00 CN o CO J.S CJ 3 f— ^ T3 CO ij CO O 3 4J O . .—I CO c Vj o •H CO to a •a o 4J o 1-1 u 3 XI •a CO M H-l >s M J2 T3 •a C (U CO u CO M CJ M •H T3 CO C CO •H CO .— 1 CO U < 65 TABLE B- 15. --Southern Alberta - long-term trend in pond indexes by strata with comparisons to average and previous year - May and July 1969 ^index numbers in thoussuads/ Year Stratum Total 26 27 28 May: i960 287 51^9 159 995 1961 213 432 56 701 1962 132 3^5 h9 526 1963 189 601 59 849 1964 153 366 113 632 1965 299 637 103 1,039 1966 282 490 72 844 1967 260 361 140 761 1968 103 307 92 502 1969 1956-62 213 399 69 681 Average 238 436 89 763 Percent change from 1968 +106.8 + 3«0 - 25.0 ♦ 35.6 Percent change from average - 10.5 - 8.5 - 22.5 - 10.7 July: i960 93 262 hi 402 1961 56 153 30 239 1962 72 257 39 368 1963 162 471 60 693 I96U 87 162 59 308 1965 260 485 111 856 1966 187 234 66 487 1967 182 280 92 554 1968 90 159 66 315 1969 1956-62 122 228 41 391 Average 117 258 44 419 Percent ch€uige from 1968 * 35.6 ♦ 43.4 - 37.9 * 24.1 Percent change from average * ^.3 - 11.6 - 6.8 - 6.7 66 CT\ CO OJ -3- <^ On C\J OJ MD rH tr\ O -d- i/N O t^ •» ON LA rH rH CVJ U^ n .-1 0) •H O K S -^ J- OOO CM t— J- n -3- CO O ITNCD CM -=r ON -:? r-l rH rH rH >» H ^ 10 u r- CO CM rH on rH ITN t^ VD CM LfN t^-* NO rH Q NO r-H rH rH CM^ rri ON {j rH § VO r— O CO CM LPk f^ ON NO rH CM on rH t^ CM ■P VO 0 ON LfNrH H r-i r^-:t rH Pi Si UN ON o NO -d- o CO on OnVO ITN rH CO CTs-* tfi MD a ON cT) on •H rH tJ (U V "^^""^ u ml fi -d -3- VO r-i cn^ J- o J- s ^o en O r^ CM r-1 r^ t— CO H ol rH CM OJ H ON > 03 H O 3 <»-. O Vi iJ ^>s^^ on ITvND ^ ITS H CM on J- CO f'lrHNO ON l/N 08 On a MD 1 •H ON H t— rH H O^ 5^S (0 ^1 ON ID X) rH ^ a B CM CJ\ On t^^ O -J- on m 3 VO CM CO CM rH NO CM on u a On f- H rH CM +j X H (0 •H. ^ rH O O ON l/^OJ rH O \J NO NO H CO NO r~- t^ C7\ o ON 00 rH rH H H CM r-l r-i 5 O ITN CM t^NO C\^ OJ O -^ CM i/NNO ^ en O rH CM rH CM NO ;< VD 0) ON fi H •* ^ •-t e a'a .-A (U O «) (0 5 (1) -P (U tjO -P 3 <« -d S •HOT) > W) 0) a bo I a -H a u • •• TfrHflB>-H(UrH ^0 (0 to V. rH O 1 » rH -H >H CO ad -H a 1 1) OS r-( (U 1 •H a)rH»tia)(i)>p PQ O .-lrHT3g4;3oa 1 K ot;os5"Io«^S CO ■S5 g a o ITN NO -a- LfN o On ON CM NO 00 iTN NO CO O O rH ITl CM 00 rH ^ on AJ r-i r-{ CM O -* ITv J- rH H t-- CM CM ir\ rH rH O OOO CM O CTnNO NO -*C0 H rH CVJ r- On O CM rH ^ 00 ^ CM CO t-t i-i O O-d- POVi OQO on-:* m Eh rH J-NO C7N>l J- ITN LfN fcH CM CO c^ on u rn j-No fcH CM H l/^ r- H -3- o H ON-3- rH CM CM CTn CM -3 iH rH H CVJ O CQOO CM on H C7n J- cn^ cnr-t CM CM LfN J- cn CT\ CM CM CM OJ CO % u\ o O CM CM cnrH ^ C7N -3- -3- -d- t/N CM CM % CM o -^ J>J V •d AJ r-i o ^i V « o CO P « u >> 9) 3 P O •d ^ (U 0) J3 T) O -p 0) (0 a d a> ■P J3 • • V ca P< ^ rH >-> ^ 3 03 =9 OJ > 3 fi) <)-l ■d 3 CO u OS o a •H 5 -d 3 CO > ffi o CO « ffl K 67 (0 4) a ta o •H •H 0) O 3 « -p •p d (0 o » o 3 J. VO tJ on a rH 9> I d I o H 05 +» U s I I I CQ ■J ON ON VO ON o\ On On H ITN ON -4- on NO o\ VO ON ON H ON to (U •H o en vo u CM H VO CM <\J fi CM rH rH CM CM CM ^ CO CM ^ 0 <^ CM CO CM ^ : fH ^ ! J:^ 3 ! S en 1 -* 1 CO ITN 1 CO 1 ITN CO 4) • • O 0 (11 03 m CO S (0 O -p I CO 8 CM CO CM CM CO CM NO ON CM CO CJN CM 00 CM •\ CM ON ON CO CM a M o CO ■P CM CM S CO IfN ON C7N s CT\ 00 NO CM CM &; l/N CO CO CM CM :3 o CM ITN On o CJN CM O ON CM CM CM O CM NO 00 CM OJ 3 o 5 m vo On 2 o ,Q 3 o a o a 09 u (U 00 tiD a 0) CO vo ON O H O a i> CO (U (U I 68 TABLE B-17. — Southern Alberta - comparative status of waterfowl breeding population indexes by species and stratum, I969 ^index numbers in thousands/ Percent change Species Stratum Itotal Average 1959-68 from — 1968 26 27 28 1968 1969 Average Ducks: Dabblers : Mallard 166 268 Qk kkk 518 7k6 + 16.7 - 30.6 Gadwall 6k 66 22 Idk 152 116 - 17.4 + 31.0 American widgeon 53 38 13 103 IOI+ 160 + 1.0 - 35.0 Green-winged . teal 16 2k 3 50 ^3 38 - 14.0 + 13.2 Blue -winged teal 20 37 2 82 59 121 - 28.0 - 51.2 Shove ler 108 57 37 127 202 176 + 59.0 + 14.8 Pintail 282 153 137 Ikk 572 387 +297.2 + 47.8 Subtotal 709 6k3 298 1,13't 1,650 l,7kk + ^5.5 - 5.4 Divers: Redhead 8 29 3 20 1^ kl +100.0 - 2.4 Canvasback 7 21 2 2k 30 k3 + 25.0 - 30.2 Scaup 66 123 32 155 221 222 + U2.6 Ring-necked duck 0 k 1 k 5 3 + 25.0 + 66.7 Goldeneye 0 2 Tr 1 2 2 +100.0 Bufflehead 1 16 1 11 18 17 + 63.6 + 5.9 Ruddy duck 2 8 1 17 11 20 - 35.3 - 1»5»0 Subtotal 8i+ 203 ko 232 327 3k8 + 40.9 - 6.0 Miscellaneous: Scoter 1 2k 1 21 26 32 + 23.8 - 18.8 Mergansers 0 Tr Tr Tr Tr 2 " ^ ~ " " *■ * ^ Itotal ducks 794 870 339 1,387 2,003 2,126 +44.4 - 5.8 2 0 2 2 4 4 -aoo.o 26 63 17 53 106 75 -aoo.o +41.3 Geese: Canada goose Coots : American coot Grand total 822 933 358 1,442 2,113 2,205 +46.5 - 4.2 69 Ov CVJVO ^-CO t * ITN a\ 00 t^O POCVI coco •^ VO iH i-l H W 00 CVI -* C7N 09 ON H H f— 1 H n H •H s g^cjj^cgi^vooo CJN O t>-CQ CVJ CVJ U>^ H VS CU ^ a On H H H CVI o r^ •H +> CO 1 >& CVI LTvON COrH ITN^ ON H H r-i r-l CVI C3N l/N t-C-^ CVI VD ITN ^ o OS H H H p< H S" •H 0) ^ H «*^ON0JCO O H on CU C\J H H CVI ^ 1-1 CVI ^ IfN s t H H C\l r-l CVI ,Q g LTN CVI CJ i ro t- OJ r-l lA E-f on CVI fH a M3 00 -* 08 -H ON H CVI rM CVI H - 10 umbe ^ CVI CVJ O CO t>-VO CVI CVI -* H pH H ^ ^^^^Sc^- s -^ o 0\ H CVJ r^ CVI ro H H X 1 tl H iTv oo a\ iTv On CT\ (7N ^ mo t- onoN cjNiA VO VO CJN vo pH fncvi^ H r-l 00 cni/N^ ITk »4 On CVI ■^ r-l on +5 H 09 CT\ vo ^ON erta 60-1 5 ^-HC^^VOVOVO^ % °°~?il^3S^ 8^ ON r-i H r^ fi a\ H ^'-' ^ as o (u cd J<1 0) -H o 1^ ^ ,-- So by s •H 0) TJ TJ * a M r-t J<« 0) -d Jrf H •••OHffl>-H«f-l $ s -s ^g ^ ^ • O t3 ^ a> 0) ;a Td o 00 a m U r-l (J 1 > H -H ti e8 ed -H d 1 a) oj -p (SO) d a V -p 1 (1) ,Q •• fljoUp,! «)HI>» X> 1 CO •H (UH>^<(l)tt)>+> d to^>:3bD'dVi'ci 3 Vi'dfloaar-i^'d w O HHTlajiaofl oB^SO-SoffiMSI a 05 u ►J § >«OcOKc5pQ« 70 o\ OJ H CO CO 0 r- 0 • ga On % 25 CO s ^ H On a 0 •H •H S CO cvj -^ ^ On OJ NO •« fl On ^ ^ a> o H a •H 3 •P n fl t— NOVO ?a t>- ■^ 00 ^ ft) 0 A VO H vo f^ & 0\ CO p 0 fl C •rl ■« VO CU- b- 2^ a .« 00 00^ CJ ON ^i^ VO 0 u & ^ u> NO CO H <^ ^ ?iL H X <^ H gj ^ ON r- NO ITN CO 0\ CVJ 1 H •^ 0 to On H VO 0 ■P s ^ ON 00 NO s 0 -d a> On ^ ^ to fi ON H 3 5 as % 0) -H P •^ CO 0 S " « V •P -P ■p 3 to ■3 3 0) 0 0 0 1 >> 0 U •n m 0 +> «> 1 ^ 41 0) +> 0 U to • 00 f-l 1 PQ n 0) ■H 0 q to ci u a ^^% dj 0 (-1 0 ■P 1 0 tiO 0 •H 2 CJ s ^ i S •• 0 0 01 to to CO S •32 ** cO « fl to od i) 0 II • • S 5 71 5 8 & TABLE B-19. — Southern Alberta, stratum 13 - comparative status of waterfowl breeding population indexes by species, I969 ^index numbers in thousands^/ percent change Total Average 1959-68 from- - 1968 Species 1968 1969 Average Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard 102 112 I6U + 9.8 - 31.7 Gadwall Ik 6 7 - 57.1 - 14.3 Americein widgeon 32 17 kl - k6,9 - 58.5 Green-winged teal 18 8 17 - 55.6 - 52.9 Blue-winged teal 5 7 2k + Uo.o - 70.8 Shoveler 6 lit 16 +133.3 - 12.5 Pintail 18 25 30 + 38.9 - 16.7 Subtotal 195 189 299 - 3.1 - 36.8 Divers: Redhead 10 8 16 - 20.0 - 50.0 Canvasback 7 7 21 ---- - 66.7 Scaup 168 120 160 - 28.6 - 25.0 Ring-necked duck 2 3 Ik + 50.0 - 78.6 Goldeneye 2 2 22 - 90.9 Bufflehead 25 h3 kQ + 72.0 - 10.4 Ruddy duck k 8 6 +100.0 + 33.3 Subtotal 218 191 287 - 12.4 - 33.4 Miscellaneous: Scoter 16 2 51 - 87.5 - 96.1 Mergansers 7 1 23 - 85.7 - 95.6 Total ducks 436 383 660 . 12.2 - 42.0 Geese: Canada goose Tr 0 k Coots: American coot 29 7 27 - 75.9 - 74.1 Grand total 465 390 691 - 16.1 - 43.6 Note: Transect 03 data used to obtain the index for 53 percent of the stratum not censused in I968. 72 TABLE B-20. — Soutnem Alberta - lone drake index: lon^i-term trend expressed as a percentage of total drakes, I96O-69 Year Mallard Pintail Canvasback Total i960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 84.92 82.02 72.04 84.00 77.10 74.22 63.89 76.00 82.39 83.98 54.32 82.00 84.99 85.25 80.08 84.86 85.28 88.14 52.65 84.57 82.07 75.17 65.02 77.85 80.97 74.99 56.09 77.94 83.60 64.14 70.60 79.63 64.11 62.13 27.78 62.46 86.71 82.48 68.58 84.14 73 TABLE B- 21. --Southern Alberta - long-term trend in waterfowl brood and late- nestlng indexes by species, Jxily I96I-69 /index numbers in thousands/ Species 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 Broods : Duck brood index 213.5 132.1 20U.3 190.4 107.4 172,2 164.9 94.8 141.7 Average brood size 5.7 5.6 6.0 6.0 6.1 6.6 5.9 5.2 5.9 Ctoot brood index ka.6 18.8 19.4 18.5 16.6 34.8 25.3 2.1 16.4 Late -nesting index^ Dabblers : Mallard 0.8 l.k 1.6 3.2 12.2 15.3 14.4 14.7 7.7 Gadwall 0.9 0.2 1.1 1.2 7.9 7.0 6.5 8.6 2.6 American widgeon 0.2 0.2 0.1 1.1 5.2 2.4 2.4 ^.3 3.2 Green-winged teal 0.1 — 0.4 2.4 5.4 2.0 5.7 Blue-winged tesLL 0,9 0.1 0.1 0.3 7.'* 5.1 2.6 4.0 6.8 Shoveler 0.1 0.2 1.1 1.4 8.1 5.1 7.8 2.7 3.1 Pintail 0.8 — 0.1 0.2 7.7 11.7 8.4 5.2 11.9 Subtotal 3.8 2.1 4.1 7.4 48.9 49.0 ^7.5 41.5 41.0 Divers : Redhead ... 0.2 0.2 0.2 2.4 1.3 2.0 1.2 1.4 Canvasback — 0.2 0.5 0.6 1.6 1.2 Scaup 2.5 1.0 1.3 3.2 14.2 9.9 7.8 8.2 13.3 Ring- necked duck — — 0,3 — — Goldeneye — 0.1 0.1 — 0.7 0.4 Bufflehead 0.2 .-- --- --- ... --- --- 0.3 Ruddy duck 1.1 0,6 2.3 0.9 5.0 6.8 2.0 4.6 3.7 Subtotal 3.8 2.0 3.8 h^3 22.2 18.7 12.1 16.3 20.3 Grand total 7.6 4.1 7.9 11.7 71.1 67.7 59.6 57.8 61.3 1 Class II and III broods only. 2 As indicated by adult pairs and singles. 74 TABLE B-22. — Southern Alberta - waterfowl brood and late-nesting indexes by stratiJUD compared to previous year and 1956-62 average, I969 ^indez numbers in thousands/ Strata Total Average Percent change from Species 26 27 28 1968 1969 1956-62 1968 Average Broods: Duck brood index 1*6.6 79.0 16.1 9l*.8 11*1.7 21*9.8 ♦ 49.5 - 43.3 Average brood size-*- 5.8 6.7 5.2 5.2 5.9 5.8 * 13.5 ♦ 1.7 Coot brood index 2.6 13.5 0.3 2.1 16.1* 55.6 *68l.0 - 70.5 Late -nesting index :^ Dabblers : Mallard 2.1 3.1 2.5 ll*.7 7.7 l*.l Gadwall --- 0.7 1.9 8.6 2.6 1.8 Americein widgeon 1.1 0.7 1.1* 4.3 3.2 0.8 Green-winged teal 2.5 2.7 0.5 2.0 5.7 0.1 Blue-winged teal 3.0 0.7 3.1 1*.0 6.8 1.5 Shoveler 1.2 0.5 1.1* 2.7 3.1 0.8 Pintail 5.1 5.3 1.5 5.2 11.9 1.0 Subtotal 15.0 13.7 12.3 41.5 1*1.0 10,1 - 1.2 *305.9 Divers : Redhead _-_ 1.2 0.2 1.2 1.1* 0.5 Canvasback 0.5 0.7 1.6 1.2 0.3 Scaup k,Q 5.1 3^h 8.2 13.3 7.7 Ring-necked duck — — — — 0.1 Goldeneye 0.1* — 0.7 0.1* 0.1 Bufflehead — 0.3 — 0.3 0.2 Ruddy duck 1.1 1.1* 1.2 1*.6 3.7 2.9 Subtotal 6.8 8.1* 5.1 16.3 20.3 11.8 ♦ 21*. 5 ♦ 72.0 Greuad total 21.8 22.1 17.4 57.8 61.3 21.9 ♦ 6.0 >179.9 1 Class II and III broods only. 2 As indicated by adult pairs and singles. 75 0) U 01 > CO o to •H M CO P~ e o o c CO CO 1-1 CO 0) 01 C C o 6 On V-i vO ^2 I M o §^ iH CM I "^ c ^ CO >. > CO ■tJ )-l CO CO to >^ CO t/2 to 3 o •H > 0) M C (-4 x: •M O CO Xl I C I CO CO CN I pa w o H CM CO C CO en D O to u a) I C X 0) XI c en ^ CO CN W CN I -^ M (0 ^-> CO O W CN I '^ < u CO movDOiOt-ir^<3'c^cr>cor^iHr-~cNcr>o cNOOCT^o^~~0^^o^mCT\CT^t— ICMiHin cMn-(cNro C7\C^^0^CJ^O^CT>O^(TlO^C7^0^C7^O^CJ^CJ^O^C7^O^ i-lrHiHiHiHi-liHrHiHiHiHi-ltHrHiHi-liHiH a\ CN r^ cMvocNro-d-vor^mio r~r^ior~CNu~)0-^^~•-d■cMcnl-l-a■<^^-^voocM oo^^o■ococT>mcTvCNLnr^ cNma\cNr^cNiri.-iHv£)ro voX)CNCocNromcx) cNr^cNcoommvor^r^minoLncT^cNrHO r^cTii^oor^corOiHcOiHrocNCN^rniricNvD 00 r^ iH LO CO .H + I 00 in vD 00 1 Ml 1—1 CO CN c in CO e ti 0^ -C o o iH o M u iw >4-l 0) ■u £>U c 0^ 0^ CO QJ vO vO M CJ (J\ o\ 0) yt iH iH > 0) <; PM 76 to vO x-s 0^ W t-l -a C to w 3 ■ a. 00 ON ON ON CO <^ »4 VD (U ON ^ .H B 3 C X CN (U VD T3 ON c iH vD ON O ON CO 0) •H O cu lO r-- vo i-H £Ni ex) in ON CN CN • m 4-1 13 CJ 3 ■ • 13 T3 iH CO (J iH t-i CO ^ CO O 3: i-iiHco'a NO rH in in T-H vo vo o o -* m . cu 3 c , 3 00 "xa u-i T3 CO C tH iM TD (U CO M ^ > U "V C - _ , _ (UCUC0O-HO33 >oitijinpiopooi ro o CO CJN NO CN CN NO CN CN CM CO CO CN VO 00 CJN in vO CN CO CO 00 CM in T-H CO o 4-1 C/3 77 CO 0) 0) o 3 P. o ft 00 c •H -O 0) 0) u o <4-l U 0) 4J cd -a c CO CO o T3 (fl c Vj (U 01 V4 ,n 4J S 3 ^1 C CO (U -o X >% (U 0) 1 3 13 o c C iH -H •H ■u N— / 1 C o C CJ CO 1 S 1 0) CT. x; vo O 4J iH CO 1 ^ O to VD CO a\ CO iH C •> M CO 0) (U rC ^ ■u o 3 V o a !/: to 1 1 • ■* vD ^. ON CO o CN CO VD CO in fvj in CM vO vO o CN CJN a\ vo CM in si- vO in CT\ o m ON CM in CM CSI CO C^ rH 00 CM in CO vO CM 00 CO in CM CJs vO in vo iH CJN CM CO iH .. ^ CO tn o •U 3 iH 3 (U o o u CO TJ CO u OJ 4) 4J o C CO O iH o TJ CO )-i c u CO oo C H 0) CO ^ iJ CO iH 4J 60 3 o CO U 0) o (J C/2 H T3 o O o Q) CO in •H CAl s CO 0) 0) o CO u CO 4-1 o o u 78 to XI C CO CO o en u I c -a c (U (U w 0) W) c 3 (0 cfl O n x: •H 0) o > > 01 < 4-1 M c D. a) o ti M )-i O <0 (U M Q> PL< 14-1 t-. V4 in i-l a; Oi > iH o < 4-1 4-> 0) u M tfl 1-1 0) iH P p^ n) u ■u o en H 3 O n •H to > 0) OJ t^ M PL, en I w to tn 0) I < en (1) ■H O 0) o. to o CM CO I m n vD r~ fo r~ I I tH rH n 00 in I r-- I O in CM r^ O -* 1 m i-H iH iH CM vO in r~ ^ I— I CM 00 in r^ I vt in <3^ 00 00 ro I CO I i-( CM CO ro 00 m I Cr. CM CM n-l CM \0 CM -* iH CJ^ in CM VD o\ 1 r^ I CT\ I— I I— I 1— I iH CM m in CM -* m I — I in n CM <3N r- n i 1 CM CM CM r-- I 00 r~~ -* iH o ~a- I 00 cTi 00 o m r^ iH I rH CN CM \0 00 00 o 00 vD -* o I cTi iH in ro CM CO i-H .-I CO C to -H O 0) to 0) 4-1 OJ 60 4-1 •H (U -O & tJO dJ C oo C -H C to S a I •H e o 3 •• T3 TJ en M V4 (0 ^ 0) tH O 3 I 0) 01 iH I-H CO T) 0) 0) 3 ^ CO "H to 6 t-i iH M tJ 0) iH 3 -1 -H 13 0) CO > 4J -o O C O O cn^SMO<:opac/3p.,;2 ^ to o o 3 Q O CO in 00 vO CM 3 00 a\ 00 VD o ro in CO tn 00 vO o ro CM ro iH 1 1 CN 1 1 in 1 ro + in 1 CN CT\ vO ■-D r^ O VO CO 00 CO , tU 3 4J oj 0) x: XI o to en c 3 (1) -u • •ajtoci.iei)rH>, j3 enj:>3Mx)i4Hxi 3 MXlCtOCrHlMTD t/) (U(l)c0O'HO33 79 CO c CO CO o c •H CO u cu 1 c X •a c •H 0) 0) W) CO 60 c 3 CO CO o >4 J= •H (U a > > OJ < 4-1 M C p. 0) o 6 u u o CO (U M (U PLI iw 00 in a\ in iH CTv .H O 4-1 4-1 c 0) u >-i CO M ^ CO O 4-1 o CD H 3 o M •H CO > OJ (U >. M (X c:j CO CO w I PQ 4-1 CO CU PQ 4.) CO (0 w 1 < CO (U I < CD CU •H o 0^ CO r~ CTV r^ (» CO VO Cv| + 1 1 1 + 1 1 ex) r^ CO CO CO o> vO • • • • • • • C» VD in in o iH (M #h »* CO en csj r^ C3^ iH CJ\ CO CO • • • • • • • cn in r^ • • • • 1 1 1 r~ CM CN CN 1 1 1 o CD H o •u c o m ■H ^^ VI o m cfl CSl t ' o o •a C CO J-i CD y~s cu Cfl CM 4-> W CS CO 1 ^-' Vj pq 4-1 m i^ rCl ^^ e CO 3 j-i CD T3 ■u CO /-^ 0) c CO 01 iH 1^ cfl u ^ Ci (U CO u TJ 3 an pa c o •H •a C C o •H u Pu CO .^ o\ CO CO O B «o u W < iH m cu u . CO r-l <: 2 Q) *-i ^ O r\ 4J u to cfl M Q) CO >, cfl en CO 3 g o •H (U > ,c (U 4J 1-1 3 & O en 1 1 c cfl r>C CM 1 to pa >-< H 1*^ pa < H oCTiCNC7\CX3CNOrOCX)rOCNOOC^O-3-CXDvOCM OM~*C^i— ItHi— I rHrH 1-H r^• C^O^C^O^O^<3^0^O^O^G^O^O^C7^C3^O^Q^O^0^ MrHrHi-liHiHtHi-HrHr-lTHMrHiH,-H>Hr-li-H 3 CO o- iH CO 00 n in m CSl + I <3- OD in 00 -* CO + I HP^rO<}-vD 1 00 iH cfl CN C in CO e H en x: o o tH o u u <4-l M-l a; 4-1 cio C 0^ CO OJ vO ^o M O <3\ CTi CI) U r-{ iH > CD < ^ 82 as 00 OS ON -* vO ON /— \ iH en -T3 C n) m to VD 3 ON o T-^ ^ ■u c CNl •H vO ON cn rH M QJ Xi e iH 3 \D C ON 1—1 X o vD • > > vO vD r~~ ON 00 o n ■ • ■ ON VO 00 VO 00 00 00 lO en -* CnI fH I-l r-4 CN in in 1^ O iH ON CJN a\ CO o 00 00 -* CM iH CM CM rH -* CO VO vO 00 r-~ in CJN H CN 00 CM iH O 00 O O O -* vD vD 00 CO iH O CN Cvl I I -* CN to O >^ 0) 3 4-1 dJ O ^ O c •• T3 iH to [3 -H QJ iH o T3 x> QJ QJ x: XI O H o o •H U) Vj l-t o 1 s .H •H •M to tn C (3 QJ 4-1 O 1-1 QJ (-1 •U t-l nJ CO •H C 1 Q) to ,0 • • QJ to O. 1 QJ tH >^ ^ OJ ,D OO J3 in 0) iH & M QJ Q) > •U 3 tn x: > 3 O0T3 4-( XI 3 (X • • n) 0) .H .H 13 -i >H £ •H QJ QJ to O •H O 3 3 -O O 0) o 1 rD s o <: O PQ to P-i > Pi U to Pi O m pc; o P > o 0) CO •H o o <: u ^J Q Q u to eQ 1-1 83 Cfl 0) (U d •H bO C •H 4-1 CO (U C I T3 c cfl T3 o o ^ ,Q iH & O ^— N U-l cn u T3 (U C 4J cfl cfl w 15 3 o c ^ •H 4-1 13 c c •H (U u tn ■u 0) !-i 4D CO e (U 3 r -a C o (U X iH 13 OJ c T3 1 •H C 4J •H c: c ^^-y cfl o > (J 0) 1 -C 1 o ^ CO 3 C ►-) !-i OJ •s ^ m 4J d) 3 •H o CJ 1 0) 1 en 00 7 pq W (-1 m ^ iH cn c U O •H cfl cn P. O 4-1 o tH u 3 ^ T3 cfl M M >% M ^ Id T3 C CU cfl 4-1 cfl h- 1 a M •H T3 cn C cn •H cfl T-\ cn (J <: -H CM 84 0) CU 60 M ^D 00 CN CN t-l CO CN 4-1 <: 1 + 1 + + + + + + + + + 1 + ' + 1 + C 1 (U 1 ro o rH vD \£) in in r^ r^ O r-i r^ O in in 00 CO o g 00 • • • • • • • 1 1 • • . 1-1 o \D cjs CN r~- in o CO r~- o in cn r^ so in 00 1 1 IN CO 00 0) )-i CJs CO iH vO CJs .H in ro > CJS CN -* CN iH CN CN in Csl cfl O iH iH 4-1 O H to 3 o u Lo o o iH -* CO o SO 00 r^ in o vr r~ 00 O CJS •H to • • ■ • • • • 1 1 • • • > QJ tH u-| i 00 i-H CN sD 1— ( )-i /^\ PM c in CN iH C3S ro CN 00 r^ CO CM r^ r-~- ~3- (3 c_) cn • • ■ • • • 1 • • • • 1 1 1 1 1 • . CD so tH CN o 00 CN 00 00 c to CN • • • ... 1 . 1 . . • 1 • 1 1 • 1 • •H W tN 1 ■^ oo in >H CN so so 1 CO 1 SO in CO O 1 r-t 1 1 O 1 CN cn m M 0) g ^ 3 4-1 4-1 CO ^-s 00 r^ OS in .-4 00 CN f— 1 CN >-( o O sD O o trs in p rt (U 1—1 • • • • • • • 1 1 • • • c 4J :2 (>4 1 -^ i-H in in SO J 1 1 CN CN 00 X V2 m 0) X) c •H 4-1 tn ^v O -H vO r-i CN o SO 1— 1 in >— 1 sD Csl CO CN in CM to o • • • • • 1 • 1 1 • W csi crs vo T-H 00 CN OJ tH -* I-H iH o O 1 .H O 1 1 o CN CM < 4-1 cn ^^ cjs vD in iH O C3^ r^ sD SO -3- CO CN -* r-l < X (U 4-1 (U 3 tu tn tu 0) 00 4J -a •a T3 T3 T3 13 C TS c c •H 0) 13 13 •H O -H -H S 00 OJ tH M CD 13 ^ rH o C 00 CO o ^ tu to O to tn T3 Vj 13 M C -H C M 4-1 to O >^ 0) 3 4-1 (D O ^ O C • • 13 t-( to S -H 0) >-l o 13 43 OJ tu ^ 13 o ■H O O -H cn t-i fH O 1 S iH -H u to tn 3 C OJ 4-1 tj )-< (1) (-1 4-1 ^j CO CO -H C 1 OJ to ^ • • 0) CO o. 1 tu r-( > .o 4J 3 tn ^ > 3 00 13 '4-1 -n 3 &. .•to 0) rH>H'oa)(U3oc cn ^j T3 C to 13 i-( H-l TJ Crt t/2 cn ^ M 4-1 c ^cfltoivjiHx:-H (U 01 to o •H O 3 3 •a o (1) o 1 j3So Pi U Ui Pi (LD M Pi O 3 > O (U to •H O Q < U 4J Q Q u to cq ij 85 13 a) u to a. § n) S-l 4-t w >. rCl cn 0) X OJ T3 c •H 60 c •iH 4-) T3 Cfl OJ (U -J 1 •H 0) 4-1 /^^ iJ c cn CO o T) rH o 1 CO •a 1 cn c cri 3 CO \D O 0^ ^ T3 iH 4-J o o #1 C ^ Q) •H ,Q 00 CO cn iH (-1 j-i & 0) OJ o > ,£1 H-l CO Q) g C 4-1 M CO tu X S 4-1 1 OJ 13 1 00 C c •H c o N..^ CO rH s a) 13 rC c a CO 4-1 CO U ^ CO en (U CO >^ C/D tn C 3 (-1 O (U •H ^ > 4-1 (U 3 U O Oh CO 1 O 1 4J (3\ CN pq W hJ m -r-^ H (U oc ^ • • OJ LO cyi o 00 H 0> iH ON P. iH OJ 4-1 ^ c ^ CD >-l .H CN CO U CO . • ^ S-i 0) o 00 CO iH 3 >. r- a. CO u ^ e 4-1 o O tn o H t B-East C Previou (22) (23) year 1 1 1 1 1 1 00 r-- m rH 00 t^ CO 4-1 o tn a) u 3 00 •H C4H X T3 C •H 00 c •H 4-1 tn 4-> tn '-v LTl tu CO Q) 1— 1 1 • c ^ 3 (^g 1 CJ^ • 4J 1 ^-^ (~sl tn 0) CO t A-East B (20) 1 00 rsl Csl rH s and single 2-1962. Lat tn '-^ iH LO C U u-i OJ o^ ■ • O •H . to M M >^ o tn M rCl 3 13 O X) •n OJ tn (U c tu tn 0) C -H CO U CO •H CO CO to ^ o .H 4-1 M o tu <-\ O M •H 3 u <: <: Q H CM CO 86 TABLE B-30. — Southern Manitoba - long-term trend in pond indexes by strata with comparisons to average and previous year, May and July, 1969 /index numbers in thousands/ Year Stratum A Stratum B Total A and B May: 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 196U 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 Average 1954 through 1969 Percent change from 1969- 1968 1969 from 1954-1969 average July: 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 Average 1954 through 1969 Percent change from 1969- 1968 1969 from 1954-1969 average _ 258 428 686 315 428 743 391 615 1,006 262 404 666 352 264 616 160 482 642 324 295 619 158 263 421 135 295 430 298 331 629 398 331 729 327 478 805 372 515 887 315 547 862 119 238 357 208 246 454 279 394 673 ♦ 75 ♦ 3 + 27 - 25 - 38 - 33 473 384 857 339 271 610 425 411 836 241 260 501 163 341 504 96 325 420 164 212 376 41 86 129 97 135 232 145 178 323 201 182 383 129 260 389 167 240 407 100 174 274 48 116 164 158 187 345 189 238 427 +229 + 61 +110 - 16 - 21 - 19 JO 0) B B o •rl ■P cd 1-1 R R bO C 0) 0) t4 l-i 73 B 0) ■P to 0) >. I o I CO O \D 4J 0\ c •-* u 0) •> •o B CO (0 p O •tJ (0 0\ 00 VO VO ON VO VO ON in VO Ov vO n VO Ov CN VO Ov VO Ov o VO Ov 00 CO m CO 00 <-i Ov • ••••• rs. ^ ^ VO r-l CO CN pH J- ^ VO ^moinmvoovco CO ^ «o ^ CO CM o CM CO i-H CN CO CM CM m r-l CM O 1 CO r^ r^ CN m l-l in • 1 • • • • • • • CO r-f o in O CM l>^ o OV CN CO VO 4- in l-l i-H J- i-ll-IOOr-ir^rHOVVO • ••••••• CM Ct J- CO VO 00 00 OV rH CM CM CM « O CN i-< in CN CM • ••••• 00 CO CO CM CM ^ CN CO CO in OCMOOOCOCMOvO VO O O 00 00 r-l l-l CM (O CO ^ 0^cocNtv.ocor» • ••••••• cMi-i.d'incl-r^cOi-i CO r-l rH Ct CO VO CM 00 -d- Ov ^ CO Ov CM ov O CO r^ r-l ^ r-l :* l-l I ov VO CO i-H VO CO • I •••••• l-l <3v ov m ^ 00 CO r-l r^ 00 CO ■d' M CM CM CO CM r^ CM ov VO in • ••••• d- CM CM ^ CO r^ .-I ov m Ov 3 o CO I CO I pa I CO o m c o a> bo en a) •l-l o o .c CQ CO VO in CO ov CM vO CO OV in CO CM in CM 00 m CO +J o u X) 3 CO 1-4 o CO in VO o d' • •••••• CM 00 r-l l-l rH O 00 CM CM Ct r-l O r-l v CO CM • •••••• OV CO Ov ^ ^ CM Cf CM CO r>* r-l r-l CO CO Ov in m CN 00 • •••••• VO C3V 00 CO r^ CM CM d- CO rx CO J- r«» r-4 Ov r^ 00 VO • •••••• m o rs. CM CO r^ CO ■d- ^ VO ov O CO 00 00 Ov VO • •«•••• rH 00 CM r-l r-l CO r-4 CO CO r^ r-l 00 in r^ 00 r-4 ^^ VO • •••••• CO o m VO r^ in ■d' CO CO m rH m o r-4 ^ Ov in CM • •••••• CO CO VO CM CN rH 00 rH CM r^ Ov CO 00 in OV CO CO • •••••• CSV rH ^ m CO CO 00 CO rH <-l 00 •d' CJV VO VO rH 00 • •••••• m fN. in J- .:t -d- m CM CO Ct rH a 3 CO u > •i-i p a, 3 CO O CO U •o a; CO >> (U 0) x3 B (U 0) rH bO rO UH C rH . •O ■o ^ 3 CO CO 00 o 00 00 CO • r-l vO ov o J- VO CM 00 00 CO CM CO •p o •p J3 3 CO 88 >» .Q n « s ■o B •r4 e o ••-1 ■p (d iH §. o o. bO c \, •f4 ml •s ? 0) fl) M CO A a o i-t 03 % P (M C h •^ fl) ■M to at u » j -o ^X cd (U . c 1 •-^ O +J r-l C O 1 u e« 1 ^ o\ O VO 4J 0\ •r-l r-l C 1 IS ON C .-H ^ QJ •« ji (0 ■P 0) a .r^ o o w a) 1 a 1 0) • i-i CO eg H h3 (Q < H o\ o\ 00 VO ON vO ON VO VO o\ in VO o\ vO Ov CO VO Ov CM VO Ov VO OV O VO Ov in o •f-l u a) a I PI I • (N •H to 4-1 0) (0 tH M CJ (0 0) o y CO o 3 O en I c^ *? n CO c CO 3 o CO u 0) -i 3 3 X (U 13 3 a o u ^ U 0) c« bl X QJ CC QJ >, (-1 -d I 01 C u-i > M .H ca 4J 3 (U 0) OUDO o CvD ;-! n)CT\ (U ^rH PL( o ON CM ^ B I CM cS 1 I + + I + CO rn t oo coC VO CM ^ CM VO I CM CO in CO CX3 1-1 cjs 00 I r~- ^ -d- vo iH CO in I CM .-( ~d- ^ vo -a-inominvDONCo CO -a- CO -a- CO CM o I CO 1—1 CM CO CM CM I O 00 vO O 00 O CO I CM CM in O iH CM O I i-H CM CM CO CO r^ r— 00 CO ON in I in I-H 00 ^D cy. i-H mi .H CM i-H CO 3 o CU BO -a T3 CO u 0) .H -Q CO O A! o 3 T3 .H i-< ^ to o s CO T) 1-1 CO pa o 0) -3 ClO (U 3 00 I 3 (U CD U ^ . O pq (73 4, 01 (U 42 3 CU . (U r-^ ao t3 it-< 3 iH o o •cd 4«! o 3 T3 =^ 3 P5 BS CO 4J o u 3 CO o u 0) 0^ to rH t4-( S O 3 4-1 M n) 4-1 4J nj 0) c 0) n) >^ •H to 4-1 0) M U (« flj a. a. e M o o o 4-> •rl c 0) 4-1 o I I • CN CO Ifl -a c CO a o 4-1 CO •i 3 C 0) T5 d B o u >4-( Vj (1) ! "^ cfl M 1 X (U ca (U >. M 1 'O 1 0) C u-i > M rH (0 C i) 1 vo OJ 60 00 1 cs O C VD )-i n) CT\ + ON 00 CO o CN 00 fSI vO CN in -a- CM in CN 00 04 CN CN (U o CO 4-1 o to o •V (U 00 a •r-l to a cfl u OJ T3 o p< •• cd Crt (U G to to ca 4-1 OJ CJ o 8 o u 91 TABLE B-33-"Southem Manitoba - lone drake index: Long-term trend expressed as a percentage of total drakes, 1953-69 Year Mallard Pintail Canvasback Percent long drakes 1953 70.1 1954 79,6 1955 87.5 1956 79.4 1957 88.9 1958 81.9 1959 70.0 1960 86.5 1961 67.5 1962 62.0 1963 83.7 1964 78.0 1965 73.8 1966 84.6 1967 83.4 1968 73.4 66.0 73.4 72.5 1969 89.6 84.6 93.4 91.3 Lone drakes include only mallards, pintails, and canvasback. 92 •O c ni in D O X! 4-) cn u 0) S 3 C X 0) T3 C 0\ 0\ 00 v£> VO ON VO vO ON in VO ON J- VO OV CO VO ON CN VO ON VO ON o VO ON O n-i ^ ... ^ vO VO CN rH rx r^ C ... 4t d- CO i-H i-H O CN in CO CO r^ VO CO ON o in 00 CO t>. vO CO I-H in in CM r-l CN O 00 in in CN CN --< CO ^ in cvj m CO CO vO CO i-l ... in in in r^ in ^ in in J* CO rM vo 00 CO —I CM CN l-f in ^ I-H ^ CO r-l 1-1 1-1 in CN r-l CM .-H VO 1 1 CN CO CN r^ • . VO r-l ON in ^ CN VO • 00 ^ VO • t— 1 CO • in r^ CM CN CN| r-l ^-t a\ CO CO r»> CN r-l 1—1 in CM r-t ON CN • r-f 1— 1 • CO in • • m m CO 13.3 2.1 CO • • vO CN CM CN . CM 00 . • VO rH 1 1 00 • 1 CM 1 CN t^ ON rs. l-t vO CO VO rv CN f— * r-t ,-1 o GO '-* f— 1 CO r— 1 r— * in in O CN CM • CO VO in CN in . o in CO CM CM CM CM ON ON CO OS r-t O r-l CO • • • • 1 1 • rl CO ' 1 VO CO CO On VO . • . 1 1 1 • i—l 1 1 1 00 00 NO i-l 00 ... • 1 1 • r-l 1 1 CO m CO CO hv CO • • • 1 . 1 • ,-1 t-i 1 1 00 o ^ ^ ,-1 rH O . • « . 1 . • r-l CO 1 in 00 CO in r-l r^ CO . • • 1 . • . ■-I CM 1 VO rx rH t^ CM Cv) CM O rH r-l 00 r-l t^ rv 4t • t • 1 • 1 1 CM* CM ON ^ VO r-l in o rH CO r-l O ^ ^ CM ON m . • . . 1 • « r^ CM I CO CO O o On 00 CO CD •r4 O Q) a CO X (1) c o o u Xi to J*! TJ O O 3 O Q !-i PQ 0) N •rJ X m cu T3 C O •r^ O U T) J3 O O CD U bO Xi CO U -P t 8 < O X 0) c • • T3 rH U) iH rH U cfl cfl rj rH 5 r-l r-l 'O 43 n CO J3 S O CO Q C CO rH Ji! O (U CO o a) +j CO o >> a) 3 4-> CO :i -H 0) rH O ■n ,Q , .Q 1- Q) (U > ■P 3 cn x: > 3 60 T3 <« T3 3 a) oj 3 O c O) Ih t3 c CO C ^ H-l T3 CO E U rH jC aJ 0) 4) CO O •rl 5S5 -5 O CQ OT > BJ o CO o: 93 0\ CO C bO C •f4 +» ca e I a> ■p CO 00 vO ON VO VO CO VO VO CN T3 C cd •o o o S-l .o l-l 0) +J fl! -O T3 C 0) . C r-' c •> >-l CO a) (U 4i O a) CO (» I c^l t3 C CO m O ■p c •l-l CO l-l d) Xi X c in vO CJv VO en VO Ov VO VO C3\ O VO CJv CO (U u a) a CO CO J£ O a n CO 3 O c CO 0) a CO •l-l en CO CO CO CO CO CO 00 CO CN CO O H CO o r^ bO c •l-l CO -o c • CO >. l-< en c u 0 •iH CO CO a •o 8 ■p u 3 ,Q -o CO H M >> M JD T3 •o C OJ CO ■p CO l-l o M •l-l X) CO c CO •l-l CO l-l CO O < 94 m T3 ta (0 O c •H cn 01 -g 3 C X OJ T3 C bO U (U C n) « « (1) to U I d) -* > 3 1-1 0^ < rH T3 C e 00 3 VD J-) ON CO iH U 4J CO B 3N 3 VX> +J CJN CO iH U ■P CO 01 •H O 0) CU CO CO CO I ON + CO -* en iH in (» t-~ 1^ o -3- - o o <; cj CM (1) CO in (Tv iH vO S VO r^ rH CJN CM Cfl CM I W I + I + I o <)■ CJN CO I iH O O ■H 00 1 CM O CO CM \0 '-< + + + + + + m CM O -* rO tH CJN n iH CO VO iH >H CM CM r^ in iH rH H (3 CO iH O (U CO 0) 4J (U 00 iJ •H (U T3 S 00 0) vO a\ OJ o CO 00 fcl CO 00 + 1 CO 1 -a- -3- CO r-- 00 CO vo in m + I + I o I m + -* cjN o m CM CO 00 CM in o CO CO 0^ in CM 00 m CTN iH O iH rH CO I I I I 00 00 I iH I I I CO I III CM tH ON .H CJ 3 X) I I CO •• •« iH CO ^J iH 1-1 CO CO 0) -H S 01 tH 3 .H -H 0) CO > P ^.HT3010)3O C 42 •H I C 0) 01 00 C 1-1 CO 43 eg CO 43 S O CO Q CO ■M O iJ 43 3 CO T3 0) 4^ o CO CO en 0) CO a I tn 43 u -a (J pq CO CL, 95 > c 0) 0) CO CO I 00 CM + X) 4~, 0) 3 -l-i 01 0) 43 XI C C 0) 0) .H P>^ 3 OO XI M-l x) to C >H U-l X) _ _ . a -H O 3 3 >piCJCODiOmDi ■H to 4^ O 3 -a CO tn 3 o o 4-» 0) 3 CO 01 o tn CM 1^ 00 CO MD CO CO 00 in 00 00 CM CM C o tn X) o o 43 tn 01 ,-\ 00 c •H to XI c CO en 1-1 •H to a. 3 to O H 43 X3 0) ■u to o •H c •H CD tn CO tn TABLE B-36. — Montana - long-term trend in pond Indexes by strata with comparisons to average and previous year. May and July 1965-1969 /index numbers in thousands/ Stratum 40 Stratum 41 Year Stock dam Pothole Stream Stock dam Pothole Stream Total May: 1965 46.9 16.8 47.4 23.1 54.3 36.1 224.6 1966 33.9 3.8 59.9 30.0 33.6 46.0 207.2 1967 25.3 5.2 45.0 19.0 41.7 31.6 167.8 1968 21.1 5.7 37.7 15.8 16.6 21.4 118.2 1969 48.2 9.2 54.5 36.3 51.7 55.2 255.1 Average 1965-68 Percent change from 1968 179.5 116.0 Percent change from average 42.0 July: 1966 1967 1968 1969 19.9 26.5 23.5 35.3 1.4 41.7 14.8 10.3 37.6 125.7 3.5 37.4 15.9 12.5 28.1 123.9 3.0 31.0 16.3 6.2 20.0 100.3 5.0 52.2 27.9 16.2 48.3 184.9 Average 1966-68 116.6 Percent change £rom 1968 84. 347 Percent change from average 58.6 96 TABLE B-37. — Montana - trend In waterfowl breeding population Indexes by species, 1965-69 /Index numbers In thousands/ Species 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 Ducks: Dabblers : Mallard 233.2 362.8 172.7 126.0 166.1 Gadwall 52.1 60.0 35.8 38.0 35.0 American widgeon 24.7 29.7 38.1 47.9 53.3 Green-winged teal 7.7 10.2 11.7 10.9 3.4 Blue-winged teal 29.4 33.2 17.6 13.8 33.0 Shove ler 29.7 24.6 33.6 28.6 36.3 Pintail 163.3 162.5 128.3 44.4 76.5 Subtotal 540.1 683.0 437.8 309.6 403.6 Divers : Redhead 2.0 4.5 9.4 1.6 2.8 Canvasback 2.0 .5 1.7 2.6 3.4 Scaup 10.6 17.1 21.6 13.1 31.2 Ring-necked duck — — 3.5 1.4 .3 Goldeneye — Mw " ««• .9 Bufflehead -- — .1 1.0 1.5 Ruddy duck -. .. .9 1.2 12.5 Subtotal 14.6 22.1 37.2 20.9 52.6 Miscellaneous: Scoter — — — MM •■M Merganser ~ «»w — " — Other 2.4 3.5 3.2 .4 -- Total ducks 557.1 708.6 478.2 331.1 456.2 Geese : Canada goose «* — 7.3 5.5 8.4 Coots : American coot — " 6.0 15.4 8.0 Grand total 557.1 708.6 491.7 351.9 472.6 97 TABLE B-38. Montana - comparative status of waterfowl breeding population indexes by species and stratum /Index numbers in thousands/ Percent change Species Stratum Total Average 1965-1968 from 40 1969 41 1968 1969 1967 Average Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard 66.5 99.6 126,0 166.1 223.6 /32 -26 Gadwall 5.5 29.5 38.0 35.0 46.4 -8 -25 American widgeon 16.3 37.0 47.9 53.3 35.1 ni /52 Green-winged teal 1.2 2.2 10.9 3.4 10.1 -69 -66 Blue -winged teal 10.7 22.3 13.8 33.0 23.5 /1 39 /40 Shoveler 9.6 26.7 28.6 36.3 29.1 /26.9 /25 Pintail 15.3 61.2 44.4 76.5 124.6 /72 -39 Subtotal 125.1 278.5 309.6 403.6 492.6 /30 -18 Divers : Redhead .5 2.3 1.6 2.8 4.3 /75 -35 Canvas back — 3.4 2.6 3.4 1.7 /31 /lOO Scaup 12.5 18.7 13.1 31.2 15.6 /138 /lOO Ring-necked duck — .3 1.4 .3 — -80 — Goldeneye — .9 — .9 — — — Bufflehead .5 1.0 1.0 1.5 .5 /50 /200 Ruddy duck -. 12.5 1.2 12.5 1.0 ,<941 /1150 Subtotal 13.5 39.1 20.9 52.6 22.8 /152 /131 Miscellaneous: Merganser — — .4 — 1.8 -- — Total ducks 138.6 317.6 331.9 456.2 518.7 /37 -12 Geese: Canada goose 1.8 6.6 5.5 8.4 6.4 /53 /31 Coots 1.3 6.7 15.4 8.0 10.7 /48 -25 Grand total 141.7 330.9 351.8 472.6 525.8 /34 -10 98 TABLE B-39. — Montana - lone drake Index: long-term trend expressed as a percentage of total drakes, 1963-1969 Year Mallard Pintail Total 1965 69.7 76.1 72.3 1966 79.1 85.9 81.2 1967 78.4 87.2 82.4 1968 72.0 83.7 75.2 1969 66.3 69.4 62.7 Pintail 76. 1 85. 9 87. 2 83. 7 69. 4 99 V 4) eo M c « O O o S h< • • u • as £ 4) CM O Z CO s 4J g ^ CO t-l 1^ > e hi «> 4) IM s U 00 O ^ CO Q. hi ON O r-^ NO • CM o £ ^ vO N 1 CM w 1 f^ •o 41 M s 'it NO 00 .-1 O -* O 00 CO r*. CM «d eg 0* 1 in r-l 00 <^ ON 00 4 1^ d e > o> «n ■-I 8 < (-4 o g O CO 00 O NO r^ r^ vO CO CO ON lo CO m CO CM 00 1 r-i r* m 00 jj vO • • • • • • 1 • • • • «> ON r* »rt «>l ^ CO CO f-l CM S l-l NO r-i CM 4J ■ "iJI PsI o fO •* 5 r^ CO .-4 .-H ^ OQ O 1 ^ CM ON r». >> 00 -H CO 04 CM 4 "O vO • • • • • • 1 • • • • e o> CN4 <* f-l CO .-1 CNj CM O » S -< (-4 '* r-t (0 « U o r^ O ON •* »H fH >* o o to CO •o j: H NO • • 1 • • • • • • • • e 4J On lO <» 1 UO CM CM r-i i-l CM •H ■-^ 'J -^ ? 6 •w NO O «0 CM O «* CM ^ sO OO NO •r4 w NO . . 1 • • • • • • • • 4J s ON vO m 1 CO CM CM * p^ ON •o i-H ■O vO s <» e • •w in 1^ ON rH O CO NO 00 oo NO t 00 >^l 00 m CM oo in O ON 1 00 CM CM 00 so >o • • • • • • • • • • • ■o o* ON vO <* CM —1 «n g"^ 1 .-1 CM M •> w U3 0> « r^ CM 00 'J O ■«• s 00 hi ON 00 00 1 SO CM ON 1 CM • 1 '^ ca 4J NO • • 1 • • • 1 . 1 1 • o a> CO ON «* "<»• m <-* oo T-l hi S o V «* r^ r>. "^ CM ^ 00 00 * *NJ >0 CO CM 1 m • >o -* NO • • • • • • 1 • 1 • • » 0) ON m •* 1-4 <-H ■* 4J 1 1 00 1-4 t-i « e i-t f-l e o 4> a eg -1 at -1 N CM o 4) C« w « -rt K X "H. W 4) 6 "O 4) ca 4) 4) 00 u 0 e •O T3 •o •o •o S • e -Q e •rl O -W c T* 4> -O 1 •H » 00 41 f-l 0 e 00 4 • ca •O hi -o O 43 0 00 c •M a u 4J o 0) c •• "O rH Ct > -rl 4J -1 0 ^ •H 0 0 •»4 CO hi -* O 1 5 r-l H^ 4J 1 U hi 41 hi 4J hi C« Cd -H a 1 4> <« Ji n V J3 tOM « 4) -1 » hi .-H ^ •« 4) « 4) > 4J 3 a t» 4) 4) 3 O B CO u CO ca ^ h4 4J B SI5I H r^ J3 -H fJ •O U 4) 0 U BQ CO CLi CQ o p > 0 0 Q « u p. o u s « u 4J w *S,,fc >^ Ml M •fl e « « « « v g •o ^ e 4J •H a M •H C "O •H « M U 3 V< w e V 4) -H ^ 0 4J V o i 4J U u% < c u 0) «M u 00 »4 vO 0) ON 04 1-4 « 00 eo vO « 1 u iTt V SO > o> < 1-1 ON >o Ov 1-1 00 xO o> pH 1-1 « w o r^ H vO ON 1-1 NO NO o> I-t o> NO ON 1>H r-i •f 00 NO ON i 1-4 4-> Id w On *j NO CO § ON ft oo NO ON irt O 0) •H u (M o u -o a « « 4 - > Od O M •8 0) -9 JC ^ V « U U >s V 3 « 0) JS "O e c « O. I U f-i >N S OOTJ , M ^ 10 "O §0) 4J CO M O M ^ •o 09 C ea -r* rH (0 o < I CM 101 \o o\ I— I I 00 vO m >, > u p m c o 4-> CO r-t 3 O. o o. (U CO o o bO ca CO c cfl o CO c CO ■P c o I i-H 00 f-t in vo o o\ vO CJ^ m 04 o\ 00 f^ r-i r~ ^ ^ CO ^ CO 00 00 o cN CO tn r^ in fo <^ lo vo CO 00 CN .-H r-< C5 00 CO CM CN 00 O 00 O CM irv r^ VO CO CO o in CO c>) CO ^. CO ^ CM 00 ^ ^ vO CO ^ VO !>. CJv CM ^ o in CN Csl CO CO vO VO o vo IV, o in rv CM cjv ct 00 O 00 r— I I— I r-l ^ ^ ^ d- o m CO 3- ^ rH Cl- CO ^ in VO 1 o 00 > CO a 0) ^ o r-H 4J a) tn f-H C a in CO a) o •1-1 a) > u r-H S c CO CO •r* ji £i c ^ iJ •P -M +J a) 0) 1 3 3 (n rH a ••-1 O O ^ (1) a 5C CO CO » p U 3 CO c o •r-l ■P o 3 o CN rv O O 4- •d- O vO CO CO vo 00 r>- cjv r-l in in ov 00 CO CN vO (J\ in 00 i-i 1-1 f-l i-H CJ\ CO VO O cT O -H O 00 CM ^ ^ CM r^ .d- O VO in in CN 00 i-i r-j VO 00 CN CO 00 CO r-H 1-1 in CM >> a) r-l (1) 1-1 o- CO o 4) > rH C CO CO •1-1 jd a J ■p p a) 1 3 (n r-l •r^ O -•1 CU S CO ta re 0) CO CO (U p CO (U r— 1 60 bO 3 c V) T3 • 1-1 rH t-J CO 1-1 CO •I-I XS CO P (0 3 O O a (0 bO +J M II II II (U CO tS H 102 TABLE B-42. --North and South Dakota - long-term trend in pond indexes by strata and comparisons to average and previous years, May and July 1969 /index numbers in thousands/ Year Strata 30 and 33 May : 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 19681 1969 Average 1959-1968 Percent change 1969 from average Percent change 1969 from 1968 July 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968^ 1969 Average 1959-1968 Percent change 1969 Percent change 1969 from 1968 Adjusted for stratum boundary changes 103 209 397 105 348 413 207 338 475 523 384 699 340 + 105. 6 + 82. 0 110 311 108 231 275 211 245 471 328 314 570 260 + 119. 2 + 81. 5 in o CS ^^ ~w| •T3 C -3- to vO CO a\ 3 ^H O J2 AJ CI C O •H OS f—H tn M (U ^ CM e ^£) d OS c •— t X (U TS .— ( d vD •H OS OS OS 00 OS OS SO SO OS O OS cn (I) •H o OJ CO csi m r^ o vo OS r^ 00 r^ r- n .-H -d- -d- OS CO ^ o c>j r^ ^H «-H CN »— ' •— f sf -3- est o m o r^ O O J3 CJ3 PQ CO P-i in 00 so OS SO CM m CO 00 CN sD CM CO Cfl 4-1 O 4J J3 3 CO cjs in -s- CO CO CM in o -^ in CO CM •—! -3- m o -H m CN o -3- CN "-I — I <- so CO CM — I .-H I m sD r^ CN r-^ CO CM -H O --H O CO CO — I CN I I CO so CM —I O CO OS --H CO ^H t-H CN CO CM CN CM 00 OS CN i-H CN CO H cfl .. 01 U T3 dJ 01 o a •a T3 01 ^ O 3 > Pi O 0) d I >^ d T3 ■H 3 o CN CN in 00 00 -3- sD CO ~3 O CO CO CM CN SO J3 3 CO oo OS 00 OS m -3- -3 in OS in in o 00 00 so m CO CO CO in ■n CO o 3 o H 104 OJ Ul o o txO d tn as 0) CJ 0) o 0) CM CN -3- 00 -3- OS CN CM so SO m OS CM 00 -3- AJ O O CJ d o •H U 0) e <: OS -3- O so so Csl 00 00 o so SO Csl o sD OS SO 00 CO -3- so CO o so to iJ O d to u CJ ■a o d CO to to x: 4-j 4J to O 4-1 z; CO to X) cn u to 01 TABLE B-44. --North Dakota - comparative status of waterfowl population indexes by species and stratum, 1969 /index numbers in thousands/ Percent Species Stratum Total change 29 30 31 1968 1969 from 1968 Ducks : Dabblers : Mallard 5.3 134.9 62.6 114.0 202.8 + 77.9 Gadwall .6 91.5 5.3 96.5 97.4 + .9 American wid g eon .6 7.4 10.6 4.9 18.6 +279.6 Green-winged teal — 10.9 .8 2. 2 11.7 +431.8 Blue-winged teal 5.9 129.6 10.6 85. 2 146.1 + 71.5 Shoveler 1.4 83.4 18.5 37.3 103.3 +176.9 Pintail 3.3 124.2 22.5 48.0 150.0 +212.5 Subtotal 17.1 581.9 130.9 388.1 7 29.9 + 80.1 Divers : Redhead .3 38.9 — 17.4 39.2 +10 2.3 Canvasback 1.4 31.2 -- 9.9 32.6 +229.3 Scaup -- 16.4 2.5 8.9 18.9 +112.3 Ruddy duck .3 11.6 .3 5.7 12.2 +114.0 Ring-necked d uck — .3 — — .3 — Buf f lehead -- -- — — — -- Sub total 2.0 98.4 2.8 41.9 103 .2 +146.3 Scoter — — - — — — — Merganser s — — 1.5 — -" 1.5 — Total duck 19.1 680.3 135.2 430.0 834.6 + 94.1 Coots 1 2.0 49.1 .5 92. 1 51.6 - 43.9 Grand tota 21.1 729.4 135. 7 522. 1 886.2 + 69.7 Ponds 28.3 486.5 105.9 346.0 620.7 +449.5 105 TABLE B-45. — South Dakota - comparative status of waterfowl breeding population indexes by species and stratum, 1969 /index numbers in thousands/ Percent Species Stratum Total change from 1968 32 33 34 1968 1969 Ducks : Dabblers : Mallard 24 0 76.2 108 5 158. 1 208.7 + 32.0 Gadwall 9 7 53.7 13 8 62.6 77.2 + 23.3 American widgeon -- .3 16 9 12.3 17.2 + 39.8 Green-winged teal 1 1 3.6 1. 8 6.7 6.5 - 3.0 Blue-winged teal 24 4 90.0 12 7 65.5 127. 1 + 94.2 Shoveler 9 2 50.3 10 6 38. 6 70. 1 + 81.6 Pintail 12 3 66.5 13 1 42.9 91.9 +114.2 Subtotal 80 7 340.6 177 4 386. 7 598. 7 + 54.8 Divers : Redhead 9 16.2 2 7. 1 17.3 +142.3 Canvasb ack — 10.4 -- 1.8 10.4 +477.8 Scaup 1 1 4.1 2. 0 11. 7 7.2 - 38.5 Ring-necked duck -- -- -- — — -- Buf flehead — -- -- — -- — Ruddy duck 3 1.5 — 3.3 1.8 - 45.4 Subtotal 2.3 32.2 2.2 23.9 Scoter — — — — Merganser — — — — 36.7 + 53.5 Coots Total ducks Grand total 83.0 372. 8 179.6 410.6 635.4 4.3 29.2 2.5 57.8 36.0 87.3 402.0 182. 1 468.4 671.4 + 54.7 - 37.7 + 43.3 Ponds 151.5 275.2 151.2 305. 7 577.9 + 89.0 106 TABLE B-46. — North and South Dakota - lone drake index: expressed as percentage of total drakes, 1959-69 Year Percent lone drakes 1 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 45.5 73.3 67.1 73.9 77.7 67.6 66.6 69.6 78.4 70.3 73.7 Lone drakes include only mallards, pintails, and canvasback 107 TABLE B-U7. --North and South Dakota - waterfowl brood and late-nesting indexes by strata and compared to 1968 and the long-term average, 1969 /index numbers in thousands/ Strat a 30 and 33 Percent Percent Long--* ch ange change term average from — 1968 f rom-- 1969 1968 average Broods : Duck brood index Average brood size Coot brood index 48 . 1 26 .4 36.9 + 82. 2 + 30.3 6 16 4 .0 6 6 .0 .5 6. 1 6.5 + + 6 .7 146. 1 + 8.2 +146. 1 Late-nesting index^ Dabb lers : Mallard 15 3 12 .8 17. 0 + 19.5 - 10.0 Gadwall 22 2 7 .0 11.7 + 217. 1 + 89.7 American widgeon 4 — . 3 -- + 33.3 Green-winged teal 1 4 — .3 -- +366.7 Blue-winged teal 20 .7 1 .4 11.2 +1378.6 + 84.8 Shoveler 1 2 — .8 -- + 50.0 Pintail 4 8 — .9 — +433.3 Subtotal 66.0 21.2 42.2 + 211.3 + 56.4 Divers : Redhead 3.3 .3 1.2 +1000.0 +175.0 Canvasback — -- .1 — Scaup .7 — .1 — +600.0 Ruddy duck 8.3 5.1 6.6 + 62.7 + 25.7 Subtotal 12.3 5.4 8.0 + 127.8 + 53.7 Grand total 78.3 26.6 50.2 + 194.4 + 54.4 Water 570 384 3Z3 + 48.4 +52.8 ^Class II and III broods only. 2As indicated by adult pairs and singles. -"Long-term averages for strata 30 and 33 only 108 TABLE B-48. --North and South Dakota - waterfowl brood and late-nesting by stratum compared to 1968 and the long-term averages, 1969 /index numbers in thousands/ Strata Total Total Percent change 29 30 31 and and and All strata all f rom-- 32 33 34 1969 1968 1968 Broods: Duck brood ind "^ 1 size 9.0 50.9 34.2 94. 1 50.3 + 87.1 Average brood 5.0 6.3 5.2 5.9 5.4 + 9.2 Coot brood ind ex 2 ex 2. 1 17.2 — 19.3 8.1 +138.3 Late-nesting ind Dabblers : Mallard 3.3 16. 1 12.9 32.3 21 .9 + 47.5 Gadwall 1.8 23.5 1.0 26.3 10.7 +145.8 American wid geon -- . 4 2.8 3.2 3.7 - 13.5 Green-winged teal -- 1.3 1. 8 3.1 — — Blue-winged teal 2.9 21.1 1. 5 25.5 2.6 +880.8 Shoveler -- 1.5 1.0 2.5 .6 +316.7 Pintail ^ ^ 5.5 3. 1 8.6 " Subtotal 8.0 69. 4 24. 1 101.5 39.5 +157.0 Divers : Redhead .3 3. 2 — 3.5 .4 +775.0 Canvasback -- -- -- -- — — Scaup -- 1 .0 -- 1.0 — -- Ruddy duck . 6 8.3 — — 8.9 5.8 + 53.4 Subtotal .9 12. 5 __ 13.4 6.2 + 116. 1 Grand total Ponds 8.9 81.9 24. 1 114.9 121 . 1 626.4 174.4 921.9 45.7 501.4 +151.4 + 83.9 ^Class II and III broods only. 2As indicated by adult pairs and singles, 109 TABLE B-U9. — ^Minnesota - waterfowl breeding population indexes for selected areas, 1968-1969 State State Species Stratum^ total 1968 total 1 and 2 3 4 5 1969 Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard 22,838 30,329 2,238 5,038 49,803 60,443 Gadwall 218 -- -- — 1,829 218 American widgeon 500 2,416 298 59 2,777 3,273 Green-winged teal 218 — -- 59 223 277 Blue-winged teal 20,487 24,693 746 908 63,349 46,834 Shoveler 1,559 3,355 -- 351 4,498 5,265 Pintail 1,836 3,623 — 498 801 5,957 Wood duck 1,802 1,208 — - -- 3,702 3,010 Subtotal 49,458 65,624 3,282 6,913 126,982 125,277 Divers : Redhead 3,009 2,818 — — 6,374 5,827 Canvas back 465 -- — — 3,329 465 Scaup^ 6,498 3,221 149 1,757 23,098 11,625 Ring-necked duck 5,698 671 373 205 7,548 6,947 Ruddy duck 1,383 3,087 — — 11,823 4,470 American Goldeneye^ 739 — 597 1,669 — 3,005 Subtotal 17,792 9,797 1,119 3,631 52,172 32,339 Total ducks 67,250 75,421 4,401 10,544 179,454 157,616 Coots 7,458 12,615 •-■> •••. 74,676 20,073 Total 74,708 88,036 4,401 10,544 154,130 177,689 The strata given here represent the following: 1 and 2 - High density of lake basins 3 - Moderate density of lake basins 4 - Infertile lake region of various lake densities 5 - Roseau and Red Lake bog region in northwestern Minnesota. 2 Scaup are not considered resident breeding ducks. 3 American goldeneyes tallied in strata 5 largely represent nonbreeders on large lakes. 110 TABLE B-50. — ^Minnesota - estimated number of breeding ducks adjusted for birds not seen by aerial crews in selected portions of Minnesota, 1969 Species Unadjusted population index Visibility rate Adjusted population index Calculated change from 1968 Mallard 60,443 0.60 101,000 none Blue-winged teal 46,834 0.29 162,000 +5% Ring-necked duck 6,947 0.72 9,700 -3% All ducks 157,616 0.44 369,000 -4% 111 TABLE B-51. — Chippewa National Forest, Minnesota - trend in waterfowl breeding populations by area, 1963-1969 Area 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 1969 Bowstring 238 245 301 178 138 277 217 Burns 107 109 87 93 114 41 119 Kitchie 112 204 162 160 163 200 252 Lower Pigeon 117 90 54 33 6 25 16 Mud Lake 251 141 150 170 — 120 110 Raven Lake 17 11 8 — 8 15 — Round Lake 327 729 445 283 511 262 235 Third River 141 178 365 201 142 72 177 Lake Winnibigoshish 568 309 300 210 220 247 73 Rabideau 247 247 178 211 181 150 103 Total 2,125 2,263 2,050 1,539 1,483 1,409 1,302 TABLE B -52 . — Chippewa National Forest, Minnesota - adult: juvenile ratios by species for all ducks, 1968-1969 1968 Ratio 1969 Species Adults Juveniles Adults Juveniles Ratio Mallard 229 474 1:2,0 155 431 1:2.7 American widgeon 64 136 1:2.0 35 78 1:2.2 Goldeneye 53 121 1:2.3 88 191 1:2.1 Blue-winged teal 16 18 1:1.1 27 30 1:1.1 Ring-necked 22 40 1:1.8 37 52 1:1.6 Wood duck 76 104 1:1.4 72 69 1:0.9 Other 24 32 1:1.3 19 18 1:0.9 112 4J S 0) o e u (Si eg 0) a CO •o • c o CD 01 ji e bO 33 C o •fl flj bO 1^ ^^s-^s ♦ I + ♦ >o i-t ^ CO I-* in ^0 CN CM ♦ + + I o o o o o o o o o t*. ^ w <-• iH O >-• vO o\ CM l«» »-4 « d- » 00 ^ CO «•«•«•« •k «k » •< M ^ P^ » it 0> 00 o ^ CO CM ^ rH 1-1 o o o o o o o o o r*. vo ^ m to O r^ vO <-H 00 ^ f^ **^ CO O^ O^ rv CO •« «k •« a^ ««•«•«« •t 00 M 00 *o in in o o o o o I-l 00 rx ^ r-l 00 CM d- 00 o CM 3 0> CM 0> CN r-l CM 00 in CN. o\ f^ r-l 1-4 VO 0\ 1-1 1-4 •k 4^ «« • r«. flo CM it o ON 00 o o o 0> CM O o »n ^ t^ 0t »• ^ rH CO a a o bO c •1-1 S) :s ■a 0) •i-t o t CO oooo oooo inr^o*^ itvoinit ^cococo inooO"-< •k Vh •« » MAM I-l 1-1 to. CO r-l r*. O O O o • oooo CO »o ^ o 00 oo CO o 00 o\ in CM o oo CM m o CO •n o o CM I 0> CM I Jf CM O O I m CM I 00 o o o o o CO 4^ 00 « o ^ •-• C8 4) r-f 3 o •V x> a> W U 1-4 O 1 S C r^ •M •o 4J cd m r, 9 U a ei 'M G 1 B >f-i> ■M •S 3 « .B > 2 S' i-ir^'OIDVSOO B CO h -o c la c wS:§5-loffl CO £ § ^ ji G Q) 0) 1-4 bO-O «w CM U 3 T3 s CO 113 I I 0\ e (0 00 g ••-I 0> u •s eg CO 0) ••-I o 0) a CD CO 0) c •l-t c o 8. bO c •O 0) 0) c (0 I o o ■p to-o 6 0) CQ .fl CO +J ^ c I o I a • CQ 4J a 0) Q) too o e u ea a o H C o bc 00 VO (A c o (0 (0 X! S bO C o (d bO '^ OS a> r-« o ji

•^ o CO CO o o VO m m i-i * •k 00 in VO r-l o o lA < C» 1^ O CO 00 o FN. o Z •-* CM f :: o ^^ »-< o 0\ GO pH in 00 3 3 B 00 o 4-> ffi •o Li c T) £ U at 1-« > r-< >> ■H 01 \-i oi s u S d) u ^ ^ (B 4-} o Oj to 0 « c H 3 5 118 « c 3 t 4-1 V) a 3 j: m +j 3 e 0 0 m s o 01 < .1 0 c 01 bO c 5 u J-1 c 1 (U 1 g Q) I- 04 (W h bO E r-, r-< ^ -I -. ^ o O C z ■rJ . « )-• ON O 0 o» > ,-1 u 1 (1) C7V (0 in O ON p; j£ S u v nJ 1^ ■p p4 c n) to a) o g 0 0) CO VJ ■p t3 je 1 0) 0 +J i ■p to 0) u O -- O *~i r^ Z 01 c > .D o o o o o 3flo »rt CT« i 0) 01 s -- U (4 o > o o o o o CO O i-t -O csj m 00 r>. r-t ^ o o o o o CO ^ "> r-l hs CO f^ 00 ■-« r-t O O O O O *0 *0 ^^ fN »0 o o o o o »0 e*> 00 CN CO r^ CM ^ o o o o o 00 ■:t ^ 00 fN 4^ CN po in o o o o o ^ >0 vO *0 O 00 fO lA rH ^ o o rv 00 O O IN. r-« it m o o I s o o o O 3 o it 1 1 o 1 o o v£) s ^ (11 r-l 3 C > *J 3 n x: 3 TJ 3 ^ --^ t3 C O C w f ■o n T5 « m JO £ O b m (C (U (1) > a: •H ,K^ O Q O o 5 120 O to -H Z CO •-< "3 3 j5 a- >. +J rt a.' P o -. o '^ rH c > (13 G)' O ^ O ►! -I S CI] C > (0 CO o c >. ai a> S n ti to to CO < o o o o o CO to ov m »n (N ^ CM o m o o o o o O ^0 CT» 0\ o» --* 00 CT4 Ct «-« o o o o o o m »o o» ^ o\ r>^ •-• to 1-^ ■* CO i-t m CO o o o o o o *o o fN. en in CN CO ON 00 . *o CO o» r^ ^ . ■^ CNI o CM r^ O o O CN ON rs CO CO *rt •> •1 NO rH in o o o rH o rx 00 to •» M rH l-l CO o o o rH m rs* in ^ rv •t CN i-t ■* o o O ^ CN CN 00 vO r^ «s fO o ^ O o 5 cn »> CM o 1 o o n rM ^ 3 CM ^ pH >1 O ^d o >0 r-4 W .. X) ^ o 01 m ui s U (B ctj CO CD a) -^ 3 C r-» fH •o C CO 3 CO u Q 0) o. >, J3 en J= 3 T5 3 u •o (T3 "O CO 0) cy O 3 > a: CO Oj 3 S o 0) Ui 1.1 •o T3 . 00 CO it OV CO CO PS 00 01 vO • • • • • • • r-4 Ov l-l o o o ^ o ov •M rH vO t^ Ps. ov CN 4 «n a 0) !>. CM f-l PS. Px in m o S « • • • • • • • cS o> 9> d- o CO m CO t>. 3 1— 1 m 00 Ov ^ ts. CO CO CO l-« m CO m CM CM c^ lA ^ CO ■* m •-I Cvl CO a\ s -O ■-I • t-H • • ov VO • o rH • it • • «o 1 d- f-l rs ■* O ev vO •* « vO • • • « • • • a\ o\ J* r^ 4 iH •* m r^ t-H rH in VO P>. Ov i-i in CO >. 4) o\ Oi rH o ^ >o op 00 > « o O rH rH ps 3 in U o> in CO -* rx vO ^ in a r-l PI * «« CO CO rH r^ 00 l-l c4 00 CO CM rs, o CO CO 00 .Jl VO 4 OV O vO VO CO Ov Sj ON •» * •» ce (U CN rH rH vO i -p c 3 0 1^ CO 5 3 CO it 3 CO o rH OV . l>. CN CO rH 4J r^ VO P>» iH •* 00 4 i-i 1-4 «« •t o CO CM it m 4> ■P m 00 5 VO O Px VO rH U VO VO 00 m CM iH o S) o\ d- rH «^ VO VO Ov l-l «^ * ••-1 CM r-4 in (U ■g ^ in o VO Jt CO o 00 > 3 >> ^ 44 rH *t (0 c o G 1 3 3 3 1 s 8 >. >. u O • l-l +J *i 4) o >* 1-4 U4 c G >

ja o PQ M JD > P l-l <9 H ^ s ^ s ^ CD CO s 122 TABLE B-62. — Utah - species composition of breeding poimlatlons of waterfowl as determined from ground survey data, 1968-69 ^index ntmbers in thousands/ Northern Utah Southern Utah Species 1968 1969 1968 1969 Ducks: Dabblers: Mallard Gadwall American widgeon Green-winged teal Blue-winged teal Cinnamon teal Shove ler Pintail Divers : Redhead Scaup Bufflehead Canvas back Ruddy duck 11.3 10.4 12.4 17.4 Tr 0.1 0.7 0.5 1.6 0.3 15.5 10.0 7.1 6.0 8.3 7.1 30.7 13.1 34.6 14.6 13.3 14.7 15.2 13.6 1.3 0.8 3.0 6.6 1.5 0.7 15.7 17.3 7.1 7.5 10.1 9.7 20.7 17.5 1.8 0.6 — 0.5 Tr -_ 10.3 10.5 TABLE - .—Utah - Canada geese production index, 1968-69 Area Number of breed ing^pairs Nimber of yoxing 1968 1969 1968 1969 23 40 140 210 13 8 65 33 315 277 1,486 1,092 143 61 644 246 75 62 359 277 5 3 26 15 5 7 26 33 5 6 29 14 8 6 38 29 3 4 13 16 3 2 21 12 114 69 525 344 34 23 174 115 Cutler Reservoir Public shooting grounds Bear River Refuge and vicinity Ogden Bay Wildlife Management Area Farmington Bay Wildlife Management Area Scipio Reservoir Remond Lake Gunnison Reservoir Clear Lake Wildlife Management Area Mona Reservoir Wales Reservoir Rich County (Bear River) Brown's Park Wildlife Management Area Total 746 568 3,546 2,436 123 ox ON CM VO rH ir> rs. i«^ VO ^ CO CO rH rx r-> ON .» vO Oi 4 rH 00 m o 00 lA ^ ^ •-I ON M o r-l CN VO 1-4 CM 00 l-H 1 s f-l 00 (O l-l Oi 01 l-l v 00 l-t \o CO o in it f^ O VO in CM CM •^ o o> pH CO r-t CM in CO I-* 0) bO 3 «u (U u 60 Q) c o> vO VO 1 1 rH O O rH Jt i 1 r-4 m ON 00 ■P •l-l VO rH ^ 1 1 rH CN rH rH oo 1 r-l »n CO (0 p ON CM CM CO +J O to l-l n .21 u m 3 3 0 O u u fU •r^ W 00 ^ o CN rH I O CN CO CN CO 1 O CO in ON rH f-H CM CM CO o £ f-< 1-4 3 o j .p (S o» VO VO 1 1 I -5 1^ 4 1 1 1 3- ir> 3- r>» ^ 1 r^ rH CO CN (0 VO <-* rs, CO in 1 ON in 00 VO » c Ov rH r-t CO CO rH m 00 . O CO r-l o b u •1-1 (0 a Ov o o 1 m 00 o o o CO o 1 O o m r-t bO VO Ov 0> 1 ,-< ^ m o\ m ov 1 « in O VO c > Oi ^ ^ 1^ CN CN CN IN. CN o CO •f4 S l-l mt •. «. ■o CM rH CO 0) 0) c l-i a) ^ TJ ^ 00 rH O 1 CO CN CN CN ov C3V O 1 rH l-l o in Q) VO CN r-^ 1 CN CO .* "^ CO CM 1 CO in o> 1^ C ON CO CN ^ rH rH CO m m 00 •i-l r-l •• •. r-l 0) r-t i-H J> .Q +J 1 a Q) ,-1 5 tJ 0) O C > P 3 m £i 3 TS 3 O CO PQ CO rH rH »0 (U Q) 3 C O C CO u -o CO -O CO H -O •• ,0 (8 CO « JO S O S I-. rH .rJ X! -rJ ■§ C5 « O CO ft< (ji 0) O 3 •• cO 3 > Oi CO OS > e 0) o CM U (0 OS VO I CM 00 VO o\ so OS so OS n > Os < i-H (U bO ca c •^ CO ^ Q o rs| so CO u 0) > (1) i^ tfl B CO o I Os SO O OS 00 00 O o so OS 00 OS 00 00 OS CO + I to so 00 so o 00 CN CM CO 00 O f-i CO CO i-l CM CN O r^ f-l CM r-l ♦ ♦ + CN ^ 00 4- CM CO + ♦ ♦ OS 00 so 1-4 m CO o so 00 oo O i-l o I— I rH J- O •d' 3- -^ o> o r-4 CO o so CO 3 CO CM i-i CO CM VO r^ SO ^ CN 00 CN CN m so tn CO ^ CO CO CN CN OS OS CM 00 CO CO in CM U CO u > •I-l oi c CU 0) u CO F-l xs > 4J •-< U Oi o z u > 73 C •H c s bO ••-I A in CM O CN CO ex CO CO CO CJS C3S CM OS CN CJS J- m CN 0) (0 0) bO O 126 TABLE B-66. — Colorado - duck breeding population by species, and the 15-year average, 1969^ Species Number of breeding pairs 1954-1968^ 1969 1968 Average Species composition, percent 1969 1968 Average Ducks : Dabblers: Mallard 28,744 36,644 28,669 Blue-winged and Cinnamon teal 9,302 6,463 4,237 Pintail 4,355 7,970 3,306 Gadwall 5,942 8,425 4,132 American widgeon 1,870 343 547 Shove ler 2,750 3,645 1,785 Green-winged teal 12,924 5,411 1,591 Divers: Redhead 2,071 2,063 1,676 Others 1,067 1,750 1,139 41.6 50.4 60.9 13.5 8.9 9.0 6.3 11.0 7.0 8.6 11.6 8.8 2.7 0.5 1.2 4.0 5.0 3.8 18.7 7.4 3.4 3.0 2.8 3.6 1.6 2.4 2.3 Totals 69,025 72,714 47,082 100.0 100.0 100.0 ^ Change in observers may have had an effect on species composition. ^ San Luis Valley averages, included here, are for the years 1964-1968 only. 127 TABLE B-67. — Colorado - summary of duck breeding ground population estimates by area, and the 15-year average for comparison, 1969 Total estimated breed ing pairs Area 1969 1968 15-year average 1954-1968 San Luis Valley North Park2 Cache la Poudre Valley South Platte Valley Yampa Valley Brown's Park 27,425 22,111 9,057 6,769 2,146 1,517 27,611 19,777 7,403 14,000 2,985 938 27,549^ 7,093 2,525 5,721 2,920 206 Total 69,025 72,714 46,014 1 San Luis Valley averages are based on results of 1964-1968 only. The much less intensive coverage of previous years is not included in the calculations. Aerial counts corrected by species from visibility ratio obtained in the San Luis Valley. 128 TABLE B-68. — Nebraska - duck breeding population and species composition, 1968-1969 1968 1969 Percent 1969 Percent change Species population population composition £rom 1968 Ducks: Dabblers : Mallard 26,426 31,046 27.1 ♦17.5 Gadwall 10,733 17,810 15.5 ♦65.9 American widgeon — 265 .2 — Green-winged teal 174 112 .1 -35.6 Blue-winged ' teal 30,476 18,568 16.2 -39.0 Pintail 8,474 9,278 8.1 ♦ 9.5 Shove ler 18,952 16,275 14.2 -14.1 Divers : Redhead 5,255 2,940 2.6 -44.0 Canvasback 1,120 1,789 1.6 ♦59.7 Scaup 426 9,271 8.1 — Ruddy duck 5,686 5,936 5.2 ♦ 4.4 Bu££lehead — 1,337 1.1 — Total 107,722 114,627 100.0 ♦ 6.4 TABLE B-69 . — Nebraska, sandhills - duck breeding population and species composition, 1968-1969 Percent change Species 1969 Percent 1968 £rom 1968 Ducks: Dabblers : Mallard 26,653 26.5 24,112 ♦10.5 Gadwa 1 1 17,403 17.3 10,733 +62.1 American widgeon 265 .3 — — Green-winged teal — — 174 — Blue-winged teal 11,872 11.8 23,076 -48.5 Shove ler 15,293 15.2 17,657 -13.4 Pintail 7,833 7.8 8,243 - 0.5 Divers : Redhead 2,940 2.9 5,255 -44.0 Canvasback 1,789 1.8 1,120 -59.7 Scaup 9,271 9.2 426 — Ruddy duck 5,936 5.9 5,686 ♦ 4.4 Buf£lehead 1,337 1.3 — — Total 100,592 — 96,482 ♦ 4.3 129 TABLE B-70.— Nebraska, Rain Basin - duck breeding population and species composition, 1968-1969 Ground determination Air determination 1968 Percent population Species population Pbpulation Percent change air Ducks; Dabblers : Mallard 1,825 4,393 31.3 + 89.8 2,314 Gadwall 562 407 2.9 — — American widgeon 159 ~ ~ ~ — Green-winged teal 299 112 .8 — — Blue-winged • teal 8,157 6,696 47.7 - 10.5 7,400 Shove ler 1,948 982 7.0 - 24.1 1,295 Pintail 578 1,445 10.3 ♦525.0 231 Divers : Redhead 140 — — ' — — Canvas back 122 — - ~ — — Scaup 70 -- ~ — — Ruddy duck - 175 — ~ — — Total 14,035 14,035 100.0 ♦ 24.8 11,240 TABLE B-71, — Nebraska, Sandhills - duck brood survey data, 1969 Number of transects Itanber of square miles Number of square miles sampled Number of broods sighted Number of ducklings sighted Stratum A 48 10,869 108 29 143 Stratum B 16 5,363 36 4 19 Class I Class II B D 10 52 Class III Single broods ducklings All species 16 84 B D adults Pairs 7 26 7 1 Total broods of which good counts were made = 33 with 162 ducklings =4,91 ducklings/brood 130 1/3 H O H o 0) U QD 4) ." 4J to CO J3 ■a (11 , y CO jD 3 (U •O .-I I-l I— I T3 .-I .H ^ ^ (U -i -H d c: 1-1 -H 3 -u 01 CO C ^-' -u CO CO CO O -u 0) CO CO •H CO CU o 00 (U VO •H CT\ 4-J (U xi u d CO r— < to r^ 4-1 O O ON H .-H I I I— I I u H ■a o (U 4-1 4-1 d 4-1 to to p^ 1—1 1—1 4J |x< Cu •H >. CO CO to 1—1 10 t^ u to dj 1— < CH CO •[^ ^ to 1-1 PM fn to to to d o to to 01 CO o o in o o o o ro o o a\ I— 1 CN -d- -t CM r^ a\ r-) 00 I— 1 vO o o o o O CO O O v£> O O O O ^ O O CO 1-1 O O CM O O in vo en O O en o o tn CM t-~ 00 in 00 r^ en en I—) vO a\ 00 00 1-1 •d- -I o en -* CN O O en o o 00 O O o cn o 0^ o o T— 1 o o o o 0 d d a d d a c cfl to to CO CO to to Xi J3 Xi X J3 J= ^ o O o o o o tj 4J 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-1 4J 4-> d d d d d d d QJ CO ni 1— t •1-) 1—4 u to 4-1 X (1) Bl u CO CO 6 o Q iM o 3 .; •H a (U 4-1 O is 131 0) J2 00 C •i-l 3 T) CO 0) ■'■ to ra CO XI XI Q) , HI to to (U ^ •XI .:s ^ ^ CU +J u 3 to ^ o a to Pn a u-i •H •r-l •i-( 4J S t3 c T-H OJ O I-l U O •r-l to 1 T— 1 ^ 3 to >i •"—J y~\ U CO U T3 to ^ ^ O rt !-i O (U (U T—i o to 4J O fn cu C T) U 3 a tts Ji «.s u Jd J-l o O to ■l-( CJ 3 0) c •H p>. T3 3 CH to i-H •■-I •[3 ^ T3 .-4 tP -i-l >. CO ^H > j<: 43 pLi pL| tu •H TD I— I V-{ (U I— ) 4J > •■-1 0) (U j«: IJ -H to C U 0) ^ 3 4-1 X) to tu 3 to ■a u I— 1 i-H a ^-' o < tn c to •H ■^ c to O to o to tu •H (8 4J O CU (0 CU to E O. •r4 to 00 4J a to P-^-H QJ XI 4-1 a ^-^ c r-( o 3 i-H to •o JS to to 0) (U > e» (/3 (U ^ •H CJ^ tJ f-l 4-1 CU -a u c tu 1— J to r^ 4-» \o O e3^ H r-< 4J .— 1 CO to 4-J T3 O qi 4J 4-1 •H c » CJ •r-l >-. 4-1 to to ^ o o o- O O cvj o o o o O O i-t O O r~ o o <)■ o o •* ■— I r^ o -* O O vO o o LO I— I O O rn O O r^ O O r^ O O CJN 1^ en o o -d- en CM o en CM vO O O iri o o o o A -S 1 + „ ^ + „ .-1- CM r-l CO m CO 00 o o o o o o t o o o o o CU CU X) O u \o vo u o o !-i vO ^ u o CO u vO ^ u o vo !-l C3> (3^ tu CT> C3> CU a^ cr^ tu CTv C3^ 01 a\ c^ 01 tJ^ a^ cu c^ ON tu r— 1 r-l Ph r-H rH p-i r— 1 r-l P4 r-( r— 1 p- r— 1 r— 1 (U r-l r-l PM r-l r-l Hi • • to T3 a) X! ^ tu 4-J d CO 3 to CU ,:i! d T3 ■u CJ -r-l (U T3 3 4-1 00 (u d ,i to CO > " d 1 d tu to cu CO QJ r— 1 tu (U •H > 4J ■O XI > •r-l ^ tu 3 O o d O ■a d IJ -H u r— I X •r-4 o <% CO 4-J J, u nj CO to ^ ■V 1 to >^ •^-) ^-s Vj to iJ -O CO ^ ^ O CD IJ 0 m U »— t u to u O fn 01 c T3 4J 3 C to £ to B ■ri u ^ ^-> o u o to •r-l ■H >^ 3 •o ^ to 1-1 0) -f-l >^ p^ fa > ^ •n •H S-H 00 CO (U vO •H ON IJ .-1 U 0) -a Vj c to i-H to r^ ■U vO O tJ^ H -1 o O CN o o O O 0^ o o m .-1 Csj O O O O -d- in o- o o o vO o ^ O o o o CJN r-^ o o in o o CM in 1^ in •^ en CNJ CM O <3N m CM CN CN as CM 00 ON ON 0) ON tJN (U as C7N 01 ON ON 0) as CJN .iN 0) 3 3 XI o u Q) 01 J3 x> to CD 0) !h c a 01 3 > I 4J 0) 1 0) I—l >. O" QJ 1-H CO to 00 T3 14-1 •a CQ •H r-H QJ to c r-H 14-1 XI T3 !h •h u 0) •H o 3 3 r-H ■u ,:-, > J.i JD •H X3 r— I ■U > -H U ■!-( C 1-1 (U 3 JJ T3 J ^ C ^-^ O CO c CO -H ^ C CO O CO 01 CO 00 (D vD •r-l > 4-J to CO ^ >— I T— I 4-1 ft, < •i-l a •H P^ CO CO CD I— I to Pn CO >~, U to 0) T— I O fl4 o •^^ >, y-i to to <— I Ph Ph to a o to CO 01 CO O O ro O O vo O O u-l O O o O O O o o in O O O O O O O o o o- O O O O CO 00 CM CM 00 C3V O 00 00 vO r^ c:> in ^ .+ 1 « - -1- •« *^ 1 - ^ + *. •» 1 d vD ejv u-1 cM in e3^ r^ I— 1 .— 1 in Lo -* O- CM ^ in 00 CO o o o in O O CM O O 00 O O CM O O o o in o o o o o- o o O 00 c^ CJN 00 r^ CO « « 1 CO t o o o o o o o \o •— I O O vO o o 1-^ vD O O CO o o o o o o o o o O O CsJ o o o O O 00 o O r- o o ^ o O O VD O O CM o o o o O vo O O C CM t 00 <)• in CO ^ as in CO 00 "-1 00 o , « + . . + «t vs 1 + n « 1 in o\ •-t CO O CO CO so r^ csj CO o o o o o o o o O o CX> o o CO o o o o o o O o CM o o CO o o o CM 1 r-l 1 r~ in CO O I-l • . ^ en T3 - u 01 OJ I-l M t-l 01 T—l 01 4J ■a eu OJ to •iH 1-4 XI 0 0 ,C ^ 4J U -H •rH u o 4J .P P 4J ^ w CO ffl O o H 01 Pi 134 (U J5 00 a u 3 •u CO 0) •- u 0] CO CO C/3 ^ •O 0) 01 CO ■M C O CO C ■U Ij 3 o a a '^-> -M •H 4J i-H OJ O o I ^ 3 4J -a O CD T3 u 3 c CO j: CO S o 3 tS .-I CU -H >. > A! ^ (U •H -O >-l l-< (U ■— I ■Ul > -rl C M CU 3 4J T3 « 3 C ^-' O CO c CO -i-l ^ d CO O CO (U CO OJ •1-1 CO ■U U OJ CO cu CO Q p- -fl CO 00 4J C CO '^' C i-H 3 --I T) J= CO cu > c» 0) vO •H 0^ t-l ^ 4J (U "O u a CO I— I CO r^ U vO O Ov H r-< I I-H I o w pa T3 O ^ CO CO CO I CO 1—1 CO fa CO >% ^ CO OJ 1—) u fa u •H >^ CH CO CO i-H CO CO CO c O CO CO (U (/) o O 1—1 o O cs CJN r^ o- ON r~. Cs u-i in •■o (3N 1— ( vt pj vO r^ iri •H 4J CU I-l a P in >a- CJN 00 o o in o o <)• CJN oo I-l ON 00 r~ m o O O 1-1 O O o o o o o en O vO vO CO -I S o o a •a (U > •r-l 0) u a P o o o o H 135 a to VO ON (U 60 c •t-l I-l u ^ 3 to CO m ■u •H to ^ u CO J •H •■-) O ^ -a to 0) CO CO O (U O 4.) M to XI e T3 T-l r-H OJ U I-l > CO -H 0) 0) ^ 3 c 01 T3 > C (U CO to -H 1-1 dJ •U to to OJ •H ^^ U 0) CO a c >^ to ^~' CO T3 60 (u a > -H (U 4J •M C U 3 *-> x: (U I— I C\ CO I-l 4J o EH I I CM I o pq CO OJ u to 4J I-l CO to 4.J TD O (U 4-1 u •H c p o 4J to to >^ .—I i-H 4-1 pti a a •H ?>, CO to .2 ^ CO "—I CO fm •r< S to >, U CO 0) 1—1 o •H tS M-l to to >— I p-l fl-l to CO to o CO to HI CO o o o o o o o o O O vO O O c 01 CJ I-l OJ PL4 r^ 00 vO vO CJV CJv 01 60 c to CJ B OJ u I-l 01 p-l O O 00 O O I-H i~- m <)■ CO CO CO rH CTV O O P~ o o r^ CO CM vO CTv O I-H CM o o VO o o CM CJv o #t n 1 <1- 00 CO vt CO CM O O -it O O CO r-» 00 CN i-H O o o o c^ CO 00 <)■ i-H CO CO CN O O vD o o O CO 0) 60 a « O 4J a OJ r~~ oo CJ vo vO IJ CJv CJv OJ 1-H I-H pLi .. 1-H X) d 1-H OJ tu -^ i-H CO 4-> S •iH o OJ 0) c •^ o 0] CO o TD 00 o O iH d •V o o vw OJ to 01 to 60 60 1 m > T3 0) O 4-> 0) 1—1 01 to ^ OJ 4J O a to •H c Q 3 •H 60 to 5 o 4-1 I-l 4-J to c CO 1—1 g u o H •H d o 136 a IS (U 60 c 3 0) U OJ (8 CO 01 to OJ C o ex o to o Q) I u us O JJ M-l 0) •H (U D 4-1 J= O (U 3 m m •'- O (1) 0 -u >■ E T3 -H .-I 01 -U .—I > m -i-i CJ 01 ^ ^1 1-1 01 4J r-l T3 !-i ^ .-I C U 3 -O C 0) -H XI > C 0) to 01 to Q) e 01 i-l -H u OJ to a c >^ CO ^ 0) N-^ to T3 M 01 d > •H 01 U •W c Li 3 4J ^ 01 l-i (50 VO r-H (3> to r-) 4J O H 1 CM 1 u J pq < H to 01 4-1 (0 4J t-l c/2 to u XI O 01 4J U •H C O •H >^ 4-1 CO to ?^ 1—1 i-H 4J ft, a to (0 to 3 to |4 to >% tJ (0 OJ I— I tW CO O ?^ CO <-! CO to CO c o to to 0) t/3 O O vO O O .-H 00 m O O VD o o o- o in oo vO O o o o o o LO en tn u-1 01 00 a to o d OJ r^ oo o vD O IJ (3> t7^ 0) .-I .-I ptj O O 00 o o .-< <)■ 00 in en CM o o o- o o en o in CM 1-1 en CM O o o o 1^ m en en O O vo o o O O ^ to 0) 0) ■H I— 1 XJ ^ to 3 4J 4J I— 1 OJ o o u H c a M p T— 1 0) to O O bO CO to O erf en CO o o 00 u o 01 ex B w CO fx CO x> a to 137 o CO CU P-i m C o CO (U u u o to CO 0) i-l 4-1 <; tn 3 C •'-1^ u CO 01 C CO C 0) M 0) J3 T3 CO >J CEO J-1 to (0 o 3 XI 0) -1-1 to jn C H-l O >^ O to 4J to -H to 60 to •!-< to -U J2 60 O C to C 4J (U to C T3 3 3 >-.J= .-I •U O •^ 00 C P> vO -H •1-1 -, m (0 .-1 -, O £3 to H 3 T3 4-1 U to J-l ^ CU >i 01 3 4-1 to CL T3 C a to 3 XI 0) 3 XI 13 e to 3 o to CO U ■r^ CU 4J 4-1 C c o 3 4-1 XI o a. c to -!^ C cj to CO -r^ 3 to Q T3 0) to 3 T3 C O ■r-( to to i-> to to -r^ ;>> 0) e i-H 60 to -f-f •H CO CO rH to XI o Q (X C o to 13 to C tu to to 0) 60 4-1 C to ■H 4-1 4-1 CO c 3 J= O O 1-^ o o a\ o cs vt m CM o^ CM o o o o o CO 00 00 00 m 00 1—1 O O .< + o o iH CJ> rH 1-1 m m 00 00 O vo CJN oo 00 iH CO CM m CO <)■ en 1 O O rH O O CO O O O O CM CO CM 00 O ^ r, 1 n <\ 1 a^ e3^ CJ\ 00 1-4 i-H CM r-^ CM 1-1 1-1 e3v in -d- m CM O O 00 O O CO u N ^ •■o u •rH vO ^ u o vO vO u X vO vO Sh CO CJS t3\ 01 •H ON a\ CU 1-H a\ a\ tu I— ( C3\ cr. m CO a\ CJ> CU 1-H ,-i i-H (U U 1-1 1-4 CL, CO I-H 1—1 P-I o ^H 1-H Cti T3 rH 1-H Oi < < O CJ M 138 CO I •p^ C u-i o ■H a, CO . c •1-1 3 eu 4J J3 T3 o 3 CO 00 ■-' vO CJ 00 o> c 3 r-l -i-l •I-l 4J T3 CO C 3 --i 3 CO CO r^ O r-< vO 4J 3 C3^ 0 !-< •- M-l CO V4 ^ O C CO H 3 -O x: 4J U CO M rH (U >, 41 3 4-1 CO a. t3 3 Q CO 3 I-l .-H 0) 3 -Q T3 B CO 3 Z «-i O CO CO l-l -r^ C C CU 3 4J x; o o. c CO J«! O >-. C CJ CO CO T^ 3 CO Q 13 CO CO O 3 -a -o c CO CO >> a) r-l 00 CO •r^ CO CO c o CO Tl CO 3 CU CO CO 0) 00 4-) 3 CO •r-l 4J 4J CD 3 3 x: o o o o o .-^ o -d- O vO C*l PO eg 1-1 o o ^ O O ro On m O T^ lO m O O I O O o en CM O O -* O O r-l O 00 f. « 1 00 "^ lO 00 i~~ »-< c o O O \0 O O CM O O 00 O O -H 00 CO ., « 1 o o •* o o ^ 00 o o o O O rW O 00 •. f. 1 O vO c~- CM 1-1 r-l r~ 1-1 ^ CM T-< iH p^ vO 35 o o \o O O en o ^ o 04 CM en d O vO s* CO en vD , .<»• en mo »• •^ 1 •s •• "T" . . 1 r^ to vO o c^ vO -* 00 O O ,~4 r-l r^ 00 tH cn en en ON -a- m O ON r^ iri r» in ON m iTi -(- ,H o CM CM 00 1 ^ „ + •• •* ON CJN r-l f— 1 CM CN) ^ f-l 1-1 f-l 55 O NO c^ 00 o NO 1-1 I I nO cA 0) Id X! o r-l 4-1 CO 3 3 H (0 r-~ 00 O 4J NO NO ^ 3 ctn cjN (1) O 1-1 1-4 0^ in NO 1^ 00 CNJ o 1-4 1-4 I I no m o nO CJN 00 o o 1-1 1-1 I i in m O NO ON 00 o O I-l I-l I I m m NO m o o m 00 m CM en en en O nO On 00 o o 4) 00 3 CO .3 U CO T3 r^ 00 CO NO NO J> ON <3N 0) 1— I rH Z O CJ •I-l X . to O XI jn to C to to lU 4J to T-l > ao -H •H 4J to > C ■H 3 0) 4J x: -a o 3 to 00 --I M tT\ C C ^ -H •H ■U T3 to C C r-H 3 to to [^ I— ( o -tJ 0 .-H .- tM to !-i 0) to ■U 4J XI to 3 00 1 c I •,-( I 3 O T3 M r-l dJ to to 00 u o to o o X) H 00 00 XJ 1—1 to t— 1 to XI 3 )-l d ts (U 0 tu to 4-1 to to c to o Vj 3 0) o 0) x: CO 00 a. to O 00 ■u 3 to O T3 XI H to to 3 ^j d XI t3 tl) O to ^ to tj (U 3 to U d H 3 Q) X! i-H M to . o d to H 3 T3 to M 4J ij >i 0) .-I OJ to Cu 3 4J Q -O d to 3 x: 3 to CO to Ji! >. C o CO ---I 3 T3 0) to d o to ■X) to c ^ > rH ■-H 04 S s o O o O in ■<|- » d i-H 1-H CO d to XI o 4J CJ O en 4J 4-1 0) d T3 >. ai 3 CO r- OO o t-H >^0\ o u o ON 0) d .-H .-H .-1 CM H Pn r-H CO ^ f-H [14 CJ •H 14H •iH O CO (U tu 4J d •i-( 00 d 140 c u td to to Of •H c T3 •r-( U 0) 3 4J T) to c f^ o to 4J I u .-H 0 (x. D. o tJ u •r-l a. '^-l •1-1 ij U •i-i to Ql ei4 J= 4J w 4-1 hJ c ^ 3 XI r-( i-H to 3 •I-I • • H-l u r-l (U to c 3 (-1 to o CJ^fnc3^ V4-I 3 O O vO tor^^or^O^or^vor^vOvc D. tu o 4-1 x: 3 CO t*-l to S o 3 to 4J 4J ^ 4J c r-l tu tu U tu 3 JJ > o o T3 C •t-( CNl 00iX5ci-ivD,-Hm.-icN to tu C r^ r-ot-~cMc^JcMi-Hcsro,-iu-i c •l-l o XI 3 l-l ^ x: 0) o ^ to O^OOOOOOtOOtO 1 Ph to 0 1 c tx> vO 0^ r-4 to rH ocNivoOtni-Hin,— i,-ivOOcyicN to 4J o o a -1 3 to o X) 4J to -d- ,-HOmrOr-.vtcMCN100CMtX3 CN OcMmt3^t3^cMl-^opr^c-g,-^ H to T— 1 1— 1 ■-H r-4 to 3 •f-l t4-( 4J rH a' tn c 3 M tn .—1 a^er^^X)<^OOcslr-.cMl~^txD 0) o tu tu O LOr^p^r^r^T^i — \D 00 ^ \0 4J 14-1 3 o o iJ tJ ex tu o 4J x: 3 t/3 M-l to 3 o 3 tn 4J 4-J u c ,-^ tu 01 4-1 tu 3 4J > CN Of--^OCMC^CslOfn.-IOCXI 1^ o XI C •H .•^ r^exDoocor~.txiC3>t»CTNoor^ o )^J to 3 4-> a 0) x: O -l •H 4J ,-1 to ^J T3 to X 60 00 tu to COtfl dcOQJC cc 4-1 ^ O'4^MOt0T3SO tHt^ to tn N^MOXI-l-'cO O0J3XI6 4-1 to •H.-l.-ltOC>30)tOtoO C/2 f— 1 !-icOOX)00)fl)Vj4JtO>. 1 < <:ooi-i2:zzo»33 r^ >^ 00 to tn I tn .— ( o\ P4 n o CO Oi 01 4-1 c •l-l X3 u 00 (rt 4J CO .-1 (U 00 Xi • 4-1 o M-l O c o •l-l .u CO u 00 o LO a. n .— 1 4J 00 to en ,1-; 4J t-l >, CO t— 1 4J d O o 4J to >. (U to •o I 3 1— 1 tJ tL, c 141 Qt 1^ !-i *J u a o u (U 01 CO JJ (0 d •'* o ■u CO u CO C9 to lU 60 CO (U CO T) •° ^^ 13 'H O C W C CO d -i-i ^ 3 >>Xi to ■P r^ •H tXJ CO > O -M ■H 0> O o to "O d 60 CO d I M-l M -< to to 3 ^J d XI T3 CD O CO 4-1 CO ^ d CO O S-i 3 (U 3 dj J3 c« -o a. I CO . d o CO -i-l 3 Q T3 CO j«! d o o 3 T) -H •o d CO iJ to to tH r-( 60 to -i-l •H CO CO "—I eg XI o O p. a o CO XI CO d cu CO en ^ 1 - n 1 »\ #N 1 CO o 1—4 o o CO c-j <}■ t^^ CO CM 00 CM 1^ o o r^ OO 00 o ' CO CO 1-4 m CO CO r-< T-l CO CM O O 1-f O O t^ o o in CM -d- O CM (^ m r~ CO m CO CO o ». - 1 « .. 1 « »» 1 00 OO :?:? ^ vo CM CM O CO vC CO \0 \o I I CO CO CO in o -a- CO 00 00 I I O CO VD CO CO o o vO CO 00 O m N a) 3 4J r^ CM CM i-( CO 1-1 in NO ^ CO NO 1-4 r^ CO I-l CM C3N 1-4 to e.T3 d • ■ • • • • • • • • • • Q to 3 m -d- 1 NO m 1 in i S s Z a 142 t 1-1 cd u T3 U (U O 3 •1-1 a) 13 4-1 4J 4-1 O to u C 3 I •H 1-1 I •O /-^ oj n! w w C M 01 3 0) (U 4J 00 Ul C 0) 3 w S o U .1-1 01 .^ CO S O 01 3 3 "— ' •'-1 •a 4-1 C J3 o o CO >^ CO ct) u 60 a) -H n) CO > 60 4-1 •o d o d -H cfl (fl 4J d 0) pN 3 -d 4-1 x: 3 > 00 o •1-4 vD d 4J -< d J3 13 oj O cd 4-1 CO ^ d td o (J 3 CU 3 CU x: c/3 T3 ex I td CU CO 4-1 4J >^ o d Cd H 3 T3 4-1 U CO 1-1 1-1 CU >-, CU 3 4-1 Cd CU T3 d Q td 3 Xi d to ^ o >i d cj to cd T-i 3 cd a -do; d o 0) 0 o 3 -a T) d to td CO 1-1 60 to •H td to td J3 O O a- d a) (U 60 4J d td th 4J 4-1 en d 3 4= O O 1^ o o o in in r~~ CO 1—1 in O O I O O 1-1 O O vO O CO r^ in CM CX3 o 1—1 in in O O f-~ O o -3- 00 00 « . I in <■ ro cNi CM 1-1 ■ 1-1 00 vO - . + -a- in CO o o -a- CO in CO in CO CO 00 I I vO VD I I CO CO CU 01 0) 0) 00 00 bO % td § C CI B (d J3 4-1 X! J3 J3 o o O o U cd 4-1 A! cd 4-1 4J 1—1 4-1 0 O d Q d d M d CU aj ,• a) d a) r*. 00 a J3 r-^ CO u CO P~ 00 o •H t--. 00 u ti ^ o u 4J vD vO i-i cd vO vO u 0 vO vD V4 T—l o^ 0^ OJ 3 t3> a\ aj X t3^ ej\ a) O tT\ OV ai ,^ 1—1 i-H P-i 0 1-1 rH CU 01 iH r-^ P-i ^,-1 1-1 (l4 O cn H 3 o o , d I I I I I I Cd r-~ 00 >> ON er. 1-H 1-H 1-H 60 d cd XI CJ 4J d 01 o M aj td •a o I -iH CO 4-1 CO CO a) a) 3 CO e d o •iH CO U 3 d T3 O CO td cd 4-1 cd 1-H a) d S o CO to cd cd 0) CO d o a) CO 4-1 cd td a) 1-H CO 14H a) o • td d P>^ >H o Cd x) -r^ ;s to >N "O CO 1-H »H -H Pm Cd B 1-1 o 1—1 1—1 td td 01 !h e x; 4J 4-1 d 0) 01 4-1 o O cd 4-1 i-H 01 OJ j3 >. 3 4-1 cd t3 •o d I CO •H CO 01 X; CM 4-1 4-1 td •iH aj B 3 xi -r^ 60 d 60 •H d >>-l-l 1-1 >H 3 a) -u T3 aJ 00 00 Cd X3 CO .;«! o 3 T) •a d cd 4-1 (H o aj 4-1 4-1 cd d .d 3 4-" XI ^ to 1-1 >, d td o xi CO CO c 3 U CO 3 O O 73 C •H 3 . •H T3 •■-1 V4 ^ x: o O CO d d d o o r-t O o 4-1 C h QJ O C P CO 1 Ph CO O XI 1 c •H r^ (» iJ kd o ■U ON a\ 00 0^ p^ 00 CO ^ C3^ •r-l rH ^ Q, T3 m o o O l-l ej> 1— I CM O r-~ vD ■o 3 CO O <» 3 M -o r-4 I-H o CO 3 D. >. ■r^ y-i O CO 4-1 ,-1 01 CO ^^ C 3 u to ^4 O T3 C •r4 CM S O JZ 4-1 -d CO J>! X Q g a 00 CO CO CO CO C CO QJ o c I H 4-1 !-l CO CO CO S XI JZ x: to -iH ri Vi o CO 4-1 1-. 4J to 4J CO E I— 1 P9 f-H c c XI g tj 1 — 1 3 X o b <: o 3^ QJ QJ O Ji o 01 >-. H 1 u s z a o 1/1 H 3 >s Cfl I I-H CO V4 4-1 c QJ O QJ X X 4-1 •iH 60 C 01 XI 4J c o •iH 4-1 Vl o ex 4-1 CO x: c o CO QJ •a 3 144 rH C u rt W 00 4J 0 n) o o ^ H 00 00 ■u ^ td r— H CO XI d Vj c -o -i a 01 o 0) x; C/2 00 a ■-H ^ O O r~~ O O O O CM O O .-1 rt o 00 O O ro O O LO o o in O O --I O O 'X> 4-> 3 <« ^ ro r-l 00 0> 0^ vD -a- 00 00 O T3 X r, ^ 1 «s *> 1 •^ «t 1 .. . 1 - » 1 H r^ 00 Oi r-( r^ 0^ o <^ fn ^ r^ -3- CO o 00 (T< vO iri CO CO CO 1-1 ■-I oo r-H (0 n) P u C J3 13 d) o « 4-i tn J«i c n) o S-i 3 0) 3 a) JS w T3 a rH l-i O o 0^ o o VD O o 00 o O CM O o \D (fl (U 03 O o o o CO o o eg o o o o CM 4-t ■M >, CO XI •o 4J C CO C 01 3 3 ■U z 14H x: o o en ^ o >. c o en CO •H 3 CO Q T3 en ^ c O O 3 T) •r-< en T) c w 4-1 CO CO •r-l >^ a) B r-4 00 en •r-l •H CO en rH CO XI O Q c o C 0) CO en 01 00 ■u C CO .H 4J 4-1 M C 3 x; O O u-i O O rH -3- C7N O O O CM CM O O CO o o en r~- 00 1 <• CO in O O CM O O 00 O O CO 00 in - • I CM vD ~d- CM in - CO CO CM o o -* CM 00 o I I CM r-l CM CM CO r~~ CO CM 00 ^ t I -d- CO o o o O O CO 00 in -tf rH <■ CO CO r~- e3^ 00 vO rH O O I CO r^ rH r-- \D OJ I J-1 u 10 IH rH 0) m c3> r-- ■, 0) 3 4-1 O CO O 00 .-J CO 00 CO - en 4-1 4-1 u CO c CO en c 01 •r-l o CO c c 0) c 0) ^ r^ 00 a C r-- CO o c r^ 00 O CO r> 00 o • • r-- 00 o X vO o u CO vD \D IH •rl ^ >^ U •rl vO ■■o u CO vO o ^4 CO eT> a\ tu ^ C3^ ON eu r-l C3> a\ 0) 13 e3N ON 01 3 eJ^ CTi 0) ^^ r-* r-4 P-i u ^^ ^^ Pn rH <—l rH Ph C i-i r^ P-, 0 rH ^^ p« < < M M M lil5 OJ o o CO o o r~- o o CM O o -* o o M I w * 1 •^ •* + •> •• 1 •s « 1 E- 60 60 4-1 OO vC in o VO -3- r-l en > f— I CO r-l CD CO ^ 3 >-i I C T3 eu r^ CNi vO in in <- in VO en <3N in 00 r-l e3> r^ O eu CO 4J e» 00 00 vD CN r-l CN 1 — CN r-l <■ CN O m i-i en en C • • • • • • • • • • t- CO 0) O M 3 O D XI o o ' o o 1 o o + O o 1 o O 1 •H lyj 60 a O. a •i-( m ■o m IJ (U •H o 3 ^ ^ o o 1— 1 o o VO o o 4-( c CO CJ 60 o o \D o o -* o o ~3 o o • »s 1 •t r. 1 *• r- 1 ** ». 1 •• •> 1 S 4 Ov r-l CJV • (U U o CNI VO -a- CV4 CN r^ 1—1 J= 3 1 •t •t ■P •r^ 1 i-H rH -o ^— \ 4-1 C n) en i-i 60 t-1 •H d M CO CO 3 M CN in r-~ o en in r- ~a- 00 CN en r-l en CN m m C en ^ a • • • • • • • • • oj m 3 CO O V4 3 -3- CN 1 o r^ \ ^ CN 1 r- in 1 r— in 1 (U -U x: a) 3 (U J3 1—1 bO CO ly} T3 a E I-I •o -H o C -I-I •i-i cd u) c 0) 3 1 en >— ' •I— » ^ u o o a\ o O r^ o O <■ o o -a- o o -a- ^ CO (U en o o ^ 4-1 4-1 >. -a- r- r-- e3N en in o (>j vO -a- 3 C ^ O C CO •» #• 1 •* r. 1 f *. 1 » 1 «• *• 1 •o o H 3 T3 r- o r^ 00 in r-l r-l 1^ ejv en CO >. x: lO >3- o\ o -a r-^ C3V in O 00 H-i CO 4J VO m m <■ a\ r-~ r-l 0 0) •.-1 en > tn •H 60 60 4J cfl C O 4-1 >-l \0 1 — ro r-l C7\ CN 00 I-H r~- r-l in in en 00 rH X> -H CO en M r— 1 (U 00 o 1— 1 o CN r-l en o Cjv CD r-l r-l in rH 4-1 >^ (U 3 4J « • ■ • • • • • • T3 C (U CO D- -O C in in 1 vD in 1 in in 1 in in 1 in ~a 1 C 3 T3 Q CO 3 CO jd 3 r-l XI >,00 O 4-1 VO a #^s •H 0> ■•4 1-1 > -, 4J en CO •H en )-i f— 1 }-l T-l o o 00 O o 1 — o o r-^ o o 1—1 o o m 4J -a r-4 r-- 00 CJV -» 00 vD o C3V r-> 00 r~. 4-1 ■z CM xl O o 00 es\ 00 in -a- r-l r-l c ^ O d- 1-1 r-l r-{ •H CT* • «> N-^ 4J r-l en a CO 3 OJ •H c X! J2 43 en ^ o r~^ 4-) ?s C O en o o o o o o o t~~ O o I— 1 0) CO .r4 3 CO -a on S 60 eo Q -a eu o d C en >4-l -t-l o )-i u a. . 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i-H •r-t 60 en -r-l CO en t-< ^ en -a- en ~a- en <■ en -a- en u CO Q X3 O M hJ 3 d H e and g seaso (U 60 % XI CJ CO . 4-1 d 4-1 d 4-1 4-1 4-1 •H 4-4 CO -H a d CO d CO d o d en d 4J 4-1 o 01 •r-l eu 60 eu en (U en 01 lyi d 3 r-^ 00 o en r^- 00 o ■H r-. 00 o eu r^ 00 CJ •rl r-~ 00 ej 3 4J VO O V4 •H ^ VO u X vD vD u d VO vO u en vO vO u X d CTN CJ> (U 3 i iJ S s S 146 iH 0) O O vo o o en O o r- o o in O O vD CO (0 60 O O CN o o o o - ^ + - . ^- . . ^. » ► 1 H 60 cj\ en 00 00 in cx) vD O CM CO in CM ^ 1-1 CO 1-1 « CO J3 3 M I d -o 0) C» CN O vO 00 00 CO 00 in CO 00 CM r-- o in O tt) CO 4-1 VO in rH CM CN CM CO vC CM CM CM -3- -3- rH rH CO CO d • • • • • « • • • • fn CO O ^4 3 (1) 0 -i 3 01 d J3 T3 CU CT\ -^ O CM -a- CN v£) in 00 rH CO O -■ T3 -H O d iJ -H rt m d (U 3 1 U) v-- -i-l rH U O o ^o O O rH o o o O O CX3 o o o ^ CO (U CO O O rH O O rH O O CN o o O O CM O U) >^ 4-> 4J >> -3- ro <- m CO CTi CO t-^ CO rH 3 d J3 o d w H 3 13 « - 1 * ^ 1 « « 1 » - 1 . « 1 T3 o 00 00 , J2 o in C7\ r^ \D CM CM \0 vD O M-l CO U CO CM i-H ,-i rH i-H r-^ \D l-H rH O in -3- CO -H bO 00 -u 4J >-l nj d o CO IH rH 1) ^ CU 3 4-1 in r^ ^ t~- rH in rH ,-1 ON ^oo o J-l vD d ^-^ •H CTv •"-! rH > --t 4-1 CO CO •H CO Vj rH (J .H o o o\ o o -3- O O CM o o m O O CM 4-1 T3 >-< 0) 3 n 1 •t •« 1 . ^ 1 o 3 3 4-1 r^ r^ 0^ 00 <■ T-l o\ ■, d o CO o o O vO o o ° S 1 1 .-1 0) CO -H 3 CO -a- en <■ CN -3- CO -3- CO 1 1 S W> CO Q -a cu Odd CO M-l -r-l 0 l-i M CX (U 3 CO ^ c 4-1 la 1) U 0 CO M 3 T3 -r-l CO 3: -O d CO 4-) 1 CO « -H >% 0) B rH 60 CO 'H CXJ \D 00 ^ 1 1 00 vO 1 1 00 vD 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -3- n 60 CU d 0 CU 4-" d •H 4-1 4-) CU 4-1 •H 4.1 4-1 4J CO CO .H IH d d CO d CO d d 4-1 4J 3 QJ ai CO 0) d CU >? „ "H 4-1 t/3 d O r-- 00 O .. r-- CO o I) r^ oo o O r~- 00 o CO r-^ 00 CJ •rl 3 CO vc vO >H 0 ^ \o u C \0 \D u CJ vO vD M >, 0> CT^ CU ^ J3 CO 0^ C3N a) •rl CTi C^ a) d CJ> C3> 0) CO cr> cT» (U CX •H rH rH CU X rH rH CU CU rH rH PL| •H rH 1-1 pu, rH rH ,-H Ph C/2 s o H 3 fa rH 147 ^ r-4 CO 3 ■r-l .. 14-1 c 3 ^4 CO oO'-Hc»icNiootncx)oooxiONm o- •H D c o o 'd C ■r4 ,-ir^r^cjcN040"^csm-d-oo Q) 0) X o o c u CM <: C 3 J2 CO ao dl C 00 t-H o •-o ta CO e c^ M u n) .-1 4-1 O QJ f— ( c 4J 4-1 Or^f^cMt— ir-iincMocv]\Dr^Ooo LO C T3 o c to c tu o -O 3 tr^^^v0f^tn<^00vOe^0^oJ oo 00 •H (tf •r4 u rt X! 0.-li-H0000000tM o o j-i Fl4 0) o c P r^ 1 P-, CO O XI vO 1 C •1-1 ON 00 ^j .-1 ^ u 0^ m a> f— I CO r^cNrooorO"^oocsl. r-4 r—i O (0 to 3 ^^ •H • * t4-l 4J T-H 0) CO U -H d 3 u tn ,-HON00t^CJN •H U tj -o G •r-l oooN^i— iiOi^tnrorooooooooooo oo .-1 cx QJ x: O O 0) (U P4 <: to x; u 4-1 CO CO o. C (U e •■-1 ■-I to (0 CO u 4J CO to 4J O 0) CO ).{ c 4J 4-1 U~lr-lvOt^vOt^'-H^rHtnCNl^vi>CT\ u 4-1 a. 4-1 e» , C C 4J •f-i T-i 0) T-i >N CJ c CO coco^i-ico ,ijc0cootn^4 tntn to 3 ^tnod t_i^r-ibbcnto3 tnC I W J= toCCto 3C0T4eUT4O OJO fj XicOT-iT4c04-iT4x:CtotnOclo T-H § tO,iiSr-H'i33C3UCtntnT4Ctn fe i-H S-l .-1 C O 0) O T-l -rH •H T-I XI O ■r^ M-l CO 4-1 O tfl CJ 0) ctJ CO CO n) 60 -a ^ C 3 •i-( 1—1 T3 4J O c g c x: >i to 4J 00 i-l > C7\ 4-1 •H t-H O O t3 cd c •* rt CO bO C r~- •H \o -Q 4J o\ C cfl 3 OO OJ (U u u 3 CO xl I I u Ft] .—I CU CO CO 60 4-1 O CO 0 0,0 H 00 00 4-1 T-H CO r-4 CO J3 3 u a X) (U o , O C « H 3 13 J3 4-1 1-1 U> U •-< O >, QJ 3 4-1 CO CU T3 C a to 3 U r-i CU 3 J3 X) I « Z 14-1 CO CO CO Al >^ C O CO -r-l 3 Q T3 O O 3 X) -H CO X) C CO 4-1 CO CO -i-i >^ OJ B 1-H 60 to -H •r-l CO CO r-l CO J3 O Q a QJ OO iJ c CO -H 4-1 4-1 CO C 3 O O ro O O 00 00 ro iH m cj\ 00 r^ 1-1 CN ■* o o -I- O O 00 o o -a- 00 CN 1-1 r^ ro -3- ro i^ a> ro en 1-1 CO ro -4- O O - o /3 o o in 00 00 I CO in CN 1-1 O vO O O I O O 1-1 O O Csl en >.o <3^ <• vO 00 (X> t— 1 t— t r-l Cl, eu 1-1 I— 1 P^ u Q lil ej CU 60 C to X! o tu c •1-1 CO S r~- 00 en en C tu o I-l eu Pm 1U9 ■-I 0) o o <■ O o -a- o O CO o O NO O O .-1 to to 00 o O --4 O O in o O CO o o o o 4J O to ■^ o tu to 4J o tn I-l 1— 1 cNi cn o .— 1 J-t i-H rH -;t -a- ttt to to d • • • • • • • • • • I to o 1-4 3 ro n + o o + o o + t— 1 ■-I + O O 1 tu o •- + *N " 1 . .+ (U d H a\ CM o in r^ T-H o r^- CM CO CJ 4-1 o a\ c:> CO 00 >-i CnI CO CM ON ON Xi m o r-H >-H CM CM u d 1 •I—) 1 4-1 C XI ^^ r-l 00 r-H •r^ CS en CO to 3 i-i c tJ d XI X) tu 00 in r~ LTl o in o t— 1 CO ^ in r- O NO ON 0) 3 0) o CO 4-1 i-H tj\ r-- in in r- , r^ CM CO r^ o C^ CO r^ T-H NO 3 w t>% o d CO « '* t •\ ' + *• «% + n *i 1 *\ *> •i' XI ti XI H 3 XI 00 CO o r~. vD a\ m t-H ON NO o 43 t^ a^ .— 1 i-H CO CO in in OO (3N M-( to P*> t— 1 .—1 f— 1 ^ .—1 r-H CO CO O fl 4-1 01 *H in ixi > 00 •H 4J V4 tfl OO 4J to >-i ,-1 (U r^ LO O vo o in CO ON > tu 3 4J <• o o CO r-4 ON CM 00 CO <• •H ts to D-XJ d • • • • • • • • • X) ■!-> a CO 3 VO \o 1 in -* 1 in > r-H 4-1 CX3 O ^~\ ■H vO C r-l !> ON •H 4J to CO •H i-H u i-H )-l •r-l o o ■ •% C .-1 0) 3 to d J3 (U •H to M 0 I— 1 I— < .—I rH r-< jd XI P>s d o to o o in in m O O in in o r-H 4-1 to •H 3 CO m IT) -* •vT ~, o o >> to to tu ■ • tu 00 X) 4J 3 4-1 a 4-1 to 4-1 ^ 4J 4-1 d d d x; d d ^4 d u d to •H CO tu o tu c3 tu 0) 01 o tu 4-1 4-1 I— 1 r^ CO o CO r^ CO o 33 1^ 00 tj •-1 r^ 00 CJ >-i [^ CO o cy^ d !>^^£l ^ u to vD vO U vD \0 ^4 o NO u NO NO ^4 3 U I3S <3^ tu to CU 3 ON ON 0) S ON ON 0) 3 ON ON 0) x: CO 1— 1 ■-1 PM to .-1 .-H Ph tu r-l I— t PL. cu 1-1 rH a, tu --I rH pL, 150 u •rl C Vj Q) CO O 3 1-1 4-j d 4J -1-1 <; 13 4J (U c 4) -M O •ui 3 I •r-l I c -o .-^ •H n) (fl 3 (1) _ _ 3 00 4-1 4d cd T3 c M (U J 00 -H CO 00 4J O CO ^ c fi d 0) CO 3 T3 J3 3 >i ^ 4J (X) O •H vO C 4-1 o -o CO C CO 00 a r^ •H VD 4J CTl C rH 3 CO 3 o C4-I M (U 4-1 0) 00 CO c c 3 CO 13 3 I I a> I o r-l 0) CO CO 00 4-1 O CO O O XI H 00 00 4-) i-H CO r-4 CO ^ 3 ^4 C T3 0) (U CO 4J c JJ 3 Q) o CU J3 c/1 00 a, CO CO CO O ■-I ^ CO O 00 4J 3 CO 0X1,0 H t-H 00 CO CO C J3 O CO Al CO CJ CU 3 3 V4 •a o CO -u c M 3 0) XI a. t-H 1 ^4 CO tu CO 4-1 U >^ o C CO H 3 X) 4-1 ^4 CO t-4 r-4 . 0) 3 4-1 CO a. T3 C O CO 3 J3 CO CO CO ^ CO -iH 3 a 13 o o 3 'O -H en ■a c CO 4-1 CO U) T-i >. 1) B t— I 00 CO -H •H CO CO r-H CO XJ O Q a T3 CO a (u CO CO (U 00 4-1 C CO -H 4J 4-1 CO C 3 o o o o o 00 o CM CM o o o o o O O r-4 in CN d o i-i CU 151 ^ 0) O O vo o o o O O r^ o o f-- CO 0) 00 O O 1-1 o o o o o O O rH 4-1 O CO csl o\ rH CM r-( VO in rH in O O X3 M #1 1 + . * -1- •s r. 1 H 00 r-l 1-1 OV vD ro in CM CM -H £ 05 U) 4-1 •iH > iJ (1) 1-1 ,-( 00 ^ »-^ Q) CO CO 3 M c *-> C -D T3 1 4-14-1^ . « 1 . . -1- " ' + » . 1 u M C -Q o c to CM r-l vO 00 vO 00 (Ti vO J«! 3 H 3 TS o o o oo ^ X! 1-H 1-1 rH rH Z >iJ 0> tH O "-I U 4-1 U "• o m M t-i (U 13 C/3 TJ to >-. Q) 3 4-1 ON ^ to CM ro in CJv o rsi r^ in c^ C 00 c to O. T3 d Q to 3 0> CM n 00 -^ o o 00 CO CO to to 01 • ■ • • • • • • rH I-- 3 Xl -J- in + ro -* -f in in 1 in in 1 &■ •O vD i-l to C ON O S to rH C ^^ •r^ r— 1 o t>i a) 4-1 0) to 4-1 4-t X^ CO VJ 1-1 ^4 -H O O vO o o m O O VO o O m •r-t -U i-H to ^ X) 4-1 C r-- in 00 r-~ CM 00 in 00 01 •H 00 4J E CO d (u r. . 1 - - 1 ^ ^ + .. ^ 1 4-1 4-1 C O g 3 4-1 o> 00 r-l r-l \0 1^ o o to O •■-( -P z; 14-1 x: o rH 1-1 in r- r-l rH o CO M O CL ro ro CJN 00 o 3 •' \-^ •« M 1-H 00 -o m rH rH t-l C to to •H 03 -r-l c ■W 1) XI 0) ^ O rH ^^ rH C '-' >^ d O 01 o o in in 1 1 1 1 1-H 3 to (U to -M 3 to in in J 3 "O •■-1 01 w ^ OJ E 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4J 3 ^ 0) X) QJ 4-1 -rl 4J 4-1 •ri r-~ 00 o r^ 00 a to r^ 00 o 0) r^ 00 o •H x: c/5 d 00 vO vO (-1 4-1 vO vD >H S vO VO M F, ON CTv 0) 4J vO vO >-l rH 01 3 M Ov o~i 0) 01 crv C3> (U •H CT^ ON 0) O. tO x: •H r-l 1-1 pj 0) rH rH PL, rH rH rH Pl, C rH rH Ph c/1 :3 > 3 tH P rH CM 152 •H U o to to c u o tu en u C o c o c 60 a a o to 00 C ON O r-{ •l-l 3 C J3 to •H 1-1 r-^ u vO u) a\ •H ^ 13 0) ji u u to C 60 o c O X) tx o >^ M (0 ti 3 •i-l P-i J= u 4-1 •rH 4-) 13 c C to to i-H 4J T3 < 1— t O tu to J3 4-1 M a. c a •H m 4J to (0 M tlJ ^ iJ o c 3 3 X) x: «-l .-1 o 3 M-l to (0 u CO I) 0) ^ tJ H o 3 3 C (O .-I -o 10 c 4J to o H " I CO I !-l O QJ r-l 4-) > C O 3 H 1-1 § to •H U t-H c s B ^ to o 4J en CO OJ 4J to 4-1 C/2 intXjr^iOoOtXJcO'OCNlcOt— ^u^^3^^ocoo0f^ t^iri-d-i-4i— iin-jooo^^ r^ex>c»OOOOOOoot~-oooo u^mmotaOi-iO r~0O(X30OtX3CX)COeX3 ■— i^ONOtnc3\t-{tx3tX3r^roCT\(XiO"^"^i— ic^ d"r^OLOi-Hvo^ OLncx)tnc^aNcx)"^totx)CTNc7NiAoc?^cD0 OOiOOCM^OONI^^rO^fOOCJNCXJOO t3N c>4 .— ) CNi r^ cO(X)oot^<^tTir-~i— ioovotO\i>fO-tr— ir^CTNLO^foini-Hr^aNoo ONCINrOOOC-lOO'— IvOOOr^CNlCSlCMOOmoOi-H (^^i-^ 3 CO K to CX) J3 e 3 i-H o CO to (J CO 4J OJ u C •H to XI c •l-l CO •H 4J t4-4 4-1 •H I-H •H C ,-H c 3 O OJ J3 >~, 0 C to 0 •r-l u CO CO OJ V4 CO -H !-i M) ■r4 01 4-1 •d 3 CL CO a: CO > CO to to >J 4-1 V4 U to CO c 4: fc U i4 u -1 M U 4J •rA •r-l o CO •r-l •u • H to 0 CO QJ 0 >, c c > OJ 3 S-i •1-1 60 OJ t-i to K >-) >-i J= to OJ .c 0 ■I-l d CO 4J M u c >. CO 4-1 C XI u H 60 4-1 c .-H to o o •r4 )-i CO 3 3 3 ^ c 0 3 u u CO o OJ •T-l ,— 1 Q) to to CO 0) OJ OJ 0 ss 0 01 •H OJ o « « ta o S S 2! a a Z Z to > > S CO 4-1 O 4-1 d OJ 60 <: en t-H 00 •r4 • x; 0 Ph OJ rd 4-1 r-l 4-1 I— 1 CO vO T3 0 T-H (N 0 0^ CO •• t— ( CO a. H — 1 to r-l 4J CO to 4-1 0 OJ 4-1 XI 3 0 •d d 01 4-1 to •r^ OJ d 0 P Q i- IJ. S. GOVEKNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1970 O - 374-624 153 As the Nation's principal conservation agency, the Depart- ment of the Interior has basic responsibilities for water fish, wildlife, mineral, land, park, and recreational re- sources. Indian and Territorial affairs are other major concerns of America's "Department of Natural Resources." The Department works to assure the wisest choice in managing all our resources so each will make its full contribution to a better United States — now and in the future. CONSERVATION PLEDGE I give my pledge as an American to save and faithfully to defend from waste the natural resources of my country-its soil and minerals, forests, waters, and wildlife.