2008 NORTHEASTERN NATURALIST 15(2):241–248
American Woodcock on Fort Drum Military Installation,
New York
Christopher A. Dobony1,* and Raymond E. Rainbolt1
Abstract - American Woodcock singing-ground surveys (SGS) have been conducted
annually on Fort Drum Military Installation since 1992 (excluding 1993 and 2000).
These SGS indicate Fort Drum has a stable to slightly increasing breeding woodcock
population, with average numbers of males heard per route ranging between 13.00
and 22.58 birds. These numbers are significantly higher, and in stark contrast, to
many parts of the American Woodcock's range, where numbers have been in decline
for over 30 years. We suggest that current forest management practices and military
training create favorable successional regimes that satisfy all necessary life-history
requirements and help sustain these densities of breeding woodcock at Fort Drum.
Introduction
Scolopax minor (Gmelin) (American Woodcock) is a unique and popular
migratory game bird throughout eastern North America. Woodcock require
a mix of forest openings, clearings, or abandoned fields; dense, early successional
hardwood stands (preferably Alnus spp. [alder] or Populus spp.
[aspen]) on moist soils; and young, open, second-growth hardwood stands
to meet all specific life-history requirements (Cade 1985, Dessecker and
McAuley 2001, Keppie and Whiting 1994). However, in large portions of its
range, these requirements are increasingly absent due to changing land-use
practices and habitat loss through succession or development (Straw et al.
1994). Combined with possible decreased survival on wintering grounds in
the southeastern United States (Krementz and Berdeen 1997, Krementz et
al. 1994), woodcock populations have exhibited steep declines over the past
30 years (Kelley 2004).
Concern over population declines prompted the United States Fish
and Wildlife Service (USFWS) to include woodcock on the list of National
Species of Special Emphasis in 1982 (Cade 1985); and in 1985, the
USFWS imposed more restrictive hunting regulations in certain localities
in an attempt to alleviate population declines (Straw et al. 1994). Nonetheless,
woodcock still provided recreational hunting opportunities of
approximately 135,400 and 366,100 days afield in the Eastern and Central
Woodcock Management Regions in 2004 to 2005, respectively (Kelley
and Rau 2005). Partners in Flight (PIF) identified the American Woodcock
as a species of high overall or global priority (Rosenberg 2000), and
1 Natural Resources Branch, Environmental Division, US Army, 85 First Street
West, IMNE-DRM-PWE, Fort Drum, NY13602-5097. *Corresponding author -
chris.dobony@us.army.mil.
242 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 15, No. 2
the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies has created
a Woodcock Task Force to develop a woodcock conservation plan in an
effort to halt these declines (J.R. Kelley, USFWS Division of Migratory
Bird Management, Fort Snelling, MN, pers. comm.). Despite these efforts,
singing-ground surveys (SGS) in the East have shown a woodcock population
decline of 2 to 3% annually since the late 1960s (Dessecker and
Pursglove 2000, Kelley 2004). Only recently has there been any indication
of stabilization of the population.
Woodcock surveys were conducted annually on Fort Drum Military
Installation between 1992 and 2005, excluding 1993 and 2000. Based on survey
results, it was noted that the woodcock population was stable to slightly
increasing over the past decade. Here we present survey results and possible
reasons for these contrasting trends on Fort Drum.
Methods
Nineteen woodcock SGS transects were randomly established by the
USFWS (Claypoole et al. 1994) within or along the boundaries of Fort
Drum in 1992 (Fig. 1). Encompassing 43,442 ha, Fort Drum Military Installation
is located in northern New York in Jefferson and Lewis counties
(44°00'N, 75°49'W; Fig. 1). The installation includes a cantonment area,
Figure 1. Fort Drum Military Installation, Fort Drum, NY, with locations of woodcock
singing-ground survey routes.
2008 C.A. Dobony and R.E. Rainbolt 243
an impact area, an airfield, and 18 training areas. Training areas comprise
the majority of available woodcock habitat, including 5577 ha of rangeland
and grassland, 24,683 ha of forest and woodlands, and 7897 ha of wetlands
and open water.
Beginning in 1992, eight to fifteen 5.4-km transects have been
surveyed each year by Fort Drum natural resources personnel. Eight
transects were surveyed in 1992; 11 in 1997, 1998, and 1999; 12 in 2004
and 2005; 13 in 1996, 2001, 2002, and 2003; 14 in 1995; and 15 in 1994.
The number of transects surveyed each year depended on personnel and
budget constraints as well as military training activities. Six survey routes
(1, 2, 7, 11, 12, and 19) were eliminated because of continual military
training and/or traffic creating a high disturbance level annually. Surveys
followed USFWS protocol beginning 15 or 22 minutes after sunset (depending
on cloud cover), and were conducted between 25 April and 15
May. Observers stopped 10 times (every 0.6 km) and recorded all individual
male woodcock heard peenting. All efforts were made to allow no
more than two min to lapse between stops. Surveys were not conducted in
inclement weather (i.e., heavy precipitation, high winds, or temperatures
below 5 °C) or during periods of sustained disturbance (e.g., military
training, continual traffic noise, etc.)
We report average number of males recorded per route (excluding routes
1, 2, 7, 11, 12, and 19 as noted above) and the estimated population trends.
Numbers reported are total numbers heard; we did not incorporate “acceptable”
stops, as noted on the official USFWS data form. Comparisons to the
official USFWS SGS results utilize the same criteria (i.e., total numbers
heard, with no incorporation of “acceptable” stops). Table 1 notes any
known or potential biases associated with data collection.
Results
Counts were generally stable to slightly increasing on the installation
(Table 1, Fig. 2). Initially, in 1992, we heard 104 woodcock over six routes
for an average of 17.33 ± 3.59 (± SE) birds heard per route. In 2005, we
heard 271 birds over 12 routes for an average of 22.58 ± 2.72 (± SE) per
route. The highest numbers of males heard on the installation also occurred
in 2005. The lowest average numbers of males heard occurred in 1998 and
2001, with an average of 13.00 ± 3.12 and 13.00 ± 1.77 (± SE), respectively,
woodcock heard per route.
Discussion
Historically, few areas have been identified as having stable or increasing
populations of American Woodcock through SGS (Kelley 2004, Roberts
1989, Sauer and Bortner 1991). Only recently has the 10-year trend estimate
for 1995–2004 in the Eastern and Central Region represented no change—
244 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 15, No. 2
the first time since 1992 that the population had potentially stabilized with
no decrease (Kelley 2004). Conversely, we found that Fort Drum may have
a stable or slightly increasing population, and also may have among the
highest average densities of peenting male birds per survey route or area
reported in the northeast. Our lowest mean number of woodcock heard on
any of our individual routes from 1992–2005 (excluding 1993 and 2000)
was higher than 84.4% (579/686) of the mean number of males heard on
any individual routes identified throughout the northeastern portion of the
SGS range (estimated from counts summarized within the national USFWS
SGS results that were run for at least 2 years during the same time period as
our study). Further, only 1.75% (12/686) of the individual routes run in the
northeastern region during the time of our study averaged over 10 males.
On Fort Drum, 84.6% (11/13) of our individual routes had more than 10
males. In the northeastern region, only 0.6% (4/686) of all individual routes
averaged more than 15 males heard, whereas Fort Drum had 61.5% (8/13).
Additionally, there were no individual routes in the northeastern region that
averaged more than 20 males heard, whereas Fort Drum had 30.8% (4/13)
of routes with over 20 birds heard.
Table 1. Numbers of male woodcock heard “peenting” per year and per route on Fort Drum
Military Installation, Fort Drum, NY from 1992 to 2005 (excluding 1993 and 2000). NIA = no
information available.
RouteA
Year 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 13 14 15 16 17 18 MeanB
1992 18 18 NIAC NIAC 4 NIAC NIAC 11 27 NIAC NIAC NIAC 26 17.33
1994 18 5D 22 18 2 12 3D 22 27 19E 18 22D 17D 15.77
1995 11 16 8 12 4 21D 8D 11D 25 13 8 25 16D 13.69
1996 15 12 26 16 1 28D 5 8 15 22D 18 19 20 15.77
1997 3F 13G 24F 23 4 20 4 17 10 20 8 NIAC NIAC 13.27
1998 23 13 17 26 6 5 2 1 15 NIAC 4 31 NIAC 13.00
1999 12 11 25 27 8 4 6 11 25 NIAC 16 24 NIAC 15.36
2001 9 16 26 25 12 13 5 11 11 5E 12 14 10 13.00
2002 26 20 27 17 8 18 4 18 17 16 7 27 24 17.62
2003 15 30 21 29 5 17 5 27 28 14 15 37 26 20.69
2004 13 29 22 24 4 17 NIAH 15 16 10 8 21 18 16.42
2005 12 21 23 35 7 15 NIAI 24 20 30 15 33 36 22.58
MeanB 14.58 17.00 21.91 22.91 5.42 15.45 4.67 14.67 19.67 16.56 11.73 25.30 21.44
ARoutes 1, 2, 7, 11, 12, and 19 have been removed from analysis as noted in “Study Areas and
Methods.”
BAverages have not been adjusted for the noted biases.
CNo information was available in historic files.
DThe survey was conducted outside of the recommended period (i.e., April 25–May 15).
EThe route was run in the reverse order (i.e., the starting point was actually the normal ending
point).
FThe routes were run by inexperienced observers.
GThe stops along the route were made at every 0.2 mile, instead of 0.4 mile.
HThe survey could not be completed due to construction on the road.
IThe survey could not be completed due to high winds.
2008 C.A. Dobony and R.E. Rainbolt 245
During the same time period as our analysis, trends from throughout
New York averaged between 1.5 and 2.0 males per route statewide (Kelley
2004). For counties surrounding Fort Drum, average numbers of males heard
ranged from 0.83 to 7.75 on individual routes (R. Rau, USFWS Division of
Migratory Bird Management, Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel,
MD, pers. comm.). In light of these comparisons, we believe that Fort Drum
harbors a large breeding population of woodcock with numbers exceeding
regional and state routes. Currently, this locally (and perhaps regionally)
important breeding population is not being considered in regional and state
population assessments. We acknowledge that we are intensely monitoring
a local population versus the range-wide coverage of the national USFWS
SGS; however, based on routes monitored in the northeastern region, there
are no individual areas that have comparable populations of breeding males
as occur on Fort Drum. These refugia of habitats in large ownership blocks,
such as Fort Drum, would seem to be very important in sustaining overall
population numbers of woodcock. There may be similar numbers on intensely
managed private or commercial lands, but we have found no published
data from such places.
We suggest there are two main factors why woodcock numbers are high
on the installation: (1) topography/geography and (2) historic and current
land-use practices including farming, active land management (e.g., forest
management through Fort Drum’s Forest Management Program and
Figure 2. Average numbers of male woodcock heard per year and per route from
1992 to 2005 (excluding 1993 and 2000) on Fort Drum Military Installation, Fort
Drum, NY.
246 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 15, No. 2
shrub removal through Fort Drum’s Integrated Training Area Management
Program), and military training.
Approximately 66% of Fort Drum consists of low plains with little
topographic relief and soils that range from shallow and poorly drained
to deep and excessively drained. Prior to the late 1800s, the land area
supported mesic forests consisting of predominately mixed northern
hardwood species and xeric sand plains dominated by Quercus spp. (oak)
and Pinus spp. (pine). This area was logged and cleared for farming during
the late 1800s to early 1900s, however, all of these farmsteads ceased
operations with the expansion of Fort Drum in 1940. From 1945 to 1995,
there has been an increase of approximately 11,340 ha of forest land (J.E.
Wagner, Forest Management Program, Fort Drum, NY, pers. comm.),
as natural succession has occurred. The current landscape is a mosaic
of mixed northern hardwood and coniferous forests in predominately
early to mid-successional stages, interspersed with open rangelands, shrublands,
and wetland areas.
Because of varying soil characteristics on Fort Drum, vegetation growth
and distribution varies across the installation. Succession may proceed at a
slower rate on poorly drained soils such as clay, while loamy soils provide
a good medium for rapid vegetation growth after areas are opened up to
sunlight through timber harvesting or other soil-disturbing activities. Additionally,
some of the old agricultural fields were established in wetland
areas, and as these areas are allowed to revert back to wetlands, successional
regimes may have slowed here as well.
Other areas on Fort Drum have succession set back by either active land
management or military training activities. Small patch clearcuts (typically
2–3 ha in size) regenerate aspen stands and other early successional northern
hardwood species. Removal of woody vegetation to allow for greater
access and movement for military training also keeps areas in early seral
stages. Some military training activities, such as the use of tracked vehicles,
disturb soils and vegetation, which may retard succession and retain areas
in early stages of succession (Greene and Nichols 1996, Johnson 1982).
Because training activities and land management actions vary temporally
and spatially (and in extent and size), some areas may experience a regime
of succession, while other areas remain in an early seral stage. Additionally,
the necessity of continued military training and the presence of unexploded
ordnance in certain areas prevents any future development or urbanization.
All these activities provide a variety of successional habitats to satisfy
woodcock life requirements in both quantity, and presumably quality, in a
relatively stable amount at any given time.
Similar to many parts of New York and the Northeast, Fort Drum has had
net increases in forest acreage as farming practices have ceased. However,
with the continuation of current military training retarding vegetation growth
or setting back plant succession in some places and allowing it to grow back
2008 C.A. Dobony and R.E. Rainbolt 247
in others as training locations and missions change, suitable areas of habitat
for sustaining current numbers of woodcock on Fort Drum will presumably
continue. Additionally, periodic land management activities, such as timber
harvesting, mowing, and other activities that maintain or create open areas,
will still be required to provide the varieties of habitat that not only benefit
woodcock populations on Fort Drum, but other species with similar lifehistory
requirements as well.
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank everyone involved in data collection and review of this
manuscript. We would also like to thank Rebecca Rau with the USFWS Division of
Migratory Bird Management at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center in Laurel, MD
for providing the raw data from the USFWS SGS.
Literature Cited
Cade, B.S. 1985. Habitat suitability index models: American Woodcock (wintering).
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Collins, CO. Biological Report
82(10.105).
Claypoole, K.A., D. Schwender, K. Karwowski, and M. Connerton. 1994. Fort
Drum waterfowl management plan implementation. US Fish and Wildlife Service,
New York Field Office, Cortland, NY. 137 pp.
Dessecker, D.R., and D.G. McAuley. 2001. Importance of early successional habitat
to Ruffed Grouse and American Woodcock. The Wildlife Society Bulletin
29:456–465.
Dessecker, D.R., and S.R. Pursglove, Jr. 2000. Current population status and likely
future trends for American Woodcock. Pp. 3–8, In D.G. McAuley, J.G. Bruggink,
and G.F. Sepik, (Eds.). Proceedings of the Ninth American Woodcock
Symposium. Information and Technical Report USGS/BRD/ITR-2000-0009.
US Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, Patuxent Wildlife Research
Center, Laurel, MD. 130 pp.
Greene, T.A., and T.J. Nichols. 1996. Effects of long-term military training traffic
on forest vegetation in central Minnesota. Northern Journal of Applied Forestry
13:157–163.
Johnson, F.L. 1982. Effects of tank training activities on botanical features at Fort
Hood, Texas. The Southwestern Naturalist 27:309–314.
Kelley, J.R., Jr. 2004. American Woodcock population status, 2004. US Fish and
Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD. 15 pp.
Kelley, J.R., Jr., and R.D. Rau. 2005. American Woodcock population status, 2004.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, Laurel, MD. 15 pp.
Keppie, D.M., and R.M. Whiting, Jr. 1994. American Woodcock (Scolopax minor).
Pp. 1–27, In A. Poole and F. Gill (Eds.). The Birds of North America, No. 100.
The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, PA, and The American Ornithologists’
Union, Washington, DC. 27 pp.
Krementz, D.G., and J.B. Berdeen. 1997. Survival rates of American Woodcock
wintering in the Georgia Piedmont. The Journal of Wildlife Management
61:1328–1332.
248 Northeastern Naturalist Vol. 15, No. 2
Krementz, D.G., J.T. Seginak, and D.R. Smith. 1994. Survival rates of American
Woodcock wintering along the Atlantic coast. The Journal of Wildlife Management
58:147–155.
Roberts, T.H. 1989. American Woodcock (Scolopax minor). Department of Defense
Natural Resources Program, Technical Report EL-89-5. Department of the Army,
Waterways Experiment Station, Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS. 56 pp.
Rosenberg, K.V. 2000. Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for The St. Lawrence
Plain (Physiographic Area 18). Draft Version 1.0. Available online at http://
www.partnersinflight.org/bcps/plan/pl_18_10.pdf.
Sauer, J.R., and J.B. Bortner. 1991. Population trends from the American Woodcock
singing-ground survey, 1970–88. The Journal of Wildlife Management
55:300–312.
Straw, J.A., D.G. Krementz, M.W. Olinde, and G.F. Sepik. 1994. American Woodcock.
Pp. 97–114, In T.C. Tacha and C.E. Braun (Eds.). Migratory Shore and
Upland Game Bird Management in North America. International Association of
Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Washington, DC. 223 pp.