ENT ale Rm whe ee, Ehledesibsiaiee ee inte eee esx mtntninion nel gene een scan a oe ee ee et tipnneg awn ig OAK ST. HDS® UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN NAT. HIST. SURV. “The whole world here unlocks the experience of the past to the builders of the future” —Inscription above east entrance to the Main Library building, dedicated in 1929 University of Illinois Library at Urbana-Champaign Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2021 with funding from University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign https://archive.org/details/illinoisoreeding26klee The Po Vernon M. Kleen, Liane Cordle, a - oF and Robert A. Montgomery Natural History Survey Library BONE? py up TUBES ELE RELL ELLE DL LIEIS EEL SL LED TRILL, BSA UPA ORAS SE DYE OEE LN SANDY ENO SE he JYillinois Breeding Bird fitlas VERNON M. KLEEN LIANE CORDLE ROBERT A. MONTGOMERY Illinois Natural History Survey Champaign, Illinois Special Publication 26 ANANSI HA ANNAN ASA ASR UREN a bn a ’ i DALAM NNSA RR EN TK acon 4 PEE ANND \ Illinois Natural History Survey, Dr. David L. Thomas, Chief A Division of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Joel Brunsvold, Director Illinois Natural History Survey Natural Resources Building 607 East Peabody Drive Champaign, Illinois 61820 Printed by authority of the state of Illinois. PORR89801—1M-—06-04 US ISSN 0888-9546 Editor: Thomas E. Rice Cover design: Michelle Garland Cover and title page photography: The Prothonotary Warbler on the front cover and the Henslow’s Sparrow on the book spine were provided by Joe Milosevich. Dennis Oehmke provided the photo of the Eastern Screech-Owl on the title page. Photos: Copyrights of photos in this book reside with the photographers. Citation: Kleen, V.M., L. Cordle, and R.A. Montgomery. 2004. The Illinois Breeding Bird Atlas. Illinois Natural History Survey Special Publication No. 26. xvii + 459 pp. ISBN: 1-882932-07-2 Equal opportunity to participate in programs of the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and those funded by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other agencies is available to all individuals regardless of race, sex, national origin, disability, age, religion, or other nonmerit factors. If you believe you have been discriminated against, contact the funding source’s civil rights office and/or the Equal Employment Opportunity Officer, IDNR, One Natural Resources Way, Spring- field, IL 62702-1271; 217/785-0067; TTY 217/782-9175. This information may be provided in an alternative format if required. Contact the DNR Clearinghouse at 217/782-7498 for assistance. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Printed with soy ink on recycled and recyclable paper. Funded Cooperatively by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources and the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service ILLINOIS U.S. FISH & WILDLIFE SERVICE ILLINOIS NATURAL DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY NATURAL SURVEY RESOURCES Dedicated to all birders who made this publication possible. tt™— Contents ern LIST OF FIGURES x LIST OFTABLES' x PREFACE xi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS _ xiii INTRODUCTION 1 METHODS 2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 6 NORTH AMERICAN BREEDING BIRD SURVEY — 12 PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENT OF ILLINOIS — 18 GUIDE TO THE SPECIES ACCOUNTS 36 SPECIES ACCOUNTS SWANS, GEESE & DUCKS: Order Anseriformes Family: Anatidae Canada Goose Branta canadensis 38 Mute Swan Cygnus olor 40 Wood Duck Aix sponsa 42 Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 44 Blue-winged Teal Anas discors 46 Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata 48 Northern Pintail Anas acuta 50 Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 52 Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis 54 GROUSE, TURKEY & QUAIL: Order Galliformes Family Phasianidae Gray Partridge Perdix perdix 56 Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus 58 Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus 60 Greater Prairie-Chicken Tympanuchus cupido 62 Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo 64 Family Odontophoridae Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus 66 GREBES: Order Podicipediformes Family Podicipedidae Pied-billed Grebe Podilymbus podiceps 68 CORMORANTS: Order Pelecaniformes Family Phalacrocoracidae Double-crested Cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus 70 HERONS & NEW WORLD VULTURES: Order Ciconiiformes Family Ardeidae American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus 72 Least Bittern [xobrychus exilis 74 Great Blue Heron Ardea herodias 76 Great Egret Ardeaalba_ 78 Snowy Egret Egretta thula 80 Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea 82 Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis 84 Green Heron Butorides virescens 86 Black-crowned Night-Heron Nycticorax nycticorax 88 Yellow-crowned Night-Heron Nyctanassa violacea 90 Family: Cathartidae Black Vulture Coragyps atratus 92 Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura 94 DIURNAL BIRDS OF PREY: Order Falconiformes Family Accipitridae Osprey Pandion haliaetus 96 Mississippi Kite Jctinia mississippiensis 98 Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus 100 Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus 102 Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus 104 Cooper’s Hawk Accipiter cooperii 106 Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus 108 Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus 110 Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni 112 Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis 114 Family Falconidae American Kestrel Falco sparverius 116 Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus 118 RAILS & CRANES: Order Gruiformes Family Rallidae King Rail Rallus elegans 120 Virginia Rail Rallus limicola 122 Sora Porzana carolina 124 Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus 126 American Coot Fulica americana 128 Family Gruidae Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis 130 SHOREBIRDS & GULLS: Order Charadriiformes Family Charadriidae Killdeer Charadrius vociferus 132 Family Scolopacidae Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia 134 Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda 136 Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago delicata 138 American Woodcock Scolopax minor — 140 Family Laridae Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis 142 Herring Gull Larus argentatus 144 Common Tern Sterna hirundo 146 Forster’s Tern Sterna forsteri 148 Black Tern Chlidonias niger 150 PIGEONS & DOVES: Order Columbiformes Family Columbidae Rock Pigeon Columba livia 152 Mourning Dove Zenaida macroura 154 PARROTS: Order Psittaciformes Family Psittacidae Monk Parakeet Myiopsitta monachus 156 CUCKOOS: Order Cuculiformes Family Cuculidae Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus 160 OWLS: Order Strigiformes Family Tytonidae Barn Owl Tyto alba 162 vi 158 Family Strigidae Eastern Screech-Owl Megascops asio 164 Great Horned Owl Bubo virginianus 166 Barred Owl Strix varia 168 Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus 170 GOATSUCKERS: Order Caprimulgiformes Family Caprimulgidae Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor 172 Chuck-will’s-widow Caprimulgus carolinensis 174 Whip-poor-will Caprimulgus vociferus 176 SWIFTS & HUMMINGBIRDS: Order Apodiformes Family Apodidae Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica 178 Family Trochilidae Ruby-throated Hummingbird Archilochus colubris 180 KINGFISHERS: Order Coraciiformes Family Alcedinidae Belted Kingfisher Ceryle alcyon 182 WOODPECKERS: Order Piciformes Family Picidae Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus 184 Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus 186 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius 188 Downy Woodpecker Picoides pubescens 190 Hairy Woodpecker Picoides villosus 192 Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus 194 Pileated Woodpecker Dryocopus pileatus 196 PASSERINE BIRDS: Order Passeriformes FLYCATCHERS: Family Tyrannidae Eastern Wood-Pewee Contopus virens 198 Acadian Flycatcher Empidonax virescens 200 Alder Flycatcher Empidonax alnorum 202 Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii 204 Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus 206 Eastern Phoebe Sayornis phoebe 208 Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus 210 Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus 212 SHRIKES: Family Laniidae Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus 214 VIREOS: Family Vireonidae White-eyed Vireo Vireo griseus 216 Bell’s Vireo Vireo bellii 218 Yellow-throated Vireo Vireo flavifrons 220 Warbling Vireo Vireo gilvus 222 Red-eyed Vireo Vireo olivaceus 224 CROWS & JAYS: Family Corvidae Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata 226 American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos 228 Fish Crow Corvus ossifragus 230 LARKS: Family Alaudidae Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris 232 SWALLOWS: Family Hirundinidae Purple Martin Progne subis 234 Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor 236 Northern Rough-winged Swallow Stelgidopteryx serripennis Bank Swallow Riparia riparia 240 Cliff Swallow Petrochelidon pyrrhonota 242 Barn Swallow Hirundo rustica 244 238 Vii Vili CHICKADEES & TITMICE: Family Paridae Carolina Chickadee Poecile carolinensis 246 Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus 248 Tufted Titmouse Baeolophus bicolor 250 NUTHATCHES: Family Sittidae Red-breasted Nuthatch Sitta canadensis 252 White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis 2 CREEPERS: Family Certhiidae Brown Creeper Certhia americana 256 WRENS: Family Troglodytidae Carolina Wren Thryothorus ludovicianus 258 Bewick’s Wren Thryomanes bewickii 260 House Wren Troglodytes aedon 262 Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis 264 Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris 266 KINGLETS: Family Regulidae Golden-crowned Kinglet Regulus satrapa 268 GNATCATCHERS: Family Sylviidae Blue-gray Gnatcatcher Polioptila caerulea 270 THRUSHES: Family Turdidae Eastern Bluebird Sialia sialis 272 Veery Catharus fuscescens 274 Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina 276 American Robin Turdus migratorius 278 MOCKINGBIRDS & THRASHERS: Family Mimidae Gray Catbird Dumetella carolinensis 280 Northern Mockingbird Mimus polyglottos 282 Brown Thrasher Joxostoma rufum 284 STARLINGS: Family Sturnidae European Starling Sturnus vulgaris 286 WAXWINGS: Family Bombycillidae Cedar Waxwing Bombycilla cedrorum 288 WOOD WARBLERS: Family Parulidae Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora pinus 290 Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera 292 Northern Parula Parula americana 294 Yellow Warbler Dendroica petechia 296 Chestnut-sided Warbler Dendroica pensylvanica 298 Black-throated Green Warbler Dendroica virens 300 Yellow-throated Warbler Dendroica dominica 302 Pine Warbler Dendroica pinus 304 Prairie Warbler Dendroica discolor 306 Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea 308 Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia 310 American Redstart Setophaga ruticilla 312 Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea 314 Worm-eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivorus 316 Swainson’s Warbler Limnothlypis swainsonii 318 Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla 320 Louisiana Waterthrush Seiurus motacilla 322 Kentucky Warbler Oporornis formosus 324 Mourning Warbler Oporornis philadelphia 326 Common Yellowthroat Geothlypis trichas 328 Hooded Warbler Wilsonia citrina 330 Canada Warbler Wilsonia canadensis 332 Yellow-breasted Chat Jcteria virens 334 54 TANAGERS: Family Thraupidae Summer Tanager Piranga rubra 336 Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea 338 SPARROWS: Family Emberizidae Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 340 Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina 342 Clay-colored Sparrow Spizella pallida 344 Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla 346 Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 348 Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus 350 Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis 352 Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum 354 Henslow’s Sparrow Ammodramus henslowii 356 Song Sparrow Melospiza melodia 358 Swamp Sparrow Melospiza georgiana 360 CARDINALS & GROSBEAKS: Family Cardinalidae Northern Cardinal Cardinalis cardinalis 362 Rose-breasted Grosbeak Pheucticus ludovicianus 364 Blue Grosbeak Guiraca caerulea 366 Indigo Bunting Passerina cyanea 368 Dickcissel Spiza americana 370 BLACKBIRDS, MEADOWLARKS, & ORIOLES: Family Icteridae Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 372 Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 374 Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna 376 Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta 378 Yellow-headed Blackbird Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus 380 Brewer’s Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus 382 Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula 384 Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater 386 Orchard Oriole Icterus spurius 388 Baltimore Oriole /cterus galbula 390 FINCHES: Family Fringillidae House Finch Carpodacus mexicanus 392 Red Crossbill Loxia curvirostra 394 Pine Siskin Carduelis pinus 396 American Goldfinch Carduelis tristis 398 OLD WORLD SPARROWS: Family Passeridae House Sparrow Passer domesticus 400 Eurasian Tree Sparrow Passer montanus 402 APPENDICES Appendix A. County index for sampled atlas blocks. 405 Appendix B. Summary of atlas data by block. 412 Appendix C. Summary of atlas data by county. 422 Appendix D. Summary of atlas data by species. 423 Appendix E. Summary of breeding evidence criteria in priority blocks. 426 Appendix F. Summary of breeding evidence criteria by groups for Confirmed records in priority blocks. 427 Appendix G. Population trend information for species in Illinois from the North American Breeding Bird Survey. 428 Appendix H. Population trend information for species included in the atlas for the upper Midwest from the North American Breeding Bird Survey. 430 Appendix I. Common and scientific names of plants and animals mentioned in the text. 433 Appendix J. Measurement conversions. 433 Appendix K. Locations of colonies of four species of colonial waterbirds in 2000. 434 LITERATURE CITED = 435 INDEX 455 cme FIGUres sr =e Figure 1. Counties in Illinois. Figure 2. Start-up year, contracts, and block-busting efforts by county. Figure 3. The system for identifying atlas blocks based on USGS quadrangle maps. Figure 4. Field data form. Figure 5. Data entry form. Figure 6. Blocks that were sampled for the Illinois Breeding Bird Atlas project. Figure 7. Number of observer hours per sampled priority block. Figure 8. Number of species with breeding evidence per sampled priority block. Figure 9. Breeding Bird Survey routes in Illinois, and the states in the upper Midwest region. Figure 10. Major streams and lakes in Illinois. Figure 11. Natural Divisions of Illinois. Figure 12. Land cover of Illinois in the early 1800s. Figure 13. Land cover of Illinois in the 1990s. Figure 14. Forested areas in Illinois in the 1990s. Figure 15. Urban areas in Illinois in the 1990s. Figure 16. Wetlands in Illinois in the 1980s. meen “Cables secre Table 1. Breeding status categories and breeding evidence criteria used for the Illinois Breeding Bird Atlas project. Table 2. Species of special consideration. Table 3. Frequency distribution of the number of species with breeding evidence reported per block. Table 4. The most frequently reported species with breeding evidence in priority blocks. Table 5. The most frequently Confirmed species in priority blocks. Table 6. Species reported but not Confirmed as breeding in any block during the atlas project. Table 7. Occasional breeding species in Illinois not reported during the atlas project. Table 8. Summary of atlas data for the 34 state and federally endangered and threatened species. Table 9. Summary of North American Breeding Bird Survey trend information for Illinois for 1966—2000. Table 10. Summary of North American Breeding Bird Survey trend information by breeding guilds and migration groups for Illinois based on data for 1966-2000. Table 11. Land cover of Illinois in the early 1800s. Table 12. Land cover of Illinois in the 1990s. =r == (Oye face MBrENRES arm hen I was a child growing up in western Pennsyl- \ N | vania, my family took driving trips to the western states every other summer. I vividly remember driving through Illinois because the scenery and the birds really began to change and become truly midwestern. Embedded in the endless miles of corn were small woodlots and hedgerows filled with Dickcissels, Orchard Orioles, Loggerhead Shrikes, and Red-headed Woodpeckers. Whip- poor-wills and Barred Owls called at night from every state park where we camped. All of these birds bred in my home state, but they were rare and required special efforts to see. In Illinois, even roadside rest areas had many of these birds. Much had changed when I moved to Illinois in 1984 and started working at the Illinois Natural History Survey. Most of the shrikes and hedgerows were gone and soybeans had replaced corn in about half the fields. My predecessors at the Survey, Dick and Jean Graber, had documented the almost total collapse of grassland bird populations as a result of changing agricultural practices and habitat fragmentation. But one feature remained unchanged: remnant patches of habitat were still filled with interesting birds. Not surpris- ingly, given the small amount of nonagricultural habitat available in much of central Illinois, the abundance of birds in remnant forest patches during migration was phenomenal. I had not, however, expected such high populations of breeding birds given the well-documented avoidance of small habitat patches, especially by breeding songbirds that wintered in the tropics (“Neotropical migrants” in the jargon). In my first summer in Illinois, I began studying birds in the ultra-fragmented woodlots surrounding Lake Shelbyville in east-central Illinois. To my surprise, the remnant forests around the lake were full of breeding birds, including Yellow-billed Cuckoos, Worm-eating and Ken- tucky Warblers, Wood Thrushes, Ovenbirds, Louisiana Waterthrushes, Prothonotary Warblers, and Acadian Fly- catchers. Even narrow riparian corridors had Northern Parulas, American Redstarts, and Yellow-throated Warblers. In the more extensive forests of the Shawnee National Forest, there were breeding populations numbering in the tens or even hundreds of thousands of Kentucky, Worm- eating, and Yellow-throated Warblers, Scarlet and Summer Tanagers, Ovenbirds, Acadian Flycatchers, and Yellow-billed Cuckoos. Even Swainson’s and Cerulean Warblers were still present locally. Breeding birds were also abundant in shrublands and in remnant grasslands and wetlands. The high populations of breeding birds in Ilinois’ habitats became even more puzzling, even alarming, when I started studying the nesting success of these birds. Because of the Brown-headed Cowbird, an overabundant brood parasite, much of the breeding effort of many host species was devoted to raising cowbirds instead of their own young. Those few nests that escaped being parasitized by cowbirds usually had only a small chance of escaping nest predation by generalist nest predators that thrive in the highly frag- mented habitats of Illinois. Raccoons were so abundant in many small woodlots that ground nesters had little chance, and Blue Jays, Rat Snakes, and American Crows are prob- lems for breeding birds in many woodlots. These problems were most acute in small agricultural woodlots, but nesting success also proved to be lower than expected in the much more extensive tracts of the Shawnee National Forest. The research we did while at the Illinois Natural History Survey had the perhaps unfortunate effect of making Illinois famous as a worst-case scenario of the negative conse- quences of habitat loss and fragmentation. For some of Illinois’ breeding songbirds, the entire state is a likely population “sink” where production of young is below levels necessary to compensate for natural adult mortality. If this is true, then Illinois may depend upon immigration from larger forest tracts outside the state where nesting success is much higher. By one scenario, the high populations in Illinois habitats may be bad for regional populations because the rich, productive soils of [llinois may lure birds into habitats where vegetation structure is appropriate and food is plentiful, but chances of raising young are poor (the “eco- logical trap” scenario). Over the last decade, however, reasons have emerged for a more optimistic assessment of Illinois’ breeding bird populations. Nesting success improves dramatically when fragmentation 1s reduced, even in relatively small tracts. Parts of the Shawnee National Forest may be population sources for some songbirds and efforts are under way to consolidate forest cover in some of the state’s largest remaining forests, including the lower Kaskaskia River, the Cache River, and the Shawnee National Forest. The Shawnee National Forest has created “Forest Interior Management Units” to enhance nesting success of forest birds. Compa- rable efforts are under way to create large grasslands in areas such as the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie and Lost Mound National Wildlife Refuge (the former Savanna Army Depot). Wetland birds appear to be less vulnerable to fragmentation than forest and grassland birds. The Conserva- tion Reserve Program is creating additional grassland habitat for at least some rare and declining species (Henslow’s Sparrow, Sedge Wren, Northern Bobwhite). Recent efforts to restore genetic diversity to the Greater Prairie-Chicken population appear to have succeeded. As we go to press, Forster’s Terns have returned to a newly created island in northern Illinois. Populations of Bald Eagles, Sandhill Cranes, and Cooper’s Hawks have recovered to the point where they are even nesting in heavily settled areas. Massive floodplain restorations in the Cache River provide reasons to be optimistic that Swainson’s Warblers will return and that rapidly declining populations of Red-headed Woodpeckers might stabilize over the long run. The “Chicago Wilderness” is actively promoting savanna and grassland restoration and the protection of key migratory bird stopover habitat. We are also beginning to understand ways in which many breeding birds can survive in Illinois’ fragmented landscapes. Many birds of grasslands, shrublands, residential areas, and other openlands are well adapted to coping with nest predators and parasites. Many species of open lands reject cowbird eggs (e.g., American Robin, Warbling Vireo, Baltimore Oriole, Field Sparrow, Brown Thrasher, Gray Catbird) and either chase away predators (Eastern Kingbird, Red-winged Blackbirds) or have such long nesting seasons that they eventually produce young even in the face of extraordinary losses to nest predation (e.g., Field Sparrow, Chipping Sparrow, Indigo Bunting, Northern Cardinal). Not surprisingly, most of these species are abundant, widespread, and have increasing populations. Even some forest birds may be better able to cope with high levels of nest predation than we had predicted. Prothonotary Warblers and Wood Thrushes live much longer than we thought and both leave areas where nesting success has been low. This latter trait might prove to be an effective way of reducing the extent to which small Illinois woodlots act as “ecological traps.” Clearly, Illinois is not a lost cause for avian conservya- tion. Indeed, if we can restore viable breeding populations in Illinois, then it can be done anywhere. By this view, Illinois is in the vanguard of conservation efforts at retaining bird populations in heavily settled landscapes. The Illinois Breeding Bird Atlas is an important step in efforts to conserve Illinois’ birds. It is the culmination of the efforts of hundreds of amateur birdwatchers, Illinois Depart- ment of Natural Resources employees, and other wildlife professionals. Thanks to their efforts, we now have unprec- edented data on the distribution and status of all of Illinois’ breeding birds. The layout is attractive and packed with information on life history attributes, population trends, and occurrence. It will form the basis of long-term assessments of future population and distributional changes. Such data will become especially important as we begin to see the consequences of global climate change. The authors are to be congratulated for compiling an immense amount of data. — Dr. Scott K. Robinson Florida Museum of Natural History, Ordway Eminent Scholar of Ecosystem Conservation Illinois Natural History Survey, Adjunct Professional Scientist nme Acknowledgments === he Illinois Breeding Bird Atlas project was made | possible by many individuals and organizations who contributed much time and effort in planning, data collection in the field, data management, data analysis, and publication of this book. The atlas project was sponsored by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) ina joint effort with the Illinois Audubon Society and its chap- ters, the Illinois chapters of the National Audubon Society, and independent Audubon and birding organizations in Illinois. Primary financial support from 1986 to 1991 came from the IDNR Division of Natural Heritage, including annual grants from the Illinois Wildlife Preservation Fund, a fund that comes from voluntary contributions from [linois taxpayers using the check-off appearing on the Illinois state income tax form. Some of the funding provided by the Illinois Wildlife Preservation Fund supported contracts for field work and block-busting weekends, which were critical for completing the project. The atlas project would not have been possible without the contributions of conservation- minded Illinois taxpayers and other project supporters. Financial support for the publication of this book came from a grant from the IDNR Office of Realty and Environmental Planning through the efforts of Tom Heavisides. Additional funding was provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlas projects are difficult to organize, manage, and operate. A large number of individuals were involved and the authors have made every attempt to include everyone who contributed to the success of the atlas project in Illinois in the following acknowledgments; our apologies to anyone we have inadvertently missed. Several people involved in the data collection phase of the atlas project deserve recognition. Special thanks go to Carl Becker and James Garner of the IDNR Division of Natural Heritage as Chief and Head of the Program Section, respectively, for their encouragement and support. John Buhnerkempe of the IDNR Division of Natural Heritage developed the computer program used for data entry. Our thanks to the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation for support and staff assistance for data entry and quality control, especially Steven M. Byers, Brad Semel, and Robert Montgomery. Melissa Brookens organized information from multiple sources that was useful as a guide for the Illinois publication. The atlas publications committee met in the early phases of the publication process and included Dale Birkenholz, John Buhnerkempe, Dennis Campbell, James Herkert, Vernon Kleen, Robert Montgomery, George Rose, and Liane Cordle (formerly Suloway). The Illinois Natural History Survey provided data analysis and maps using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology. The maps were generated using ESRI Arc software. Our thanks to Steve Amundsen, Steve Bailey, Pat Brown, Leo Chapa, and Mike Ward for reviewing the manuscript and providing helpful comments and suggestions. The following people reviewed specific parts of the manu- script: Larry David (IDNR upland game bird program) reviewed the upland game bird accounts, Steve Havera (Illinois Natural History Survey) reviewed the waterfowl accounts, Mary Hennen (Field Musuem of Natural History) reviewed and provided information for the Peregrine Falcon account, Dan Holm (IDNR waterfowl program) provided population estimates for Illinois’ breeding population of Canada Geese, and Scott Simpson (IDNR manager of Prairie Ridge State Natural Area) reviewed the Greater Prairie- Chicken account and provided population information. Steve Bailey reviewed early versions of the species distribution maps. Marilyn Campbell (Executive Director, Illinois Audubon Society) provided several helpful comments after reviewing an early draft of the manuscript. We thank the Illinois Natural History Survey Publica- tions Committee for their support. The efforts of Sue Voegtlin and Charlie Warwick of the Illinois Natural History Survey with financial details were invaluable towards making this publication possible. Thomas Rice served as editor and provided layout design; we thank him for the many hours spent on production of the book. The book cover was designed by Michelle Garland. Carie Nixon’s generous assistance with many technical aspects of this publication was extremely helpful. We are especially indebted to the following individuals who generously donated the use of their photographs specifically for this publication: Pat Brown, Chicago Academy of Sciences, Richard Day (Daybreak Imagery), Peter Dring, David Enstrom, Adam Fikso, Todd Fink, Annalee Fjellberg, Karen Forcum, Richard Graber, Gary Herren, Nancy Herren, Kanae Hirabayashi, Cathie Hutcheson, Michael Jeffords, Vernon Kleen, James Landing, Walter Marcisz, Joe Milosevich, Dennis Oehmke, Robert Randall, and Eric Walters. Copyright for the photographs resides with the photographers and photos should not be reproduced without permission from the photographers. In addition, Cornell Lab of Ornithology provided photos from the following photographers: Betty Darling Cottrille, D. Robert Franz, Isidor Jeklin, and Jim Wedge. These photos cannot be reproduced without permission. Joe Milosevich provided the photographs of the Prothonotary Warbler on the front cover and the Henslow’s Sparrow on the book spine. Dennis Oehmke provided the photo on the title page. The North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) program provided valuable, comprehensive information on avian population trends, and we thank the helpful people at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (PWRC) in Laurel, MD, for providing data and advice to us. Dr. John Sauer, wildlife biologist/statistician for the PWRC, conducted the undertaking a success, as well as the many landowners who analysis of BBS data, including the data presented in the allowed access to their property. Special thanks and recogni- atlas. The BBS data were obtained directly from Dr. Sauer or __ tion are extended to those who spent extra time and effort as via the BBS Web site at www.mp2-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/ county coordinators; their names appear in the “County (Sauer et al. 2001). Keith Pardieck, U.S. BBS Coordinator, Coordinators” list below. Names of the people who con- reviewed the Breeding Bird Survey section for the atlas and ducted the surveys of the atlas blocks are given in the provided many helpful comments. “Atlasers” list below. Alan Anderson deserves special Finally, many thanks to all of Illinois’ birders for their recognition for coordination of the large number of priority invaluable assistance throughout the atlas project. We and nonpriority blocks for the Cook County effort. We also dedicate this book to you. The completion of the Illinois thank the county coordinators for verifying the spelling of Breeding Bird Atlas project would not have been possible names (which were often difficult to read) and offer our without the nearly 1,000 birders, both amateur and profes- apology to those whose names are either inadvertently sional, who volunteered their time and effort to make this omitted or misspelled. County Coordinators County coordinators who took responsibility for multiple counties are indicated as follows: 2 to 5 counties (+), 6 to 9 (++), and 10 or more (+++). Alan Anderson Todd Fink Denny Jones Kathy Phelps Etta May Aubertin Karen Forcum Larry Jones L. H. Princen ++ Steve Bailey Edwin & Evelyn Franks Vernon Kleen +++ Alice Rakers Michael Baum Richard Gibson Bill Lubben Robert Randall + Bill Bertrand Sharon Giles + Phil Luchtefeld Doug Robinson ++ Dale Birkenholz Ron Goetz + Patti Malmborg Reilly ++ Wayne Schenum Keith Blackmore + Joel Greenberg Yvonne Maynard David Schuur, Jr. + Alan Branhagen Calvin Grimes + John McKee Deborah Scott Toby Brown + Roger Gustafson Jim McGowan John Sellers Steven Byers Jim Hampson + Kelly McKay Eric Walters Richard Call Leroy Harrison + Lynn McKeown Michael Ward + Marilyn Campbell Harold Hedden William Miles Tony Ward Robert Chapel + Alice Henry Dan Miller John Wisnewski + Hal Cohen L. Barrie Hunt Joe Milosevich Helen Wuestenfeld + Margaret Cole Joe Jobst Robert A. Montgomery + Dick Young Duff Decker David B. Johnson Richard Palmer + John Yunger + Al Dierkes Duvall Jones + Atlasers Atlasers who assisted with the completion of 2 to 5 atlas blocks are identified by an asterisk (*), 6 to 10 blocks by two asterisks (**), and 11 or more blocks by three asterisks (***). Helen Abbott Lylia Andrews Jim Aubertin * D. Bates Ross Adams Fred Anesi Tom Aubertin * Michael Baum *** Kay Alden Joanna Anesi Louise Augustine Sally Baumgardner Walter Allison Robert Appleburg Renee Baade Mona Baumgartel * Alpers Jack Armstrong ** Rita Babin Bernard Bayles Alan Anderson *** James Armstrong B. Bahrstock Ken Beach Anna Rae Anderson * Joyce Armstrong * Steve Bailey *** Evelyn Beaird Brice Anderson Judy Armstrong Paul Baker Ceola Benedict * David Anderson Karen Ashbury T. Baker Herb Benedict Dick Anderson * David Athans John Ball Irene Benjamin * Edward Anderson *** Ann Atkinson Teresa Barbier Joyce Bennett Ella Anderson ** Brad Atkinson Steve Barg Norma Bennett Eric Anderson David Atkinson Ann Barker Ric Bennett * Mitzi Anderson Dick Andrews X1V Etta May Aubertin * Jeremy Aubertin * Karl Bartel * Barb Bartelman Thomas Bennett Dick Benning Carolyn Benninghoff Susan Benson * Bill A. Bertrand *** Richard Biss * John Bivins * Richard Bjorkland * Eric Bjorklund Keith Blackmore *** Mary Blackmore ** Graig Blackwell Bob Blair Brian Blevins * Corey Blevins Lewis Blevins Richard Blewett Vonna Bley *** Jo Ann Block * Ray Boehler * Verda Boehler * Brian Bogacyzk Ann Boher David Bohlen * Marilyn Bohm Emery Boldenow Cassandra Bolen * Rusty Boone Dave Borneman K.M. Bowen * Mary Bowers * Gary Bowman * Jim Bowman * Marvin Braasch Ron Bradley George Brady * Alan Branhagen *** Judy Bransky Brastrom Richard Bready Barb Breheny David Brenner * Mary Bricker Robert Bricker Ken Brock B.J. Brown Barbara Brown * Bill Brown Dave Brown Joyce Brown * Kenneth Brown Toby Brown *** Wauneta Brown * Maury Brucker *** Robb Brumfield Kris Brunner Tim Brush * Nan Buckardt Cody Buckman * Phyllis Buegel Karen Buitcema Harold Bullerman David Burdick Mary J. Burgh D. Van Burkirk A. Burkman Clara Butterfield Steve Byers *** Vicki Byre * Richard Call ** Bill Callihan Evelyn Callihan Linda Callihan Pauline Calvert Marilyn Campbell *** Barbara Cantwell Debra Carey Alex J. Castaneda Maryann Casteneda John Cecil Robert Cecil David Cederstrom ** Robert Chapel *** Linda Chapman Robert Chapman ** Elizabeth Chato *** John Chato * Terry Chesser Rosemary Chesterson Carol Childers Gerry Cillis * John Cillis * Mary Clark Vincent Clark Neil Claussen Dale Clayton Donna Clem Herman Clem Lois Clutts Hal Cohen Jack Colbert Luke Colbert Tack Colbert Tammy Colbert * Tesa Colbert * Bob Cole Margaret Cole * E.J. Condron * Marilyn Condron Richard Conklin M. Conrath Elizabeth Cook Everett Cooley * Luella Cooley * Charles Cooper Alice Cornwell Lynda Cornwell Mary Correll Bob Cottingham Barbara Coumbe Michael Cousins Keith Cox Dan Crawford Eileen Crawford Betty Crebbe Dan Crebbe Jack Cross Bruce Crossan Steve Culberson * Kim Curtis * Mary Kay Cutcierstei Gary Dahn Bernice Dalton Bernie Dalton Frank Dani Mike Dani Diana Daniels Lily Daniels Robert Danley Donald Dann * Carol Davidson Lois Davis Laura Deangelis Myrna Deaton *** Bill Debaets * Charles Decker Duff Decker *** Orpha Decker * V. Deckert Richard Decoster Dennis DeCourcey * Leslie DeCourcey * Perry Degraw Michelle Deissault Walter Dembos, Jr. Judy Deneal * Leo Desch D. Descourouez Sheryl DeVore * Danny Diaz * Al Dierkes * Fran Dierkes Roger Digges * S.T. Dillon * Pete Dixon Ida Domazlicky Jeffery Donaldson *** William Doukas Marian Doyle P.J. Doyle Nancy Drilling Peter Dring Ed Driver Conrad Drust Doug Dufford * Laura Dufford * Aura Duke * Sylvia Dulaney T. & M. Dunker Ralph Eads Andrew Earnest Janet Earnest Rodney East M.J. Easterday *** Ivan Easton Robert Easton Sam Eaton Scott Edie Barb Edwards * John Eggert Ruth Eggert * Jim Eidel * Henry Eilers John Elliott Wannette Elliott R. Ellis Thomas Ellis * Norm Emerick Judy Emmett * Louise H. Endres *** Scott Evans Scott Farrell Alan Feldman * Hiebcirys R. Ferry Carol Fialkersten C. Fialkowski Conrad Fialkowsta Joyce Fieldstad * Findley Bob Fink Todd Fink *** Darlene Fiske * A. Flood Gary Forcum * Karen Forcum Rhonda Forcum Ted Forcum David Fortner Barbara Fox * Fred Francis Helen Francis Edwin Franks *** Evelyn Franks *** Lauren Frederick Bruce Freske * Sue Friscia * Jackie Frost Gary Fuller Andrea Funk XV Jim Funk Richard Funk Judi Galbreath Ray Ganey Gerald Garden * Sallyann Garner * Helen Gasdorf * Bob Gessner Richard Gibson ** Laura Gilbert Ron Giles * Sharon Giles * Donna Givens Jeff Givens William Glass ** Minnie Glison Betty Goeb Beth Goeppinger Don Goerne * Elaine Goerne Ron Goetz ** Theresa Goetz * Bob Gogh Virginia Gordon Doug Gortzinger Maryann Gossmann * Rob Gough Dan Graber Linda Graber Anita Grace Garland Grace Joel Greenberg * Vern Greening Gs Gtreenlee* Norb Gresey * Anna Grey Calvin Grimes *** Debra Grimes * Sylvia Grisez Norris Groves Dave Gruver Phyllis Gruver Gary Gulezian * Judy Gustafson Roger Gustafson * Sandy Hafey * Mark Hall S. Hall Jan Hallet Tom Hallet Michael Halter Pamela Hamel Pam Hamilton Patricia Hamilton Richard Hamilton Jim Hampson ** Tille Hanes * XVi Bowie Hannah Kay Hansen Liz Hansen Pat Harding Jeff Hardt * Given Harper Harrier Kim Harris Stanley Harris Leroy Harrison *** Mary Harrison John Harshman * Mary Hartley Fran Harty * Jason Hauser Ann Haverstock * Sue Hayden * Duane Heaton Myrna Heaton Harold Hedden Edith Hedges Frank Hedges Randy Heidorn Jim Heim Sue Hemp Mary Hennen * Alice Henry Bob Henry * Mark Henry Michelle Henry Francis Hensley Mathew Herbst * Ralph Herbst * Jim Herkert Danielle Herman Gary Herren * Nancy Herren * Jed Hertz David F. Hess * Sharon Hibbs Margaret Hickerson Scott Hickman * Charity Hilchen Karen Hilgers Ann Hill Cary Hillegonds Mary Jo Hillegonds Kanae Hirabayashi Joyce Hofmann *** Cindy Holloway * Charles Hollowell ** Margaret Hollowell *** D. Holmes Frank Holmes Edward Hopkins ** Eric Hopps Robert Horlock Samuel Hossin * Roger Hotham * Greg Houghton Marilyn Hougland * Ronald D. House * Vivian Howe Virginia Humphreys ** Le Batic Huntae. Susan Husar Jean Hushagen Chlora Hyrup Betty Irwin Ruth lutzi Georgie Ives Gilbert Ives Carol Jackley Jim Jackley Michael Jacob Stephanie Jacob Gerald Jaegle ** Stan Janson Suzanne Jebary Robert Jenner * Delores Jensen Bob Jessup Leslie Jette Joe Jobst * John Jobst Mary Jobst * Bob Johanson * Doris Johanson * Harold Johanson David John David B. Johnson *** Edith Johnson Gene Johnson Hal Johnson Keith Johnson * Lee Johnson Sam Johnson Isabel Johnston Denny Jones Duvall Jones Larry Jones Judith Juers * Paul Kallman R. & S. Kamine ** Andrea Kane * Ian Kaullman * Paul Kaullman Helen Keegan Jack Keegan * Helen Keepes Norman Keepes John Keister Justin Keister Mark Keister * Kevin Kellen * Paul Kendall Sue Kercher Vicky Kiefer * Mary Kiger * Leota King Scott King R. Kirauer Rose Kirnam * Sarah Kleeman Melvin Kleen Vernon Kleen: ==> Robert Kloempken Lee Roy Knuppel Mary Knuppel Helen Koetsier Nancy Kolb Mike Konrath Ken Konsis George Koutsky Joan Koutsky * John Koutsky * Alice Krauser ** Tom Kreiling * Ken Kubik * Barb Kupiec * Greg Kupiec Anton Kvernes David Kvernes Joan Lackenbacher * Raymond Lamich Bert Landes James Landing ** Tim Landing Vicki Lang * Larry Lapre * G.E. Larimore R.W. Larimore Mildred Lashbrook Fred Lastina Laura Lastina Jo Lawson Christine Lee Stephen Lee = Chuck Leib Joseph E. Leigh ** F. Lenski GeTesnick Jean Lesnuak Bob Lindsay * Carl Linhart Ed Lipinski Stacza Lipinski Vicki Lipski Jerry McCormick Lawrence McCormick Vivian McDermott * Marry McDowell Janet McGowan Jim McGowan Claudia McGramm Kevin McGuire * Ruth McIntosh Kelly McKay Gerri McKearn * John McKee *** Lynn McKeown *** Pat McKeown Brad McKinney A. T. McLean Dean McMakin C. McQurne Margaret Mechtenberg *** Ruth Megzer Vicki Mellander Margot Merrick * C. Metz Ruth Mezger Margo Milde William Miles ** Cliff Miller Craig Miller * Dan Miller ** Dave Miller Graig Miller Karen Miller Melody Miller Stacy Miller Joe B. Milosevich *** Annette Mitchell Charles Mitchell Edward Mockford * Peggy Moga Alex Molay Chuck Moms Catherine Monday * Trine Mondhindle Irene Mondhink * Lois Montague * Louis Montague * Robert A. Montgomery *** Don Moreland Gill Moreland Alice Morin Michael Morin Dorothy Moris Linda Moross Marilyn Morris * Cindy Morrison * Lonny Morse * Betty Moss * Wade Moss Alex Mouton George Mozurkewich Elizabeth Mullen Michael Mulligan * Margaret Murley * Diane Murphy * Tim Murphy * Ron Myers Rich Myslinski James Nachel James Nardi Jim Neal * Kay Neuman Kenny Neuman Joe Newcomb B. Newman * Roger Nibert Linda Nicot * Kris Nielson Beatrice Niemerg ** Linda Nirat Carolyn Nixon Barbara Nobles Robert Nobles A.J. Novotny * Joe Nowak Randy Nyboer ** Grace Oakley * Mary Ochsenschlager Maureen O’Connell * Mary Ogilvie Clark Olson * Mildred O’ Neall Brenda Onken ** Marilyn Ostrow * Barbara Ott Edward Palincsar Joan Palincsar Calvin Palmer Dorothy Palmer Richard Palmer *** Catherine Palm-Gessner * Ron Panzer Helen Parker ==. Harry Parkhill Pauline Parkhill Sebastian Patti * Wendy Paulson Mark Payne R. Payne Richard Peiser Marie Perry Ray Pershing Peter Petersen Lynn Phelan Kathy Phelps * Margot Phelps Richard Phelps Mark Phipps Mark Pittman * Carl Poch * Judy Pollock * Jack Pomatto * Dale Pontius Angelia Prairie Chris Prairie Douglas Prairie Jason Prairie Jennifer Prairie Sandra Prairie Joe Pratt Donna Pries i. HePincens a Gréet Prncen *= Brian Pruka * John Puljung John Purcell * Pat Quintenz * Kay Radaz Jeanette Rader Alice Rakers ** Greg Rakers Rich Rakers ** Ken Ralph Marjory Rand * Robert Q. Randall *** Carol Redeker *** Reichardt Helen Reid * Nancy Reid Norman Reid Helen Reidel Susan Reinke Emilie Remus Mike Riechardt Mary Riedell Robert Rioempkum John Riordan * Mary Riordan * Sue Robert Barb Roberts Douglas Robinson *** J.C. Robinson Otto Robinson * S.K. Robinson * Charles Roderick * Marqueri Roderick * Marie Rodzwold Bill Rogers George B: Rose ** Gerry Rosenband Karin Rosenberg R.R. Rosenthal Laurel Ross Suzy Ross Annette Rossi * Al Rothenbach Jeffrey Rovner Seymour Rubin Darlene Ruefer Leo Ruefer Barbara Rutherford William Rutter Harriett Rylaarsdam * Chet Ryndak Dayle Saar Tyler Sager Scott Sams Allan Sanders Jeffrey Sanders Kiyoko Sato Ken Schaal Wayne Schenum * Lois Schick * Bob Schifo G. Schild Terry Schilling *** Beverly Schlinkman * Stephen Schmaeng C. Schmidt Don Schmidt * Sigrid Schmidt * Edward Schmitt Esther Schmitt Janet Schox Ann Schroeder Dan Schroeder Kirk Schubert * Karen Schuster David Schuur, Jr. *** David Schuur, Sr. Marvin Schwartz * Valdemar Schwarz Deborah Scott *** Tom Sebestiano John Sellers * Brad Semel ** Orris Seng Wes Serafin Mary Ann Severson Robert Severson Bruce S. Seward Darrell Shambaugh ** William Shanahan Sharon Shaw Janet Shcox Ann Sherman Mark Shibley Carol Shipp Steve Shipp Janine Shirvey Mark Shoger * Rob Shook * XVIl Ashley Shupe M. Sidney M. Sidor Bill Siebel Andy Sigler * Dale Simon Scott Simon P. Simonds Scott Simpson Ray Skow R. Sliwinski Audrey Smith Dana Smith Eleanor Smith * Fred Smith Grace Smith James O. Smith * Leslie Smith Nancy Snider * S.D. Snyder Jim Solum * Wendy Solum * Don Southand Leroy Sowl Mark Sprauer Nancy Standley Max Stark Marjory Staubus Gerry Stearns * Sid Steele * Raymond Steidl Colleen Steifel Mary Stevens * Kip Stevenson Colleen Stiefel *** John Stofan * Alan Stokie * Fred Stoop Paul Strand * Bob Stratton D. Stricker Linda Strid XVIil Todd Strole Andy Suarez Jerry Sullivan Wilda Sutherland * Wayne Svoboda Kevin Swagel Harold Swartz Michael Sweet * Robert Szafoni * Louis Tattersall Marjorie Tattersall ** Eric Tauck Susan Tauck Greg Taylor * Richard Tebbs Arnold Tebussek * Janet Tebussek * Vern Tetlaf Carol Thomas Renee Thomas * Alice Thompson Charles Thompson Linda Thompson Ralph Thornton Laurence Thorsen Susan Tillia Eunice Tjaden John E. Todt * Karen Townsend * Steve Townsend Sandy Tune * Barbara Turner ** Phil Tuttle * Edwin Unger Lorraine Unger Georgia Unzicker Lowell Unzicker Eleanora Vaester Linda Vance Glendy Vanderah W. Vanderploeg Tom Vanderpoll Isidore Venetos * E. Vercmiysse Matt Vincent Peggy Vining Luisa Visintin Eleanor Voeste * Laurel Vogt Rita Voltz Eugene Wachtel Rich Wagner * Furl Walden Joann Walker Keith Walker Peg Walsh * Peg Walshky Pat Walston * Bryon Walters Eric Walters *** Margaret Walters * R. Bryon Walters ** Terry Walters Victor Walters Bob Ward Claudia Ward Harold Ward * Jeff Ward * Michael Ward *** Milt Ward Pat Ward * Tom Ward James Ware Dick Wasson Louise A. Waters Cynthia Watkins *** D. Dee Watts Don Watts * Ken Weber * Marian Weber * Nancy Wedow Vernon Wedow Bernard Weiner Steve Weller Anna M. Welty Marie Welty * Ken Wenzel Donna West Charles Westcott Ron Westemeier Doris Westfall * Mike Weygand * Betty Wier John Wier Dorothy Wilcox Gary Wilford Mike Wilkerson Dan Williams ** David Williams *** Don Williams * Doris Williams Jan Williams Joyce Williams Pat Williams Zelma Williams * Albert Willms * Joyce Wilson Richard Wilson Tom Wilson John Wisnewski *** Tara Wisnewski Elizabeth Wodtke * Randall Woessner * Jack Wohlstadter Terrie Woodrow Helen Wuestenfeld * Pat Wyatt Lynn Yascott Nancy Ylisela Dick Young * Tim Young John Yunger *** Jan Zaton Ray Zoanetti Richard Zullo ~ Walt Zuurdeeg mrs Sntroduction << 2eer meee sive summary of information about birds that cur rently breed in the state, based primarily on data from the Illinois Breeding Bird Atlas project and the North American Breeding Bird Survey, as well as the knowledge gained over many years of experience with the state’s avifauna. As the word “atlas” implies, the book includes maps that illustrate the distribution of breeding bird species in Illinois, but it also includes information on their ranges, abundance, habitats, life histories, historical status, and recent population trends. T= Illinois Breeding Bird Atlas presents a comprehen- Atlas History The concept of the breeding bird atlas began in England in the 1960s. Atlas projects were conducted throughout western European countries in the 1970s and began in the United States in the 1970s. Several eastern states completed their atlas projects during the 1980s; some are now starting their second round. During the 1980s the number of states conducting breeding bird atlas projects grew rapidly and atlas projects have now been completed in several states. A review of atlas history can be found in Laughlin et al. (1982a). The Illinois Breeding Bird Atlas project was planned and funded by the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) with cooperative support from the Illinois Audubon Society and its chapters, the Illinois chapters of the National Audubon Society, and independent Audubon and birding organizations in the state. The field data were collected by 945 individuals during the period 1986 through 1991. Goal and Objectives The goal of the Illinois Breeding Bird Atlas project was to conduct a comprehensive and systematic statewide survey of breeding birds to document their distribution and status in the state. The objectives of the atlas project were to: accurately determine the distribution of all bird species breeding in Illinois during the period 1986— 19o 1 ¢ develop an avian database from the information collected in the field. provide additional distributional information on species listed as threatened or endangered and help identify other species of conservation and manage- ment concern. ¢ document and identify sites that provide critical habitat for rare or locally distributed species. provide a database on the distribution of breeding birds to assist in resource management decisions by environmental planners, legislators, developers, conservationists, and others. provide a documented baseline data source for biolo- gists and researchers to monitor future change. use a survey methodology that can be duplicated in the future. use the collective expertise of the professional and nonprofessional birding community in a scientific and educational endeavor, and educate the public about birds as a natural resource. , One aspect of the atlas project that deserves special mention is the value of the data as a baseline for future comparisons. The atlas data provide a robust, unique benchmark that will enable comparative studies in the same vein as the important research the Grabers conducted comparing bird populations in Illinois for the periods 1906— 1909 and 1956-1958 (Graber and Graber 1963). The atlas data will be invaluable in determining how bird populations are affected by the continually changing landscape, including urban sprawl, habitat alteration and loss, and habitat restora- tion. toms Methods semmmmsrr to allow atlas surveyors, or atlasers, to contribute to the collection of scientific data. The atlasers, both amateur and professional ornithologists, were largely volunteers. Illinois atlasers selected or were assigned atlas blocks (see Sampling Design section for discussion of blocks), identified as many breeding species as possible within the boundaries of the blocks during the atlas period, and determined the highest degree of breeding evidence for each identified species. T he Illinois Breeding Bird Atlas project was designed Standards During the course of international and national atlasing, standard techniques and procedures were developed, formalized, and adopted by the International Atlas Commit- tee and the North American Ornithological Atlas Committee (NORAC) (Laughlin et al. 1982a; Laughlin et al. 1982b; Sutcliffe et al. 1986; North American Ornithological Atlas Committee 1990). The protocol for the Illinois Breeding Bird Atlas project followed these standards. Planning and Management The Illinois Breeding Bird Atlas project was designed to be a county-by-county effort with 15 to 25 new counties starting up each year during the six-year period. The 102 counties in Illinois (Fig. 1) range from approximately 170 square miles for Putnam County to 1,174 square miles for McLean County. The start-up years for the counties are shown in Figure 2. Individuals were recruited from each county to serve as county coordinators. Their responsibilities included 1) recruiting and instructing volunteers; 2) distributing the data forms and maps for the blocks to be atlased; 3) urging the volunteers to make every effort to “confirm” as many species as possible in their atlas blocks; 4) monitoring their county’s coverage; and 5) receiving the completed data forms from the atlasers at the end of each breeding season, checking them for accuracy, and forwarding them to the project coordinator. The service time for county coordinators ranged from one year for a single county to all six years for a single county or multiple counties. County coordinators were provided small stipends to help cover their expenses. By the third year of the atlas project it was apparent that counties with larger populations and larger numbers of atlasers were achieving the project goals and objectives while other counties, particularly the less populated ones, were not being adequately surveyed despite the county-by- county phase-in system. Data collection for priority blocks in the northeastern counties was nearing completion and sampling of nonpriority blocks was starting. Therefore, supplemental methodologies were developed in order to achieve at least minimal coverage in every county. One method was to contract with individuals to atlas all priority 2 blocks in one or more counties. Between 1988 and 1991 contracts were used to obtain data from some or all priority blocks in 17 counties (Fig. 2). A second method was the “block-busting” weekend, where atlasers participated in a team effort to survey all priority blocks in an entire county on weekends (Friday night through Sunday afternoon). Block-busting weekends were scheduled on all June week- ends and the first weekend in July during the last three years of the atlas project. Data for some or all priority blocks in 37 counties (Fig. 2) were obtained through block-busting efforts. Sampling Design A systematic, statewide sampling method was established for Illinois by creating a grid system based on the U.S. Geologi- cal Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle maps. The sample unit for the Illinois atlas project, the atlas block, was based on protocol recommended by NORAC (Laughlin et al. 1982b). Atlas blocks were derived by subdividing the 7.5- minute quadrangle maps into six equal areas, each quad being divided vertically in half and horizontally in thirds (Fig. 3). The resulting blocks were generally about 10 square miles in area. This process created 6,151 blocks for the state (from the 1,072 7.5-minute quadrangles that cover all or part of Illinois). Atlas blocks were assigned identification numbers: the first three numbers (001 to 287) identify the 15-minute USGS quadrangle map; the letter (A, B, C, or D) identifies the 7.5-minute quadrangle map (four 7.5-minute maps comprise a 15-minute map); and the last number (1 to 6) identifies the block (Fig. 3). Sampling all of the blocks in the state was unrealistic from funding and logistical perspectives. Therefore the number “3” block from each 7.5-minute quadrangle was chosen to be sampled in every quad; these were called priority blocks. The goal was to sample all 1,018 priority blocks in the state (due to irregularities in the state boundary, there are fewer number “3” blocks than the total number of 7.5-minute quadrangles). The remaining blocks (numbers 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6) were called nonpriority blocks. For the purposes of field work, the boundaries of priority blocks were marked on 7.5-minute quadrangle and county highway maps. These maps were then forwarded to the county coordinators for distribution to the atlasers. Atlasers were requested to mark locations of rare, threatened, endangered or other significant species directly onto the 7.5- minute quadrangle maps and return the maps to the project coordinator at the conclusion of the project. Although sampling priority blocks was a sound design, much of the area of the state was not sampled. Thus, addi- tional sampling provided important supplemental data. After the priority blocks in a county had been surveyed, the county coordinators could approve surveys of nonpriority blocks. The sampling of nonpriority blocks was concentrated in northeastern Illinois (Lake, Cook, DuPage, and Will coun- ties). Breeding Status Categories and Evidence Criteria The four breeding status categories listed from highest to lowest level of certainty were Confirmed (CO), Probable (PR), Possible (PO), and Observed (OB) (Table 1). The Confirmed, Probable, and Possible categories provide evidence of breeding. The Observed category provides only evidence of occurrence and not of breeding. Atlasers used the Observed category to record the occurrence of migrants and nonbreeding species seen in a block during the breeding season or of wide-ranging species (e.g., vultures and herons) that may forage some distance from their nest sites. The classification of a sighting into the four breeding status categories was based on the type of breeding evidence observed. Twenty breeding evidence criteria were used (Table 1). Once a species was Confirmed in an atlas block (regardless of the year), additional evidence for that species was no longer required. The presence of a cowbird egg or young in a nest or a fledgling cowbird begging or being fed by another species was determined to be Confirmed breeding for both the cowbird and the host species. The breeding criteria and evidence codes used in the atlas followed the recommendations of NORAC (Sutcliffe et al. 1986; Illinois Department of Conservation 1986). For the atlasers, the codes were defined in the Handbook for Surveyors (IDOC 1986) and printed on the data form they used to record their observations in the field. Species of Special Consideration Records of species that were rare, listed as threatened or endangered, of special management concern, difficult to distinguish, or reported outside of their expected range in the state were required to have additional documentation from the atlasers to ensure correct identification before being included in the database. For these species (Table 2), atlasers were to provide written details about location, habitat Table 1. Breeding status categories and breeding evidence criteria used for the Illinois Breeding Bird Atlas project. The four breeding status categories (CO, PR, PO, and OB) are defined by 20 breeding evidence criteria. Codes Breeding Evidence Criteria Observed (OB) O Species (male or female) observed in a block during the breeding season, but believed not to be breeding (i.e., none of the criteria listed for the other status categories in this table were observed) Possible (PO) / Species (male or female) observed in suitable nesting habitat during its breeding season. x Singing male present in suitable nesting habitat during its breeding season. Probable (PR) M Multiple males (7 or more) singing in suitable nesting habitat during the species’ breeding season. B Pair observed in suitable habitat during its breeding season. ih Permanent territory presumed through defense (e.g., chasing of other birds; or song at the same location on at least two occasions a week or more apart). Cc Courtship behavior or copulation. N Visiting probable nest site. A Agitated behavior or anxiety calls from adult. B Nest building by wrens or excavation of holes by woodpeckers. Confirmed (CO) NB Nest building by all species except wrens and woodpeckers. PE Physiological evidence of breeding (i.e., highly vascularized, edematous incubation “brood” patch or egg in oviduct) based on bird in hand. DD Distraction display or injury feigning. UN Used nest or eggshells found. pu Recently fledged young (of altricial species) incapable of sustained flight or downy young (of precocial species) restricted to the natal area by dependence on adults or limited mobility. ON Occupied nest; adults entering or leaving nest site in circumstances indicating occupied nest (includes high nests or nest holes, the contents of which cannot be seen) or adult incubating or brooding. ES Adult carrying fecal sac. HY Adult carrying food for young, or feeding recently fledged young. NE Nest with egg(s). NY Nest with young seen or heard. preference or occurrence, breeding evidence observed, behavior, and specific dates, and to mark the location of observation on the atlas block map. Any species not listed on the field data form required the same documentation. Block Coverage A primary objective of the atlas project was to document the status of every species that occurred in every priority block and to confirm breeding for as many species as possible. Atlasers were requested to thoroughly survey all habitats in their blocks to find most of the species present. Most of the sampling effort in June was directed towards documenting species presence and in July and August the goal was to try to confirm breeding. The sampling of a block in subsequent years was intended to fill in knowledge gaps, such as expected species that were not found, species reported with breeding evidence other than Confirmed, and early nesting species (January through May). The atlas project utilized two criteria to determine if blocks were adequately sampled: that the majority of species believed to be present had been documented and the majority of those found were Confirmed as breeding. Other atlas projects found that a minimum of 15 field hours spread over several days was usually needed to detect 75% or more of the species present in a block and that several more hours were necessary to confirm breeding for the majority of those present (Laughlin et al. 1982b). Another method used by other atlas projects to deter- mine sampling adequacy was the establishment of species goals for each block (Raynor 1983). In Illinois the project coordinator estimated the expected number of species in a priority block based on the diversity of habitat types as ascertained from the 7.5-minute quadrangle maps. Generally the expected number of species ranged from 50 for intensely cultivated blocks to more than 90 for those blocks with a diversity of habitats (e.g., wetland, forest, shrub, tree lines). Data Collection and Management Atlasers were provided with field data forms (Fig. 4) which listed every species expected to be found during the project. For each sampled block, they recorded the breeding evidence codes for each species observed, the survey date, time spent in the field, names of other observers assisting, and the date each species was confirmed. Because the same field data form was used in subsequent visits to a block, atlasers were aware of which species could potentially be upgraded to a higher breeding status category. At the end of each field season, atlasers transferred new data from their field forms onto data entry forms (Fig. 5) and forwarded the completed forms to their county coordinator. The county coordinator was responsible for checking the forms for accuracy, completion, errors (e.g., wrong species codes), misinformation (e.g., improper use of codes, such as using NB rather than B for wrens or woodpeckers), or missing documentation. The data forms were forwarded to the project coordinator for further review, and then to the Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation where the data was entered into the database and additional quality-control checks were performed. Draft species distribution maps provided additional information for review by the project coordinator, Max McGraw Wildlife Foundation staff, and ornithologists at the Illinois Natural History Survey. Limitations and Biases Although the atlasing effort yielded a tremendous amount of information, it did not find every species present. Potential factors that contributed to underrepresentation in the atlas project included ¢ Insufficient effort (hours, days, or years) spent in the block (most blocks were surveyed only one or two years). ¢ Species that are uncommon or rare, habitat specialists, had localized distributions, or of sporadic occurrence. Table 2. Species of special consideration. These species, which were listed on the field data form (Fig. 4), as well as any species not listed on the form, required atlasers to provide additional data. Northern Pintail Northern Shoveler Sharp-shinned Hawk Cooper’s Hawk Hooded Merganser Red-shouldered Hawk Ruddy Duck Swainson’s Hawk Eared Grebe King Rail Double-crested Cormorant Virginia Rail American Bittern Sora Common Moorhen Sandhill Crane Upland Sandpiper Wilson’s Snipe Snowy Egret Little Blue Heron Black-crowned Night-Heron Yellow-crowned Night-Heron Black Vulture Wilson’s Phalarope Mississippi Kite Ring-billed Gull Bald Eagle Herring Gull Northern Harrier Common Tern Forster’s Tern Prairie Warbler Black Tern Black-and-white Warbler Barn Owl Worm-eating Warbler Long-eared Owl Swainson’s Warbler Short-eared Owl Ovenbird Alder Flycatcher Hooded Warbler Least Flycatcher Western Kingbird Fish Crow Bewick’s Wren Brown Creeper Veery Blue-winged Warbler Yellow-throated Warbler Summer Tanager Bachman’s Sparrow Henslow’s Sparrow Blue Grosbeak Western Meadowlark Yellow-headed Blackbird House Finch Pine Siskin Species that are not common in the more easily accessible habitats, such as along roadsides. Species requiring specialized sampling efforts, such as nocturnal and crepuscular birds (e.g., owls, night hawks, or woodcock), and secretive species (e.g., rails and some other wetland species). Early or late breeders, relative to when atlasers did their field work. Variability in the skills and abilities of atlasers. Sampling techniques required to obtain data for unsampled blocks. Many blocks sampled during blockbusting weekends were not adequately sampled. While the survey of these blocks was intensive and conducted by experienced birders, only 12—15 hours were spent in most of these blocks. Because atlasers may have been unfamiliar with the blocks and/or the rare, uncommon, or intermittently occurring species in the area, special or rare habitats may not have been sampled. Since these blocks were generally sampled in a single day in June or early July, species that bred early in the season (e.g., waterfowl, owls) or late in the season may have been missed. nes VeSUults and Discussion Atlas Coverage and Effort The Illinois Breeding Bird Atlas project was dependent on atlasers to survey their selected or assigned blocks as thoroughly as possible from 1986 through 1991. The total number of blocks sampled was 1,286; of these, 998 (78%) were priority and 288 (22%) were nonpriority blocks (Fig. 6). Of the 1,018 potential priority blocks, 98% were sampled during at least one of the six project years. Blocks that were sampled during the atlas project are listed by county in Appendix A. During the project, 945 atlasers spent 44,913 hours collecting data (31,602 hours or 71% in priority blocks and 13,311 hours or 29% in nonpriority blocks); this is equiva- lent to 22 man-years or 5 years and 2 months of consecutive time (i.e., 24 hours a day) and an average of 48 observer hours per person. Observer hours averaged 31.7 hours per priority block and 34.9 hours per block for all blocks. Vermilion, Will, and Cook counties had the most sampling hours for priority blocks in their counties. The number of observer hours per priority block is illustrated in Figure 7 and listed in Appendix B. The atlas database consists of 74,277 species records for all 1,286 blocks (a species record is an occurrence of a species in a block using the highest breeding status category recorded for that species in the block); however, consider- ably more records were actually collected. Records of a species reported at a higher breeding status category super- seded those of lower categories and only those with the highest status category for a species in each block were retained in the atlas database. Forty-six percent of the records from all blocks were Confirmed, 25.0% were Probable, 23.8% were Possible, and the remaining 5.2% were Ob- served status. Priority blocks yielded 62,430 records (84% of the total records). Of the priority block records, 45.7% were Confirmed, 25.0% were Probable, 24.5% were Possible, and 4.8% were Observed status, which was similar to the distribution of breeding status codes for all blocks. Species Information The four breeding status categories—Confirmed, Probable, Possible, and Observed—indicate levels of certainty that a species is breeding based on different types of evidence (Table 1). The term “breeding evidence,” as used in the atlas, refers to Confirmed, Probable, and Possible breeding status categories. “Observed” records were not considered evidence of breeding. A total of 216 species was recorded during the atlas project and included in the database; 208 of these were reported from priority blocks. For all blocks, breeding evidence was reported for 197 species (172 Confirmed, 15 Probable, and 10 Possible) based on the highest level of breeding status in at least one block and another 19 species 6 were reported only as Observed. For priority blocks, the atlas project documented breeding evidence for 192 species (166 Confirmed, 14 Probable, and 12 Possible) based on the highest level of breeding status in at least one block and another 16 species were reported only as Observed. The number of species recorded with breeding evidence in each priority block is illustrated in Figure 8 and listed in Appendix B. The average number of breeding species reported per block was 60 (range 3-111) and 55 (range 1- 111) in priority blocks and in all blocks, respectively. The number of species with breeding evidence per block is shown in Table 3. In 70% of the priority blocks there were 50-79 species with breeding evidence. Six blocks (which were all priority blocks) had 100 or more species with breeding evidence (Appendix B). Both the highest number of species with breeding evidence (111) and the highest number of Confirmed species (107) were recorded in the Danville Northwest priority block (149B3) in Vermilion County. This block also received one of the highest sampling efforts (247 hours). Because approximately 60% of the landscape of Illinois is cropland (Luman et al. 1996), numerous blocks were located in largely agricultural areas, and many blocks with low numbers of species were dominated by cropland. Some nonpriority blocks had low numbers of species reported because data submitted were for rare species only or species not reported from adjacent priority blocks. For counties, the number of species with breeding evidence in priority blocks reported ranged from 69 to 141 (Appendix C). Thirty-eight of the 102 counties had 100 or more species with breeding evidence in priority blocks. Cook, Will, Winnebago, Vermilion, and Lake counties had 141, 128, 127, 124, and 123 species, respectively. The two Table 3. Frequency distribution of the number of species with breeding evidence reported per block. Number Priority Blocks All Blocks of species # Blocks % Blocks # Blocks % Blocks >= 100 6 0.6 6 0.5 90-99 14 1.4 18 1.4 80-89 50 5.0 70 5.4 70-79 167 16.7 196 [32 60-69 282 28.3 310 24.1 50-59 25> 25.6 294 Ne, 40-49 134 13.4 154 12.0 30-39 66 6.6 9] Fell 20-29 23 22 43 a3 <=19 l 0.1 104 Sal Total 998 100.0 1,286 100.0 counties with 100 or more Confirmed species in priority blocks were Vermilion (117) and Will (102). Several species were found to be widespread in Illinois during the atlas project. Among the 192 species with breeding evidence in priority blocks, 60 (31%) species were reported in at least 50% of the priority blocks and of these 60 species, 22 (11%) were reported in 90% or more of the blocks (Table 4). The five most frequently reported species were the Red-winged Blackbird, American Robin, Mourning Dove, House Sparrow, and Common Grackle. The five species most frequently Confirmed in priority blocks were the House Sparrow, American Robin, Barn Swallow, Red-winged Blackbird, and European Starling (Table 5). Twenty-two of the 166 Confirmed species in priority blocks were reported as Confirmed in at least 50% of the priority blocks. Some species are more easily Confirmed than others due to factors such as overall abundance, observable breeding behavior, and habitat preference. A comparison of Tables 4 and 5 shows that many of the most frequently Confirmed species are among the most wide- spread species, and vice versa. Many species have limited distributions in the state. Nearly half (90) of the 192 species with breeding evidence in priority blocks were found in 100 (10%) or fewer priority blocks (Appendix D). Fifty species with breeding evidence were reported from 10 or fewer priority blocks. Some of the species with limited distributions have always been uncom- mon in the state, such as those at the edge of their range. Others have only recently become less common. Twenty- Table 4. The most frequently reported species with breeding evidence in priority blocks. The 22 species listed were found in 90% or more of the 998 priority blocks. Rank Species # of Priority 9% of Priority Blocks Blocks Red-winged Blackbird 993 ie) 2 American Robin 990 99.2 3 Mourning Dove 988 99.0 - House Sparrow 988 99.0 5) Common Grackle 986 98.8 6 Indigo Bunting 985 98.7 7 Barn Swallow 983 98.5 8 Northern Cardinal 973 97.5 9 European Starling 972 97.4 10 Eastern Meadowlark 971 97.3 1] American Goldfinch 966 96.8 12 Song Sparrow 960 96.2 5) Brown Thrasher 958 96.0 14 Blue Jay 957 95.9 15 Common Yellowthroat 954 95.6 16 Brown-headed Cowbird 95] 95.3 107 Killdeer 948 95.0 18 Eastern Kingbird 935 93.7 19 American Crow 927 92.9 20 Northern Flicker 920 92.2 21 Gray Catbird 906 90.8 22 Dickcissel 899 90.1 seven (38%) of the 90 species with breeding evidence in priority blocks that were found in 100 or fewer priority blocks are listed as state threatened or endangered species. (The Loggerhead Shrike was the only state threatened or endangered species with evidence of breeding in more the 100 priority blocks). The Species Accounts section of this book includes accounts for 183 species—the 172 Confirmed as breeding during the atlas project and 11 not Confirmed but known or likely to have bred in the state during the atlas project. Forty-four of the 216 species recorded by the atlas project were not Confirmed (Table 6)—11 of these were most likely breeders and have been included in the species accounts; the other 33 were considered to be either late spring migrants or summer lingerers. Six species—the Northern Shoveler, Peregrine Falcon, Wilson’s Snipe, Herring Gull, Common Tern, and Brewer’s Blackbird— were Confirmed as breeding only in nonpriority blocks. Breeding evidence was reported for the first time in the state for two species not previously known to breed in Illinois, the Golden-crowned Kinglet (Confirmed) and Black-throated Green Warbler (Possible). In addition, the Peregrine Falcon has returned as a breeding species in the state as a result of restoration efforts in the Chicago area. Table 5. The most frequently Confirmed species in priority blocks. The 22 species listed were Confirmed as breeding in at least half of the 998 priority blocks. The number of priority blocks with Confirmed status and the percent of total priority blocks are given. Priority Blocks with Rank Species Confirmed Status # % 1 House Sparrow 953593 2 American Robin 949 95 3. Barn Swallow 897 =90 4 Red-winged Blackbird 893) 7 89 5 European Starling 890 = 89 6 Common Grackle 854 86 7 Mourning Dove 133 273. 8 Northern Cardinal G7 67 9 Brown Thrasher 633 63 10. Blue Jay 598 60 11 = Killdeer 594 60 12. House Wren 59460 13. Eastern Bluebird Joan) OF 14. Red-headed Woodpecker 558 56 15 Eastern Meadowlark 558 56 16 Eastern Kingbird Soe 156 17. Song Sparrow Dots? G56 18 Horned Lark a Fal ets) 19 Chipping Sparrow 2h) wo 20 Rock Pigeon 3105 5] 21 Indigo Bunting 506 51 22 Baltimore Oriole 503 50 Table 6. Species reported but not Confirmed as breeding in any block during the atlas project. These 44 species are listed by the highest breeding status categories recorded in the atlas project. Species accounts are included in the atlas for species considered to have bred in the state during the period of the atlas project. For the Probable and Possible categories, the records listed are for breeding evidence categories (PR, PO); the records are all Observed status for the Observed category. Species Species Comments and Number of Atlas Records Account PROBABLE American Black Duck No Occasional breeding species; 4 records (1 priority block each in Anas rubripes DuPage and Lee counties; and | nonpriority block each in Cook and Will counties). Green-winged Teal No Occasional breeding species; 3 records (1 priority and | nonpriority Anas crecca block in Cook County and | nonpriority block in DuPage County). Redhead No Occasional breeding species; 2 records (1 nonpriority block each in Aythya americana Lake and Will counties). Lesser Scaup No Occasional breeding species; 2 records (1 priority and | nonpriority Aythya affinis block in Cook County). American Bittern Yes Breeds in Illinois but not Confirmed during the atlas project. This is Botaurus lentiginosus a state endangered species. Snowy Egret Yes Breeds in Illinois but not Confirmed during the atlas project. This is Egretta thula a state endangered species. Osprey Yes Breeds in Illinois but not Confirmed during the atlas project. This is Pandion haliaetus a state endangered species. Caspian Tern No Nonbreeding species; 1 record (1 priority block in DeWitt County). Sterna caspia This record likely represents an early fall migrant. Alder Flycatcher Yes No evidence of breeding in Illinois but late migrants or summering Empidonax alnorum birds suggest breeding may be attempted. Yellow-bellied Flycatcher No Nonbreeding species; | record (priority block in Winnebago County). Empidonax flaviventris This is most likely a late spring migrant. Mourning Warbler Yes Breeds in Illinois but not Confirmed during the atlas project. Oporonus philadelphia Canada Warbler Yes Breeds in Illinois but not Confirmed during the atlas project. Wilsonia pusilla Clay-colored Sparrow Les Breeds in Illinois but not Confirmed during the atlas project. Spizella pallida White-throated Sparrow No 3 records (1 priority block in Kane County and 2 nonpriority blocks Zonotrichia albicollis in Cook County). Confirmed as a breeding species in Cook County in 2001 after the atlas project ended. Purple Finch No Nonbreeding species ; 3 records (1 priority block in Shelby County Carpodacus purpureus and 2 nonpriority blocks, 1 each in Rock Island and Lee counties). These records are mostly likely late spring migrants. POSSIBLE Gadwall No Occasional breeding species; 2 records (1 priority and | nonpriority Anas strepera block in Cook County). Ring-necked Duck No Very rare breeding species; 4 records (1 priority block in Cook Aythya collaris County and 3 nonpriority blocks, 1 each in Cook, Kane and Will counties). These records are most likely lingering birds. Common Merganser No Nonbreeding species; 2 records (Cook and Will counties). Mergus merganser Red-breasted Merganser No Nonbreeding species; | record (1 nonpriority block in Will County). Mergus serrator This record is most likely an incidental summer occurrence. Common Loon No Nonbreeding species; | record (priority block in Cook County). Gavia immer This record is most likely a lingering bird. Little Blue Heron Yes Breeds in Illinois but not Confirmed during the atlas project. This is Egretta caerulea a state endangered species. Tricolored Heron* No Nonbreeding species; | record (1 priority block in Cook County). Egretta tricolor This record is an incidental summer occurrence. Table 6 (Continued). Species Species Comments and Number of Atlas Records Account Long-eared Owl No Regular but rare and hard-to-find breeding species; 2 records (1 Asio otus priority block in Wabash County and | nonpriority block in Winnebago County). Black-throated Green Warbler Yes Breeds in Illinois but not Confirmed during the atlas project. Dendroica virens Swainson’s Warbler Yes Breeds in Illinois but not Confirmed during the atlas project. This is Limnothlypis swainsonii a state endangered species. OBSERVED American Wigeon No Nonbreeding species; 2 records (1 nonpriority block in DuPage County Anas americana and | nonprioirty block in Will County. This record is most likely a lingering bird. Canvasback No Very rare breeding species; | record (nonpriority block in Kane Aythya valisineria County). This record is most likely a lingering bird. Greater Scaup No Nonbreeding species; | record (nonpriority block in Cook County). Aythya marila This record is most likely a lingering bird. Bufflehead No Nonbreeding species; | record (nonpriority block in Will County). Bucephala albeola This record is most likely a lingering bird. Brown Pelican* No Nonbreeding species; | record (priority block in Lake County). Pelecanus occidentalis This record is most likely an incidental summer occurrence. Black Vulture Yes Breeds in Illinois but not Confirmed during the atlas project. Coragyps atratus Merlin No Nonbreeding species; 2 records (1 priority block in Hancock County Falco columbarius and | nonpriority in Lee County). These records are incidental summer occurrences. Wilson’s Phalarope No Occasional breeding species; 2 records (1 priority and | nonpriority Phalaropus tricolor in Cook County). This is a state endangered species. Laughing Gull No Nonbreeding species; 2 records (1 priority in Lake County and | Larus atricilla nonpriority in Cook County). These records are incidental summer occurrences. Franklin’s Gull No Nonbreeding species; | record (priority block in Lake County). Larus pipixcan This record is an incidental summer occurrence. Little Gull* No Nonbreeding species; | record (priority block in Lake County). Larus minutus This record is an incidental summer occurrence. Least Tern No Regularly breeds on islands in the Ohio and Mississippi rivers in Sterna antillarum extreme southern Illinois; 1 record (priority block in Pope County). This species is a state and a federally endangered species. Western Kingbird No Sporadic breeding species, currently nesting in Sangamon and Tyrannus verticalis Madison counties; | record (priority block in Vermilion County). Tennessee Warbler No Nonbreeding species; 2 records (1 priority in Lake County and | Vermivora peregrina nonpriority in Cook County). These records are most likely late spring migrants. Bay-breasted Warbler No Nonbreeding species; | record (nonpriority block in Cook County). Dendroica castanea This record is most likely a late spring migrant. Blackpoll Warbler No Nonbreeding species; | record (nonpriority block in Cook County). Dendroica striata This record is most likely a late spring migrant. Fox Sparrow No Nonbreeding species; | record (nonpriority block in Cook County). Passerella iliaca This record is most likely a late spring migrant. White-crowned Sparrow No Nonbreeding species; 3 records (1 priority block in Richland County Zonotrichia leucophrys and 2 nonpriority blocks in Cook County). These records are most likely late spring migrants. Dark-eyed Junco No Nonbreeding species; | record (priority block in Champaign Junco hyemalis County). This record is most likely a late spring migrant. * Species not likely to have occurred in Illinois during the atlas project. Breeding evidence was also recorded for Lawrence’s and Brewster’s warblers, which are hybrids, and the Ringed Turtle-Dove, an introduced domesticated species that does poorly in the wild in North America (American Ornitholo- gists’ Union 1998; Sibley 2000). Because they are not recognized as valid species, their records were not included in the data summaries (i.e., not included in the total of 216 species, etc.). The Lawrence’s Warbler and Ringed Turtle- Dove were Confirmed as breeding in northeastern Illinois and the Brewster’s Warbler was noted as a Probable breeder in southern Illinois. Some species known to currently breed in Illinois were not found during the atlas project. Eight species, including five that have been Confirmed as breeding since the atlas project ended in 1991, are listed in Table 7. Three species— the Purple Gallinule, Northern Saw-whet Owl, and Blue- headed Vireo—have been known to occasionally breed in Illinois. Since the atlas project ended five additional species have been documented as breeding for the first time in Illinois: the Black-necked Stilt, Eurasian Collared-Dove, Scissor-tailed Flycatcher, Violet-green Swallow, and Painted Bunting. The White-throated Sparrow, which was reported as a probable breeder during the atlas project, was confirmed as breeding in Chicago in 2001 (Williamson 2002). Atlas project data documented changes in several species’ known ranges and populations, and the data provide robust baseline information to compare and measure future changes. Species with notable increases in breeding range and/or population in the state include ¢ Northward expansion of breeding range for the Mississippi Kite, White-eyed Vireo, Northern Mockingbird, Kentucky Warbler, Summer Tanager, and Blue Grosbeak. ¢ Southward expansion of breeding range for the Double-crested Cormorant, Bald Eagle, Tree Swal- low, Cliff Swallow, House Wren, Chestnut-sided Warbler, and Rose-breasted Grosbeak. ¢ Population increase for Henslow’s Sparrow, possibly due to an increase in available habitat created by programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP} ¢ Population expansion for the House Finch, which arrived as a breeding species just before the atlas project began and rapidly became more widespread and abundant during the six years of the project. Species with notable decreases in breeding range and/or population include ¢ The King Rail, Upland Sandpiper, Barn Owl, Logger- head Shrike, Bell’s Vireo, Bewick’s Wren, and Swainson’s Warbler. These seven species were found during the atlas project. The Swainson’s Warbler had only one atlas record and may now be extirpated from the state. ¢ The Piping Plover, Nashville Warbler, and Bachman’s Sparrow. These species bred in Illinois prior to the 1950s but are currently considered extirpated from the state. None of these species were found during the atlas project. The Piping Plover formerly bred along the Lake Michigan shoreline, the Nashville Warbler formerly bred in extreme northeastern Illinois, and Bachman’s Sparrow formerly bred throughout Illinois. Currently 34 species of birds are listed by the State of Illinois as either endangered or threatened. This total includes two federally listed endangered species (Piping Plover and Least Tern) and a federally listed threatened species (Bald Eagle). Thirty-two of the 34 species were at least Observed during the atlas project. Only the Piping Plover and the Black Rail were not reported at all. The Wilson’s Phalarope and Least Tern were reported as Ob- served only. For all blocks evidence of breeding was found for 30 of the state endangered or threatened species and 25 were Confirmed. In priority blocks, breeding evidence was found for 28 of the 34 species and 23 were Confirmed (Table 8). The frequency of breeding evidence codes for species with Confirmed, Probable, or Possible records in priority blocks is given in Appendix E. Of the 20 breeding evidence codes, the four most frequently used codes represent 56% of the records. They were fledged young (FL), a singing male Table 7. Occasional breeding species in Illinois not reported during the atlas project. Species Comment Purple Gallinule (Porphyrio martinica) Black-necked Stilt (Himantopus mexicanus) Eurasian Collared-Dove (Streptopelia decaocto) Rare nesting species at Lake Mermet in Massac County (a) First Confirmed breeding record in Illinois in Jackson County in 1994 (b) First observation (1997) and first Confirmed breeding record (1998) in Illinois in Clinton County (c) Northern Saw-whet Owl (Aegolius acadicus) Occasional breeding species in northwestern counties; fledglings found in 1982 in Cook and Will counties (a) Scissor-tailed Flycatcher (Tyrannus forficatus) Violet-green Swallow (Tachycineta thalassina) First Confirmed breeding record in Illinois in Randolph County in 2000 (d) Rare breeding species. First Confirmed evidence of nesting (hybridized with a Tree Swallow) in Winnebago County in 1994 (e) Painted Bunting (Passerina ciris) Blue-headed Vireo (Vireo solitarius) First Confirmed breeding record in Illinois in St. Clair County in 2000 (f) Occasional nesting in central and northern Illinois (a) (a) Bohlen 1989; (b) Fink 1994; (c) Kleen 1999; (d) Kleen et al. 2001; (e) Johnson and Moskoff 1995; (f) Kassebaum 2001. 10 present in suitable habitat during breeding season (X), the total number of species with breeding evidence; adult(s) carrying food for young (FY), and species observed and the number of observer hours. in suitable nesting habitat during breeding season (/). * County: Appendix C gives a summary of the data by Information about breeding evidence codes for Confirmed county for species found in priority blocks. It lists the species in priority blocks is given by groups in Appendix F. number of species with Confirmed, Probable, Pos- sible, or Observed breeding status and the number of Additional Summary Information species with breeding evidence, using the highest Summary and results information may be found in the status that occurred in the county. Appendix A is a appendices at the end of this book. These appendices listing of 7.5-minute quadrangles and atlas blocks by provide information by blocks, counties, and species and county. include the following: e Species: Appendix D gives a summary of atlas data ¢ Block: The summary of data by block in Appendix B for the species recorded during the atlas project. The includes the 7.5-minute quadrangle and the county for appendix includes the number of priority blocks with each block (blocks occurring in multiple counties Confirmed, Probable, Possible, and Observed records; were assigned to the county with the greatest area in the total number of priority blocks with Confirmed, the block) as well as the number of species with Probable, or Possible records; and the number of Confirmed, Probable, Possible, and Observed status; counties with Confirmed, Probable, or Possible records for each species for priority blocks. Table 8. Summary of atlas data for the 34 state and federally endangered and threatened species. The number of priority blocks and total blocks with breeding evidence (BE) (i.e., Confirmed, Probable, or Possible records) and the highest confirmation status for all blocks are listed. The Piping Plover and Black Rail were not found during the atlas project. Wilson’s Phalarope and Least Tern were Observed only. Priority Blocks Total Blocks #of Highest #of Highest Blocks Status Blocks Status with BE with BE State Endangered Greater Prairie-Chicken 1 CO l CO American Bittern 6 PR 12 PR Snowy Egret 1 PR 2 PR Little Blue Heron 7 PO Y PO Black-crowned Night-Heron 33 CO iil CO Yellow-crowned Night-Heron 18 CO 28 CO Osprey Z PR 5 PR Mississippi Kite 9 CO ) CO Northern Harrier 45 CO 59 CO Swainson’s Hawk 5 CO 6 CO Peregrine Falcon 0 OB 3 CO King Rail 8 CO 11 CO Black Rail 0 - 0 - Piping Plover *FE 0 - 0 - Upland Sandpiper 4] CO Dy | CO Wilson’s Phalarope 0 OB 0 OB Common Tern 0 OB 2 CO Forster’s Tern l CO 2, CO Least Tern *FE 0 OB 0 OB Black Tern 7, CO 18 CO Barn Owl 4 CO 4 CO Short-eared Owl 4 CO 5 CO Bewick’s Wren 4 CO 5 CO Swainson’s Warbler | PO | PO Henslow’s Sparrow 1] CO Ja! LO Yellow-headed Blackbird 15 CO 48 CO State Threatened Pied-billed Grebe 43 CO 93 CO Least Bittern 19 CO 319, CO Bald Eagle *FT 6 CO 6 CO Red-shouldered Hawk 45 co 63 CO Common Moorhen 1] CC® 34 CO Sandhill Crane 2 CO 1] CO Brown Creeper 15 CO py CO Loggerhead Shrike 244 CO 267 CO *FE = Federally Endangered Species *FT = Federally Threatened Species mum North American Breeding Bird Survey =EE=™ the distributional status of Illinois’ breeding birds. Knowledge of species distribution, the quality and quantity of habitat, and population size and trends are important to understanding the status of wildlife populations and in guiding effective management strategies. The North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) was developed to address the need to understand avian population trends, particularly those of songbirds. Developed by Chandler S. Robbins and his colleagues at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in the mid-1960s, the BBS is currently coordinated by the U.S. Geological Survey’s Patuxent Wildlife Research Center and the Canadian Wildlife Service. At present the BBS program covers much of the United States and southern Canada and has expanded to include Alaska, northern Canada, and Mexico. The BBS is a primary source of population trend and distribution information for most species of North American birds and is the largest wildlife survey in the world. The BBS is a large-scale, roadside survey of birds that began in 1966 with the primary objective of estimating population change for songbirds in North America. Ran- domly located permanent routes, each 24.5 miles in length with 50 census points located at 0.5-mile intervals, are the sampling unit. During a three-minute sampling period all birds seen or heard within a 0.25-mile radius of each point are recorded. Routes are surveyed once a year during the peak of the breeding season. The numbers of routes are distributed at densities varying from | to 16 routes per degree block of latitude and longitude depending upon their geographic location. Route densities have increased over time to help improve the precision of the annual indices of abundance and trend estimates. The methodology is de- scribed in detail by Robbins et al. (1986). The BBS represents a unique attempt at measuring the breeding population of birds in North America and provides the most comprehensive information on regional avian population trends. There are, however, some limitations and biases associated with the BBS data and analyses. These problems have been discussed elsewhere (Bystrak 1981; Droege 1990; Peterjohn et al. 1995) but are mentioned here to inform the user of some of the potential problems that exist (U.S. Geological Survey 2002). Some of the problems and limitations involve the following: | he primary goal of the atlas project was to document ¢ Variation in sampling frequency on a route (some routes are surveyed every year and others less fre- quently). ¢ Variation in the number of routes over time and geographic area. ¢ Variation in observer ability. ¢ Species with very localized distribution. * Species with highly variable numbers detected from year to year. ¢ Species with low relative abundance. ¢ Species with small sample size (found on few routes or in few years). Species that specialize in habitats that are not adequately surveyed by BBS routes. ¢ Survey data biased towards roadside habitat and birds observed from roadways. Variation in results depending on analytical technique used to calculate trend estimate. Some species or groups of species are not adequately surveyed by the BBS. Populations of many wetlands species, nocturnal species, colonial nesting species, waterfowl, birds of prey, upland game birds, secretive or inconspicuous species, early or late nesters, and species that inhabit the forest interior are not well monitored by the BBS. The route-regression method is used by BBS researchers to analyze the data and produce estimates of population trends and annual indices of abundance. This method helps mitigate some of the problems associated with the data. Further details on route-regression analysis and trend estimates can be found in Geissler and Sauer (1990), Link and Sauer (1994), and Sauer et. al. (2001). Terminology relating to the BBS data used in the atlas is briefly explained below. Some of the concepts are complex, and the reader is referred to the BBS website (www.mp2-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/) and the many references listed therein for further information. Trend is an estimate of population change over time ex- pressed as percent change per year. To calculate trend estimates, the BBS uses the route-regression method in which trends are estimated for individual routes and regional trends are estimated as weighted averages of individual route trends. They are weighted to account for variability in the counts on the route, such as missing counts from years the route was not surveyed and observer changes. In general, positive trend estimates imply the population is increasing while negative estimates imply the population is decreasing, but the measures of reliability discussed below must be taken into account when interpreting the results. Probability (P) is a measure to indicate whether the trend estimate is statistically significant. Probability values represent the percentage of times similar analyses will be different from the value shown. P values range from 0.00 to 1.00. For the atlas a P value of 0.05 (5%) was used as the threshold for significance. Trend estimates with P < 0.05 were considered statistically significant and those with P > 0.05 were considered not statistically significant. The terms significant and nonsignificant are relative to the critical value of P < 0.05. Thresholds other than 0.05 are also commonly used. The P value is one measure of the reliability of the analysis results. Additional information, such as the 95% confidence intervals, sample size, relative abundance, and the credibility index, need to be considered when interpreting BBS results. Sample size (N) is the number of survey routes used in the analysis. 95% Confidence Intervals (95% CI) are used as the limits where any value of the trend estimate would fall in any subsequent sample that was analyzed, which means that in any subsequent sample the estimate will lie within the maximum and minimum range in 95 out of 100 times. The CI provides information in addition to the P value to assess the reliability of the trend estimate. The width of the confi- dence interval generally indicates how precise the estimate is; relatively narrow intervals imply high precision. Relative Abundance (RA) is a measure of the mean number of birds recorded for a route. It is expressed as average birds per route. Credibility Index (CR) is an attribute assigned by the BBS researchers to their data to indicate potential problems with the trend estimate. The BBS data must be used with caution because of potential problems when estimating population change. Factors such as small sample size, low relative abundances on routes, relative abundance estimates which are highly variable from year to year, imprecise trends, and missing data need to be taken into account when interpreting BBS data. To identify data with potential problems, three credibility groups were established by BBS and they caution the user that results, even those classified in the highest category (CR 1), may not be valid (Sauer et al. 2001). This information has been incorporated into the atlas using the following system: * Credibility Index | identifies data with at least 14 samples in the long term, of moderate precision, and of moderate abundance on routes (one or more birds per route). * Credibility Index 2 includes data with a deficiency. The deficiencies include low abundance (less than 1.0 birds/route), small sample size (less than 14 routes for the long term), imprecise results (a 3%/year change would not be detected over the long term), or inconsistency in trends over time (e.g., the subinterval time-period trends are significantly different from each other based on a Z-test). * Credibility Index 3 includes data with a major deficiency. These include very low abundance (less than 0.1 birds/route), small sample size (less than 5 routes for the long term, or less than 3 routes for the two subinterval time periods), or imprecise results (a 5%/year change would not be detected over the long term). Annual Indices of Abundance are used to assess patterns in the data in the context of the trend estimates. Annual indices of abundance, which are depicted on the graphs included in the species accounts, are statistical values and do not represent the actual number of birds. They are calculated during the route-regression analysis. Using the regional trend estimate and a regional average count, a line is drawn that depicts the predicted trend in counts over time. Annual indices are defined in BBS as deviations from the regional predicted trend. Because the data analysis and interpretation can be complicated, BBS scientists recommend that users become familiar with the information explaining the data and the limitations the data might have. The BBS website states that the data is provided “as is,” that errors may exist, and includes a data liability disclaimer. It is important for the reader to understand the data, the analytical results, and species’ biology when interpreting BBS information. Information about the BBS and the trend data included in the atlas were obtained from the BBS website at www.mp2-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/ (Sauer et al. 2001) and from the scientists at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. The discussion of the BBS included in the atlas is intended to provide general information about the program. More detailed information can be found on the BBS website and from other sources. The BBS in Illinois and Use of BBS Data in the Atlas BBS data included in the atlas is for the period 1966-2000. In Illinois, routes are generally surveyed in June. Sixty-four routes (4 per degree block) were sampled beginning in 1966 and the number was increased to 81 (5 per degree block) in 1993 (Fig. 9). Data for the upper Midwest is reported to give a regional perspective on population trends for species included in the atlas. Information about population trends based on the BBS are summarized in the species accounts. The results of the BBS analysis are also graphically represented in the species accounts; the graphs show the trend line and annual indices of abundance for a species for Illinois and for the upper Midwest. Summary tables of the BBS data by species are included as Appendix G for Illinois and Appendix H for the upper Midwest (which is USFWS Region 3—Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, lowa, and Missouri—in the BBS data) (Fig. 9). Not every species in a given region or time period is detected during the BBS survey in numbers adequate for trend estimation; conse- quently, not all species with accounts in the atlas have BBS data. If BBS data were available for a species, they were reported in the atlas. This includes species for which the BBS may not be adequate and/or the reliability of the estimates is low, and therefore the user must use care when interpreting and using the data. The species accounts in the atlas include a brief discussion of population trends in Illinois and the upper Midwest based on the BBS data. In the accounts, the following terminology, abbreviations, and symbols are used: Statistically significant, P value < 0.05 Significant Not significant or Statistically not significant, nonsignificant P value = 0.05 IL Illinois UM Upper Midwest region Low relative abundance Relative abundance < 0.1 Small sample size N< 14 Sands greater than, less than, greater than or equal to, and less than or equal to, respectively Trends in Avian Populations in Illinois: A Discussion of the Breeding Bird Survey Data from 1966 to 2000 for Illinois The data collected for the BBS in Illinois for the period 1966-2000 provide valuable and unique information about trends, or changes over time, in populations of bird species that breed in the state. Of the 183 species detected or considered likely to be breeding in the state during the atlas project, the BBS reported trend estimates for 133 (73%) species. BBS data for the 133 species is summarized in Table 9. During the period 1966-2000, 17% (22 species) had significantly negative trend estimates and 20% (26 species) had significantly positive trend estimates (Table 9). The remaining 85 species (64%) had nonsignificant trend estimates. The BBS limits its summary of results to species detected on 14 or more routes surveywide, which eliminates Species with perhaps too small a sample size to adequately evaluate trends. Of the 100 species found on 14 or more routes in Illinois, 20% (20 species) had significantly negative trend estimates and 25% (25 species) had significantly positive trend estimates from 1966 to 2000 (Tables 9 and 10). The trend estimates were nonsignificant for the remain- ing 55 species (55%). BBS data for the 100 species found on 14 or more routes is summarized in Table 10. Using the credibility index (CR) to summarize the data is another way to assess the reliability of overall trends. Credibility indices for the 133 species with BBS trends were distributed as follows: 26% (34 species) had a CR of 1, 41% (55 species) had a CR of 2, and 33% (44 species) had a CR 14 of 3. For species with significantly negative trend estimates, 8% (10 species) of the total number of species (133) had a CR of 1, 8% (10 species) had a CR of 2, and 2% (2 species) had a CR of 3. For species with significantly positive trend estimates, 8% (10 species) of the total number of species (133) had a CR of 1, 8% (11 species) had a CR of 2, and 4% (5 species) had a CR of 3. BBS trend estimates were not reported for 50 of the 183 species with accounts in the atlas. This group includes species that are rare, localized, nocturnal, or associated with habitats that were poorly sampled by the BBS routes. The discussion in this section includes species with reported BBS trend estimates for Illinois regardless of their credibility indices. Interpretation of the BBS data can be complex, and readers should understand the limitations and biases of the data when interpreting the BBS data presented in the atlas. Breeding Guilds Species groupings by habitat are increasingly being used to identify groups of species needing management and conser- vation consideration. A summary of population trends by breeding guilds, that is, groups of species that use similar habitat for breeding, is presented in Tables 9 and 10. The 133 species with BBS trend estimates are classified into five primary breeding habitat categories—woodland, grassland, successional/shrub, urban, and wetland—based on the classification used by the BBS (Peterjohn and Sauer 1993). The “other” category consists of species that are difficult to categorize, including generalists that fit equally well in multiple categories and specialists that do not fit well into one of these other categories. The following summary refers to trends for 1966—2000 and is limited to the 100 species recorded on 14 or more routes in Illinois (Tables 9 and 10). The percentage of the total number of species (100) in each breeding guild is as follows: 28% woodland, 10% grassland, 19% successional/ scrub, 13% urban, 8% wetland, and 22% other. ¢ Woodland. Twenty-eight species are included in this group. Eleven, or approximately one-third, of the species in this group had negative trend estimates, one of which was significantly negative, for the period 1966—2000. Of the 17 species with positive trend estimates, 6 species (21% of the species in the woodland group) had significantly positive trend estimates from 1966 to 2000. ¢ Grassland. Of the 10 grassland species, 9 had negative trend estimates including 6 that had significantly negative estimates for 1966-2000. One of the nine species with negative trend estimates is the Ring-necked Pheasant, which is a non-native species introduced into Illinois in the early 1900s. One species had a positive trend estimate and that was not significant. Grassland-dependent birds are in serious decline in the state. Species that were once historically abundant in Illinois, such as the Greater Prairie-Chicken, Northern Harrier, Short-eared Owl, and Upland Sandpiper, Table 9. Summary of North American Breeding Bird Survey trend information for Illinois for 1966-2000. The table includes the 133 species that have both a species account in the atlas and BBS trend estimates. Species are grouped into primary breeding guilds and two trend categories—those with negative and those with positive trend estimates. Significant and nonsignificant are defined as P < 0.05 and P > 0.05, respectively. Species names are followed by the BBS trend estimate (% change/year), the probability value (P), and credibility index in parentheses, and the migration status (n = neotropical migrant, s = short distance migrant, and r = permanent resident). Species observed on less than 14 routes are indicated by [ ] and listed at the end of the category. The reader should refer to the information on data limitations and interpretation in the text and the individual species accounts. The source of the data is Sauer et al. 2001. Breeding Habitat Negative Trend Estimate Positive Trend Estimate Woodland Significant Significant Yellow-billed Cuckoo (-2.9, <0.01, 2) n Wild Turkey (26.1, <0.01, 3) r [American Redstart(-8.1, 0.03, 3)] n Pileated Woodpecker (7.1, <0.01, 2) r Nonsignificant Red-bellied Woodpecker (1.7, <0.01, 2) r Black-billed Cuckoo (-3.6, 0.32, 2) n Warbling Vireo (2.5, 0.01, 1) n Whip-poor-will (-9.6, 0.08, 3) n Tufted Titmouse (2.0, <0.01, 1) r Downy Woodpecker (0.0, 0.99, 1) r White-breasted Nuthatch (4.1, <0.01, 1) r Eastern Wood-Pewee (0.0, 0.97, 1) n Nonsignificant ; Acadian Flycatcher (-2.1, 0.20, 2) n Barred Owl (0.3, 0.86, 3) . Great Crested Flycatcher (-0.5, 0.34, 1) n Ruby-throated Hummingbird (4.7, 0.11, 2) n Red-eyed Vireo (-0.1, 0.93, 2) n Hairy Woodpecker (0.6, 0.56, 2) r Carolina Chickadee (-0.8, 0.48, 1) r Yellow-throated Vireo (2.2, 0.15, 2) n Wood Thrush (-1.3, 0.29, 2) n Black-capped Chickadee (2.0, 0.18, 1) r Scarlet Tanager (-2.5, 0.40, 2) n Blue-gray Gnatcatcher (1.6, 0.43, 2) n Red-shouldered Hawk (-0.6, 0.88, 3)] s Northern Parula (2.7, 0.31, 2) n Eastern Screech-Owl (-3.0, 0.78, 3)] r Prothonotary Warbler (0.3, 0.79, 2) n Chuck-will’s-widow (-16.5, 0.12, 3)] n Kentucky Warbler (0.6, 0.73, 2) n Least Flycatcher (-1.0, 0.85, 3)] n Summer Tanager (3.3, 0.18, 2) n Cerulean Warbler (-12.6, 0.35, 3)] n Rose-breasted Grosbeak (2.9, 0.08, 2) n Ovenbird (-16.5, 0.16, 3)] n [Worm-eating Warbler (4.6, 0.66, 3)] n Grassland Significant Significant Horned Lark (-1.0, 0.01, 1) s None Savannah Sparrow (-6.0, 0.01, 2) s Nonsignificant Grasshopper Sparrow (-7.0, <0.01, 1) s Sedge Wren (2.3, 0.67, 3) s Dickcissel (-3.5, <0.01, 2) n [Northern Harrier (3.4, 0.70, 3)] s Bobolink (-9.3, <0.01, 1) n [Upland Sandpiper (8.3, 0.15, 3)] n Eastern Meadowlark (-2.3, 0.01, 2) s Nonsignificant Ring-necked Pheasant (-2.0, 0.34, 2) r Vesper Sparrow (-0.6, 0.19, 1) s Western Meadowlark (-2.3, 0.59, 2) s Successional/Scrub Significant Significant Northern Bobwhite (-1.9, <0.01, 2) r Carolina Wren (5.1, <0.01, 2) r Brown Thrasher (-0.9, 0.01, 1) s House Wren (1.6, 0.02, 1) n Yellow-breasted Chat (-3.4, <0.01, 1) n Yellow Warbler (6.3, <0.01, 2) n Field Sparrow (-3.0, <0.01, 1) s [Blue-winged Warbler (42.2, <0.01, 3)] n Indigo Bunting (-1.0, <0.01, 2) n Nonsignificant Nonsignificant Gray Catbird (0.7, 0.12, 2) n Willow Flycatcher (-1.0, 0.39, 2) n Song Sparrow (0.1, 0.82, 2) s White-eyed Vireo (-1.8, 0.23, 2) n Northern Cardinal (0.6, 0.18, 1) r Bell’s Vireo (-1.3, 0.66, 2) n Blue Grosbeak (1.7, 0.39, 2) n Common Yellowthroat (-0.6, 0.16, 1) n Eastern Towhee (-1.2, 0.33, 2) s Lark Sparrow (-6.9, 0.06, 2) s American Goldfinch (-0.5, 0.56, 2) r [American Woodcock (-2.7, 0.82, 3)] s [Bewick’s Wren (-13.9, 0.17, 3)] s [Prairie Warbler (-6.6, 0.50, 3)] n 15 Table 9 (Continued). Breeding Habitat Negative Trend Estimate Positive Trend Estimate Urban Significant Chimney Swift (-2.5, <0.01, 2) n Blue Jay (-1.0, 0.04, 1) s Purple Martin (-3.3, <0.01, 1) n Northern Mockingbird (-2.6, <0.01, 2) r House Sparrow (-2.6, <0.01, 2) r Nonsignificant Rock Pigeon (-1.0, 0.14, 2) r European Starling (0.0, 0.96, 1) r Common Grackle (-0.4, 0.54, 1) s Wetland Significant [Swamp Sparrow (-4.9, <0.01, 3)] s Nonsignificant Red-winged Blackbird (-0.3, 0.62, 1) s [Blue-winged Teal (-5.9, 0.08, 3)] s [Yellow-crowned Night-Heron (-3.7, 0.32, 3)] n [Marsh Wren (-4.0, 0.05, 3)] n Other Significant Red-headed Woodpecker (-2.8, <0.01, 2) s Northern Flicker (-2.6, <0.01, 1) s Eastern Kingbird (-2.2, <0.01, 1) n Nonsignificant Common Nighthawk (-9.9, 0.10, 3) n Loggerhead Shrike (-4.5, 0.10, 2) s [Gray Partridge (-7.8, 0.42, 3)] r [Black Vulture (-15.5, 0.74, 3)] r 16 Significant American Robin (2.9, <0.01, 1) s Chipping Sparrow (8.0, <0.01, 1) n House Finch (23.0, <0.01, 3) r Nonsignificant Mourning Dove (0.5, 0.37, 2) s Eurasian Tree Sparrow (6.7, 0.18, 2) r Significant Mallard (4.9, 0.02, 1) s Great Blue Heron (13.5, <0.01, 2) s Great Egret (13.9, 0.03, 3) s Canada Goose (28.8, <0.01, 3) r Belted Kingfisher (5.9, <0.01, 2) s Nonsignificant Wood Duck (5.1, 0.05, 2) s Green Heron (1.5, 0.22, 2) n [Pied-billed Grebe (6.3, 0.60, 3)] s [Double-crested Cormorant (49.4, 0.15, 3)]s [Little Blue Heron (0.4, 0.96, 3)] s [Cattle Egret (8.5, 0.14, 3)] s [Black-crowned Night-Heron (12.3, 0.20, 3)] s [Spotted Sandpiper (5.4, 0.70, 3)] n [Ring-billed Gull (36.4, 0.21, 3)] s [Herring Gull (3.0, 0.33, 3)] s Significant Red-tailed Hawk (11.1, <0.01, 2) s American Kestrel (7.6, OLO TiS Killdeer (8.1, <0.01, 1) s Eastern Phoebe (4.3, <0.01, 2) s American Crow (1.7, 0.03, 1) r N. Rough-winged Swallow (4.5, <0.01, 2) n Eastern Bluebird (3.8, <0.01, 2) s Cedar Waxwing (10.3, <0.01, 1) s Nonsignificant Turkey Vulture (25.7, 0.07, 3) s Great Horned Ow] (3.5, 0.07, 2) r Tree Swallow (5.2, 0.32, 3)s Bank Swallow (0.5, 0.85, 1) n Cliff Swallow (28.3, 0.11, 3) n Barn Swallow (0.7, 0.17, 2) n Brown-headed Cowbird (1.1, 0.05, 1) s Orchard Oriole (0.1, 0.87, 1) n Baltimore Oriole (0.8, 0.19, 2) n [Cooper’s Hawk (0.3, 0.91, 3)] s [Fish Crow (10.1, 0.59, 3)] s [ Yellow-throated Warbler (2.5, 0.63, 3)] n [Pine Warbler (6.9, 0.30, 3)] s [Louisiana Waterthrush (24.2, 0.07, 3)] n have dramatically declined in response to the changes in the landscape (Herkert et al. 1993). In recent years the popula- tions of some species, such as the Grasshopper Sparrow and Bobolink, that are currently considered fairly common in Illinois are suffering substantial declines (Herkert et al. 1993). ¢ Successional/scrub. Of the 19 species in this group, approximately two-thirds of the species (12 species) had negative trend estimates, 5 (26%) of which were signifi- cantly negative from 1966 to 2000. Of the seven species with positive trend estimates, three (16%) had significant trend estimates. ¢ Urban. The urban breeding guild is composed of 13 species. Of the eight species with negative trends, five (38% of the species in the urban group) had significantly negative trend estimates from 1966 to 2000. Of the five species with positive trend estimates, three (23%) had significant positive trend estimates from 1966 to 2000. Five of the species in the urban group are not native to Illinois. ¢ Wetland. Of this group of eight species, five species had significantly positive trend estimates for 1966-2000. The BBS does not adequately survey most wetlands species; most species in this group were found in low numbers and on few routes. Migration Status A summary of population trends by migration class is presented in Table 10. Species were classified in one of three groups: Neotropical migrants, short-distance migrants, and permanent residents. Some species were difficult to classify; for example, the Canada Goose can be both a permanent resident and a short-distance migrant in Illinois. The sum- mary table and the following discussion refer to trends from 1966 to 2000 and are limited to the 100 species recorded on 14 or more routes. Of the 100 species included in this summary, 42 (42%) are classified as Neotropical migrants, 34 (34%) are short- distance migrants, and 24 (24%) are permanent residents. ¢ Neotropical Migrants. This long-distance migrant group includes 42 species that winter primarily in the American tropics. Twenty-one species, or half of the species in this group, have negative trend estimates for 1966-2000, eight of which were significantly negative. Of the 21 species with positive trend estimates, the estimates were significant for five species. ¢ Short-distance Migrants. Of the 34 species in this group, approximately half (16 species) had negative trend estimates, 9 of which were significantly negative. Among the 18 species with positive trend estimates, 11 had significantly positive trend estimates for the period 1966-2000. ¢ Permanent Residents. Twenty-four species are included in this group. Of the nine species with negative trend estimates, three were significantly negative. Positive trends were estimated for 15 species, 9 of which were significant. Table 10. Summary of North American Breeding Bird Survey trend information by breeding guilds and migration groups for Illinois based on data for 1966-2000. The information in the table is limited to species encountered on 14 or more routes. Significance is defined as P < 0.05. Negative Trend Estimates Total # of Species # of Species with Significant Trends Breeding Guild Woodland Grassland Successional/scrub Urban Wetland Other Migration Class Neotropical migrant Short-distance migrant Resident Total # of Species Positive Trend Estimates Total # of Species # of Species with Significant Trends # of Species with Significant Trends 17 , fPhysical Environment of Jilinois EEE million acres) and extends about 380 miles from north to south and 210 miles from east to west at its widest point. Three rivers—the Mississippi on the west, the Ohio to the south, and the Wabash to the southeast—form much of the state boundary (Fig. 10). Because of diverse geologic history, climate, soils, and topography, a variety of habitats exist in the state, including forests, savannas, grasslands, wetlands, streams, lakes, and ponds. Most of the state is relatively flat as a result of glacial advances and retreats that scoured the landscape and deposited materials. The areas with the greatest topographic relief occur mainly in the unglaciated northwestern and southern parts of the state and along the major rivers. Glacial activity created many unique wetlands, glacial moraines, and natural lakes in the northeastern part of the state. Fourteen Natural Divisions are recognized in Illinois, based on differences in topography, glacial history, bedrock, soils, and distribution of plants and animals (Schwegman et al. 1973) (Fig. 11). Ninety-three distinct natural community types occur within the natural divisions, many of which exist today as small relics or in a degraded condition (White 1978). Before Euro-American settlement, the area that became Illinois contained a mosaic of natural habitat (Fig. 12). In less than two centuries, the vast grasslands, forests, and wetlands have been transformed piece by piece to crop fields and urbanized areas. Illinois now ranks 49th among the states in amount of intact natural land (Newman et al. 2003). The Public Land Survey maps created for the U.S. General Land Office (GLO) from 1804 to 1856 provide the best available estimates of the extent of certain land cover types prior to large-scale settlement of Illinois (Table 11). In the early to mid-1800s, 54% of the state was mapped as prairie (Suloway et al. 2002). The rich soils of the prairies, along with the development of a transportation system to take the grain and other products to market, contributed to their rapid conversion to farmland in a relatively short period of time, roughly from 1840 to 1900. Only 2,352 acres (0.01% of the original prairie) of high-quality native prairie remained by 1978 (White 1978). In the early to mid-1800s, forest occupied about 41% of the state according to the Public Land Survey. Currently forest covers about 13% of the state (11% upland forest and 2% forested wetland, Table 12). Iverson et al. (1989) estimated that 19% of the original forests that existed in the state in 1820 remain, with most being converted to agriculture. Based on hydric soils estimates, which are a better source than the Public Land Survey maps for approximating the extent of presettlement wetlands, about 23% of the surface area of the state was covered by wetlands in the early [ ne covers approximately 56,000 square miles (36 18 1800s (Havera and Suloway 1994). As a result of human modification of the land, dramatic declines in wetlands have occurred; it is conservatively estimated that 90% of the state’s wetlands have been destroyed. According to the National Wetlands Inventory, wetlands occupied 3.5% of the surface area of the state by the 1980s (Suloway and Hubbell 1994). At the time the atlas project was conducted, the domi- nant land cover was cropland (primarily corn and soybeans with some small grains), which covered approximately 60% of the land area (Luman et al. 1996) (Table 12, Fig. 13). The remaining major land cover types in the 1990s were rural grassland at 17%, forest at 11%, urban at 6% (Fig. 15), wetland at 3% (Fig. 16), and open water at 2% (Fig. 10). Illinois has a population of about 12 million people. Urban land continues to grow at a rapid pace. During the period 1960-1990, the population in northeastern Illinois (Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake, McHenry, and Will counties) grew by 14% while its urbanized area expanded 66% (Campaign for Sensible Growth 1999). Not only has the quantity of available habitat declined but so has the quality. Fragmentation, invasion of non-native plant species, siltation, pollution, the presence of humans, and inadequate management are some of the factors that degrade habitats. Fragmentation of larger tracts into smaller ones creates islands of habitat. The increase in the proportion of edge to interior area creates opportunities for nest parasit- ism (e.g., Brown-headed Cowbirds in forest edge) and nest predation, and favors species that can successfully utilize edge habitat. Wetland communities have declined in quality and productivity due to modification of the natural hydro- logical regimes, increased silt deposition, non-native species invasion (e.g., purple loosestrife and common reed), and excessive nutrient and chemical runoff from agricultural and Table 11. Land cover of Illinois in the early 1800s. The data are based on a digital version of Public Land Survey maps of the U.S. General Land Office (Suloway et al. 2002). Land Cover Type Acreage % of Area Prairie 19,463,578 54.0 Forest 14,686,388 40.7 Water 768,023 Dal Bottomland 394,213 iit! Wet prairie 223,468 0.6 Swamp 218,448 0.6 Cultural 109,318 0.3 Marsh 64,792 0.2 Topographic/geographic 55,064 0.2 Barrens 41,575 0.1 Slough 24,243 <0.1 Other wetland 11,934 <0.1 Total 36,061,052 100.0 urban areas. Based on the National Wetlands Inventory data, the average size of a wetland complex is 5.6 acres and 93% of wetland complexes are less than 10 acres. Lack of disturbance factors, such as fire or timber harvest, has limited creation and maintenance of early successional habitats that many species require. Forest communities that have changed from open to closed canopy provide fewer habitats for savanna-dependent species. Agricultural practices and policies have had major impacts on the avian fauna of Illinois. The initial conversion of the land to agricultural use that coincided with Euro- American settlement dramatically reduced the amount of forest, grassland, and wetlands in Illinois by the late 1800s. Table 12. Land cover of Illinois in the 1990s. The data are based Prior to the mid-1900s, farming operations tended to be a mosaic of grain fields, hay, and pastures with remnant grasslands between fields and in areas less suitable for agriculture. In the mid-1900s farming practices began changing to monoculture crop production (mainly corn and soybeans), with increased pesticide and fertilizer use, and roadside-to-roadside row crop production, which eliminated fencerows and windbreaks. Agricultural conservation practices applied to cropping, mowing, or grazing, and conversion of cropland to grassland or forest, (e.g., the Conservation Reserve Program) provide new habitat and may have positive impacts on the populations of some species. on classification of satellite imagery (Luman et al. 1996). Land Cover Type Acreage Cropland and other Agricultural Land 27,928,797 Row Crop Small Grains Grassland (pasture, right-of-ways, hay) Orchard and Nurseries Forest and Woodland Deciduous, Close Canopy Deciduous, Open Canopy Conifer (undifferentiated pine) Urban High and Medium Density Low Density (residential mixed with open space) Transportation Urban Grassland Wetland Shallow Marsh/Wet Meadow Deep Marsh Swamp Forested Open Water, Shallow Open Water, deep (lakes, streams) Other Land Barren and Exposed (quarries) Total 19,584,247 2,026,268 6,302,371 [S911 4,088,623 3:59),056 421,013 GPBNTE 2,087,396 891,311 251,180 314,866 630,038 1,170,550 140,664 34,855 11,726 808,987 174,318 770,183 16,178 36,061,727 % of Area 77.45 54.31 5.62 17.48 0.04 11.34 O07 LIL oe 0.20 ahi) 2.47 0.70 0.87 IS 3.24 0:39 0.10 0.03 2.24 0.48 2.14 0.04 100.00 20 0 aoa - er —— STEPHENSON | WINNEBAGO McHENRY er CARROLL | OGLE aioe Paar ae WHITESIDE [7 >, KENDALL HENRY | BUREAU GRUNDY ROCK ISLAND KNOX WARREN STARK IROQUOIS PEORIA WOODFORD McDONOUGH VERMILION CHAMPAIGN ee - ign a - ae FINGHAM CLAY RICHLAND WAYNE ieee ee EDWARDS RANDOLPH | PERRY AMILTON FRANKLIN SALINE WILLIAMSON JOHNSON eeaite | L | ALEXANDER 91° 90° 89° 88° Figure 1. Counties in Illinois. Degrees of latitude and longitude are indicated. Data Collection AN cmnERERCY Ave ANY Y ANY in X * of Start-up Counties 20 Zs ZS 15 is 1991 Contract for entire county Contract for part of county Block-busting for entire county Block-busting for part of county Figure 2. Start-up year, contracts, and block-busting efforts by county. 21 \ Ess STEPHENSG WINNEBAGO McHENRY LAKE 18 16 15 14 13 12 "1 10 re) 8 7 2 Bon Ges Ka Ek AROLL OGLE {8 i i 21 22 | 23] 24 [7257 2p] 27 7 28 | 29 K3o DE B | COOK bh . . a R DU PAG Identification System 40 } rt £ | sa] ss | [s2 ESIDE 42, LEE for Blocks — . j KENDALL WILL EF. 46 47 | 48 52 1 53 55 aS fi RY | BUREAU Bese [= ROGK ISLAND GRUNDY oF 69 68 67 ds 64 63 62 61 *? 59 58 57 | 56 MERCES | 9 maall same |_|] KAN KAKEE x Seems 73 75 V7 z 9 30—~|—8 32— 34 85 | T|Warre [ LIVINGSTON hed a MARSHALL | PEORIA y E sae 100f] 3 99 97 95 | 94] 93 91 : 37 | 86 a ( WOoDFO | McLEAN FULTON 101 @ @ O41} 105 | 106 07 fe 102 sof oan | oa sf 174 | 115 | 116 Al C i FORD pe. TAZEWELL i VERMILION 131 ks 129 127, 125 | 124H] 123 | 122 | 121 119 ie 117 MPAIGN aw. B&B B ADAMS va pS oer 2 ah Ve 134 135. axa 9 vom , 142 43 144 146 147 148 149 ‘ ih MENARE snohn J ee | Ei bis PIATT | 164 | fies TET-|—Te0-] 159 157 | 155 | 154 SZ oe et UE kd MORGA SANGA GLAS aR ENE a fea fOULTRIE} | 168 ays 171 \ 173] 174 | 175 G@ | 177 | 178°} 179 fj 180 | 181 S es COLES = = 2 19 Ey PSs prt CHRIS : CLARK g 193 191 |] 190 a9 agil 187 | 186 SST st] 183 5 MONTGOME fELBY CUMBERLAND I = cl ' i soe | FAYET#E g 198 200 {201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205] 296 7 209 JERSEY JA adi 2 Bae! G BOND Au | : CRAWFORD 1 3 par 218 | 217 | 216 | - Ld feo: f dF drion RICHLAND | LAWRENCE Vinton TY ie 225] 226 3 228 | 3 230 : 3 va 2244 st. cLaIR ee . me ANY, = O Y le? — FFERSON i 237 248 24 246 14245 242 1|241 | 240 =I\o38 WASHINGTON ed Ea eS } a = = esl HAMILTON! WAITE 249 RANDOLPH PERRY hi 251 | 292] 253 5 255 || 256 fi 258 259 RANKLIN : wy. : 268 ae —— 15-minute quadrangle C2 KSON | i . b 265 637 6 do , ee are ca bas —— 7,5—minute quadrange (labeled =y A, B, C, and D) 269 \-270~)—27 27-2~ 4~h—\275 , y* UNION T OHNSO! HARDIN —— Sampling block (labeled 1 to 6) e ie 276 ae 2 3 qa tl278 Y 277 Priority block 282 asf asd| pale ALEXANDER : ee re gies a Figure 3. The system for identifying atlas blocks based on USGS quadrangle maps. A block is identified by a code consisting of the 3—digit number for the 15-minute quadrangle (statewide map), the letter code for the 7.5—minute quadrangle (A, B, C, and D on inset map ), and the 1—digit number for the block (1 to 6 on inset map ). For example, the code for the priority block for the lower left 7.5—minute quadrangle on the inset map is 228C3. 22 Date Date B/ POIPR of CO j i j = re sry eae a Illinois Breeding Bird Atlas Project Shrike, Loggerhead Hmom Savannah a 1986 - Starling, European BeBe Grasshopper EI ; ABS Vireo, White-eyed MEP Hens low's * Ea Bell's i ee ee ee | Song a | Yellow-throated GoeElwl Swamp a Warbling Riess Bobolink || Red-eyed ae a |e | Blackbird, Red-winged Eq Warbler, Blue-winged * OIE Meadowlark, Eastern Parula, Northern ome ie ean [at Western Warbler, Yellow er alae | Blackbird, Yellow-head Yellow-throated * conf [ee |e | Grackle, Common Pine Bhim Cowbird, Brown-headed Prairie » | a eee. | Oriole, Orchard Cerulean rt ae ae te | Northern Black-and-white ee Finch, House * Redstart, American Bina Siskin, Pine * pes S| Warbler, Prothonotary Swe Goldfinch, American peed, ae ee eee Y.02 tH Oc OB Observed 0 Species (male or female) observed during the breeding season. PO Possible / Species (male or female) observed in suitable nesting habitat during its breeding season. x Singing male present in suitable nesting habitat during its breeding season. ©) ta bese] = oa Ea ial J Breeding Criteria Codes Projected No. of Species mm Lae i & ™ * ars | In PR Probable m HS M Multiple males (7 or more) singing in suitable nesting habitat during the species breeding season. Worm-eating * Sparrow, House isd] nel] Sad) P Pair in suitable habitat. Srainwontn * Girne tanctoee Ena m T Bird or pair on territory (including singing male ri 74 ——<—— present at the same location on at least two occasions Ovenbir ae 4 week or more apart). Waterthrush, Louteiena olen Courtship behavior or copulation. Warbler, Kentuck Yellowthroat, Common Warbler, Hooded * c N Visiting probable nest-site. aa a ae oe | A Agitated behavior or anxiety calls from adult. B Nest building by wrens or excavation of holes by El woodpeckers. feet sali ou breasted * written details required except for well-known, CO Confirmed Tanager, Summer previously established breeding localities. NB Nest“ building by all-except wrens and woodpeckers. Scarlet DATE | HOURS | LOCATION / OBSERVERS PE Physiological evidence of breeding based on bird in the hand. DD Distraction Display or injury feigning. UN Used nest or eggshells found (caution required). FL Recently fledged young (not capable of long flight). ON Adults entering or leaving nest site in circumstances indicating occupied nest. Adult carrying fecal sac. Adult carrying food for young, or feeding recently fledged young. Nest with egg(s). Cardinal, Northern Grosbeak, Rose-breasted Blue sl Bunting, Indigo Dickcissel * Towhee, Rufous-sided Ra AG iis ae uw +} Nest with young seen or hear. Field at aie Vesper al ee Primary County Date Date OBIPOIPRICO] of co OB| PO of CO OB CO] of co Grebe, Pied-billed me Rail, King * Woodpecker, Pileated Eared * fa Virginia * Wood-Pewee, Eastern Cormorant, Double-cr ++ Sora : * Flycatcher, Acadian Bittern, American & Moorhen, Common * Alder * Least H+ Coot, American Willow Heron, Great Blue ES Crane, Sandhill * Least * Egret, Great Killdeer Phoebe, Eastern Sno’ Sandpiper, Spotted Flycatcher, Grt Crested Heron, Little Blue Upland Kingbird, Western * * Eastern Egret, Cattle Heron, Green-backed Night-Heron, Black-cr Yellow-crowned Swan, Mute Goose, Canada Duck, Wood Mallard Pintail, Northern Teal, Blue-winged Shoveler, Northern Merganser, Hooded Duck, Rudd Vulture, Black Turke Kite, Mississippi Eagle, Bald Harrier, Northern Hawk, Sharp-shinned Cooper's Red-shouldered Broad-winged Swainson's Red-tailed Kestrel, American Partridge, Gray Pheasant, Ring-necked Turkey, Wild Bobwhite, Northern #1) MP] le | ele Pele Snipe, Common Woodcock, American Phalarope, Wilson's Gull, Ring-billed Herring Tern, Common Forster's Black Dove, Rock Mourning Cuckoo, Black-billed Yellow-billed Barn-Owl, Common Screech-Owl, Eastern Owl, Great Horned Barred Long-eared Short-eared Nighthawk, Common Chuck-will's-widow Whip-poor-will Swift, Chimney Hummingbird, Ruby-thr Kingfisher, Belted Woodpecker, Red-headed Red-bellied Downy Hair Flicker, Northern +/+] H+] +] Ht] aie cle tela eel elias B (al O Lark, Horned Martin, Purple Swallow, Tree Northern Rough-winged Bank Clift Barn Jay, Blue Crow, American Fish bed Chickadee, Black-capped Carolina Titmouse, Tufted Nuthatch, White-breasted Creeper, Brown Wren, Carolina Bewick's House Sedge Marsh Gnatcatcher, Blue-gra Bluebird, Eastern Veer Thrush, Wood Robin, American Catbird, Gra Mockingbird, Northern Thrasher, Brown Figure 4. Field data form. Front and back sides of the form are shown here at half of the actual size. i) 1 5 7 BLOCK[ | | [ | JYEAR 19[ [| MAP NAME Primary County (USGS 7 1/2’ Quadrangle Name) - 1. Transfer data from field data sheets to this form. 2. Please use dark pencil when filling out this form. 3. Before submitting this form to the County Coordinator, sum the num- ber of OB, PO, PR, and CO species and enter at bottom of form. 4. Fill in the time spent in the block on the back of this form. (_] Check box if this is an update of a report from a previous year 12013) (21S 2 ele lees OB PO R 8 ILLINOIS BREEDING BIRD ATLAS PROJECT (if checked, please use this form S$ oi fl2.13 12 1 PR NAME 8 _ | * written details (Verification Report) required. (County coordinator must submit approval, in writing, for all * species not documented) RETURN THIS DATA FORM TO YOUR COUNTY COORDINATOR BY AUGUST 15 PO = POSSIBLE PR = PROBABLE CO = CONFIRMED (Reverse side) PRINCIPLE OBSERVER Name Address Phone. Zip [_ ]Check box if new address for new and upgraded information only) i 8: w 13} 12 13 PR 12 137 12 3 OBSERVED POSSIBLE [_] Approved by County Coordinator [_] Key Punched Etat Pst Hawk, Broad-winged _ | BWHA | 3 Screech-Owl, Eastem Siler: 3 2a |S | Swainson’s Ss *{SWHA | [1 | [27 | 3f [| GHOW HHH 2+ a} CE A RS or ee ee ae BAOW 2 LIiMIOEaes [Kestrel, American [AMKE | [1 | [27 [| 3] [| +[(LEOW {7 [1] 2 [ais 25 | ae Sf [Pantridge,Gray ss |GRPA | [1 | [27 | 3f [| *[SEOW | | = 2 = 3 fi | [2] | 3] |] [Pheasant, Ring-necked [RNPH Ltt te at CONT | {i | 2 3 at [zt | 3f [| | Turkey, wild WITU Liz Ea CWWI Ht -t54t ay ay [2] 7] 3t | | [ Bobwhite, Northem DACRE SIeska WPWI 1S [ee] eet it 121 13] _[_| |Rail, King *[KIRA {27 | 3] |_| | Swift, Chimney CHsSW |_| a Gel 3 ics Ga ie Bee Virginia *|VIRA | [2] | 3f | | [Hummingbird Ruby-thr [RTHU fe: 2 ma Heron, Green-backed [cons 2 ee eS ora *| SORA | race BEKI it | | 3] Night-Heron, Blk-cr 24+ 3h. fs Moorhen, Common __*{COMO | _ | | pew t it fet Yellow-crowned = AE Coot, American ZAMCO! time i | 2) RBWO | 2a ssi ae Swan, Mute [2{ | 3{ | | |Crane, Sandhill : pack {ft ft 3 | ae | ppowe tt at in | [27 | 3f [| [Kildeer TRELLIS HAWO 3 Duck, Wood Ht a 3 +] Sandpiper, Spotied [sPsA_[ [i [| [27 { 3f | | | Flicker, Northem /(NOFL a] 3/1825) les Mallard Mile Ji Upland VIUPSAT TE [A fa}? os ire S| i Pwo 7 fit [27 73y_ [| Pintail, Northern “ | 3{ | | | Snipe, Common *[CosN [fi [ [27 | 37 [| 27 [3] J | Teal, Blue-winged [2] [ 3{ [| | | Woodcock, American [AMWO] [i [ [2] [ 3f [| 2 tt Shoveler, Northen fi | [2] | 3{ [| |Phalarope,Wilson’s *[WIPH | [i [ [2] [3] | 1 [3] | Merganser, Hooded E23 Ht Gull, Ring-billed _*{RBGU | [1 | [2] | 3) | | _ 7 Es i) Duck, Rudd RUDU |__| [| |_Herring “juecu ffi {tat | 3} 1 1] 2 + JG BLVU t—}2 tf 3} Tern, Common : Se 42 SD Cole TUVU | 3] |__| |_Forster’s *|FOTE H Sel 2: et 33 | fa | | tt 3} Black *| BLTE ist fo | | a | 2 2{ | 3] [| |Dove, Rock RODO fe [i [| 2 fetes Lee | [27 [3 2 3] [| | Mourning Len oA 3 ome 3] [| | Cuckoo, Black-billed (1a | 2 | = 3] af [2] [37 | | | _Yellow-billea lyBcU [ [1 | [2] | 3{ | | |Swallow, Tree Hews ttt tat 4 a] [2{ [3] [ J] [Bam-Owl,Common *[cBowy [1 [ [2] | 37 [ | Northem Rough-winged | NRWS 3 aa OB=OBSERVED NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF NO. OF PROBABLE CONFIRMED TOTAL BH) (Eb ar) ao RETURN THIS DATA FORM TO YOUR COUNTY COORDINATOR BY AUGUST 15 1 5 u/ Lock [TTL ear 19] ] (_] Copied 137 12 13} 1 12 i i 8 12 1 3 ome | col [vam | | os | rol m| cof uae | on | 10 Swallow, Bank ee Warbler, Black&white */BAWW] [1] [2] | 3] | Cliff eRe ae Redstart,American [AMRE} [1] [2] | 3{ | a Pes a ee Bam 424 RE Warbler, Prothonotary [POWA} [1[ [2] | 3[ | Goldfinch, American 2 3 2 Worm-eating *|WwewA; [if [2] | 3y | Sparrow, House ae 3 lr] Crow, American ee Swainson’s *lswwA] Jif 127 1 3]_| ISIlIcs Fish ates [al Ovenbird *[OVEN Hae) ae El 2 SBS Waterthrush, Louisiana |[LOWA [1 | ea - BM Esri Carolina 2 Ea Warbler, Kentuck IKEWA} [1] [2] | 3] | PS Titmouse, Tufted | ematie2. LIE Yellowthroat, Common [COYE} [1] [2] | 3[ | aaEe i Hy 343 | Warbler, Hooded *[HOWA} [1] [2] | 3] | || [2{ [3] | | {Chat Yellow-breasted [YBCHy [1] [2] | 3{ | Pest ae ta Hh Eat Tanager, Summer *[SUTA [_ [1] | 2] [ 37 | a | 2 EIca Scarlet scrA | [if [2] [3] | ca js) Caza Cardinal, Northem [NOCAG [if [2] [ 3f | = iz BIS Grosbeak, Rose-breasted|RBGR [1 [| 2 | am ca eee [os Blue Stu: ae aT Nia | Gnatcatcher, Blue-gray YN a 2 |e | Bunting, Indigo INBU L+H HMMS | 4 Bluebird, Eastem tf ta fo sf Dickcissei DICK ie ae at] Miao PELs eae |e Towhee, Rufous-sided ini D 3 eal 44 2 | Sparrow, Bachman’s * HH *) +3 Hf 2 S 2 BE cd, Gi Fate Bee ee ee egies foetal Mockingbird, Northem H~ 2 13; [0] | | Vesper aaa | VESPA | ae A00 Fi [ea Thrasher, Brown [1 | 2 DMD) |e Ses Eee Ae) Waxwing, Cedar ay et et Savannah SASP Dew EIB ALI Grasshopper GRSP teeter (eats HEHE ES Hee eee 12 | g SOSP Bio Bell’s e: | es | 2 a 3 | | | | ES warn ee | SWSPN) ae 3 Yellow-throated Haha Bobolink BOBO H+ 2 3 eet Blackbird, Red-winged |RWBL ie 3 2 [Meadowlark, Ease |EAME| Jt] 2{ 1 31 cL fea 2 Sa | | ae | | Western eae || WEME | cane [21 2 | ee | es Pa ees Blackbird, Yellow-hd_*| YHBL fet Peat Paice Grackle, Common COGR 2 3 EVES BHCO)) ae (710 e162) ee es || S| ee — ea Ea | 3 | Northem NOOR] | 1 | 2 3 PT eT] [Binet Hoos fv TT Ta Figure 5. Data entry form. Front and back sides of the form are shown here at half of the actual size. 24 Sampled Blocks SPS SS eeeeceese a edee0e | | Benen eee oxy ia e Se e & bo | @ B e ™ Priority block ® Nonpriority block Figure 6. Blocks that were sampled for the Illinois Breeding Bird Atlas Project. 25 Number of Observer Hours Per Priority Block B |\@ B B te o ie a a @ @ @ 6 @ - 8 J sec a is) a & &@ B A et) =| Le Oo Bel B 8 6 @ a B ce Oo @ Number of Hours <10 10-19 g al EJ Figure 7. Number of observer hours per sampled priority block. BB |B BB | i om | Number of Species with Breeding Evidence Per Priority Block i au 1 & ae he Ble BO —™ & B Bevo B|e s Bf @OeBe | Bes | B | 8 B 18 @ @/a a 8 © @ 8 @|B . a 2 BB |e 5 a @ 8 He 8 88 B 0 0 A a 8a 8 B | 18 : @ B 5D B OB @ BOG O\)@ @ in 8 a = Dw B a\f o DB 0 O | Oo a 5 Oo fa B B & @ [| Bi @ B B # of Species a a Oo oO a a a 8 EB 8 B 3 —49 DUD Oo 0 B B [] J 5) @ @ Figure 8. Number of species with breeding evidence per sampled priority block. Breeding Bird Survey Figure 9. Breeding Bird Survey routes in Illinois and the states in the upper Midwest region. The BBS is a roadside survey with data collected at 0.5 mile intervals along a 24.5—mile long route. 28 Major Streams and Lakes Figure 10. Major streams and lakes in Illinois. 29 Natural Divisions esi Wisconsin Driftless io Rock River Hill Country Upper Mississippi/Ilinois River Bottomlands _| Illinois/Mississippi River Sand Areas Western Forest Prairie fe Middle Mississippi Border —_ Southern Till Plain a Wabash Border ES Ozarks Lower Mississippi River Bottomlands Shawnee Hills Figure 11. Natural Divisions of Illinois. Fourteen natural regions, or divisions, were delineated according to topography, glacial history, bedrock, soils, and distribution of plants and animals (Schwegman et al. 1973). 30 Land Cover in the Early 1800s Figure 12. Land cover of Illinois in the early 1800s. The source of information is the "Land Cover in the Early 1800s" database, which was derived by digitizing the U.S. General Land Office maps created from maps and notes of surveyors conducting the Public Land Survey. 31 Land Cover in the 1990s Figure 13. Land cover of Illinois in the 1990s. The source of information is the Land Cover of Illinois database, which was derived from Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite imagery acquired from 1991 to 1995. a2 Forest Figure 14. Forested areas in Illinois in the 1990s. The source of information is the Land Cover of Illinois database, which was derived from Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite imagery acquired from 1991 to 1995. 33 Urban Land _», Galesburg * Pontiac v Normal »-. * Macothb ~~ Bloomington Paris _Charle$ton Figure 15. Urban areas in Illinois in the 1990s. The source of information is the Land Cover of Illinois database, which was derived from Landsat Thematic Mapper (TM) satellite imagery acquired from 1991 to 1995. 34 Wetlands i Forested Wetlands ees] Nonforested Wetlands Figure 16. Wetlands in Illinois in the 1980s. The source of information is the USFWS National Wetlands Inventory, which is derived from aerial photography acquired from 1980 to 1987. 35 tf Guide to Species Accounts EEE Four-letter Alpha Code derived from the common name as established by Klimkiewicz and Robbins (1978) and adopted in the Bird Banding Manual (U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and the Canadian Wildlife Service 1991); the code used here is the most current code as provided through Memorandums to Bird Banders, 1992 through 20071. Rangewide Distribu- tion describes breeding, migration, and wintering range. Current endangered or threatened species status in Illinois (initial list was enacted on 31 Dec 1977). Habitat and nesting requirements, breeding range, identification marks, plumage character- istics, behavior, young, song and call notes, food habits, limiting factors, conservation needs, and/or rangewide trends. 36 Common and scientific names (American Ornithologists’ Union 1998; Banks et al. 2002; Banks et al. 2003). Photo credit Moye fe(=laal-t-(emelalal (=) Joe Milosevich Code: LOSH Rangewide Distribution: south-central Canada, south through most of the U.S. and Mexico. ILLINOIS Abundance: rare migrant and uncommon to rare summer and winter resident, decreasing northward. Endangered/Threatened Status: threatened Breeding Habitat: open fields with scattered trees, open woodland, and shrubland; thorny trees. Nest: a bulky cup of twigs, forbs, and bark strips woven together and lined with finer materials, in tree. Eggs: 5-6, grayish buff, marked with gray, brown, or black near large end. Incubation: 16-17 days. Fledging: from 17 to 21 days. The breeding range of the Loggerhead Shrike includes south- central Canada, much of the U.S. except the northeastern and northwestern regions, and Mexico. Shrikes inhabit open country with short vegetation interspersed with hedgerows, scatterggettees, and bushes, where they are often seen pefching on branches or wires along roadsides, waiting for prey. Loggerhead Shrikes eat large insects, small mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Hedges and trees that have slender, sharp-pointed thorns, such as Osage orange and honey locust, are used for impaling and caching prey; hence its nickname “butcher bird”. As hedgerows have disap- peared, shrikes have increasing used barbed wire fences for the same purpose. They often utilize Osage orange, honey locusts, red cedars, and rose for nesting because they offer concealment and protection for their nests. Loggerhead Shrike populations have declined throughout North America 214 Lanius ludovicianus in recent decades (Yosef 1996). Loss of grassy pastures and hedgerows due to changing agricultural practices and development in the latter half of the 1900s have contributed to the decline (Graber et al. 1973). Increased use of pesti- cides such as DDT has been suggested as negatively impact- ing the population but the shrike population has continued to decline even after these pesticides were banned (Yosef 1996). Illinois History In early accounts the Logg efter uke was described as “‘a more or less common species” (Ridgway | a common summer resident (Cory 1909). In the 1950s it was still a fairly common species in the Chicago region (Ford 1956). Graber et al. (1973) reported that the population had steadily declined in the northern and central portions of Illinois between 1907 and 1957, and by 1973 the entire northern and central population had basically disappeared. The loss of hedgerows and pastures was thought to be the primary reason for its decline at that time. As a result of a dramatic population decline especially between the 1950s and 1970s, the Loggerhead Shrike is listed as a threatened species in Illinois. Breeding Bird Survey Trends For 1966-2000, the trend estimate for the population in Illinois is -4.5% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.10). The upper Midwest population of the Loggerhead Shrike declined from 1966 to 2000 at an annual rate of -8.4% (significant, P < 0.01). Credibility Index: IL = 2 and UM = 2. Distribution Loggerhead Shrikes ed statewide (they were reported in priority blocks in 80 coun t were concentrated in There is now a fairly large population at the Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie in Will County, which was not reported during the atlas project. Although the northern and central Illinois populations were nearly eliminated by the 1970s, atlas data suggest that local and widely scattered populations are occurring in those parts of the state. Frequency The Loggerhead Shrike was reported from 244 (24.4%) priority blocks and 23 nonpriority blocks. It was Confirmed as breeding in 125 (12.5%) of the priority blocks, mostly by observations of fledged young (59 FL records) and adults feeding young (29 FY records). Breeding was relatively easy to confirm. The number of blocks in which the species was reported and Confirmed, breeding evidence for Confirmed records, factors that may have affected finding the species, and the potential of breeding in more than the blocks in which it was Confirmed. The discussion is limited to CO, PR, PO records unless otherwise noted. History and trends in Illinois. (Note that even the early historical accounts occurred after large-scale settlement of the state.) Current trends in Illinois and the upper Midwest based on Breeding Bird Survey data, if available for the species. Data are from Appendices G and H. Distribution as documented by the atlas project. The discussion is limited to breeding evidence (i.e., CO, PR, PO records) in priority blocks unless otherwise noted. Note: Reference to frequency (e.g., “species xX was one of the most frequently reported species in priority blocks”) means number of priority blocks, not abundance within blocks. tHttZ~» «fm Guide to Species Accounts === Percentages of breeding status category for sampled priority blocks (left) and for only the priority blocks in which this species was reported (right). Numbers and percentages of atlas blocks (priority and all blocks) in which each breeding status category was recorded. The map shows the blocks in which breeding was Con- firmed, Probable, or Possible for this species. Blocks on the state boundary are shown as whole blocks for better visibility but only the portion in Illinois was sampled. Bffeeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 125 12.5 51.2 139 10.8 Probable 42 42 17.2 48 Su) Possible «ME ded, 31.6 80 6.2 Totals 244 24.4 100.0 267 20.8 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) Map symbols for Confirmed, Probable blocks (gray = no records for this species) this species and Possible breeding —_ evidence in priority and nonpriority Priority Nonpriority blocks. Confirmed & e Probable © @ Possible Breeding Bird Survey Breeding See) Trends trends for Illinois from : — 1966 through 2000 (when available). The line indicates the predicted trend in counts over time. with records for SS SS SS i) Count Breeding Bird Survey trends for the upper Midwest from 1966 through 2000 (when available). The line indicates the predicted trend in counts over time. ————s Year 0 - + - + - 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Year Upper Midwest é} + 2 SSS aS! See gaan é 1 Pre Sa eee 0 + = = + + 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Loggerhead Shrike 37 'Or-Tat-lef- melelet-- Branta canadensis Annalee Fjellberg Orit: (Sm Oy. CLO) Rangewide Distribution: Europe, Asia, nearly all of \foyuteWatensale:MirenWalehy em-liemiedisusm@rlirlermeliiie into Mexico. ILLINOIS Abundance: common to abundant migrant, abundant winter resident in south, and common summer resident, with increasing numbers northward. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: freshwater marshes with emergent vegetation and islands in lakes and ponds. Nest: dry grass, forbs, sticks, aquatic vegetation, and feathers, on ground or elevated platform over water. Eggs: 4-7, white, unmarked (but often nest-stained). Incubation: 25—30 days. Fledging: from 43 to 70 days. The Canada Goose is the most widely distributed goose in North America. It breeds throughout most of Canada and in the U.S. generally north of the southern tier of states. It is found in a variety of habitats, including tundra, prairie, wetlands, farm ponds, reservoirs, parks, and residential areas. Canada Geese form life-long pair bonds. They nest on islands and margins of lakes, ponds, and rivers. Populations have recovered from critically low levels in the mid-1900s caused by loss of wetlands and excessive harvest. They are currently an abundant species, perhaps more numerous now than at any other time in history due to successful restoration programs and the adaptability of the species (Havera 1999). Illinois History During the late 1800s, Canada Geese still bred in Illinois but the population was already in decline and nesting geese were rare by 1900 (Ridgway 1895; Nelson 1876; Havera 1999). 38 The species was a doubtful breeder in the state throughout the first half of the twentieth century (Gault 1922; Smith and Parmalee 1955). Until about 1970, most birds observed in Illinois were the migrants traveling between their Canadian breeding and southern Illinois wintering grounds. The Giant Canada Goose (B. c. maxima), a subspecies thought extinct in 1950, was rediscovered in Minnesota and Canada in 1962 (Hanson 1965) and has been successfully reestablished in its native habitat in the Midwest. The Giant Canada Goose was reintroduced into Illinois in 1969 and has readily adapted to man-made and atypical wetland habitats. After excellent production years, more releases, and natural dispersal, the Canada Goose now breeds statewide and is one of the most abundant nesting waterfowl species in Illinois (Havera Beata We Breeding Bird Survey Trends Waterfowl populations are not usually adequately sampled by the BBS; however, the Canada Goose may be an excep- tion. The trend estimate for Illinois is 28.8% per year (significant, P < 0.01) for 1966-2000. Trend estimates for the upper Midwest region show increasing populations for 1966-2000 and the two subintervals: 18.0% per year for 1966-2000, 21.3% per year for 1966-1979, and 13.4% per year for 1980—2000 (all significant with P < 0.01). Since BBS data are obtained in June and nearly all eggs have hatched by mid-May, goslings that hatched in March and April, which appear full-grown in June, may have inflated the trend estimates. The breeding population in the state and region is growing but perhaps not at the rates suggested by the BBS trend estimates. Credibility Index: IL = 3 and UM = 1. Distribution During the atlas project, Canada Geese were found through- out the state, especially in the northeast. They occurred only sporadically in the southern third of the state. Since the atlas project, their range and abundance have continued to expand and they are more common and widespread than the atlas data indicate. During the atlas project, they were reported in priority blocks in 78 counties. Frequency Canada Geese were reported from 290 (29.1%) priority atlas blocks and 142 nonpriority blocks. This species was Con- firmed as breeding in 212 (21.2%) of the priority blocks. Because of their size and behavior and the fact that goslings could readily be observed walking, swimming, or feeding with the adults, it was easy to confirm breeding for this species. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** “No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed 212 21.2 73.1 329 25.6 Probable 40 4.0 13.8 51 40 Possible 38. 3.8 13.1 52 40 Totals 290 =. 29.1 100.0 432 336 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority blocks (gray = no records for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed & e Probable Possible Cl O Breeding Bird Survey Trends % of priority blocks with records for Illinois 72 63+ 54+ 45+ e B 367 oO 27+ 18+ 9 ue a 0 | f | + { 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Year ‘Bl Upper Midwest bo 723 63+ 45+ es ra . A | : ‘oo 1S) on ee 27+ ae alt 18+ ae . ea 9+ be 0 + ‘ + + + { 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Year (OF-TF-[oF- Mm Cfefex-y-) ah Mute Swan Cygnus olor Eric Walters Code: MUSW Rangewide Distribution: native of Eurasia; introduced populations occur in southeastern Canada; east coast and northwestern U.S.; and the Great Lakes region. ILLINOIS Abundance: uncommon to fairly common introduced, permanent resident; irregular migrant. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: lakes, ponds, and marshes with emergent vegetation; especially near golf courses, commercial complexes, and residential developments. Nest: a large, elliptical assemblage of aquatic vegetation and feathers, on the ground. Eggs: 4-8, light gray to bluish green, unmarked. Incubation: 36—38 days. Fledging: from 115 to 155 days. Swans have long been valued for their elegance and purity. Because of their large size, pure white color, conspicuous behavior, and association with human development, Mute Swans are difficult to miss. Although not native to North America, they are now permanent residents. They were introduced in North America from the mid-1800s through the early 1900s. North American breeding populations are currently concentrated along the Atlantic coast, in the Great Lakes region, and in the northwestern U.S. They are adapt- 40 able and inhabit a variety of aquatic areas, including lakes, ponds, and slow-moving rivers. Swans are considered to be beneficial for their consumption of large quantities of filamentous algae and troublesome aquatic plant life. Due to their aggressive nature, however, a large population can displace some native species, e.g., waterfowl and wetland species, from nesting and wintering sites. Illinois History The first documented record of Mute Swans in the wild in Illinois was a release in Fulton County in 1971 by private citizens (Bohlen 1989). More releases in the state followed. Mute Swans are normally considered nonmigratory, but they do move around and some migration may now occur. The introduced population in Illinois is productive and regularly enhanced with escapees, nonpinioned young, and those that emigrate from other states. Breeding Bird Survey Trends A BBS trend estimate is not available for Illinois because of the small population size and localized breeding distribution of this species. In the upper Midwest the BBS trend estimate is 5.4% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.33) for 1966—2000 but the sample size is small. Credibility Index: IL = none and UM = 3. Distribution The Mute Swan was reported in priority blocks in eight counties. However, its population is growing and expanding without additional releases. Its presence in Illinois is prima- rily the result of introductions intended to enhance the beauty of the landscape. These swans are also released on small ponds and lakes to discourage Canada Geese from establish- ing territories. Mute Swans are most prevalent in man-made ponds, lakes, and marshes and are especially associated with commercial and residential developments. Many birds remain year round while others are captured in the fall and released in the following spring. Frequency The Mute Swan was reported from 12 (1.2%) priority blocks and 20 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in 5 (0.5%) of the priority blocks; the breeding evidence for all five records was the presence of cygnets. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed 5) 0.5 41.7 14 ihe! Probable 2 0.2 16.7 6 0.5 Possible 5 0.5 41.7 12 0.9 Pig Totals 12 1a, 100.0 52 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority _% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed @& 2 Probable ie Possible CO - Breeding Bird Survey Trends Upper Midwest 3 ~ 2 4 = = + io} Oo 4 5 | 4 e : — . ° ee peetee, 1" s aa? 0+ + + + + te 1 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Year 4] Dennis Oehmke Code: WODU Rangewide Distribution: southern Canada, south into WY (heteron 115 Bi (0) Abundance: common migrant and summer resident; uncommon winter resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: wooded swamps, sloughs, ponds, marshes, and flooded forests. Nest: wood chips and down-lined tree cavity or nest box; occasionally far from water. Eggs: 10—15, creamy white, unmarked. Incubation: 28—37 days. Fledging: from 56 to 70 days. This brightly colored duck is a common riparian species in North America. The breeding range includes southern Canada and the eastern half, the northwest, and west coast of the U.S. Wood Ducks inhabit wooded areas with streams, ponds, and marshes. Although still dependent on natural cavities for nesting (sycamore trees are a favorite), Wood Ducks readily accept man-made nest boxes. Nest sites are usually near or over water. Soon after a nest site has been selected, the female becomes secretive and is difficult to observe. The Wood Duck was believed to be nearly extir- pated rangewide by the early 1900s due to unregulated and spring hunting and habitat loss (Bohlen 1989; Bellrose and Holm 1994). After the Federal Migratory Bird Act of 1918 was enacted and hunting pressure stopped, the Wood Duck population rebounded, increasing until the mid-1980s (Hepp 42 Wood Duck Aix sponsa and Bellrose 1995). By the 1940s the population was sufficiently large enough to allow a controlled hunting season. Although the Mississippi Valley population experi- enced another temporary decline in the 1950s, modern wildlife management practices, adequate habitat, and hunting regulations during the last four decades have been respon- sible for its current substantial population level. The species is currently doing well throughout its range (Hepp and Bellrose 1995). The Wood Duck is second only to the Mallard in the number of birds harvested in the Atlantic and Mississippi flyways (Hepp and Bellrose 1995). Illinois History The Wood Duck, one of two cavity-nesting ducks that occur in Illinois, is currently the most abundant nesting waterfowl species in the state (Havera 1999). There were probably large numbers of this species through the late 1800s but with unregulated hunting and loss of bottomland habitat, the Illinois population had declined dramatically by the early 1900s (Havera 1999). In 1942 the population in Illinois had recovered sufficiently and the hunting season was reopened. Protection from excessive hunting has helped the recovery, but it may never return to pre-1900 levels due to loss of bottomland forest and swamps (Havera 1999). Breeding Bird Survey Trends The trend estimates are 5.1% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.05) in Illinois and 4.2% per year (significant, P = 0.01) for the upper Midwest for 1966—2000. However, this species is not adequately sampled by the BBS (Sauer and Droege 1990; Bellrose and Holm 1994). Credibility Index: IL = 2 and UM = 2. Distribution Atlas data indicate that the Wood Duck breeding population was distributed throughout the state. It was reported in priority blocks in 98 counties and Confirmed as breeding in 88 of them. Gaps in distribution tend to coincide with the highly agricultural and least-forested areas of the state. Frequency The Wood Duck was reported from 476 (47.7%) priority blocks and 133 nonpriority blocks. It was Confirmed as breeding in 324 (32.5%) of the priority blocks, which is about two-thirds of the priority blocks in which it was found. Fledged young, mostly the presence of a female with her ducklings, was the most frequently reported evidence of breeding (290 FL records). Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed 324 825 68.1 429 33.4 Probable 76 7.6 16.0 93 G2, Possible 76 7.6 16.0 87 6.8 Totals 476 47.7 100.0 609 47.4 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority % of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed & ® Probable © Possible O Breeding Bird Survey Trends Illinois + + + + 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Year Upper Midwest 0 - +—__—__—-++ + — 4 + 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 [ ate a Wood Duck 43 Robert Randall OCT: (HAY FA BF Rangewide Distribution: Asia, Europe, Australia, North America from Alaska and northern Canada south into Mexico, including all of the U.S. 115 FO) fe Abundance: abundant migrant and winter resident and fairly common summer resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: shallow ponds, lakes, and marshes with emergent vegetation, grassy areas, and flooded fields. Nest: hollow of cattails, reeds, or grasses; concealed by vegetation and lined with down; on ground (but occasion- ally on open nest platforms). Eggs: 7-10, greenish or grayish buff to off-white, un- marked. Incubation: 26—30 days. Fledging: from 42 to 60 days. The Mallard is the most abundant and widely distributed duck in North America, where the breeding range includes nearly all of Canada and most of the U.S. except the far south. Although the Mallard is the most heavily hunted duck in North America, its population has remained fairly steady (Drilling et al. 2002). Annual aerial surveys indicate the breeding population of Mallards in the midwestern U.S. and the Canadian prairies in 2000 was nearly 9.5 million birds (USFWS 2002). The male is easily identified by its distinc- tive metallic-green head. They utilize nearly any type of habitat with water—from large reservoirs, power cooling 44 WEL FT ge | Anas platyrhynchos lakes, and natural marshes to small ponds and ditches. Mallards have adapted to the presence of humans; they are frequently found in man-made settings and may breed in parks and cemeteries as well as more natural habitats. Mallards prefer to nest on the ground in vegetation near water. They are opportunistic and generalist feeders that consume a variety of plant species (seeds and vegetative parts) and, to a lesser degree, animal matter (Havera 1999). Illinois History Mallards are the most common dabbling duck in Illinois and are most abundant during the fall and winter months when large flocks often concentrate at state and federal refuges. In the mid-to-late 1800s this species was considered a common and abundant summer resident in the northern part of the state and also nested along the Illinois River (Kennicott 1855; Nelson1876; Havera 1999). In recent decades the breeding population in the state has increased considerably and it now breeds in every county, with the greatest concen- trations in the northern and central portions of the state (Bohlen 1989; Havera 1999). Breeding Bird Survey Trends BBS data indicate that the Mallard population in Illinois has increased at an annual rate of 4.9% (significant, P = 0.02) from 1966 to 2000. Upper Midwest populations increased during 1966-2000 and both subintervals; the trend estimate is 2.2% per year (significant, P < 0.01) for 1966-2000. Credibility Index: IL = 1 and UM = 1, Distribution The Mallard was reported throughout the state during the atlas project. It was reported in priority blocks in 95 counties and Confirmed as breeding in 79 of them. Mallards occurred with the greatest frequency in the northern part of the state and less frequently in the southern portion of the state where the population is smaller. Frequency The Mallard was reported in 527 (52.8%) priority blocks and 164 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in 297 (29.8%) of the priority blocks. The observation of broods or small young was the most commonly reported evidence of breeding in priority blocks (266 FL records). Nesting was probably attempted in most other blocks where the species was observed. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed 297 29.8 56.4 429 33.4 Probable 140 14.0 26.6 164 12.8 Possible 90 9.0 A 98 7.6 Totals | 52.8 100.0 691 S31 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority _ % of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority @ Confirmed Probable & Possible C O Breeding Bird Survey Trends Illinois Count 0+ + + t + t t { 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Year Upper Midwest 87 6 + = Se Count 0 + + + +- ~ + . aS 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 199] 1996 2000 So WEVET ge | 45 Blue-winged Teal Vir Tome | Lyexe) 6 Dennis Oehmke Code: BWTE Rangewide Distribution: all of North America, from Alaska to northwestern South America. ILLINOIS Abundance: common migrant, uncommon summer resident, very rare winter resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: marshes, sloughs, lakes, streams, flooded weedy fields and sedge meadows. Nest: grasses or cattails, lined with finer materials and down; concealed in dense cover on ground. Eggs: 8—11, creamy- to olive-white, unmarked. Incubation: 23—27days. Fledging: from 35 to 44 days. The Blue-winged Teal is a small, fast-flying dabbling duck that can be surprisingly tame; a flock in a small puddle next to the roadside often allows a close approach. It is a common breeding species in the north-central U.S. and central Canada but also breeds throughout much of Canada and the northern half of the U.S. Nesting usually occurs later than for other ducks due to a late spring migration. Blue-winged Teal prefer open marshlike areas that include a wide diversity of aquatic plants and opportunistically utilize transient lakes and flooded fields. They typically nest on the ground in vegeta- tion near water, including marshes and ponds. Breeding populations can fluctuate considerably in response to dry 46 years (Rohwer et al. 2002). Management practices that would benefit this species include creation of vegetated buffers around wetlands and open water. Illinois History The status of the Blue-winged Teal population in Illinois has remained much the same since the nineteenth century. The species has apparently always been a common spring and fall migrant (arriving later in spring and departing earlier in fall than the other waterfowl species) and a scarce summer and winter resident, depending on the weather (Ridgway 1895). Downstate breeding is sporadic because of the intermittent availability of appropriate habitat. There were breeding records from 66 counties during the period from 1930 to 1996 (Havera 1999). Yetter (1992) estimated the northeastern Illinois population density at 1.04 breeding pairs per square mile (0.40/km7?). Breeding Bird Survey Trends The trend estimate for the Blue-winged Teal population in Illinois is —5.9% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.08) from 1966 to 2000; sample size and relative abundance for this species are low. Populations in the upper Midwest are estimated to have declined at an annual rate of -4.0% (significant, P < 0.01) from 1966 to 2000. Credibility Index: IL = 3 and UM = 2. Distribution The Blue-winged Teal was most frequently reported in the northeastern counties and at scattered locations in decreasing frequency southward during the atlas project. It may breed in intermittent wetlands in suitable years. Frequency The Blue-winged Teal was reported in 88 (8.8%) priority blocks and 58 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in 35 (3.5%) of the priority blocks, mostly by observation of broods (33 FL records). Because female Blue-winged Teal separate from the males in the spring and summer to stay close to their nests and broods, records of a pair together would most likely indicate that successful nesting did not occur. A male seen alone late in the season (i.e., the Possible breeding category) is frequently part of a breeding pair and may be as reliable an indicator of breeding as observing a pair together. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. Blocks with records % Sampled blocks Confirmed 35 3.5 39.8 59 4.6 Probable 32 3.2 36.4 56 44 Possible 21 21 23.9 ail 2.4 Totals 88 8.8 100.0 146 $11.4 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority _% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed #& & Probable fea e - Possible iz O Breeding Bird Survey Trends Upper Midwest 4) 1.57 r= | 61 | O 0.5 ee — ° 0 + + + + + Year 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Blue-winged Teal 47 I Coyadatsieameyvave)’.=1 (=) Anas clypeata Richard Day / Daybreak Imagery OFT: (ae Oe) sf Rangewide Distribution: Asia, Europe, much of North America from Alaska south to northern South America. 115 FCO) fe Abundance: common migrant, uncommon winter resident, rare summer resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: shallow, freshwater marshes and flooded wetlands with emergent vegetation. Nest: concealed depression on ground filled with dry grasses and lined with down; in short meadow grass or emergent vegetation. Eggs: 6—14, olive-buff to green-gray, unmarked. Incubation: 22—25 days. Fledging: from 38 to 66 days. The Northern Shoveler is a common holarctic duck that breeds in much of western Canada, Alaska, northwestern and north-central U.S., and locally in eastern North America. The male and female can be readily distinguished from other duck species by their prominent spatula-shaped bills. When droughts occur in the Shoveler’s primary breeding range, which is the prairie pothole region of the north-central U.S. and Canada, and the marshes and seasonal wetlands on which it depends dry up, these birds become opportunistic nesters and breed wherever suitable nesting habitat and food 48 are available. Nesting and other summer occurrences at the fringes of or outside the normal range are possibly drought- displaced birds. Nests are usually placed in open meadows or dense grassy cover up to 200 feet from the water’s edge (Bellrose 1976). The Shoveler’s diet consists of more animals (e.g., aquatic insects, gastropods, and crustaceans) than that of other dabbling ducks, especially in the spring (Ankney and Afton 1988), but they are mainly herbivores. Illinois History The Northern Shoveler is a common migrant in IIlinois, resting and feeding in suitable shallow wetlands during its passages north in the spring and south in the fall. Illinois, which is at the southern edge of the breeding range, has apparently never been a major breeding area for the Northern Shoveler. Most breeding records published prior to the atlas project were in northeastern Illinois, particularly Cook County (at least three accounts between 1890 and 1968) and Goose Lake Prairie State Park in Grundy County (1973) (Nelson 1876; Havera 1999). Another three broods occurred in Fulton County in 1973 (Bohlen 1989). Shovelers are often present and move around the state during the summer months, but evidence of nesting is usually not detected. Breeding Bird Survey Trends There was insufficient BBS data to estimate a trend for the Northern Shoveler population in Illinois. The upper Midwest trend for 1966-2000 is estimated at 0.9% per year (nonsig- nificant, P = 0.52). Credibility Index: IL= none and UM = 3. Distribution The Northern Shoveler was a rare and sporadic breeding species in Illinois during the atlas project. It is expected to occasionally breed in the state, especially in the northeastern counties. The record in Peoria County was farther south than expected. Frequency The Northern Shoveler was reported from | (0.1%) priority block and 4 nonpriority blocks. It was reported as a Probable breeder in a priority block in Peoria County and was Con- firmed in one block, a nonpriority block in DuPage County. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed 0 0.0 0.0 | 0.1 Probable | 0.1 100.0 | 0.1 Possible 0 0.0 0.0 3 0.2 Totals ] 0.1 100.0 5 0.4 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority _% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed a Probable ie e) Possible O Northern Shoveler 49 WN Co)adatslaam ealaltcil Anas acuta Kanae Hirabayashi Code: NOPI Rangewide Distribution: northern Asia and Europe, most of North America, from northern Canada and Alaska south into Central America. 11) BO) te Abundance: locally common to uncommon migrant, uncommon winter resident, rare summer resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: marshes and seasonally flooded wetlands. Nest: dry grasses and leaves lined with finer materials and feathers; on ground, concealed in short vegetation away from the water. Eggs: 6-9, olive green to olive buff, unmarked. Incubation: 22—25 days. Fledging: from 36 to 57 days. The Northern Pintail is circumpolar in distribution and abundant in North America, where it breeds primarily in the northern Great Plains; its breeding range also includes nearly all of Canada and Alaska. Northern Pintails nest on the ground in open upland near water, and forage in lakes, ponds, and marshes. Loss of marshes and seasonal wetlands 50 in its primary breeding area caused a serious decline in population. From 1955 to 1991 there was an estimated 54% decline in the North American breeding population (Jackson et al. 1996). Periods of long-term drought have also caused dramatic declines in populations, but are usually followed by a recovery (Austin and Miller 1995). Illinois History Illinois has never been a major breeding area for the North- ern Pintail. It occurs in the state primarily as a migrant, resting and feeding as it passes through on its way north in the spring and south in the fall. The majority of published breeding records prior to the atlas project were in northern Illinois, primarily Cook County (at least six accounts between 1875 and 1978), Goose Lake Prairie State Park in Grundy County (1973 and 1974), and Whiteside County (1959) (Bohlen 1989). The atlas record in Shelby County is the southernmost confirmed breeding location ever reported in Illinois. Breeding Bird Survey Trends The Northern Pintail is rare in Illinois and BBS data are not adequate to estimate trends. The upper Midwest trend estimate for 1966-2000 is —11.9% per year (nonsignificant, PS OT2): Credibility Index: IL = none and UM = 3. Distribution The Northern Pintail was rarely reported in the atlas project. This species occasionally occurs during the breeding season in Illinois, especially in the northeastern counties. The record in Shelby County was 125 miles farther south than previ- ously recorded. The three Possible records in Will County are relatively close to previously successful sites. Since the atlas project, breeding has been reported in the Illinois River valley. Frequency The Northern Pintail was found in 4 (0.4%) priority blocks and 3 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in only | block, a priority block in Shelby County. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 1 0.1 25.0 ] 0.1 Probable Zz 0.2 50.0 2 0.2 Possible l 0.1 25.0 4 0.3 Totals 4 0.4 100.0 7 0.5 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) eal % of 998 sampled priority —_% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed #& # Probable @ Possible O Northern Pintail 51 Lophodytes cucullatus Hooded Merganser Dennis Oehmke Oris (eae s COVED Rangewide Distribution: southern half of Canada south irom (opalere ILLINOIS Abundance: fairly common migrant, uncommon winter and summer resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: woods near lakes, ponds, swamps, and marshes. Nest: tree cavity or nest box lined with grasses, leaves, and down. Eggs: 10—12, white, unmarked (often nest-stained). Incubation: 32—33 days. Fledging: about 71 days. While Hooded Mergansers generally breed in the forests of the northeastern U.S. and southeastern and southwestern Canada, it is most common in the upper Great Lakes region. The Hooded Merganser, like the Wood Duck, nests in tree cavities and also accepts boxes intended for Wood Ducks as nest sites. However, because it is a diving duck, its habitat requirements and feeding habits are considerably different from those of the Wood Duck. A variety of wooded areas with nearby water, such as cypress and tupelo swamps, beaver ponds, lakes, and tree-lined streams, provide suitable habitat. A major limitation for the Hooded Merganser is the quality and clarity of water, which must provide an adequate, visible supply of small fish, amphibians, and insects (Bellrose 1976). Historically, populations declined because 32 of overhunting and loss of forests; current populations appear stable (Dugger et al. 1994). Efforts to protect and restore wooded wetland areas through a variety of public and private efforts are necessary to enhance the breeding potential for this species. Illinois History According to historical accounts, the Hooded Merganser was widely but sparingly distributed as a breeding species in the state. The earliest breeding records were reported from Union County in 1875 (Nelson 1877). It was reported in eight counties throughout the state from 1861 to 1929 and 36 counties from 1930 to 1996 (Havera 1999). Based on a mail survey conducted in 1990, it nested in 14 (9%) of 151 public sites (Havera 1999). Nesting currently occurs in counties bordering the Mississippi, Illinois, Sangamon, and Ohio rivers (Havera 1999), Breeding Bird Survey Trends Waterfowl species are not adequately sampled by the BBS and the Hooded Merganser, though an increasingly common breeder in Illinois, is seldom reported as breeding because of its habitat and secretive nature. There are insufficient BBS data to estimate trends for this species in Illinois or the region. Credibility Index: IL = none and UM = none. Distribution Breeding evidence for the Hooded Merganser is difficult to find and the atlas data is not indicative of its true distribution or abundance. It was reported in priority blocks in 11 counties. Since the atlas project, one or more broods have been documented at various locations throughout the state every year, including some encountered during the Spring Bird Count in early May (Kleen unpub.). Frequency Hooded Mergansers were reported from 14 (1.4%) priority blocks and 9 nonpriority blocks. Even though it was Con- firmed as a breeding species in just 7 of the priority blocks, breeding probably occurred statewide where bottomland forest and suitable nest cavities exist. Breeding evidence for all the Confirmed priority block records was the observation of broods accompanying adult females. Because of the difficulty in locating nest cavities, the other blocks where breeding was recorded but not Confirmed may have been nesting localities as well. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 7 0.7 50.0 14 1d Probable 2 0.2 14.3 a) 0.2 Possible 5 0.5 35.7 6 Totals 14 1.4 100.0 2A * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) a % of 998 sampled priority _% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species | Priority Nonpriority | Confirmed & ® _ Probable | Possible L] O Hooded Merganser nX Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis Joe Milosevich Code: RUDU Rangewide Distribution: western and southern Canada, south through most of the U.S. into Central America. 115 Fie) Abundance: common migrant; uncommon winter resident, occasional summer resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: densely vegetated freshwater marshes; occasionally, sewage lagoons. Nest: bulky and basketlike in emergent vegetation lined sparsely with finer materials, normally with concealing canopy and anchored to the vegetation. Eggs: 6-8, creamy white, unmarked (nest-stained). Incubation: 23—26 days. Fledging: from 42 to 48 days. This species breeds primarily in the prairie pothole region of North America but can be found breeding elsewhere in the western half of the U.S., southwestern and south-central Canada, and in Mexico. Male Ruddy Ducks are rust-colored, stiff-tailed ducks with white cheeks and blue bills. They have a habit of cocking their tails up—a behavioral trait that helps identify the species. Although Ruddy Ducks are divers, they are primarily vegetarians and feed on seeds, leaves, and tubers of sedges and pondweeds, and therefore require clear water to see their underwater food sources. They build floating nests in marshes and ponds with margins of emer- 54 gent vegetation. Ruddy Duck populations are stable or increasing throughout most of the breeding range in North America (Brua 2002). This species is highly dependent on wetlands in the prairie pothole region. Illinois History Like most other ducks, Ruddies occur in Illinois primarily as spring and fall transients using lakes for feeding and resting during their long migrations. According to historical ac- counts, the Ruddy Duck has been a somewhat regular breeding species in northeastern Illinois and an opportunis- tic, irregular breeding species in the rest of the state when suitable habitat was available at the appropriate time. The earliest record of breeding in Illinois was a brood observed near Waukegan in Lake County in 1875 (Nelson 1876). Since 1930, Ruddy Ducks have been recorded as nesting in nine counties scattered throughout the state (Havera 1999). Breeding Bird Survey Trends There is insufficient BBS data to estimate population trends for the Ruddy Duck in Illinois. The data for 1966—2000 indicate a decline in the upper Midwest population of — 9.4% per year (significant, P = 0.03), though the sample size is low. Waterfowl] populations are not adequately sampled by the BBS. Credibility Index: IL = none and UM = 3. Distribution The Ruddy Duck was a rare breeding species during the atlas project. It was recorded in priority blocks in six counties. This species was sporadic in occurrence and has a wider distribution than the atlas data indicate. A number of broods have been documented at several locations in northeastern Illinois prior to and after the atlas project. Frequency The Ruddy Duck was reported from 6 (0.6%) priority blocks and 13 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in 2 of the priority blocks, 1 each in Cook and Mason counties. The presence of single individuals or summering groups are more likely to be associated with nesting than the presence of territorial pairs (i.e., the 4 Probable records) and, therefore, it would be appropriate to consider the Possible records as potential nesting sites. Breeding Evidence __ Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed 2 0.2 33.3 8 0.6 Probable l 0.1 16.7 4 0.3 Possible 3 0.3 50.0 7 05 Totals 6 0.6 100.0 19 15 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority % of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species | Priority Nonpriority Confirmed @ _ Probable Ea o) _ Possible f= O Breeding Bird Survey Trends | Upper Midwest 3: | 2+ _& 1S , 1d e , | GH a%ee ae | a Ss eo oe ees } 0 + + + ——+ +t + + { 1966 197] 1976 =1981 1986 199] 1996 2000 Year Ruddy Duck 55 Te: \Vil ad: latalele (= Perdix perdix Joe Milosevich Code: GRPA Rangewide Distribution: native of Europe and Asia; Tbalaneretecercre ms relcom (ondeWavenculercerieemecetinmiimyeltivacun Canada and northern U.S. ILLINOIS Abundance: formerly uncommon, now rare permanent resident in northern counties. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: grasslands and cultivated flatlands with hedgerows and edges. Nest: a scrape lined with leaves, straw and grass, on ground. Eggs: 15-17, olive or dull white, unmarked. Incubation: 23-25 days. Fledging: from 13 to 15 days. The Gray Partridge, also known as the Hungarian Partridge, is anonmigratory game species that was introduced into North America in the early 1900s. Populations in North America are found in the northern U.S. and southern Canada, but are concentrated in the central prairie region. This grassland species has adapted to intensive agricultural areas where it inhabits cultivated fields, fencerows, and edges. It nests on the ground in grassy areas and hayfields. Gray Partridges mainly eat seeds; however, insects are an impor- tant food source for chicks. 56 Illinois History Farris (1970) reported that more than 12,000 Gray Partridges were released in Illinois between 1906 and 1927. Over the years the birds spread in a westerly and southerly direction with the greatest numbers occurring in Lee and DeKalb counties. Farris also thought that Gray Partridge numbers would always be low because summers in Illinois are too hot and wet for this species. Gray Partridge were reported occasionally on [Illinois Department of Natural Resources game bird surveys before 1998 but on only a few survey routes (<3) and in small numbers (<40). The Gray Partridge has never been easy to find in Illinois and during the last 10 years it has become even more difficult. The Spring Bird Count in 2000 reported only two birds and in 2001 only one bird, all in DeKalb County (Kleen 2000b, 2001b). Changing land uses and cropping systems may be more responsible for the rarity and decline of this species than the summer climate that Farris (1970) suggests. Breeding Bird Survey Trends This rare species is uncommonly encountered and in such low numbers that the trend estimate is not considered reliable for Illinois. A trend of —7.8% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.42) was estimated for the state for 1966—2000. For the upper Midwest, the population trend is estimated at 0.1% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.95) between 1966 and 2000. Credibility Index: IL = 3 and UM = 2. Distribution During the atlas project, the Gray Partridge was found in priority blocks in 19 counties, all in the northwestern part of the state. Individuals were reported as far south as Peoria and Knox counties. Since the atlas project, there have been few records of this species anywhere in Illinois. Frequency : The Gray Partridge was reported from 65 (6.5%) priority blocks and 10 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in 32 (3.2%) of the priority blocks and likely occurred in the majority of other blocks in which it was reported. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 32 3.2 49.2 36 2.8 Probable 21 oul 32.3 24 1.9 Possible 12 ile) 18.5 15 12 Totals 65 6.5 100.0 75 5.8 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority % of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species | Priority Nonpriority Confirmed & & _ Probable ® Possible a4 O Breeding Bird Survey Trends Upper Midwest in) | | 0 + + - + + + t ‘ 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Year Gray Partridge 57 Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus Code: RNPH Rangewide Distribution: native of Asia; introduced elsewhere including North America: extreme southern Canada south through northern half of the U.S., uneven distribution in southwestern U.S. 115 Bile) he Abundance: fairly common permanent resident in north and central; mostly absent south of about Effingham County. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: open country, cultivated and grassland areas. Nest: a scrape sometimes lined with leaves and grass, on eauelunnvee Eggs: 10-12, brownish olive (occasionally pale blue), unmarked. Incubation: 23—25 days. Fledging: about 12 days. The Ring-necked Pheasant is native to Asia but now has a worldwide distribution because of introductions by humans. They were successfully introduced in North America in the 1880s and are presently found primarily in southern Canada and the northern and western U.S. This species is a nonmigratory game bird that is better adapted to an intensive agricultural setting than most of our native gallinaceous species (e.g., the Greater Prairie-Chicken and the Northern Bobwhite). Ring-necked Pheasants nest on the ground in dense vegetation. Large hayfields, pastures, and fallow fields are preferred nesting habitats, but they also utilize strips of 58 vegetation along fencerows, ditches, and roadways. Loss of habitat due to farming practices, which changed from small diversified farms to clean monocultures during the latter part of the 1900s, has negatively impacted the pheasant popula- tion. The destruction and decline in nesting and wintering cover are serious threats to the population (Jackson et al. 1996). Managing roadsides for pheasant habitat and restora- tion and creation of grasslands are important conservation measures for this species. Illinois History Ring-necked Pheasants were first introduced into Illinois around 1890. The pheasant population grew and expanded during the early 1900s and peaked in the early 1960s. Since then, the population has slowly and steadily declined because of intensive farming practices, which reduced habitat, and severe winters, especially those in the late 1970s. By the early 1980s the population was only a fraction of what it had been three decades earlier. Detailed information about the natural history, population, and distribution of this species in Illinois can be found in Warner (1981). Breeding Bird Survey Trends The trend estimate is —2.0% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.34) for the pheasant in Illinois for 1966-2000. BBS data from the upper Midwest indicate that the regional population has declined at an annual rate of —2.2% (significant, P < 0.01) from 1966 to 2000. Illinois Department of Natural Resources call-count surveys indicate similar trends for the state. Credibility Index: IL = 2 and UM = 1. Distribution The Ring-necked Pheasant occurred in the northern two- thirds of Illinois during the atlas project. Although there have been numerous attempts to introduce pheasants in southern Illinois, the species has been unable to sustain a population there and the southern records are probably the result of releases by sportsman groups. Frequency Ring-necked Pheasants were reported in 556 (55.7%) priority blocks and 121 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in 276 (27.7%) of the priority blocks, with the observation of broods the most commonly used evidence criterion (252 FL records). Because crowing males regularly announce their presence, pheasants were relatively easy to detect. The atlas results may be somewhat misleading since some records may be of released game-farm birds that were not likely to survive to the following year. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed 276 277 49.6 337 26.2 Probable 116 11.6 20.9 149 11.6 Possible 164 16.4 29.5 191 14.9 Totals 556 Dov 100.0 677 = 52.6 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) 8 | io eke ae Eee % of 998 sampled priority _% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for mS for this species) this species a Oj B Priority Nonpriority a8 Confirmed @ = Probable | © go Possible [| O on fe Breeding Bird Survey Trends Illinois 0 + + : ' + , + { 1966 =1971 1976 =-1981 1986 =1991 1996 2000 Year Upper Midwest 247 21+ 18+ + 0 + + + ' + + 1 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 7 Year Ring-necked Pheasant 59 Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus Pat Brown Code: RUGR Rangewide Distribution: Alaska, much of Canada, and the northern U.S. ILLINOIS Abundance: (formerly) very rare permanent resident in northern and southern Illinois. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: deciduous and deciduous-coniferous forests with dense understory. Nest: a scrape lined with preened feathers, on ground at base of tree or log. Eggs: 9-12, buff, lightly spotted with browns. Incubation: 23-24 days. Fledging: from 10 to 12 days. Ruffed Grouse are nonmigratory game birds that are found in the deciduous and coniferous forests of North America. Their breeding range is generally most of Canada and the northern U.S. They are known for their courtship behavior and cryptic coloration. This woodland species inhabits deciduous or mixed deciduous-coniferous forests, especially young forests with brushy, dense undergrowth. Courtship drumming generally occurs during March and April. The drumming sound is made by the male as he stands on a log and fans the air with increasingly rapid wingbeats. Ruffed Grouse nest on the forest floor, usually at the base of a tree, stump, or boulder. Some populations experience cyclic fluctuations, perhaps generated by predator-prey relationships (Rusch et 60 al. 2000). Historically, the conversion of forest to other land uses, fragmentation of remaining woodlands, lack of early successional habitat, grazing, and market hunting have contributed to the decline of this species in parts of its range (Rusch et al. 2000). Illinois History Illinois is at the southern limit of the Ruffed Grouse’s breeding range. During the late 1800s it was found “through- out the State in wooded districts, becoming more rare southward” (Ridgway 1895). Although it was recorded as common in the early 1900s (Cory 1909), that description was probably more appropriate for Wisconsin than Illinois. The Ruffed Grouse was apparently extirpated from the state in the early 1900s. During the latter part of the twentieth century, four attempts were made to reintroduce the species into the state. Birds from Indiana were released in Pope County (1953-58 and 1967), Alexander County (1972), Union County (1982), and Jo Daviess and Stephenson counties (1990) (Douglas Dufford, pers. comm.). Breeding Bird Survey Trends BBS routes do not adequately sample the remnant population that exists in Illinois. The surveys, which are mostly con- ducted in June, would not detect Ruffed Grouse, whose peak drumming period is March and April. In the upper Midwest the trend estimate for 1966-2000 is 1.4% per year (nonsig- nificant, P = 0.48). Credibility Index: IL = none and UM = 2. Distribution In Illinois the Ruffed Grouse was formerly a rare breeding species in forested areas, and later limited to disjunct populations in the extreme south and northwest. The birds found in Union County during the atlas project were a result of the flock released in the county in the 1980s. Ruffed Grouse may still be present in Jo Daviess and extreme southern Illinois counties, but they were not detected during the atlas project. Even though drumming Ruffed Grouse can be heard in early spring for quite some distance, their presence at other times of the year is difficult to detect. Frequency The Ruffed Grouse was reported from a single priority block in Union County, where it was Confirmed as breeding. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 1 0.1 100.0 l 0.1 Probable 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Possible 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Totals l 0.1 100.0 l 0.1 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority —_% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed & Probable @ Possible ] O Breeding Bird Survey Trends Upper Midwest Count + 0.5+ . e . gt Pow —s DT a Fat PLE eB ke O + n + 4 + t + { 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Year Ruffed Grouse 61 Greater Prairie-Chicken Tympanuchus cupido sin] Richard Day / Daybreak Imagery OCT: (i C2 oa OF s | Rangewide Distribution: upper Great Plains with a subspecies in southeastern Texas. ILLINOIS Abundance: rare and local permanent resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: endangered. Breeding Habitat: open tallgrass prairies, grasslands. Nest: a scrape or shallow depression lined with leaves, feathers and grass, on ground. Eggs: 10-12, olive buff, sometimes spotted with fine brown specks. Incubation: 23—24 days. Fledging: weak flights at 2 weeks and strong flights at 3 weeks. The Greater Prairie-Chicken was at one time widely distrib- uted throughout the native prairies of central North America. As native prairie habitat was converted to cropland, Prairie- Chicken numbers declined precipitously and its current distribution is localized; this species 1s extirpated or nearly extirpated from 15 states and provinces (Shroeder and Robb 1993). The Greater Prairie-Chicken is known for its breeding behavior; males gather in early spring to boom and strut to attract females in courtship areas called leks. Greater Prairie- Chickens historically inhabited prairies interspersed with oak woodlands and currently occur in grasslands with medium to tall vegetation. Larger grasslands offer more protection from predation (Schroeder and Robb 1993). They nest on the ground in depressions lined with feathers, grass, and leaves. For the species to survive, suitable habitat must be acquired, preserved, and appropriately managed (Simpson and Esker 1997); 62 Illinois History Prairies once covered about half of Illinois (Suloway et al. 2002) and supported an abundance of Greater Prairie- Chickens. For a period in the mid-1800s, the Greater Prairie- Chicken was one of the most abundant species in Illinois. They were so common that Ridgway (1895) thought it superfluous to discuss them further. Prairie-Chickens benefited from the clearing of the forests, reaching peak numbers about 1860 (Bohlen 1989; Westemeier and Edwards 1987; Dinsmore 1994). With the loss of prairies the popula- tion declined so drastically between 1860 and 1900 that by 1900 they were considered to be on the brink of extinction (Ridgway 1915). Continued loss, reduction in quality, and fragmentation of grassland habitat and isolation of local populations have negatively impacted this species up to the present time. Because of the very small population and the lack of nesting habitat, the Greater Prairie-Chicken is listed as an endangered species in Illinois. The remaining popula- tion in Illinois, a small remnant of what it used to be, now survives on intensely managed preserves in the south-central part of the state. In the early 1990s, birds from similar midwestern populations were introduced into the Illinois population to improve hatchability of clutches and sustain the Illinois population (Bouzat et al. 1998). In 2000, the Illinois population consisted of 107 booming males and a similar number of females on 15 leks in three counties (S. Simpson, pers. comm.). The efforts of the Illinois Natural History Survey, Illinois Department of Natural Resources, Prairie Chicken Society, Illinois Audubon Society, and The Nature Conservancy have prevented this species from being extirpated from the state. Breeding Bird Survey Trends BBS data are insufficient to estimate trends for the Greater Prairie-Chicken population in Illinois. The trend estimate for the upper Midwest for 1966—2000 is —5.7% per year (nonsig- nificant, P = 0.29). Credibility Index: IL = none and UM = 3. Distribution The Greater Prairie-Chicken population is limited to three small areas in southwestern Jasper County, northeastern Marion County, and southeastern Effingham County. Periodically, isolated flocks of five or fewer chickens have occurred at sites in adjacent counties but most do not persist longer than a few years. Frequency The single atlas record for the Greater Prairie-Chicken was from a priority block located in Jasper County, where it was Confirmed as breeding. Breeding Evidence e Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed l 0.1 100.0 | 0.1 Probable 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Possible 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Totals 1 0.1 100.0 1 0.1 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority —_% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species | Priority Nonpriority Confirmed @ Probable a @ Possible CJ O Breeding Bird Survey Trends Upper Midwest oie 2 + 5 5 | 19 | 5 ' NOR a ee 0 + + + . + + + =| 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 ay : | Year Greater Prairie-Chicken 63 Wild Turkey Michael Jeffords Code: WITU Rangewide Distribution: most of the U.S. south of Canada and into Mexico, spotty in western U.S. ILLINOIS Abundance: uncommon permanent resident, more common in south but increasing in central and north. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: open areas at edge of deciduous or coniferous woods. Nest: a scrape or shallow depression lined with dead leaves and grass, on ground. Eggs: 10-12, buff to white, marked with dull brown. Incubation: 27-28 days. Fledging: from 6 to 10 days. The Wild Turkey is native to North America and breeds from southern Canada to central Mexico, including much of the U.S. east of the Rockies. It is a large nonmigratory gamebird that often occurs in large flocks, especially in the winter, and wanders over a fairly large home range. Destruction and alteration of habitat and uncontrolled hunting reduced the Wild Turkey population in the eastern U.S. so that it occu- pied only a small fraction of its original range by 1948 (Jackson et al. 1996). Reintroductions and better manage- ment methods have led to the restoration of this species in many states, including Illinois. Turkeys mostly utilize heavily wooded areas, but are also found in woodland openings, forest edge, and margins of farm fields. They forage for nuts, seeds, grass, and insects and are most common in forests with oaks or other nut-bearing trees as well as in corn and soybean fields. In spring, the male turkey gobbles and struts with tail fanned. Nests are placed on the 64 f=) (=F Told Me F-1][e) of- Ze) ground in forests with grassy openings and open fields nearby. Illinois History Although once an abundant species, the Wild Turkey was all but extirpated in Illinois by 1900 (Ridgway 1895; Cory 1909). Loss and fragmentation of forested habitat and year- round hunting were the primary reasons for the drastic declines in population. For several decades there were no Wild Turkeys in Illinois. Between 1954 and 1958, thousands of game-farm birds were released but the reintroduction effort failed. In 1959, 65 wild-trapped birds from Missis- sippi, Arkansas, and West Virginia were released in southern Illinois and similar releases continued until 1967. This effort was successful in reestablishing the species in the state (Calhoun and Garver 1974). As the southern population flourished, birds from this population were trapped and released upstate. Wild Turkeys are now present statewide. The reestablishment of the Wild Turkey population in Illinois is a result of modern wildlife management techniques and the turkey’s ability to adapt to smaller and fragmented forest habitat. Breeding Bird Survey Trends The BBS trend estimate for 1966-2000 for Illinois is 26.1% (significant, P < 0.01) and 18.0% per year (significant, P < 0.01) for the upper Midwest region. Because the turkey’s peak breeding period is March through early May, the BBS program may not adequately sample this species. Credibility Index: IL = 3 and UM = 2. Distribution Restoration efforts in southern Illinois followed by releases in forested locations throughout the state have established Wild Turkeys in practically every forested area of the state. Greatest concentrations are still near the release sites but the population continues to expand along wooded river corri- dors. Wild Turkeys are currently more widespread in Illinois than atlas records indicate. They were reported in priority blocks in half the counties in the state during the atlas project. Frequency Wild Turkeys were reported from 142 (14.2%) priority blocks and 17 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in 58 (5.8%) of the priority blocks. Three-fourths of the Confirmed records in priority blocks resulted from the observation of poults. Since turkeys are permanent residents, it is likely that most of the Probable and Possible breeding records represent breeding birds as well. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed 58 5.8 40.8 69 5.4 Probable 21 Del 14.8 23 1.8 Possible 63 6.3 44.4 67 ayy? Totals 142 14.2 100.0 LSo 124 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority % of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed & & Probable @ Possible ial Oo Breeding Bird Survey Trends Illinois + + + + 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Year Upper Midwest z 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 . Year Wild Turkey 65 IN Coyadat=ieam =se)elaalicc Colinus virginianus Joe Milosevich Code: NOBO Rangewide Distribution: eastern half of the U.S., NY Cpa Tere) 115 File) Abundance: fairly common permanent resident, decreasing northward. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: tall grasslands, brushy fields, open woodlands, and hedgerows. Nest: a scrape or shallow depression lined with grass, on ground, concealed by woven arch of vegetation. Eggs: 10-16, white to creamy (occasionally buff), unmarked. Incubation: 23—24 days. Fledging: about 6 to 7 days. The Northern Bobwhite, an important gamebird in North America, is a widely distributed breeding species throughout the eastern half of the U.S. and eastern Mexico. The whistled “bob-white” or “ah-bob-white” of the male is a familiar sound in spring and summer to those who spend time in the country. The species occurs in open and semi-open habitats with early successional brushy areas, open grasslands, and woody edges its preferred habitat. The Northern Bobwhite, often called quail, is a permanent, nonmigratory resident. It nests on the ground in fairly open habitat with dense cover nearby. Except during the nesting season, bobwhites feed and roost in coveys that may include as many as 20 birds. In most of the U.S. the population of this species is declining significantly and is highly fragmented because of loss or degradation of habitat in part due to current farming and forestry practices (Brennan 1999). Winter survival also affects population size. Population declines occur during cold winters with extensive snow cover, and even more so 66 when such winters occur back-to-back (Roseberry and Klimstra 1984). Illinois History In the late 1800s the Northern Bobwhite was a common resident throughout Illinois (Ridgway 1895; Cory 1909). During the early to mid-1900s, it was still common, more so in the southern portion of the state (Graber and Graber 1963). From 1955 to 1969 the species was most common in the southern and western portions of the state (Preno and Labisky 1971). During the 1950s and 1960s there were at least three major fluctuations in the bobwhite population with highs following the lows two to four years later. The current population is still declining due to changing land use, reduction in the diversity of agricultural crops, cropping methods, and loss of both quantity and quality of its pre- ferred habitat. Breeding Bird Survey Trends Bobwhite may be better sampled by the BBS than other upland gamebird species because of their slightly later and persistent calling behavior. The Illinois and upper Midwest populations have declined during 1966—2000 and the two subintervals. The trend estimates for 1966—2000 indicate decreases of —1.9% per year (significant, P < 0.01) for Illinois and —2.6% per year (significant, P < 0.01) for the upper Midwest. The severe declines that occurred after the winters of 1976 to 1979 are reflected on the BBS graphs. Trends derived from Illinois Department of Natural Re- sources call-count survey are in agreement with BBS estimates. Credibility Index: IL = 2 and UM = 2. Distribution The Northern Bobwhite was widely distributed throughout the southern and western portions of Illinois during the atlas project. It had not yet returned to its former abundance and distribution in the eastern and northern portions of the state following the severe winters of the late 1970s. Bobwhites were found in priority blocks in 99 of the 102 counties in the state. Frequency The Northern Bobwhite was reported from 745 (74.6%) priority blocks and 27 nonpriority blocks. This species was Confirmed as breeding in 203 (20.3%) of the priority blocks, with the observation of young birds accounting for 88% of these records (179 FL records). The bobwhite was readily detected because of the male’s frequent, easily identified call. Because the species is nonmigratory, the bobwhite likely bred in most of the blocks in which it was found. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks — with records blocks Seamed 203 20.3 ps fs 214 16.6 Probable 392 39.3 52.6 401 312 Possible 150 15.0 20.1 157 12.2 Totals 745 74.6 100.0 772 ~—~60.0 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) as % of 998 sampled priority —_ % of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority | Confirmed #& & _ Probable 4 @ | Possible LJ O Breeding Bird Survey Trends Illinois + 1966 1971 1976 * 1981 - 7 + { 1986 1991 1996 2000 Year Upper Midwest 0 + a 1966 5 1971 a 1976 + 1981 + 1986 Year + 1991 + 1996 2000 Northern Bobwhite 67 -Pied-billed Grebe adele | 141411] 0) 0k efefe | [o7-) of Richard Day / Daybreak Imagery Code: PBGR Rangewide Distribution: central Canada, south through all of the U.S. to southern Brazil. ILLINOIS Abundance: common migrant and an uncommon summer and winter resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: threatened. Breeding Habitat: vegetated lakes, ponds, sluggish streams, and marshes. Nest: inconspicuous, shallow, floating platform placed in marsh vegetation or anchored to dead logs or trees. Eggs: 5-7, bluish white and chalky, often nest-stained (buff or brown). Incubation: 23 days. Fledging: not specifically known. The Pied-billed Grebe is widely distributed throughout the Americas. It breeds from northern Canada to southern South America, including most of the U.S. It is a common inhabit- ant of marshes, lakes, and rivers. This secretive species occurs as a breeding species in calm bodies of water that support marsh or other well-vegetated habitat. Adult birds are most visible when swimming in open water; upon detection, they submerge, swim a considerable distance underwater, and then reappear near a vegetated edge where they are less conspicuous. The Pied-billed Grebe feeds on fish, crustaceans, frogs, and insects, usually by diving. Although they are most often detected as solitary breeders, 68 several nesting pairs may utilize highly suitable wetlands. In some years, after heavy spring rains, these birds opportunisti- cally nest in flooded areas not normally available to them. The nest is a floating platform usually placed in emergent vegetation. Young are precocial and soon after hatching leave the nest to follow the adults or ride on their backs through the emergent vegetation. Illinois History The Pied-billed Grebe was formerly a common, widespread breeding species throughout the state, occurring along the borders of reedy sloughs, marshes, and rivers (Nelson 1876; Ridgway 1895; Cory 1909). In 1989 the Pied-billed Grebe was declared an endangered species in Illinois because of the widespread loss and deterioration of its wetland habitat. In 1994 its status was changed to threatened. Local populations remain vulnerable with the continued loss of marshes and wetlands. Breeding Bird Survey Trends This wetland species is not adequately sampled in Illinois by the BBS and has a small sample size and a low relative abundance. For Illinois the trend estimate over the long term (1966-2000) is 6.3% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.60). The long-term trend estimate for the upper Midwest is —2.1% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.17). The trend estimates for the two subinterval time periods are 14.1% per year (significant, P =0.00) during 1966-1979 and -6.7% per year (significant, P = 0.03) during 1980-2000 in the upper Midwest. Credibility Index: IL = 3 and UM = 2. Distribution During the atlas project, Pied-billed Grebes occurred most frequently in the wetlands in the northeastern part of the state and at scattered locations elsewhere. This species was reported in priority blocks in 22 counties during the atlas project. They are opportunistic breeders and may occur where permanent or temporary conditions provide adequate nesting habitat. Frequency Pied-billed Grebes were reported from 43 (4.3%) of the 998 priority blocks and 50 of the 288 nonpriority blocks. This species was Confirmed as breeding in 27 (2.7%) of the priority blocks. The Probable and Possible sightings may be potential breeding sites. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed 27 2 | 62.8 58 4.5 Probable 8 0.8 18.6 14 13 Possible 8 0.8 18.6 21 1.6 Totals 43 4.3 100.0 93 Ned * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority _% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed @& e Probable © Possible fiat O Pied-billed Grebe 69 DY) 0] eo) (=trelg-\-)(=10 Ove) dante) e-lal' Phalacrocorax auritus Joe Milosevich Code: DCCO Rangewide Distribution: southern Canada, south through much of the U.S. to Mexico and Cuba. ILLINOIS Abundance: a common migrant, fairly common but local summer resident, and uncommon winter resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: lakes, rivers, and swamps with an abundance of dead snags in open water or large trees on isolated and protected islands. Prefer to nest in colonies (loose or dense) sometimes with herons. Nest: a rough platform of sticks lined with grasses or leaves placed in the crotch of a tree or in a man-made Seat (el ttiven Eggs: 3-4, light blue or bluish white, unmarked. Incubation: 25—29 days. Fledging: from 35 to 42 days. Double-crested Cormorants, common inhabitants of sea- coasts and inland waters, are large, primitive-looking aquatic birds. They are colonial breeders that breed in North America primarily along the seacoasts, in the north-central U.S., south-central Canada, and the Great Lakes region. Lakes, ponds, impoundments, slow-moving rivers, and coastlines are common breeding habitats. They may nest on the ground or in trees or artificial structures. Cormorants dive for fish and aquatic invertebrates. For most of the twentieth century, the interior population in North American was declining due to persecution and disturbance of colonies, but recently their numbers have increased (Jackson et al. 1996). As a result of the population increases, cormorants are perceived to be 70 causing economic impacts to sport and commercial fish stock and the aquaculture industry in some parts of their range (Tobin 1999). Illinois History Double-crested Cormorants were primarily migrants and occasional winter residents, according to early accounts. Existing colonies were not only small, but few in number and occurred along the major river systems (Ridgway 1895; Herkert 1992). Cormorants experienced severe population declines in the 1950s and 1960s because of environmental contaminants (Anderson and Hickey 1972; Hatch and Weseloh 1999). By 1975, the remaining colony in Illinois consisted of a handful of nests in two dead snags in the Mississippi River in Carroll County (Kleen 1976a). In response to the extremely low population level, the cormo- rant was listed as an endangered species in Illinois in 1977. The population had recovered and the number and distribu- tion of colonies had increased sufficiently for the species to be removed from the list in 1999. In 1991 there were six known active colonies (Herkert 1992). In 2000, there were approximately 1,150 nesting pairs in 8 known Illinois colonies (Kleen 2001a). Locations of known colonies with Double-crested Cormorants in 2000 are shown in Appendix K. Breeding Bird Survey Trends The Double-crested Cormorant, as with other colonial nesting wetland species, is not adequately sampled by the BBS and the reliability of the trend estimates is low. The BBS trend estimate is 49.4% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.15) for Illinois from 1966 to 2000; sample size and relative abundance are low. In the upper Midwest, the trend estimate for 1966-2000 is 24.1% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.23). Credibility Index: IL = 3 and UM = 3. Distribution During the atlas project, Double-crested Cormorants were found in northeastern Illinois, along the Illinois River, and to a lesser extent along the Mississippi River. It is expected that new colonies will appear in undisturbed sections of larger lakes and in isolated portions of other lakes, rivers, and sloughs as far south as the Ohio River. Frequency The Double-crested Cormorant was reported from 15 (1.5%) priority blocks and 7 nonpriority blocks. It was Confirmed as breeding in one of the priority blocks near Peoria; that colony is no longer in existence. It was also Confirmed in 3 nonpriority blocks. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks “No. % Sampled : -_ _ Blocks with records : blocks 7 Confirmed | 0.1 6.7 4 0.3 Probable 2 0.2 13.3 i; 0.2 Possible 12 lee 80.0 16 Totals 15 TR) 100.0 22 998 priority blocks ** ],286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) y f % of priority blocks with records for this species % of 998 sampled priority blocks (gray = no records for this species) | Priority Nonpriority | Confirmed & 6 _ Probable a | Possible dd O Breeding Bird Survey Trends Illinois Count iS} lon — — . ° 3 ee Q +-~-~-~~ o° 4 1966 1971 1976 1981 1996 Year 1986 199] 2000 Upper Midwest in) . Ss —~ 6 * 0 jpoa-0-e-¢-0-e-e-e-g Oo — =. + 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 Year 2000 | DYoy 0] 0) (=e ¢=1-} (-10 mM Ove) at ile) a=] 4) § 71 Robert Randall Code: AMBI Rangewide Distribution: southern half of Canada, south through much of the U.S. to Guatemala and Cuba. ILLINOIS Abundance: fairly common migrant, rare and local summer resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: endangered. Breeding Habitat: marshy areas and wet prairies with dense herbaceous cover, especially cattails. Nest: Platform of sticks, grass, and sedge, on ground or over water/mud in tall vegetation. Eggs: 4—5, buff to olive brown, unmarked. Incubation: 24—28 days. Fledging: not specifically known. The American Bittern is a secretive and solitary species; even when known to be present in a wetland it is very difficult to detect. It breeds in freshwater wetlands in North America, generally in the northern half of the U.S. and the southern half of Canada. It prefers wetlands with tall emergent wetland vegetation with an abundance of vegeta- tion-to-water edge (Gibbs et al. 1992b). The American Bittern forages for insects, amphibians, crayfish, and small fish by remaining motionless. When observed in roadside ditches or along the edges of lakes, it looks out of place when it assumes its cryptic, reedlike pose in such open American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus situations. During the breeding season, males call with a loud, booming sound. The American Bittern population has seriously declined due to loss of wetland habitat. Manage- ment needs include preservation of large (> 25 acres) shallow wetlands with dense emergent vegetation (Herkert 1992: Gibbs et al. 1992b). Illinois History The American Bittern was once considered a common nesting species in the wet prairies and marshes of Illinois; it occurred most frequently in the northern counties (Nelson 1876; Cory 1909; Ford 1956). With the loss and degradation of its critical breeding and feeding habitats during the 1900s, the population had been nearly extirpated from the state. Because of its tenuous status as a breeding species and the loss and degradation of its required habitat, the American Bittern is listed as an endangered species in Illinois. Breeding Bird Survey Trends This species is a rare habitat specialist with a low relative abundance and 1s not adequately sampled by the BBS. BBS data are not adequate to estimate a trend for Illinois. In the upper Midwest, BBS data indicate a decline in the popula- tion for the period 1966-2000 of —5.8% per year (significant, P <0.01) as well as for both subinterval time periods [-4.3% per year (P = 0.02) for 1966-1979 and -5.8% per year (P < 0.01) for 1980-2000]. Credibility Index: IL = none and UM = 2. Distribution The American Bittern was a scarce and/or difficult species to find; there were priority block records in only five counties. Although potential nesting may occur in suitable habitat anywhere in the state, the species most likely occurs with greatest frequency in the northern counties. The paucity of atlas observations should not be construed to mean that the species is not present at those sites where suitable habitat exists. Currently, one of the most consistent Illinois nesting sites is the Prairie Ridge State Natural Area in Jasper County, which was not sampled during the atlas project. Frequency The American Bittern was reported from six (0.6%) priority blocks and six nonpriority blocks. Although a known breeder in Illinois, it was not Confirmed in any block during the atlas project. However, the sites where this species was reported as Probable or Possible should be considered potential breeding sites. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled — Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Probable l 0.1 16.7 2 0.2 Possible > 0.5 83.3 10 0.8 Totals 6 0.6 100.0 12 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority % of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed @ & | Probable Possible ie O Breeding Bird Survey Trends = Upper Midwest Lt rs; oly | O p—_@ e = . Te ae 0.5+ ie BS . Vie \ Gorn eae . I fe A Ars 0 + n } i i A ' 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Year American Bittern qm Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis Todd Fink / Daybreak Imagery Code: LEBI Rangewide Distribution: eastern half of the U.S. and a disjunct breeding population in Oregon and California, south through Central America and the West Indies. BHO) Abundance: uncommon migrant and summer resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: threatened. Breeding Habitat: shallow freshwater lakes and marshes with tall and dense emergent vegetation, especially cattails. Nest: a platform of sticks and emergent vegetation, in dense vegetation over water. Eggs: 4—5, bluish to greenish white, unmarked. Incubation: 19-20 days. Fledging: about 25 days. The smallest member of the heron family, the Least Bittern is a secretive and solitary stalker associated with marshes having tall, dense emergent vegetation. Few species are more adept at avoiding detection. These birds spend the majority of their time climbing through and around dense vegetation over water as they stalk small fish, insects, amphibians, and reptiles. During the breeding season, males produce a dovelike cooing to advertise their presence (Gibbs et al. 74 1992a) and a low barking sound, often at night. In some marshes the Least Bittern occurs in loose colonies. It appears to be sensitive to habitat changes and a colony may abandon a wetland and move to areas with more favorable habitat, often on an annual basis (Gibbs et al. 1992a; Graber et al. 1978). In North America the breeding range of the Least Bittern is generally in the eastern half of the U.S. south to Central America. Loss and degradation of shallow water wetlands habitat has been the greatest threat for this species (Gibbs et al. 1992a). Management considerations for the Least Bittern include preservation and protection of rela- tively large shallow wetlands interspersed with patches of emergent vegetation (Hands et al. 1989; Herkert 1992). Illinois History The Least Bittern was once a common to very common breeding species in freshwater lakes and marshes throughout the state (Kennicott 1855; Nelson 1876; Ridgway 1895). Like the populations of most wetland-dependent species, the Least Bittern population plummeted during the 1900s because of the loss and deterioration of wetland habitats. Now only rarely encountered, the Least Bittern was declared an endangered species in 1989; its status was changed to threatened in 1999. Breeding Bird Survey Trends Because the Least Bittern is rare and secretive, it is not adequately sampled by the BBS. Data were not adequate in Illinois to estimate trends. In the upper Midwest, the trend estimate 1s -4.9% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.36) for 1966-2000; however, sample size and relative abundance are low. Credibility Index: IL = none and UM = 3. Distribution Atlas data indicate that the Least Bittern has a spotty distribution as a breeding species in Illinois. At present it is most regularly encountered in wetlands in northeastern Illinois, the [Illinois River valley, Kidd Lake Marsh (Monroe County), and Mermet Lake Conservation Area (Massac County). Frequency The Least Bittern was reported from 19 (1.9%) priority blocks and 16 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in 4 (0.4%) of the priority blocks. Sites with Probable and Possible records and areas with extensive cattail marshes should be considered potential breeding sites. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks* AI Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed 4 0.4 Mtl 8 0.6 Probable 6 0.6 31.6 9 0.7 Possible 9 0.9 47.4 18 1.4 Totals 19 1.9 100.0 BS eit * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority —_ % of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed @ & Probable ey Possible fa O Least Bittern iis. Great Blue Heron WVieel-F-Wal-gele Et Eric Walters Code: GBHE Rangewide Distribution: southern half of Canada, south through all of the U.S. to the northern coast of South America and the West Indies. ILLINOIS Abundance: common migrant and summer resident, fairly common winter resident, decreasing northward. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: tree-covered islands in lakes and rivers and undisturbed bottomland forests or large woodlots near bodies of water. Nest: a bulky stick platform lined with twigs and leaves, in the tallest (usually deciduous) tree, almost always in a colony. Eggs: 3-5, light bluish green, unmarked. Incubation: 28 days. Fledging: from 56 to 60 days. The Great Blue Heron, referred to as the blue crane by some, is one of the largest and most widespread wading birds in North America. The breeding range in North America includes the southern half of Canada, most of the U.S., and parts of Mexico. Great Blues are colonial nesters. Colonies, which range in size from a few nests to several hundred, are typically situated high in tall trees of riparian corridors, swamps, or on islands, and are conspicuous enough to be readily detected by aerial surveys. They also occur in forest habitats a considerable distance from water. The sites are selected based on the types and height of nest trees available, with sycamore and cottonwood being favored, and the 76 availability of dependable and undisturbed feeding sites. They forage by wading for fish, amphibians, reptiles, and invertebrates. Illinois History The Great Blue Heron has been a common and widespread breeding species in IIlinois since the earliest accounts (Ridgway 1895; Cory 1909; Bohlen 1989). Graber et al. (1978) suggested a population decline in the 1960s and early 1970s because, of the 90 colonies once reported in Illinois, only 34 had been active since 1973 and 10 of these were deserted by 1977. Data acquired since 1983, when the annual colonial waterbird survey for Illinois was initiated, indicate that the population has recovered and is at a relatively high level. In 2000 there were approximately 12,000 nesting pairs in 117 colonies (Kleen 2001a). Known locations of Great Blue Heron colonies in 2000 are shown in Appendix K. Breeding Bird Survey Trends Since the Great Blue Heron is both widespread and common, it is one of the few colonial species with sufficient BBS data to calculate reasonably reliable trend estimates. In Illinois the BBS trend estimate indicates an annual increase in popula- tion of 13.5% (significant, P < 0.01) from 1966 to 2000. For the two subinterval periods, the state population declined at an annual rate of —20.8% (significant, P = 0.01) during 1966-1979 but recovered during 1980-2000 at an annual rate of 11.1% (significant, P < 0.01). Perhaps this is a result of a recovery from the effects of DDT in the environment in the 1950s through the 1970s (Blus et ai. 1980; Anderson and Hickey 1972). The population in the upper Midwest has increased at an annual rate of 4.2% (significant, P < 0.01) from 1966 to 2000. Credibility Index: IL = 2 and UM = 1. Distribution During the atlas project, Great Blue Herons were reported throughout the state, with priority block records in three- fourths of the counties. Although most colonies are generally associated with major rivers, Great Blue Herons are found in every county in the breeding season because they forage over a wide area. Frequency Great Blue Herons were reported from 221 (22.1%) priority blocks and 50 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in 10 (1.0%) of the priority blocks, or less than 5% of the blocks in which they were reported. Since Great Blue Herons forage several miles from their nesting colonies, they were often seen in priority blocks where actual nesting did not occur. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed 10 1.0 4.5 26 Probable l 0.1 0.5 l Possible 210 21.0 95.0 244 2.0 0.1 19.0 Totals 221 P| 100.0 271 4 | * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority _% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species pg GC Confirmed e Probable 4 ) Possible a O Priority Nonpriority Breeding Bird Survey Trends Illinois 107 ei 6+ a {o} 1S) 44 2 a 0 + + + + + + 4 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Year Upper Midwest 107 T Sc Ze 53 | ° Oo 4+ 2 ee 0+ t t + 4 1966 Year 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Great Blue Heron id Great Egret Veo [-¥- 1) oF) Joe Milosevich Code: GREG Rangewide Distribution: worldwide; scattered populations from the U.S. south to southern Chile. 115 Bi [e) Abundance: common to fairly common migrant and summer resident along the major rivers, less common and post-breeding wanderer elsewhere. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: floodplain forests and swamps. Nest: a frail platform of sticks and twigs sometimes lined with fine materials. Always in a colony, most often with Great Blue Herons. Eggs: 3, pale blue or greenish blue, unmarked. Incubation: 23—26 days. Fledging: from 42 to 49 days. The Great Egret is a beautiful all-white heron with a global distribution. In North America it breeds primarily in the Atlantic, Gulf, and Pacific coast states, the central U.S., and along the coasts of Mexico and Central America. The population was decimated in the late 1800s and early 1900s by plume hunters but recovered when protection laws were enacted in the early 1900s. It normally returns to the same nesting site year after year and nests in colonies with other species, especially Great Blue Herons as well as Black- crowned Night-Herons, Snowy Egrets, Little Blue Herons, and Cattle Egrets. Great Egrets usually nest near the tops of tall trees. In its breeding range, colonies are found in floodplain forests and swamps, near lakes, and on islands. Great Egrets feed in marshes, streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, 78 and ditches, especially on fish but also invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and birds. Illinois History The Great Egret was considered abundant in the 1800s (Barnes 1926) with nesting reported as far north as Kankakee. Plume hunters decimated the population in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Great Egrets reappeared in Illinois in the late 1920s and became re-established as a breeding species by the late 1930s. The population expanded through the 1960s. A major population decline occurred during the mid-1970s (Graber et al. 1978). The species may now be nesting in record numbers compared to the popula- tions in the 1800s (Kleen 2001a). In 2000, there were approximately 2,275 nesting pairs in 21 active colonies in Illinois (Kleen 2001a). Locations of known colonies of Great Egrets in 2000 are shown in Appendix K. The Great Egret was listed as an endangered species in 1977 but was delisted in 1999 because of its recent recovery. Breeding Bird Survey Trends For the period of 1966-2000 the trend estimates for the Great Egret population are 13.9% per year (significant, P = 0.03) in Illinois and 12.5% per year (significant, P < 0.01) in the upper Midwest. For the state and the region, negative trend estimates for 1966-1979 were followed by positive ones for 1980-2000, perhaps reflecting a recovery from the effects of DDT in the environment. BBS data is generally not adequate for determining reliable population trends for colonial species. Credibility Index: IL = 3 and UM = 2. Distribution Great Egrets were reported from several sites along the Illinois and Mississippi rivers and in northeastern Illinois during the atlas project, Nesting colonies were usually within a mile of the observation locations. Although not reported by the atlas project, large colonies existed in southern Illinois as well. Two of the larger colonies in northeastern Illinois occur on artificial islands in man-made lakes. Frequency Great Egrets were reported from 38 (3.8%) priority blocks and 23 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in 2 (0.2%) of the priority blocks. Great Egrets, like other herons, often feed several miles from their nesting colonies and were often seen in priority blocks where actual nesting did not occur. Breeding Evidence ____ Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed 2 0.2 ys] 6 0.5 Probable 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Possible 36 3.6 94.7 5 4.3 Totals 38 3.8 100.0 61 4.7 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority —_% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed e Probable a Possible O Breeding Bird Survey Trends Illinois Ze 2 5 i) O 1 0 + + + + + 1 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Year Upper Midwest 3-7 } gh 5g 2 + Oo 1 + ee Q + ; + + + + A 4 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Year Great Egret 79 Joe Milosevich Code: SNEG Rangewide Distribution: scattered populations in much of the U.S. south through central South America. ABW) KS Abundance: a rare migrant and very local summer resident (in the Madison/St. Clair County area, where it is becoming more common); post-breeding wanderer. Endangered/Threatened Status: endangered. Breeding Habitat: lowland thickets in company with other colonial herons. Nest: a frail, flimsy platform of small sticks lined with finer twigs or rushes. Eggs: 3-5, light bluish green, unmarked. Incubation: 20-24 days. Fledging: about 30 days. The Snowy Egret is known for its beautiful white breeding plumage. In North America it breeds along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the U.S., Mexico, and Central America, and at scattered wetlands inland. It is a colonial species that generally nests in multispecies colonies, and is found in Illinois as an associate member of a large colony that includes Little Blue Herons, Great Egrets, Cattle Egrets, and Black-crowned Night-Herons. Snowy Egrets in the Midwest breed in bottomland forests and swamps. They forage for fish, invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles in marshes, streams, rivers, lakes, and ponds. Plume hunters decimated 80 Snowy Egret Egretta thula the population until laws were established in the early 1900s to protect this species. Snowy Egret populations recovered but widespread population declines in the late 1900s indicate that this species is still being impacted by environmental changes, such as loss and degradation of wetland habitat (Parsons and Master 2000). Illinois History Once very scarce, Snowy Egret numbers as a migrant and breeding species in Illinois, though still small, are currently increasing. The breeding population of Snowy Egrets in Illinois was probably never very large since the state is at the northern edge of its breeding range. Like other herons and egrets, this species was greatly reduced in numbers during the plume-trade era of the late 1800s and early 1900s and was soon extirpated from the state. Evidence of its return was first detected in the mid-1930s and it was reestablished as a nesting species at the end of the 1960s. Since the Snowy Egret’s nesting population is tenuous (low numbers of nesting pairs and confined primarily to a single nesting site), it is listed as an endangered species in Illinois. The number of nesting pairs had increased to nearly 50 in 2001 (Kleen 2002b); however, the species is still limited to a single nesting site. Breeding Bird Survey Trends Illinois is at the northern edge of the Snowy Egret’s breeding range. It occurs in such low numbers that the data are not adequate to reliably estimate population trends for the state or the upper Midwest. Credibility Index: IL = none and UM = none. Distribution In recent years, the only known consistent nesting site for the Snowy Egret has been in or near the American Bottoms in St. Clair and Madison counties. However, sporadic nesting has probably occurred at least twice in the last 15 years in transient colonies along with other herons in western Alexander County. The range of the Snowy Egret has expanded in Illinois since the atlas project ended, and it is possible that it may become a regular nesting species at the Lake Calumet colony or other multispecies colonies. Frequency The only priority block with evidence of breeding for the Snowy Egret was in the Lake Calumet area in Cook County, where it was classified as a Probable breeder. It was also reported in one nonpriority block. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Probable l 0.1 100.0 l 0.1 Possible 0 0.0 0.0 0.1 Totals 0.1 100.0 2 0.2 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority _% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed #& & Probable ig Possible Snowy Egret 81 Richard Day / Daybreak Imagery Code: LBHE Rangewide Distribution: eastern U.S. to central South America. AHO) Abundance: uncommon migrant and local breeder (mostly in south); post-breeding wanderer. Endangered/Threatened Status: endangered. Breeding Habitat: lowland thickets in company with other colonial species. Nest: a small, flimsy platform of small sticks and twigs sometimes lined with finer materials. Eggs: 3-5, light bluish green, unmarked. Incubation: 20—23 days. Fledging: from 42 to 49 days. The Little Blue Heron is widely distributed in the Americas. In North American it breeds primarily in the southeast U.S., along the coasts of Mexico, and on the Caribbean islands. It is a colonial nesting species and shares colony sites with other herons and egrets. Little Blue Herons forage in marshes, streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, and ditches, feeding on small fish, amphibians, and invertebrates. Illinois History The Little Blue Heron may have only recently initiated nesting in the state, since Illinois is at the northern edge of its Little Blue Heron Egretta caerulea breeding range. Although there are many early records of post-breeding wanderers [1.e., “not uncommon in late summer in southern Illinois” (Cory 1909)], there is a paucity of other historical information. Presently, loose migratory flocks of Little Blue Herons can be seen in southern Illinois in early May as they head north towards their upriver nesting site. Since the nesting population is limited primarily to a single location, albeit the site has increased to 750+ nesting pairs (Kleen 2002b), the Little Blue Heron is listed as an endangered species in Illinois. Breeding Bird Survey Trends This wetland species has a localized breeding distribution in the state and is not adequately sampled by the BBS. The trend estimates for 1966-2000 are 0.4% per year (nonsignifi- cant, P = 0.96) for Illinois and -1.9% per year (nonsignifi- cant, P = 0.71) for the upper Midwest. Sample sizes are small for both the state and the region. Credibility Index: IL = 3 and UM = 3. Distribution In Illinois Little Blue Herons nest in colonies with Great Egrets, Cattle Egrets, Snowy Egrets, and Black-crowned Night-Herons. In recent years, the only consistent nesting site for Little Blue Herons has been in or near the American Bottoms in St. Clair and Madison counties. The colony consists of at least five heron species and has changed locations at least five times since the late 1960s. It has been at its current site since the mid-1980s. Sporadic nesting of birds from a transient Missouri colony has occurred at least twice in the past 15 years in flooded woodlots in western Alexander County. From 1999 to 2001, two nesting pairs have also been present in southeastern Cook County (Kleen 2000a, 2001c, 2002b). It is possible that since the Little Blue Heron’s range is expanding, it may become a regular nesting species at other multispecies colonies in Illinois. Frequency Little Blue Herons were reported from seven priority blocks and no nonpriority blocks. All records were observations of the species in suitable nesting habitat (i.e., Possible breed- ing). During the atlas project, the Little Blue Heron nested in only one known colony in the state, but the site was not in a sampled atlas block. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks* AI Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Probable 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Possible 7 0.7 100.0 7 0.5 Totals 7 0.7 100.0 7 0.5 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority __% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species | Priority Nonpriority | Confirmed & @ _ Probable @ | Possible O Breeding Bird Survey Trends Upper Midwest ) | | 1.54 € 214 r ne) a Ts bd 0.5+ A é Ta pa ar OQ + + 4 + + + + { 1966 =1971 1976 =198]1 1986 =199]1 1996 2000 : Year Little Blue Heron 83 Joe Milosevich Code: CAEG Rangewide Distribution: worldwide; southern Canada through much of the U.S., to southern South America. ILLINOIS Abundance: common to fairly common migrant and local breeder in isolated or multi-species colonies. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: undisturbed woodlots near pastures, fields, wetlands, and airfields; often associated with livestock. Nest: small, fragile platform of sticks and twigs, also reeds when easily available. Eggs: 3-5, light bluish white or bluish green, unmarked. Incubation: 22—26 days. Fledging: about 30 days. The range of the Cattle Egret has expanded from its origins in Africa to nearly worldwide. In North America, nesting was first reported in the 1950s and it is now widespread, and the population is still expanding; its primary breeding range includes the eastern and central U.S., Mexico, and Central America. Unlike other heron and egret species, it is associ- ated with drier, more open habitat, especially pastures. Cattle Egrets feed in flocks, mainly on insects stirred up by grazing cattle or plows and mowers. They nest in multi-species colonies. In North America colonies are found in woodlands, swamps, wooded islands, and coastal islands (Telfair 1994). Nests in Illinois are typically found in small woodlots or willow thickets and range from about 4 to 20 feet above ground. 84 Cattle Egret Bubulcus ibis Illinois History The first Cattle Egret in Illinois was reported in southeastern Cook County in August of 1952. The species was next reported in Madison County in 1962 at what turned out to be the date and site for the first nesting record for the state. Since then, the number of Cattle Egrets nesting in that colony has increased dramatically with about 100 nesting pairs in 1983 and more than 1,000 in 2001 (Kleen 2002b). In Illinois this species continues to increase in numbers, especially in the spring when it may appear anywhere in the State. Breeding Bird Survey Trends The trend estimate for 1966-2000 in Illinois is 8.5% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.14). On a regional scale, the upper Midwest trend estimate for 1966—2000 is 7.9% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.05). The BBS does not adequately sample many colonial species and sample size is low for this localized breeding species in the state and region. Credibility Index: IL = 3 and UM = 3. Distribution Cattle Egrets were reported in atlas blocks near the Illinois River, northeastern IIlinois, and in the St. Clair/Madison County area—the feeding area of the only major colony in the state. Since the atlas project, four known attempts to establish new colonies have failed. In 1993 new sites in Union and Carroll counties, each containing several hundred nests, were destroyed by the Mississippi River flood. In 1996 new sites in Lawrence and Wabash counties containing 50 and 100 nests, respectively, successfully fledged young but were abandoned in subsequent years. Cattle Egrets were also part of the multi-species colony that appeared twice in western Alexander County in the 1980s and 1990s. Even though Cattle Egrets Have attempted nesting, with and without success, at various locations in the state, it appears that their expansion as a nesting species has been slow and the best chance of success is when they are part of large, multi-species colonies. Frequency Cattle Egrets were reported from 12 (1.2%) priority blocks and 4 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in | priority block (Fulton County) and 2 nonpriority blocks (Peoria and Will counties). Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed 1 0.1 8.3 3 0.2 Probable 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Possible 11 tet 91.7 13 1.0 Totals 12 12 100.0 16 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority % of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed a Probable e ) Possible O Breeding Bird Survey Trends Illinois Count 0 + + + + + { 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Year Upper Midwest Count 0+ + + + + + + { 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 199] 1996 2000 ' Year Cattle Egret 85 Green Heron Butorides virescens Joe Milosevich Code: GRHE Rangewide Distribution: eastern half of the U.S.; Pacific states and southwestern U.S., south to northern South America and the Caribbean Islands. ILLINOIS Abundance: common migrant and summer resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: wooded margins of ponds, swamps, and other water. Nest: a frail, flimsy platform of intertwined sticks and twigs, in a small tree in or close to water. Eggs: 2-5, light green or bluish green, unmarked. Incubation: 21-25 days. Fledging: about 34-35 days. The small, stocky Green Heron is a common species in wetland thickets in much of North America where its breeding range includes the eastern half of the U.S., the west coast states, Mexico, and Central America. It is found near any body of water, but is especially associated with small, willow-lined ponds and second-growth trees near shallow water. It usually nests in isolation, though on occasion it does nest in colonies, usually with 20 or fewer nests, with other Green Herons or with other species. For nesting, Green Herons prefer dense or brushy thickets in or close to water. Nests are difficult to detect and the adults are secretive when 86 on or in the vicinity of their nests, thereby assuring a better chance for survival of their young. Green Herons feed day or night on fish, amphibians, and invertebrates in shallow waters of streams, ditches, lakes, ponds, and wetlands. Historical numbers and trends are not well known, although the extensive loss of wetland habitat has undoubtedly affected the population. Illinois History Green Herons were probably much more common a century ago, prior to the large-scale loss of wetlands, than they are now. At the end of the nineteenth century, a population decline may have occurred (Barnes 1890). Graber et al. (1978) estimated another 80% decline during the 49-year span between surveys conducted during 1907-1909 and 1956-1958. Breeding Bird Survey Trends Because Green Herons are secretive, solitary nesters and hard to detect, the BBS does not adequately sample this species. The available data indicate the trend for 1966-2000 for Illinois to be 1.5% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.22). In the upper Midwest the trend between 1966 and 2000 is estimated at —0.5% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.36). Credibility Index: IL = 2 and UM = 2. Distribution Atlas data indicate that the Green Heron was widespread during the project. Breeding evidence was reported in priority blocks in 99 counties and it probably nests in all counties. Frequency The Green Heron was reported from 510 (51.1%) priority blocks and 127 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in 77 (7.7%) of the priority blocks, mostly by observation of fledged young. Because Green Herons can be readily detected by visual observation as they fly overhead or by their unique squawk, they were reported from a fairly high number of blocks, although the confirmation rate (Confirmed in 15% of the 510 priority blocks in which they were reported) was relatively low. It is likely that Green Herons nested in the majority of blocks in which they were reported. Breeding Evidence “Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** “No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled a Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 77 dea 15.1 114 8.9 Probable —-143 14.3 28.0 185 14.4 Possible 290 29.1 56.9 338 26.3 Totals 510 mW 100.0 637 = 49.5 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) \ ea % of 998 sampled priority —_% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed @& e Probable o) Possible CJ O Breeding Bird Survey Trends Year + + + 1 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Illinois 2 Nee tS a1} oO 0.54 _+* eee ote et Wend 0 0 + + + t t + + { 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Year Upper Midwest ihe 1.5+ S alt Oo osha Oa ee pays eng egy O+ —+ + 4 eA a Ei OC Green Heron ao) @ 87 SJ Flot Crelce)ial-vomitelaicual-igelal Nycticorax nycticorax Eric Walters Code: BCNH Rangewide Distribution: Eurasia, Africa, North America from the northern states south throughout most of the U.S., south through central South America. ILLINOIS Abundance: fairly common migrant and uncommon (very local) summer resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: endangered. Breeding Habitat: highly variable; can be trees (no particular species) over water or some distance from water, or in marshy vegetation. Nest: in trees, a fragile platform of interwoven sticks and twigs; in marshes, twigs and stalks of marsh grasses. Eggs: 3—5, light bluish to greenish blue, unmarked. Incubation: 24—26 days. Fledging: from 42 to 49 days. The Black-crowned Night-Heron is found nearly worldwide. This species 1s widespread and generally common in its range in North America, which is generally most of the U.S. (except the Appalachian and northern Rocky mountain regions), south-central Canada, and the coasts of Mexico. It inhabits wetlands and open water, such as ponds and lakes, even near urban areas. It is dependent on isolated and protected locations in or near a high-quality and dependable food source. Black-crowned Night-Herons are mostly active from dusk to dawn, foraging in shallow water for a variety of foods (insects and other invertebrates, amphibians, and fish). They nest in colonies that may or may not include other species of herons and egrets; both types occur in Illinois. They nest in dense vegetation near or over water. Nests are 88 usually screened by living vegetation (Burger 1978) and, unlike those of the larger herons, cannot be detected from the air. It is very difficult to determine and compare the annual size and success of the colonies without disturbing them. Illinois History During the nineteenth century, Black-crowned Night-Herons were a common summer resident in wetlands throughout the state (Nelson 1876; Cory 1909). A serious population decline was first reported near the turn of the century (Widmann 1907) and the species experienced even further declines during the first half of the twentieth century (Graber et al. 1978). The declines were attributed to the ongoing destruc- tion and degradation of breeding and foraging sites, increas- ing human disturbance, and the use of persistent chemicals (e.g., DDT). Since the breeding population was and contin- ues to be extremely vulnerable, the Black-crowned Night- Heron is listed as an endangered species in Illinois. In 2001, about 840 nesting pairs nested in 6 colonies (Kleen 2002b). Known locations of Black-crowned Night-Heron colonies in 2000 are shown in Appendix K. Breeding Bird Survey Trends Sample size and relative abundance are low for this secretive and very localized species. The trend estimates are 12.3% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.20) for Illinois and 2.3% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.25) for the upper Midwest for 1966-2000. Credibility Index: IL = 3 and UM = 2. Distribution Black-crowned Night-Herons were found in northeastern Illinois, along the Illinois and Mississippi rivers and at East St. Louis during the atlas project. Based on data from 2001, the most notable colonies occur in northern St. Clair County (about 450 pair), Will County (Lake Renwick, about 39 pair), Cook County (Lake Calumet, about 300 pair), and Lake County (Johns Manville site, 46 pair) (Kleen 2002b). Until recently, Black-crowned Night-Herons occurred in decent numbers at Baker’s Lake (Cook County) and at two Illinois River sites south of Peoria. Frequency The Black-crowned Night-Heron was reported from 33 (3.3%) priority blocks and 38 nonpriority blocks. It was Confirmed as breeding in 3 (0.3%) of the priority blocks, and regularly observed in blocks adjacent to the breeding colonies. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * _All Blocks ** % Blocks No. % Sampled No. % Sampled : Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 3 0.3 9.1 11 0.9 Probable 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Possible 30 3.0 90.9 60 4.7 Totals 33 33 100.0 ia! 55 + 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) Che % of priority blocks with records for this species % of 998 sampled priority blocks (gray = no records for this species) Priority Nonpriority Confirmed & ® | Probable ® ' Possible O O Black-crowned Night-Heron 89 Yellow-crowned Night-Heron Nyctanassa violacea Eric Walters Code: YCNH Rangewide Distribution: eastern U.S., south along coasts of Mexico and northern South America, and the Caribbean Islands. ILLINOIS Abundance: uncommon migrant and rare, localized summer resident, decreasing northward. Endangered/Threatened Status: endangered. Breeding Habitat: marshes and swamps. Nest: substantial platform of sticks and twigs sometimes lined with rootlets, in trees. Eggs: 4—5, light bluish green, unmarked. Incubation: 21—25 days. Fledging: not specifically known. The Yellow-crowned Night-Heron is found in forested wetlands and swamps, especially in coastal areas. It breeds primarily in the southeast, south-central, and Atlantic coastal areas of the U.S., and along the coasts of Mexico and Central America. Although it can be observed in suitable habitat during daylight hours, it is more likely to be encountered from dusk to dawn. This species is more secretive and less gregarious than Black-crowned Night-Herons. The Yellow- crowned and Black-crowned Night-Herons rarely feed together because they have distinctly different diets: the Yellow-crowned feeds primarily on crayfish and frogs while the Black-crowned feeds mainly on fish. 90 Illinois History In the late 1800s and early 1900s the Yellow-crowned Night- Heron was considered a summer resident in suitable locali- ties in the southern third of the state (Ridgway 1895); however, it is not certain whether actual breeding took place (Cory 1909). It is still a scarce nesting species. Nesting birds are known to associate with colonies of other heron species; however, in Illinois they tend to nest as isolated pairs or in small colonies with other Yellow-crowned Night-Herons. Since the population is relatively small and dependent on threatened habitats for nesting and foraging, the Yellow- crowned Night-Heron is currently listed as an endangered species in Illinois. Breeding Bird Survey Trends Because this wetland species is hard to detect and sample sizes and relative abundances are low for the state and the region, BBS data are not adequate for reliably estimating trends. Population trends for 1966—2000 for both Illinois and the upper Midwest are estimated at —3.7% per year (nonsig- nificant, P = 0.32 for both). Credibility Index: IL = 3 and UM = 3. Distribution In Illinois Yellow-crowned Night-Herons are most common in the cypress and tupelo swamps, old oxbows of the Mississippi and Ohio rivers, and backwaters of the Cache and Big Muddy rivers. During the atlas project, Yellow- crowned Night-Herons were reported at isolated sites in the northeast, along the Illinois and Mississippi rivers, and in the southern swamps. This species is known to occur in more locations than reported in the atlas project, especially in southern Illinois. Yellow-crowned Night-Herons also occur irregularly up the Mississippi and Illinois River systems and regularly as far north as Lake County. A few pairs nest in and around Lake Calumet in Cook County every year. Frequency Yellow-crowned Night-Herons were reported from 18 (1.8%) priority blocks and 10 nonpriority blocks. It was Confirmed as breeding in 5 (0.5%) of the priority blocks. Because of the difficulty in finding nests, it is possible that nesting occurred in a number of other blocks where the species was reported, as well as in suitable habitats where it was not recorded. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed 5 0.5 27.8 7 0.5 Probable 2 0.2 11.1 if 0.2 Possible 1] 1.1 61.1 19 Totals 18 1.8 100.0 28 * 998 priority blocks ** | _286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority % of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed @ 8 Probable a a) Possible re O Yellow-crowned Night-Heron 9] Black Vulture Coragyps atratus oS m7 ame Todd Fink / Daybreak Imagery {OTs (8 3 AYA GI Rangewide Distribution: southeastern U.S. (south of a line from New York to western Texas) to southern South America. ILLINOIS Abundance: uncommon permanent resident in the southern three tiers of counties. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: agricultural areas, other open and semi-open areas and swamps; most often found in association with hills and bluffs. Nest: on the bare ground in sheltered crevices and caves along cliff lines, hollow logs in forests, or the floor of overgrown, abandoned buildings. Eggs: 2, grayish green to bluish white, often marked with brown or lavender. Incubation: 37—48 days. Fledging: from 80 to 94 days. Black Vultures are a familiar sight in the southern and eastern U.S. and their range has generally been expanding since the 1940s. Their breeding range currently includes the southeastern U.S. to southern South America. Of the two vulture species found in Illinois, Black Vultures are more gregarious, tend to feed earlier in the day and on larger carrion closer to roost sites, and remain longer while feeding than Turkey Vultures (Coleman and Fraser 1987). The two species coexist at both their summer and winter roosting sites, which include forests, high-tension towers, and roofs of abandoned buildings. Although most often seen individually or in small groups, groups of up to 100 birds are known to occur. They forage for carcasses in open habitats and usually roost and breed in dense woods. They feed almost exclu- sively on carrion, especially large mammals. Black Vultures lay their eggs on the ground in shallow caves, in hollow trees, or in abandoned buildings. Nest sites may be used for many years if not disturbed. Illinois History In the late 1800s and early 1900s the Black Vulture was described as an uncommon bird (Ridgway 1889) and “not uncommon” in southern Illinois (Cory 1909). There is little historical information for this species in Illinois other than these accounts. It was not encountered during surveys of 1907-1909 and only rarely during surveys of 1956-1958 (Graber and Graber 1963). It is possible that the current breeding population in the state is larger now than it was a hundred years ago. Black Vultures are year-round residents in southern Illinois. The theory that the population is larger in summer than in winter and that some birds come to Illinois only in the summer months has not been substanti- ated. Breeding Bird Survey Trends Since Illinois is at the northern edge of the Black Vulture’s breeding range, sample sizes and relative abundances are small for both Illinois and the upper Midwest. For 1966— 2000 the trend is estimated at —-15.5% per year (nonsignifi- cant, P = 0.74) in Illinois. The trend estimate for 1966—2000 is 5.2% per year (significant, P = 0.03) in the upper Midwest. In the southeastern states, where the center of the Black Vulture range in the U.S. occurs, the population trend estimate is 2.1% annually (nonsignificant, P = 0.05) for 1966-2000. Credibility Index: IL = 3 and UM = 3. Distribution The Black Vulture’s range in Illinois consists of the three southernmost tiers of counties. These vultures are not common and are localized even in the areas where they are found. They occur primarily in agricultural and other open habitats associated with the hills and bluffs of the region. Frequency There were no records of breeding evidence for the Black Vulture, but there were 14 (1.4%) priority blocks with Observed records. Most observations during the atlas project were of soaring birds. Because this species has a very large feeding range, the atlas data is of limited value in providing a reliable record of specific breeding locations. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Probable 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Possible 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Totals 0 0.0 0 0.0 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority blocks (gray = no records for this species) Priority Nonpriority Confirmed @& 8 Probable Possible CT O Black Vulture a4 Richard Day / Daybreak Imagery Code: TUVU Rangewide Distribution: southern Canada, south through much of the U.S., to southern South America. 115 File) he PeWalibicie-li(ecemeeysevenceyeuseertca wcvelar-lececs (evercti hyereyenveeteye summer resident, decreasing northward; occasional winter resident in south. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: agricultural and other open areas near bottomland hardwood forests and thickets. Nest: on the ground in dark recesses (caves, rocks, and brush piles), hollow logs and, occasionally, overgrown abandoned buildings. Eggs: 2, white, occasionally marked with brown. Incubation: 38—41 days. Fledging: from 66 to 88 days. The Turkey Vulture is the most widely distributed of the New World vultures. It breeds from southern Canada to southern South America. In eastern North America Turkey Vultures, or buzzards, are commonly seen soaring over open or semi-open areas, especially farmland and pastures which it uses for foraging, and near forests, bluffs, and ravines which are used for roosting and nesting. The species was named for its bare, red head, which resembles that of a Wild Turkey. Turkey Vultures are easily recognized by their dark appearance, unique soaring or tilting, and wing position in flight (a shallow “V”’). This species is almost exclusively a scavenger that feeds on carrion. Turkey Vultures are gener- ally solitary foragers but can roost in large groups. They roost and nest in forests. Nests are placed on the ground in 94 Turkey Vulture Cathartes aura dark cavities, such as under boulders, in hollow trees, and in abandoned buildings. Turkey Vultures can be distinguished from Black Vultures by their tendency to feed on smaller carcasses and in smaller groups (Coleman and Fraser 1987). Illinois History During the late 1800s, the Turkey Vulture was a very abundant bird in the southern half of the state but in extreme northern Illinois “it appears to be more or less rare” (Ridgway 1889). During 1907—1909 censuses, Turkey Vultures were very common in southern Illinois, fairly common in central Illinois, and virtually absent in northern Illinois. By the time the Grabers conducted their 1956-1958 censuses, the southern population had declined considerably, the central population had increased moderately, and a northern population was still nonexistent (Graber and Graber 1963). Within the last 50 years, a moderate population of Turkey Vultures has taken up summer residency in the northern portion of the state and even expanded northward into other Great Lakes states (Robbins et al. 1986). Although they are present in IIlinois primarily from February through November, a few remain through the colder months during milder winters, especially in east-central and southern Illinois. Breeding Bird Survey Trends The population trend is estimated to be 25.7% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.07) in Ilinois from 1966 to 2000 with a significant positive trend estimate for 1980-2000 (26.3%, P = (0.03). For the upper Midwest the trend estimates are 7.4% per year (significant, P = 0.01) for 1966—2000 and 7.5% per year (significant, P < 0.01) for 1980-2000. The causes for the increase in population are poorly understood. Credibility Index: IL = 3 and UM = 1. Distribution During the atlas project, the Turkey Vulture was reported with breeding evidence in priority blocks in 17 counties scattered throughout the state. Its breeding distribution may be limited to the availability of suitable, undisturbed nesting sites. Observed records (i.e., seen but without evidence of breeding) were reported in priority blocks in 97 of the state’s 102 counties. Frequency Evidence of breeding for the Turkey Vulture was reported from 29 (2.8%) priority blocks and Confirmed as breeding in 25 of those blocks. It was also reported from 3 nonpriority blocks. A large number of observations of soaring birds (514 priority blocks with Observed records) are not considered to be evidence of breeding because they could not be directly associated with a particular nesting site or priority block. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks Blocks with records No. % Sampled blocks Confirmed 25 2.5 86.2 28 oe Probable 4 0.4 13.8 4 0.3 Possible 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Totals 29 2.9 100.0 22 fi * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority _% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed r Probable Possible [] Oo Breeding Bird Survey Trends Illinois 0 + 1966 =1971 1976 =-:1981 Year + + 1986 1991 + 4 1996 2000 Upper Midwest 0 4 + t — —-+— 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 Year + 199] + 1996 2000 Turkey Vulture 95 Pandion haliaetus a LOT: (ONY dt Rangewide Distribution: cosmopolitan, including Alaska to eastern Canada, south to Chile and the West Indies. ILLINOIS Abundance: uncommon migrant, occasional summer resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: endangered. Breeding Habitat: along the edges of rivers and lakes. Nest: platform of sticks, trash, and other items, in dead tree, artificial tower, or transmission tower. Eggs: 2-4, whitish or cream-colored to cinnamon, marked with brown or olive. Incubation: 32—43 days. Fledging: from 48 to 59 days. The Osprey, sometimes referred to as the Fish Hawk, is unlike most raptors in its close association with lakes, ponds, and rivers and almost exclusive diet of live fish. Except as a passing migrant flying overhead, this species is seldom observed far from open water. It captures fish by plunging and almost disappearing into the water. Ospreys nest at the tops of trees or cliffs, and increasingly on artificial structures near water. Use of the pesticide DDT caused dramatic worldwide population declines during the 1950s—1970s, but the population rebounded following a ban on DDT in the U.S. in 1972 (Poole et al. 2002). The primary breeding range in North America for the Osprey is centered in southern Canada but they can be found breeding across Canada from 96 Robert Randall Alaska to the Atlantic Ocean, in the Pacific Northwest, along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, and at scattered locations inland. Illinois History During the 1800s, the Osprey was described as an uncom- mon and widespread summer resident along the major river valleys and in the northeastern wetlands (Ridgway 1889; Cory 1909); only a few actual nestings were reported. Breeding Ospreys gradually disappeared in the first half of the 1900s, with the last known nesting in the state at Crab Orchard National Wildlife Refuge in Williamson County in 1952 (Bennett 1957). Ospreys continued passing through Illinois as migrants during these years, occasionally lingering a few days at favorable locales. As a result of the population decline, the Osprey is listed as an endangered species in Illinois. After being present for several years as nonbreeding summer residents, Ospreys recently became reestablished as a successful breeding species in Illinois. The first known nesting attempts were in southern Cook County in 1996 and 1997, but they were not successful until 1998 (Thayer 1999); this nest has continued to be successful through 2001 (Kleen 2000a, 2001c, 2002a). In 2001 another pair successfully nested in Massac County, possibly the result of an expansion from a more southern population (Kleen 2002a). Breeding Bird Survey Trends Most raptors are inadequately sampled by the BBS. There is no BBS trend estimate for the Osprey population in Illinois. The trend estimate for the upper Midwest population is 29.3% per year (significant, P = 0.01) from 1966 to 2000. Credibility Index: IL,= none and UM = 3. Distribution Ospreys were reported in priority blocks in 2 counties during the atlas project. Other known occurrences in the state during this time period were not documented by the atlas project. The presence of successful nests in 2001 at both ends of the state indicates that Osprey may be returning as a breeding species to Illinois. Frequency The Osprey was reported from two (0.2%) priority blocks (one southeast of Rockford and the other along the Missis- sippi River north of Quincy) and three nonpriority blocks (all in southern Will County). Breeding was not Confirmed in any block during the Atlas period. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Probable l O21 50.0 1 0.1 Possible 0.1 50.0 4 0.3 Totals 2 0.2 100.0 5 0.4 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority _% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed & @ Probable ee Possible O O Ictinia mississippiensis Cathie Hutcheson Code: MIKI Rangewide Distribution: southeastern and south-central U.S., winters in northern South America. ILLINOIS Abundance: uncommon and local summer resident in southern Illinois. Endangered/Threatened Status: endangered. Breeding Habitat: forested waterways adjacent to open lands; occasionally parks and towns. Nest: platform of coarse sticks and twigs lined with green leaves and moss, in tree. Eggs: 1—2, whitish to bluish white, unmarked or faintly spotted, often nest-stained. Incubation: 31-32 days. Fledging: about 34 days. Mississippi Kites are graceful diurnal raptors that glide, swoop, and turn in their effortless aerial search for large flying insects. Mississippi Kites breed mainly in the south- east and south-central regions of the U.S. In the eastern U.S., Mississippi Kites nest in the canopies of mature, riparian forests adjacent to expansive open areas where an abundance of large insects, especially dragonflies, can be found (Parker 1999), generally near streams, ditches, or narrow roads. Breeding populations declined in the East following Euro- American settlement but began a gradual recovery by the mid-1900s; populations in the Great Plains have remained stable or increased in the same period (Parker 1999). 98 Illinois History During the mid-to-late 1800s, the Mississippi Kite was reported as “not an uncommon bird in some localities of the southern portion of the state” (Ridgway 1889). For unknown reasons, the population in the state disappeared in the early 1900s. It was not reported during the Gross and Ray surveys of 1907-1909 nor the Grabers surveys of 1956-1958 (Graber and Graber 1963). In 1966 a single bird was reported in northern Alexander County (George 1968). The next report was of 14 birds at the Union County Conservation Area in May of 1970 (Kleen et al., pers. obs.). By 1972 the species was once again nesting and was encountered with increasing frequency at isolated locations within sight of the Mississippi River as far north as Randolph County. Because of its history, limited distribution, and small population size, the Mississippi Kite is listed as an endangered species in Illinois. Although increasing, the population is still limited in the state. Breeding Bird Survey Trends Illinois is at the northern edge of the Mississippi Kite’s breeding range and BBS data are not adequate for estimating population trends for the state or the upper Midwest region. In the southeastern U.S. where this species is more common, the trend estimate is 4.6% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.14) for 1966-2000. Credibility Index: IL= none and UM = none. Distribution The Mississippi Kite occurred irregularly along the Missis- sippi River as far north as Adams County during the atlas project. However, it does occur in more than the six counties in which it was found during the atlas project. Since its reestablishment in Illinois in the early 1970s, the Mississippi Kite has spread, most often as pairs, up the Mississippi River to Adams County, up the Ohio River as far east as Pope County, and short distances up the Cache, Big Muddy, and Kaskaskia rivers. Although not yet known to be breeding outside these limits, the species is venturing farther north- ward and could be expected to breed at any of these or other locations in the future. Frequency The Mississippi Kite was reported from nine (0.9%) priority blocks; it was not found in any nonpriority block. This species was Confirmed as breeding in three priority blocks, two in Union County and one in Adams County. Nesting probably occurred in other atlas blocks as well. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed 3 0.3 33.3 3 0.2 Probable 4 0.4 44.4 4 0.3 Possible 2 0.2 D2 2 C2 Totals 9 0.9 100.0 9 0.7 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority _% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed #& 8 Probable es ® Possible O Mississippi Kite 99 sy: \Co Mt =x-[e [= Haliaeetus leucocephalus Dennis Oehmke Code: BAEG Rangewide Distribution: Alaska and northern Canada, scattered through much of the U.S. 11H Bile) Abundance: fairly common migrant and winter resident along major rivers and lakes; rare (but increasing) summer resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: threatened. Breeding Habitat: isolated and undisturbed areas usually near large rivers and lakes. Nest: massive platform of large sticks and vegetation, lined with finer materials, in large tree; used repeatedly for many years. Eggs: 1-3 (2 normal), bluish white, often nest-stained. Incubation: 34—36 days. Fledging: from 70 to 98 days. The Bald Eagle is a large bird of prey with up to a seven-foot wingspan. It breeds throughout much of Canada and parts of the U.S. from Alaska to Florida, inhabiting undisturbed areas near large rivers, lakes, and coastal areas. Eagles mate for life and build large nests in the tops of large trees near rivers, lakes, and marshes. Declines in the population began in the mid-to-late 1800s with the loss of nesting habitat and human persecution. From the 1950s through the 1970s, the future of our national bird looked grim as eagle numbers declined considerably during that time. Eagles exposed to a variety of pesticides, especially DDT, experienced decreased reproduc- tive success (Nisbet 1989; Wiemeyer et al. 1993). Bald Eagles were listed as a federally endangered species in 1973 in most of the lower 48 states. The enactment of the Bald Eagle Protection Act in 1940 and the Endangered Species Act of 1973, the banning of DDT in 1972, and other conser- vation measures have contributed to the recent recovery of 100 the Bald Eagle population. In 1995 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reclassified the Bald Eagle to threatened status in the lower 48 states. Illinois History Early accounts indicate that the Bald Eagle occurred along all of the major waterways in Illinois throughout the year (Ridgway 1889) and was a fairly common breeding species in the unsettled parts of the state (Cory 1909). Its population diminished during the early decades of the twentieth century, perhaps due to habitat loss and human persecution. The last known nest during that time was reported from Horseshoe Lake in Alexander County in 1943 (Bellrose 1944). In the 1970s eagles once again attempted nesting in Illinois, close to the Mississippi River at both ends of the state. The first known successful nest in recent times was in Alexander County in 1978, only a short distance from the last known nest. The number of nests increased gradually during the 1980s and accelerated in the 1990s. In 2001 more than half of 50+ nests in Illinois successfully fledged young (Campbell 2002). This success surpassed the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s projected goal of 20 active nests in Illinois by the year 2000 (Grier et al. 1983). Because of increasing populations and successful nesting, the Bald Eagle was upgraded from endangered to threatened status in Illinois in ee, Breeding Bird Survey Trends In spite of a growing population in Illinois, there are insuffi- cient BBS data to reliably estimate trends for this species, as is expected for raptors, threatened or endangered species, and species with small populations. The trend estimate for the upper Midwest for 1966—2000 indicates that the population is increasing at a rate of 8.4% per year (significant, P = 0.03), though relative abundance is low. Credibility Index: IL = none and UM = 3. Distribution Bald Eagles were reported along the Mississippi River, Wabash River, and at two southern Illinois refuges during the atlas project. There were at least 15 known Bald Eagle nests during the atlas project period (not all were atlas records) and since then the number has grown to more than 50 nests (Campbell 2002). Its present distribution in the state is now similar to that of a century ago, that is, along most of the major rivers and lakes and in the more unsettled parts of the state. Frequency The Bald Eagle was reported from six (0.6%) priority blocks and no nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in all six blocks in which it was reported. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed 6 0.6 100.0 6 0.5 Probable 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Possible 0 0.0 0.0 0 0.0 Totals 6 0.6 100.0 6 0.5 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority % of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed @ e Probable a © Possible LJ O | Bald Eagle 101] IN foyaday-jeaMmatclagi-e Circus cyaneus Richard Day / Daybreak Imagery Code: NOHA Rangewide Distribution: Eurasia, Alaska and northern Canada, south through all the U.S and into northern NYellitswaeneou (ere ILLINOIS Abundance: common migrant, uncommon winter resident, rare summer resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: endangered. Breeding Habitat: prairies, wet meadows, and marshes; occasionally reclaimed strip mines. Nest: sticks and grass, on elevated ground in thick Wore: 18(0) 0B Eggs: normally five, bluish white, unmarked (occasionally spotted with browns). Incubation: 31—32 days. Fledging: from 30 to 35 days. A species of open country, upland grasslands, marshes, and wet meadows, the Northern Harrier breeds throughout North America and Eurasia. In North America it is widely but locally distributed as a breeding species in most of Canada and in the U.S. north of the southern tier of states. Previously known as the Marsh Hawk, the Northern Harrier is a long- winged, long-tailed hawk with a white rump. It is often observed flying low to the ground, swaying back and forth during its flights from field to field. Unlike most raptors, the male and female differ in color (the male has a pale gray plumage and the female is mostly brown). Northern Harriers nest on the ground in grassy areas and feed on a wide variety of ground-dwelling vertebrates (mammals, small birds, reptiles, and amphibians). The North American population 102 has declined in the twentieth century mostly due to loss of wetlands and grasslands (MacWhirter and Bildstein 1996). Illinois History Mid-to-late nineteenth century accounts indicate that the Northern Harrier had an extensive statewide distribution (Ridgway 1889) and was a common summer resident (Cory 1909). Fifty years later, in the Chicago region, it was reported as a “common resident; more numerous in the summer” (Ford 1956). As marshes and prairies disappeared, so did the Northern Harrier. When pesticides that caused the thinning of egg shells were in use during the 1950s to 1970s, harrier populations declined even further (Anderson and Hickey 1972). Since harriers prefer large grasslands with a variety of cover types, such as prairie grasses, brome, timothy, and fallow fields, potential nest habitat has become limited in Illinois (Herkert 1992). As a result of loss of large grasslands and marshes and a low population level, the Northern Harrier is listed as an endangered species in Illinois. Large grasslands created by programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program may provide important habitat for this species now and in the future. Breeding Bird Survey Trends This species, as with other raptors, is not adequately sampled by the BBS and in Illinois the sample size and relative abundance are low. Trend estimates are 3.4 (nonsignificant, P = ().70) and 1.0% per year, (nonsignificant, P = 0.35) in Illinois and the upper Midwest, respectively, for the period 1966-2000. Credibility Index: IL = 3 and UM = 2. Distribution The Northern Harrier had a small and widely scattered distribution throughout the state during the atlas project. It was reported in priority blocks in 28 counties. Two current and consistent nesting sites in Illinois occur in the Prairie Ridge State Natural Area in Jasper and Marion counties; these sites were not sampled during the atlas project. Frequency The Northern Harrier was reported in 45 (4.5%) priority blocks and 14 nonpriority blocks. It was Confirmed as breeding in 4 (0.4%) of the priority blocks (3 in Vermilion County and | in Knox County). Wandering and nonbreeding individuals can be found occasionally throughout the summer months; therefore, sight records alone are not evidence of breeding in the area. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks * No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 4 0.4 8.9 5 0.4 Probable 10 1.0 29.2 13 Possible Sil el 68.9 41 Totals 45 4.5 100.0 59 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) Le > = ~ : eee : % of 998 sampled priority % of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species | Priority Nonpriority Confirmed & © _ Probable 7 @ | Possible CJ O Northern Harrier 103 Sharp-shinned Hawk Accipiter striatus Eric Walters Code: SSHA Rangewide Distribution: most of North America below iiTomaUuers (om Ghtues (mm coluliumasruelrcasmielcmeleyuaaCourmer-lbmeymeyelelin America. ILLINOIS Abundance: common migrant, uncommon winter resident, very rare summer resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: deciduous or coniferous woodlands with openings. Nest: broad, flat platform of sticks and twigs lined with finer materials, near trunk of tree. Eggs: 4-5, white to bluish white wreathed with brown marks. Incubation: 32-35 days. Fledging: from 24 to 27 days. In North American the breeding range of the Sharp-shinned Hawk, the smallest accipiter on the continent, includes most of Canada, the northeastern and western U.S., and central Mexico. It is an aggressive bird that feeds almost entirely on small birds and is often found in places where small birds congregate, like winter bird feeders. It can usually be distinguished from the larger Cooper’s Hawk by its squared- off tail. The Sharp-shinned Hawk breeds in deciduous, coniferous, and mixed deciduous-coniferous forests as well as open woodlands; it prefers to nest in forests with some conifers. Its stick nest is placed in the tree canopy. The nesting Sharp-shinned often goes undetected because it is secretive during the nesting season and quietly slips away 104 from its nest when intruders approach rather than actively defending it as the Cooper’s Hawk does. Historically the loss of large forest tracts has impacted its abundance and distribu- tion and population declines in the East in the 1950s to 1970s were probably due to the effects of DDT (Bildstein and Meyer 2000). Illinois History According to early accounts (Nelson 1876; Cory 1909), the Sharp-shinned Hawk was primarily a migrant through Illinois with perhaps a few summer residents and breeding pairs. The only recorded nests for Illinois during the first half of the twentieth century were in Cook County in 1901 (Ford 1956) and Winnebago County in 1947 (Bohlen 1989). The species continues to be a rare and sporadic breeder in Illinois. Nesting has been documented as far south as Alexander (S. Bailey, pers. comm.) and Pope counties (Graber and Graber 1981). Because of a precipitous popula- tion decline (thought to be due to DDT-DDE exposure) in the eastern United States during the 1950s through 1970s (Anderson and Hickey 1972), its intolerance to civilization, and its limited breeding occurrence in Illinois, the Sharp- shinned Hawk was afforded endangered species status in Illinois in 1989 (Herkert 1992). It was delisted in 1999 because of a significant national recovery and because Illinois is at the southern edge of its primary breeding range. During spring and fall migration, it is the most common of the three accipiter species that occur in the state. Breeding Bird Survey-Trends This species occurs marginally as a breeding species in Illinois and is not adequately sampled by the BBS; therefore, trend estimates are not available for the state. The trend estimate for the upper Midwest for 1966-2000 is 7.2% per year (significant, P < 0.01); relative abundance is low. Credibility Index: IL = none and UM = 3. Distribution Atlas data indicate that the Sharp-shinned Hawk was a rare but widely distributed species in Illinois during the summer months. Atlas data did not provide new information pertain- ing to the breeding status of this species. It is still encoun- tered more often in the northern counties, as it was a century ago, where it occasionally breeds in pine plantations. Frequency The Sharp-shinned Hawk was reported in nine (0.9%) priority blocks and nine nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in three (0.3%) of the priority blocks, one each in Vermilion, Stephenson, and Jo Daviess counties. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 3 0.3 2e ie 4 0.3 Probable l 0.1 11.1 2 0.2 Possible 5 0.5 Sa.6 12 0.9 Totals ) 0.9 100.0 18 1.4 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority % of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed @ @ Probable A Possible | Oo Sharp-shinned Hawk 105 Cooper’s Hawk yVored] 0)) (=) merele) o]=) 41] Dennis Oehmke Code: COHA Rangewide Distribution: southern Canada, south through all of the U.S. and Mexico. ILLINOIS Abundance: uncommon migrant and winter resident, uncommon and increasing summer resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: deciduous and coniferous forests and open woodlands. Nest: flat, but deep, platform of sticks and twigs lined with chips or strips of bark, in a tree. Eggs: 4—5, bluish to greenish white, usually nest-stained with brownish spots. Incubation: 32—36 days. Fledging: from 27 to 34 days. This woodland raptor is broadly distributed in North America, with a breeding range that includes southern Canada, most of the U.S., and parts of Mexico. Also known as the chicken hawk, the Cooper’s Hawk feeds primarily on birds, although its diet also includes mammals and reptiles. Like the Sharp-shinned Hawk, the Cooper’s Hawk can be found in deciduous woods, coniferous woods, and open woodlands. Cooper’s Hawks usually select mature forests or woodlots for nesting but have recently adapted to urban and suburban areas. Their nests are placed in a main crotch or on a limb against the trunk of a large, mature, canopy tree. Habitat loss and the effects of pesticides such as DDT 106 contributed to the population decline in the eastern part of its range that began in the early 1900s and continued through the 1970s (Rosenfield and Bielefeldt 1993; Jackson et al. 1996). Loss of suitable habitat is still an important factor in current distribution and population trends (Jackson et al. 1996). Illinois History More than a century ago the Cooper’s Hawk was considered to be acommon summer resident of all wooded portions of the state (Ridgway 1889; Cory 1909). During the first half of the twentieth century, it was reported as fairly common (Ford 1956). It is not known if or how much the population declined during these earlier years, which would have included persecution for attacks on chickens. At the time that the Cooper’s Hawk was listed as an endangered species in Illinois in 1977, the breeding population was very low (Herkert 1992). During the 1980s and 1990s, the population rebounded, not yet to its former numbers, but sufficiently enough to be delisted in 1999. Cooper’s Hawks are now regularly found year-round at residential bird feeders. Breeding Bird Survey Trends The BBS does not adequately sample most raptor species. In Illinois the trend estimate is 0.3% per year (nonsignificant, P=0.91) for 1966-2000, but sample size and relative abundance are low. For the upper Midwest the estimated trend in population for Cooper’s Hawks is 9.7% per year (significant, P < 0.01) from 1966 to 2000. Credibility Index: IL = 3 and UM = 3. Distribution During the atlas project, the Cooper’s Hawk was recorded in priority blocks mainly in the northeast and far east-central parts of the state. Since the atlas project, it has returned to many of its former haunts and is once again a breeding species of statewide, but limited, distribution. Frequency The Cooper’s Hawk was reported from 45 (4.5%) priority blocks and 43 nonpriority blocks. It was Confirmed as breeding in 21 (2.1%) of the priority blocks, particularly in Vermilion and the northeastern counties. The most frequently used breeding evidence criteria for Confirmed records in priority blocks were fledged young (6 FL records), nest with young (5 NY records), and occupied nest (4 ON records). Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks* —_A\lll Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled . ¥, Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 21 py 46.7 41 Se Probable 7 0.7 15.6 15 Possible 7 ee 37.8 32 Totals 45 4.5 100.0 88 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority —_% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed &@ @ Probable Ga Possible LC] O Cooper’s Hawk 107 aisle troy alelei(e(-\a-\em ats. Buteo lineatus Joe Milosevich Code: RSHA Rangewide Distribution: eastern U.S and California coast, south into Mexico. ILLINOIS Abundance: uncommon migrant, winter resident and summer resident, decreasing northward. Endangered/Threatened Status: threatened. Breeding Habitat: riparian forests and swamps. Nest: platform of sticks, twigs, bark strips, and leaves lined with finer materials, in crotch of a tree. Eggs: 2-4, white to bluish white with brown marks (often nest-stained). Incubation: 28 days. Fledging: from 39 to 45 days. Red-shouldered Hawks breed primarily in the eastern half of the U.S. and along the California coast. Although they can be observed almost any time of day, they are usually most active in midmorning when they are most often heard calling and seen soaring over their territories. Red-shouldered Hawks are most commonly found in bottomland forests or wooded swamps. The Red-shouldered Hawk is a species that often hunts from a perch and forages along streams and backwaters for crayfish, amphibians, reptiles, small mam- mals, and birds. Its stick nest is usually placed in a substan- 108 tial crotch next to the main trunk of a large tree well inside the forest. Once considered common in the eastern part of its range, the population of this woodland species has declined as bottomland forests have become fragmented and cleared (Bednarz and Dinsmore 1981; Jackson et al. 1996). Illinois History In the late nineteenth century, the Red-shouldered Hawk was considered to be the “most numerous of the large hawks in most portions of Illinois, especially timbered districts” (Ridgway 1889) and a common summer resident in Illinois (Cory 1909). During the first half of the twentieth century, it was a common summer resident in the Chicago area (Ford 1956). Since these accounts, the statewide population of Red-shouldered Hawks has plummeted because of modifica- tion and destruction of bottomland forests (Herkert 1992). Although a local stronghold remained in the swamps of southern Illinois, the Red-shouldered Hawk was listed as an endangered species in Illinois in 1977. During the 1980s and 1990s, it returned as a nesting species to parts of its former range and as a result its status was upgraded to threatened in Pepe ke) Breeding Bird Survey Trends This species is seen on few BBS routes and in low numbers in the state. For 1966-2000, trend estimates are —0.6% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.88) for Illinois and 0.0% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.99) for the upper Midwest. Credibility Index: IL = 3 and UM = 3. Distribution The Red-shouldered Hawk was most frequently reported from priority blocks in southern Illinois during the atlas project. This hawk was also found in appropriate habitat (1.e., floodplain forests) at scattered sites throughout the state, and in wooded residential areas in northeastern Illinois. It was reported in priority blocks in 29 counties. Frequency The Red-shouldered Hawk was reported from 45 (4.5%) priority blocks and 18 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in 14 (1.4%) of the priority blocks, primarily in southern and northern counties. The most frequently used evidence of breeding for Confirmed records in priority blocks was fledged young (7 FL records) or nest with young (5 NY records). Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed 14 1.4 Sie 23 1.8 Probable 9 0.9 20.0 12 0.9 Possible 22 ag) 48.9 28 2D) Totals 45 4.5 100.0 63 4.9 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority % of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed @ e Probable a Possible Red-shouldered Hawk 109 Broad-winged Hawk = JUL (-YoWM 0) F-14140) (aby Joe Milosevich Code: BWHA Rangewide Distribution: central and southern Canada and eastern U.S., south to central South America. ILLINOIS Abundance: common migrant and rare (local) summer resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: dense and contiguous deciduous or mixed deciduous-coniferous forests often near water. Nest: loose, relatively small platform of sticks, twigs and dead leaves lined with strips of bark and green leaves, in tree. Eggs: 2—3, white to bluish white, wreathed with brown marks. Incubation: 28—32 days. Fledging: about 35 days. This small buteo is a common breeder in the large forests in northeastern and north-central North America and is known to breed throughout the eastern half of the U.S. and much of southern Canada. The Broad-winged Hawk is known for its impressive migrations when flocks of up to several thousand birds congregate in air thermals. Nesting pairs are easiest to detect in early spring when performing aerial courtship flights above the treetops and emitting their drawn-out, high- pitched whistles. Nests are placed within the forest and can 110 be difficult to find. For nesting, Broad-winged Hawks prefer large, contiguous tracts of undisturbed, mature upland forest (deciduous or mixed deciduous-coniferous) with dense understory located close to small forest openings or edges, typically near ponds, streams, or other wet areas. They place their nests in the crotch of a main branch relatively high in a large tree. The Broad-winged Hawk diet includes small mammals, birds, frogs, and snakes. Illinois History During the late nineteenth century, the Broad-winged was a “more or less common summer resident in Illinois” (Cory 1909). In the first half of the twentieth century, it was a rare summer resident in the Chicago region (Ford 1956). Based on the lack of reports, including those from censuses of 1907-1909 and 1956-1958 (Graber and Graber 1963), it would appear that the breeding population of Broad-winged Hawks may have always been low in Illinois. Because of the loss and fragmentation of large, contiguous forests, these hawks have probably disappeared from many areas and are less common now than in the past. Breeding Bird Survey Trends Like most raptors, this species is not adequately sampled by the BBS. Too few individuals occur on BBS routes in Illinois to allow for a reliable trend estimate. For the upper Midwest the trend estimate is 0.00% per year (nonsignificant, P = 1.00) between 1966 and 2000. Credibility Index: IL = none and UM = 2. Distribution During the atlas project, the Broad-winged Hawk was found statewide but not frequently. Since breeding evidence for Broad-winged Hawks is difficult to detect, it is possible that they are more common and widespread than atlas data indicate. Frequency The Broad-winged Hawk was reported from 51 (5.1%) priority blocks and 33 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in 9 (0.9%) of the priority blocks. Because of their secretive and quiet nature during the nesting period, Broad-winged Hawks were probably overlooked and likely occurred more frequently than indicated by the atlas data. It is also possible that they nested in many blocks from which they were reported but not Confirmed. Breeding Evidence A Priority Blocks °¢ . All Blocks Er ee No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed 9 0.9 17.6 19 ls Probable 7 0.7 le 14 iL Possible 35 She 68.6 51 4.0 Totals Sl Sul 100.0 84 6.5 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority _% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species | | Priority Nonpriority | Confirmed & ® | Probable & | Possible Broad-winged Hawk 111 Swainson’s Hawk Buteo swainsoni Joe Milosevich Code: SWHA Rangewide Distribution: southwestern and south-central Canada and western U.S., south to southern South America. ILLINOIS Abundance: rare migrant, very local summer resident in north. Endangered/Threatened Status: endangered. Breeding Habitat: open to semi-open grasslands, agricultural areas with nearby trees. Nest: large platform of sticks, twigs, and grass often lined with bark, leaves, or other materials, in a tree. Eggs: 2-3, bluish or greenish white, sparsely marked with brown. Incubation: 34-35 days. Fledging: about 30 days. The Swainson’s Hawk is a common hawk in its breeding range, which is the prairie region of Canada, the western U.S, and northern Mexico. The distance they travel during migration is one of the farthest among North American raptors. Large flocks soar southward each fall through Central America to the pampas in southern South America. This species inhabits open and semi-open grasslands, prairies, and agricultural areas where it generally nests in isolated trees. Swainson’s Hawks feed on insects, mammals, birds, and reptiles. Human disturbance, the effects of Li2 pesticide usage on insect populations, and persecution in its wintering and breeding ranges are causes for concern for this species’ future. Illinois History During the latter part of the nineteenth century, there may have been a small, widely spread, disjunct population in the northern two-thirds of Illinois (Nelson 1876; Ridgway 1889; Hess 1910). There were no documented records until 1947 when a nest was reported in Winnebago County (Prentice 1949); three more nests were reported from there in 1958 (Bohlen 1989). In 1973, a small population that still exists today was discovered in northwestern Kane and southern McHenry counties; five nests were found that first year and two repeated in 1974 (Kier and Wilde 1976). Since then, the Illinois population has been restricted to that isolated area and each year (through 2001) a few birds have returned to nest. The Swainson’s Hawk is listed as an endangered species in Illinois because of its low population level and limited distribution. The population continues to be ex- tremely small and vulnerable with only one or two known nests annually (Herkert 1992). Breeding Bird Survey Trends With only a few pairs breeding in the state, no trend estimate is available for Illinois from BBS data. The trend estimate for 1966-2000 is 1.9% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.70) for the upper Midwest where the species is recorded on few routes and in low numbers. Credibility Index: IL,= none and UM = 3. Distribution Illinois is at the eastern edge of the breeding range of the Swainson’s Hawk. Its breeding distribution in the state is easy to describe: It has been limited for nearly 30 years to northwestern Kane County and southern McHenry County. The Illinois population is a disjunct population well east of its primary breeding range. Frequency The Swainson’s Hawk was reported in five contiguous priority blocks in Kane and McHenry counties, and Con- firmed as breeding in one of the Kane County blocks. It was also reported from one nonpriority block in Kane County, where it was Confirmed. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed | 0.1 20.0 2 Probable 2 0.2 40.0 2 Possible 2 0.2 40.0 2 Totals 5 0.5 100.0 6 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority _% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed @ Probable 2 Possible O ®@ Swainson’s Hawk 113 Joe Milosevich Code: RTHA Rangewide Distribution: all of North America from the Arctic Circle through Central America. 11 Bi (8) Abundance: common migrant, summer resident and winter resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: wide variety of habitats from wood- lands to open country with scattered trees. Nest: bulky platform of sticks and twigs lined with strips of bark and leaves, in a tree. Eggs: 2-3, white to bluish white, often spotted with brown. Incubation: 30-35 days. Fledging: about 45 days. The Red-tailed Hawk is a large hawk often seen conspicu- ously perched on fence posts and utility poles or sailing effortlessly overhead along highways. The rusty-red tail of the adult birds is a prominent identification feature. Red- tailed Hawks are common and widespread in North America where they breed throughout Canada, the U.S., and much of Mexico and Central America. Historically, populations have increased in range as forests were cleared for agriculture (Preston and Beane 1993). The Red-tailed nests in open areas with interspersed woodlands, isolated trees in the middle of 114 Red-tailed Hawk Buteo jamaicensis fields, urban areas where prey is plentiful, and often in rural woodlots and forests where the nest is near the forest edge but can be well hidden. The Red-tailed Hawk tends to nest in smaller and less dense woodlands and closer to human dwellings than the Red-shouldered Hawk (Bednarz and Dinsmore 1982). Prey includes rabbits, squirrels, mice, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Illinois History During the late nineteenth century, the Red-tailed Hawk was very common in most portions of Illinois, but not as common as the Red-shouldered Hawk (Ridgway 1889). Throughout the twentieth century the Red-tailed Hawk has continued to be a common species despite shooting and other human interference. Breeding Bird Survey Trends BBS data indicate an increase in the Illinois Red-tailed Hawk population of 11.1% per year (significant, P < 0.01) from 1966 to 2000, with a decline during the 1966-1979 period of ~9.1% per year (significant, P = 0.02), followed by an increase of 10.9% per year (significant, P < 0.01) for the 1980-2000 period. For the upper Midwest the trend estimate for 1966-2000 is 5.0% per year (significant, P < 0.01). Credibility Index: IL = 2 and UM = 2. Distribution The Red-tailed Hawk was a common and widely distributed breeding species that was reported in priority blocks in every county during the atlas project. In addition to the breeding population, there are distinct wintering and migratory populations; the interrelationship of these populations is not yet understood. Frequency The Red-tailed Hawk was reported from 720 (72.1%) priority blocks and 133 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in 179 (17.9%) of the priority blocks, with the most commonly used breeding evidence being fledged young (83 FL records) followed by occupied nest (31 ON records), nest with young (29 NY records), and adults feeding young (27 FY records). Since Red-tailed Hawks are a conspicuous species, they were most likely found if present. Even though these hawks have fairly large home ranges, it is likely that nesting occurred in the majority of atlas blocks in which they were reported. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled blocks Blocks — with records Confirmed 179 17.9 24.9 243 Probable 234 23.4 425 266 Possible 307 30.8 42.6 344 Totals 720 Tl 100.0 853 66.3 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority % of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed &@ e Probable al ® Possible CJ O Breeding Bird Survey Trends Illinois Count 0 + + + + aan + 4 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Year Upper Midwest 6G + 44 5 | fe) O Dt . 0 + + + + 4 Year + + + 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Red-tailed Hawk iS American Kestrel Falco sparverius Richard Day / Daybreak Imagery Code: AMKE Rangewide Distribution: all of North America south of the Arctic, south throughout South America. ILLINOIS Abundance: common migrant, summer resident and winter resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: open or partly open areas with scattered trees; also, cultivated and urban areas. Nest: in tree cavity, very little nest material added; nest boxes readily accepted. Eggs: 4—5, white to pinkish white, usually marked with browns or lavenders. Incubation: 29-31 days. Fledging: about 30-31 days. The American Kestrel, formerly known as the Sparrow Hawk, is common and widespread throughout North America, where its breeding range includes most of Canada, all of the U.S., and parts of Mexico. It breeds from Alaska to South America. Kestrels are often seen perched on telephone wires and in the tops of trees and are known for their hovering and pouncing behavior in the process of obtaining prey, such as small mammals, birds, amphibians, reptiles, and insects. Kestrels require short grassy areas with abundant prey and a secure cavity in which to raise their young. They nest in many habitats, usually in rural areas but sometimes in 116 towns and cities; however, they avoid deep woods. Kestrels utilize tree cavities, holes in walls of buildings, and nest boxes. The American Kestrel is one of the few raptors that have distinctly different male and female plumages. Illinois History During the latter part of the nineteenth century and early half of the twentieth century, the American Kestrel was consid- ered a common summer resident (Cory 1909; Ford 1956). There was “an apparent marked reduction in the statewide population of the [sparrow hawk] between 1909 and 1957” (Graber and Graber 1963). During the censuses of 1907— 1909, the bulk of the breeding population was in the southern zone while in censuses of 1956-1958, they were more common in the central zone with the southern zone having a negligible population. The loss of pastureland was thought to be the cause for the decline in the south (Graber and Graber 1963). Breeding Bird Survey Trends Trend estimates indicate the populations increased in both Illinois and the upper Midwest region over the 1966—2000 period; the annual rates are 7.6 (significant, P = 0.01) and 2.2% (significant, P = 0.01), respectively. Kestrels are found on many BBS routes in the state and the region, even though raptors as a group are generally underrepresented in the BBS. Credibility Index: IL = 2 and UM = 2. Distribution The American Kestrel,.the smallest falcon that occurs in Illinois, was widely distributed in the state during the atlas project. It was reported in priority blocks in 97 counties. Kestrels were more often reported in priority blocks in the northeast, with decreasing frequency southward. In addition to the breeding population, there are distinct wintering and migratory populations; the interrelationship of these popula- tions is not yet known. Frequency The American Kestrel was reported from 634 (63.5%) priority blocks and 126 nonpriority blocks. It was Confirmed as breeding in 246 of the priority blocks, most frequently by observation of fledged young (143 FL records). The kestrel is a fairly conspicuous bird and would most likely have been seen by atlasers had it been present. The lack of observations in the southwestern counties cannot be readily explained. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 246 24.6 38.8 BONE 123.3 Probable 159 15.9 25.1 193 15.0 Possible 229 229 36.1 267 =20.8 Totals 634 63.5 100.0 112, 0 bien Bl * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority _% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Hin & @ BS B BO Priority Nonpriority Confirmed ® Probable a ® Possible fe O Breeding Bird Survey Trends Illinois + + + + + —- 4 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Year Upper Midwest 67 4+ BI fo) Oo 2+ 0 + + ' ' —-+ + ‘ { 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Year American Kestrel 117 Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Eric Walters Code: PEFA Rangewide Distribution: cosmopolitan; all of North America from northern Alaska and Canada south through most of South America. ILLINOIS Abundance: uncommon migrant, very local summer resident (reintroduced), rare winter resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: endangered. Breeding Habitat: formerly cliffs, now ledges on buildings or under bridges. Nest: a scrape with accumulated debris, on a ledge. Eggs: 34, white to pinkish cream, occasionally marked with browns or reds. Incubation: 29-32 days. Fledging: from 32 to 42 days. Peregrine Falcons, known as the world’s fastest-flying birds, breed nearly worldwide and occur from the tundra to the tropics in a wide variety of habitats, including wetlands, deserts, and forests. Historically, Peregrines nested on cliffs and bluffs adjacent to open country along rivers, lakes, and coastlines, where they hunted for prey, mainly birds. Per- egrine Falcons were nearly extirpated as a breeding species in North America. The population crash drew national attention beginning in the 1960s. Although several factors were involved, the widespread use of DDT as a pesticide and its effect on reproductive success was determined to be the most likely cause of their near demise (Anderson and Hickey 1972). During the late 1980s and early 1990s, an organized effort was begun to reestablish a population in the eastern U.S. through release programs. Due to the ban on DDT in the 118 U.S. in 1972 and the release of captive-bred birds, Peregrines reoccupied most of their historical range in North America by 1996, although distribution is somewhat spotty (White et al. 2002). The American Peregrine Falcon, which had been listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as an endangered species in 1970, was removed from the endangered species list in 1999. Peregrines now also inhabit urban areas, having adapted to tall buildings and bridges in lieu of cliffs and bluffs for nest sites. Illinois History Historically, the Peregrine Falcon once nested locally throughout Illinois and was considered a rare summer resident in the northern part of the state (Nelson 1876). Toward the end of the nineteenth century, the species was reported as nesting in cavities of sycamore trees in Wabash County (Ridgway 1889) and along the Mississippi River in Jersey and Jackson counties (Widmann 1907). Until recently, the last known nest in Illinois occurred at Hickory Ridge in Jackson County in 1950 and 1951 (George 1968). As part of the Eastern Peregrine Falcon recovery effort, 46 young birds were released from hack sites in the Chicago area from 1986 through 1991. One to five pairs of Peregrines successfully nested in the Chicago area each year from 1987 to 1999. In 2000, 8 nesting pairs fledged 14 young and in 2001, 10 pairs fledged 19 young (Mary Hennen, pers. comm.). The Per- egrine Falcon is currently listed as an endangered species in Illinois. Breeding Bird Survey Trends Peregrine Falcon numbers are so low that the BBS data are insufficient to estimate trends. Credibility Index: IL = none and UM = none. Distribution The current distribution of nesting Peregrine Falcons is limited to the greater Chicago area and the Mississippi River near St. Louis. Nesting attempts have also been reported in Springfield, the Quad Cities, Peoria, and the St. Louis area. Frequency The Peregrine Falcon was not reported from any priority blocks, but was found in three nonpriority blocks in the Chicago area. Breeding was Confirmed in one of the nonpriority blocks. Every known nest throughout the Midwest has been fully monitored since the initiation of the reintroduction project. It is expected that detailed records will continue to be maintained for all nests for several more years. Breeding Evidence y Priority Blocks All Blocks ce No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 0O 0.0 0.0 | 0.1 Probable 0 0.0 0.0 | 0.1 Possible 0 0.0 0.0 l 0.1 Totals 0 0.0 100.0 3 0.2 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority blocks (gray = no records for this species) Priority Nonpriority Confirmed @ € Probable © Possible C] O Peregrine Falcon 119 n@iale Mat: 1) Rallus elegans Joe Milosevich Code: KIRA Rangewide Distribution: eastern U.S., south to Mexico and Cuba. 11H Hie) Abundance: rare migrant and (local) summer resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: endangered. Breeding Habitat: shallow water or wet areas with grassy vegetation. Nest: a deep basket of dry aquatic vegetation, on hummock above water level, concealed under a canopy. Eggs: 10-12, buff, spotted with browns. Incubation: 21—24 days. Fledging: about 63 days. The King Rail is a widely distributed breeding species in the eastern U.S. Like most rails it is extremely secretive, staying hidden in dense cover in marshy environments. This species prefers wetlands with a thick growth of herbaceous, emer- gent vegetation, such as cattails, bulrushes, and sedges, surrounded by large grasslands. Nests are usually placed along the edge of a marsh in clumps of vegetation. A substantial population decline has occurred throughout its range in the past century due mainly to loss of wetlands 120 (Meanly 1992). The survival of this species is dependent on the preservation and protection of existing marshes and creation and restoration of additional habitat. Illinois History The King Rail, which is the largest rail that occurs in Illinois, was considered a common summer resident in suitable habitat throughout the state during the latter part of the nineteenth century (Ridgway 1895; Cory 1909). It was still considered common in the Chicago area through the early decades of the twentieth century (Ford 1956). Because of its dependence on marshes, the population has declined as a result of the drastic loss of wetlands. In recent years the species has been reported only sporadically by dedicated field observers. Loss and deterioration of wetland habitat and a greatly reduced population level were reasons for the King Rail to be listed as a threatened species in Illinois in 1994 and reclassified as an endangered species in 1999. Breeding Bird Survey Trends No BBS trend estimates are available for this rare and secretive species. Credibility Index: IL = none and UM = none. Distribution The King Rail was reported in priority blocks in seven widely scattered counties during the atlas project. Prior to the atlas project, records were known from extreme southern Illinois and the marshy habitats along the Illinois River and in northern counties. Confirmed breeding occurred only in Cook and Will counties during the atlas project. Since the atlas, the King Rail has become a regular breeding species in newly created wetlands in the Prairie Ridge State Natural Area in Jasper County. Frequency The King Rail was reported from eight (0.8%) priority blocks and an additional three nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in three (0.3%) of the priority blocks (two in Will County and one in Cook County) and one nonpriority block (Will County). Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 3 0.3 37.5 4 0.3 Probable l 0.1 IPs l 0.1 Possible 4 0.4 50.0 6 (OS) Totals 8 0.8 100.0 11 0.9 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority —_% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species | Priority Nonpriority King Rail 121 Robert Randall Code: VIRA : Rangewide Distribution: southern Canada to southern South America. 11 He) Abundance: fairly common migrant, rare to uncommon summer resident, decreasing southward. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: shallow emergent wetlands usually with cattails, sedge, or bulrush. Nest: a saucerlike structure of coarse aquatic vegetation and grass, in tussock or clumped vegetation. Eggs: 7-12, off-white to buff, with brown spots. Incubation: |8—20 days. Fledging: about 25 days. The Virginia Rail is limited to isolated wetland areas in its range. Its current North American breeding range is gener- ally southern Canada and the northern and western U.S. It is similar in appearance to the King Rail but is smaller and has distinctly gray cheeks. This species inhabits marshes, staying concealed in the emergent vegetation; it is more often heard than seen. The Virginia Rail uses its long, curved bill to probe for aquatic insects and small fish. Virginia Rails nest in dense vegetation near the edge of marshes. The nest, a cup of vegetation, is placed on a mound of vegetation a few inches lie al ceTialt mats Rallus limicola above water. Throughout much of its range, including Illinois, the Virginia Rail is a game species, although it is rarely sought or taken by hunters. Wetland loss and degrada- tion have caused population declines. Like most wetland species, Virginia Rail populations are dependent on the preservation, protection, management, and restoration of wetlands. Illinois History Although early accounts of the Virginia Rail parallel those of the King Rail, that is, acommon summer resident in Illinois especially in the north (Ridgway 1895; Cory 1909; Ford 1956), there were never many records of nests or young. With the quantity and quality of wetland habitat now greatly reduced, it is a fair presumption that the population is also much reduced. A population still exists in northeastern Illinois, according to data acquired immediately before and after the atlas project (Stricker and Paine 1996a), and recent positive evidence of nesting has occurred as far south as Macon and Sangamon counties (Bohlen 1989). Breeding Bird Survey Trends Due to its secretive nature and low numbers, the Virginia Rail is not adequately sampled by the BBS. The trend estimate for the upper Midwest is —2.5% per year (nonsig- nificant, P = 0.26) for 1966-2000. Credibility Index: IL = none and UM = 3. Distribution Virginia Rails were found almost exclusively in the wetlands in northeastern Illinois during the atlas project. Like the King Rail, the species may occur in suitable wetlands in other parts of the state. Using a specially designed playback technique, Stricker and Paine (1996a) proved they occurred at several wetland sites in 1995 and 1996. Frequency The Virginia Rail was reported from 19 (1.9%) of the priority blocks and another 30 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in 3 (0.3%) of the priority blocks (in Will and southern Cook counties) as well as 5 nonpriority blocks (in Lake, DuPage, Cook, and Will counties). It is possible that Virginia Rails bred in many of the blocks in which they were reported and could occur in other wetlands as well. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 3 0.3 15.8 8 0.6 Probable 7 0.7 36.8 18 1.4 Possible 9 0.9 47.4 22 Totals 19 1.9 100.0 49 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) : : % of 998 sampled priority _% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed @& © Probable Possible O Virginia Rail 123 To) | Porzana carolina Kanae Hirabayashi Code: SORA Rangewide Distribution: southern half of Canada, south through much of the U.S. to northern South America. ILLINOIS Abundance: common migrant, uncommon summer resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: shallow emergent wetlands and wet meadows. Nest: basket of dead aquatic vegetation lined with finer materials, up to 6 inches above water. Eggs: 10—12, brown and buff, marked with brown. Incubation: |8—20 days. Fledging: from 21 to 25 days. The Sora is one of the most abundant and widely distributed North American rails. It generally breeds in the southern half of Canada and northern and western U.S. The Sora is a secretive bird of wet and marshy environments that spends most of its time in dense vegetation on the edge of marshes. It often coexists in the same wetlands with Virginia Rails. Soras tend to wander out into the open and are therefore seen more often than other rail species. Its loud, descending whinny is distinctive and easily imitated. Although the Sora does eat invertebrates, its preferred food is seeds from wetland plants. Nests are placed over shallow water on a mound of plant matter at the edge of vegetation in marshes. 124 In many states, including Illinois, the Sora is a game species but is rarely sought or taken by hunters. In the past century breeding has become localized due to wetland loss and degradation. Like other rail species, Soras are dependent on the preservation, protection, proper management, and restoration of emergent wetlands, which are required for migration, breeding, and wintering. Illinois History Ridgway (1895) described the Sora as an “exceedingly abundant summer resident in all marshy situations” and Cory (1909) stated that it was an abundant summer resident in Illinois. The species was still fairly common during the early 1900s, as evidenced by the fact that 54 nests were found in a single Lake County marsh in 1937 (Beecher 1942). Although still a regular nesting species in the northern half of the state, it is no longer an abundant summer resident because of the loss and disturbance of much of its breeding habitat. Breeding Bird Survey Trends Because of low numbers, the BBS data are insufficient to estimate trends for Illinois. For 1966-2000 the trend estimate is —1.3% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.53) for the upper Midwest. Credibility Index: IL = none and UM = 2. Distribution The Sora was most frequently encountered in the state’s northeastern wetlands during the atlas project. The records in southern IIlinois (White and Hamilton counties) were unexpected and perhaps represented an unknown breeding area or may have been migrants; those populations have not been relocated since the atlas project ended. Atlas data are not adequate to accurately assess the true distribution of this species. Like the other rails, the Sora may occur in appropri- ate permanent or temporary wetlands throughout the state. Stricker and Paine (1996b) describe monitoring protocols that would assist in the further assessment of the status of this species. Frequency The Sora was reported from 37 (3.7%) of the priority blocks and another 43 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in 7 (0.7%) of the priority blocks—6 in Lake and McHenry counties and | in Brown County. It is possible that Soras bred in several of the other priority blocks as well. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed ‘i 0.7 18.9 15 1.2 Probable 10 1.0 27.0 of) 2.1 Possible 20 2.0 54.1 38 3.0 Totals 37 Sy 100.0 80 6.2 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority _% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed @ & Probable ihe @ Possible C] O Joe Milosevich OriTs (a OL ONY (0) Rangewide Distribution: Europe; Asia; Africa; eastern and southwestern U.S., south through most of South America. ILLINOIS Abundance: uncommon migrant, rare (local) to uncommon summer resident, decreasing southward. Endangered/Threatened Status: threatened. Breeding Habitat: quiet marshes with emergent vegetation, especially cattails and bulrushes. Nest: a shallow platform of bleached aquatic plants lined with grass, usually over water with a ramp leading down to the water. Eggs: 5—8, cinnamon to buff, marked with reddish brown or olive. Incubation: 19-22 days. Fledging: from 40 to 50 or more days. This rail breeds throughout the eastern U.S. and locally in the West, and in Mexico. It is uncommon over much of its range and its population appears to be declining (Jackson et al. 1996). The Common Moorhen, formerly known as Florida Gallinule and more recently as the Common Gall- inule, is a close relative of the American Coot. It is a quiet, skittish bird that prefers permanent marshes with thick, emergent vegetation, such as cattails, bulrushes, and willows, in water about | to 3 feet deep. Like many marsh birds, Common Moorhens are more often heard than seen. They 126 Common Moorhen Gallinula chloropus feed mainly on plant material and seeds of aquatic plants as well as a variety of invertebrates. Nests are usually placed over water on a mound of vegetation within stands of emergent vegetation with nearby open water. The availability of marshes with emergent vegetation interspersed with open water is an important factor in the survival of this species. Management techniques, such as prescribed burns that keep portions of the marsh open and controlling water levels, may benefit this species. Illinois History In the 1800s the Common Moorhen was a common summer resident in marshes and large prairie sloughs throughout the state (Nelson 1876; Ridgway 1895; Cory 1909). It was still common in the Chicago region during the first half of the twentieth century (Ford 1956). As wetlands were filled or drained, the population of Common Moorhens declined and it is no longer the common and widely distributed species it was even 50 years ago. Because it is currently so uncommon and its required habitat is imperiled, the Common Moorhen is listed as a threatened species in Illinois. Breeding Bird Survey Trends This species is not adequately sampled by the BBS and trend estimates are not available for Illinois. The trend estimate for the upper Midwest for 1966-2000 is -4.2% per year (nonsig- nificant, P = 0.51). Credibility Index: IL = none and UM = 3. Distribution During the atlas project, the Common Moorhen was found primarily in northeastern Illinois. Although nesting and other observations did occur elsewhere, they were sporadic and incidental, perhaps a result of appropriate habitat being temporarily available in wet years. The Common Moorhen occurs regularly as a breeding or summer resident in the Horseshoe Lake area of Madison County. Frequency The Common Moorhen was reported from 11 (1.1%) priority blocks and 23 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in 6 (0.6%) of the priority blocks (5 in northeastern Illinois and | in Madison County). It was also Confirmed in 17 nonpriority blocks (16 in the northeastern counties and | in Coles County). Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * _ All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 6 0.6 54.5 23 1.8 Probable 0 0.0 0.0 3 0.2 Possible 5) 0.5 45.5 8 0.6 Totals 11 1.1 100.0 34 2.6 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority _% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species | Priority Nonpriority | Confirmed % Probable oH @ | Possible Common Moorhen 127 yVenl=la ters] am ezele) Fulica americana Eric Walters OCT: (WAY COL) Rangewide Distribution: southwestern Canada, south through most of the U.S. to central South America. ILLINOIS Abundance: common migrant and fairly common summer resident, decreasing southward; and uncommon winter resident, decreasing northward. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: open deepwater ponds, lakes, and marshes with emergent vegetation on the periphery. Nest: a large floating platform of dead stems and finer materials anchored to the vegetation. Eggs: 8-12, pinkish to buff, marked with blacks or browns. Incubation: 21-25 days. Fledging: from 49 to 56 or more days. The American Coot, sometimes called the mud hen, is widely distributed in central and western North America and a common breeding species in the prairie pothole region of central North America. It is a conspicuous and gregarious species. Coots, which are considered a game bird, are often mistaken for ducks, but are actually members of the rail family. Like other rails, coots are associated with marshes, but they spend more time in open water than other rail species. They can be found alone or in large flocks, in water or on land close to water, and in shallow ponds or large bodies of water. The coot’s diet consists chiefly of aquatic vegetation. Nests are built on the ground, concealed in emergent vegetation near water. Its presence is often re- 128 vealed by its distinctive vocalizations. The significant decline in abundance and distribution that has occurred since the early 1900s is likely a result of loss of wetlands and overhunting (Brisbin et al. 2002). Illinois History In the 1800s the American Coot was “an exceedingly abundant summer resident in the more northern portions of the state” (Ridgway 1895) and “far from rare in any marsh situation” (Nelson 1876). It continued to be common in the Chicago region during the early decades of the twentieth century (Ford 1956). Historically the large numbers of coots found at Grass Lake in Lake and McHenry counties attracted hunters; in 1942 the harvest of coots was estimated at 23,800 birds, which was about 90% of the coots found on the lake (Havera 1999). American Coots continue to be a game species in Illinois, but are no longer harvested in large numbers (Havera 1999). The extensive loss of wetland habitat since the mid-nineteenth century has presumably reduced the number of coots nesting in Illinois. American Coots continue to be fairly common in the northeastern wetlands; they breed sporadically and opportunistically, primarily during wet years, in the rest of the state. Breeding Bird Survey Trends This species is not adequately sampled by BBS and there is insufficient BBS data to estimate trends for Illinois. For the upper Midwest the BBS data indicate a decline of -5.9% annually (significant, P < 0.01) from 1966 to 2000. Credibility Index: IL = none and UM = 2. Distribution American Coots nested or attempted to nest at scattered locations throughout the state during the atlas project. The greatest number of priority blocks with breeding evidence was in the north and decreased southward. There were records of coots in priority blocks in 23 counties during the atlas project. Frequency The American Coot was reported from 32 (3.2%) priority blocks and 42 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in 15 (1.5%) of the priority blocks, most frequently by the observation of broods (10 FL records). Because of the difficulty in finding Confirmed breeding evidence in marsh habitats, it is possible that coots nested in several of the blocks in which they were recorded as Probable and Possible breeders. Breeding Evidence ____ Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 15 hes 46.9 39 3.0 Probable 3 0.3 9.4 4 0.3 Possible 14 1.4 43.8 31 2.4 Totals 32 3.2 100.0 74 5.8 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority _% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed % Probable Bg @ Possible Breeding Bird Survey Trends Upper Midwest om 2 1.57 e Oo . _——e Ae 0 St - eee a 0 + + Year 19 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 é American Coot 129 oF Talel ali l meres lal= Grus canadensis Annalee Fjellberg Code: SACR Rangewide Distribution: Siberia, Alaska, and northern Canada, to northern Mexico. ILLINOIS Abundance: common migrant and uncommon summer resident in northeast; rare elsewhere. Endangered/Threatened Status: threatened Breeding Habitat: large, undisturbed freshwater marshes and prairie ponds. Nest: a large mound of grass or uprooted plants, on ground or in shallow water. Eggs: 2, buff to olive, marked with browns. Incubation: 28—32 days. Fledging: about 65 days. The large, heronlike Sandhill Crane breeds at scattered locations across North America. Flocks often concentrate at migratory staging areas such as the Platte River in Nebraska. In recent years their breeding range has expanded and Sandhill Cranes have returned to many areas, including Illinois, where they had not nested in over a century. This species inhabits and nests in marshes and wet meadows, and feeds in wetlands and agricultural fields. It feeds on seeds, insects, and other invertebrates. Habitat availability is the most important conservation need for this species and protection, preservation, and management of wetland 130 habitats on the breeding grounds, migratory staging areas, and wintering grounds are critical (Tacha et al. 1992). Illinois History Once abundant on all large marshes (Kennicott 1855), the Sandhill Crane had all but disappeared as a breeding species in Illinois by 1876 (Nelson 1876; Ridgway 1895). The last known nest in Illinois was found in Champaign County in 1872 (Gault 1922). Although birds migrated year after year over the Chicago area from their staging area at Jasper- Pulaski Fish and Wildlife Area in Indiana en route to their more northern breeding areas, none stayed to breed in Illinois. In 1979 Greenberg (1980) found a pair of Sandhill Cranes just south of the Wisconsin line that successfully raised two young. Since then, Sandhill Cranes have contin- ued to spread as a nesting species and now nest successfully in several northeastern Illinois counties. Because of the vulnerability of its small population, the Sandhill Crane was listed as endangered in 1989 but was upgraded to threatened in 1999 because of its successful reestablishment as a breeding species in the state. Breeding Bird Survey Trends This species is increasing in IIlinois but is still too localized to be adequately sampled by the BBS. The upper Midwest population experienced an increase from 1966 to 2000 estimated at 11.5% per year (significant, P < 0.01). Credibility Index: IL = none and UM = 1. Distribution Prior to the atlas project, the Sandhill Crane had only recently returned to Illinois as a breeding species. Its distribution was limited to a few blocks in the northeastern part of the state during the atlas project, but since then the population has continued to expand into suitable habitat in seven counties. In 2001 the nesting population had increased to at least 10 Confirmed and 5 Possible nesting sites in the northeastern counties. Sandhill Cranes nest yearly along the Mississippi River in Carroll and likely in Jo Daviess counties as well (Kleen 2002a; S. Bailey, pers. comm.). Frequency Sandhill Cranes were reported from two (0.2%) priority blocks and nine nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in one priority block and five nonpriority blocks. All confirmations were in Lake, McHenry, and Kane counties. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed 1 0.1 50.0 6 0.5 Probable 0 0.0 0.0 4 0.3 Possible 0.1 50.0 0.1 Totals 2 0.2 100.0 11 0.9 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority % of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species | Priority Nonpriority | Confirmed @& ® | Probable By @ - Possible Cl O l Breeding Bird Survey Trends Upper Midwest nN ae eer © : Sa | 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 4 | Year Sandhill Crane 131 Killdeer Charadrius vociferus Annalee Fjellberg Code: KILL Rangewide Distribution: Alaska and the lower half of Canada, south through all of the U.S. to northwestern South America. 117 File) he Abundance: abundant migrant, common summer resident, uncommon winter resident, decreasing northward. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: fields, meadows, pastures, and other open areas. Nest: a scrape on ground, often in driveways and parking lots. Eggs: 4, buff-colored, with brown or black marks. Incubation: 24—28 days. Fledging: about 25 days. The Killdeer is the most widely distributed shorebird in North America and a common to abundant breeding species across the southern half of Canada, all of the U.S., and Mexico. Killdeer often arrive on their breeding grounds early in the spring (February in Illinois) and sometimes must contend with late-spring snowstorms. They are most often found in bare open areas and short vegetation, at least during the breeding season. The Killdeer is a native species that has adapted well to environmental changes, and now success- fully nests on the ground in cropland, golf courses, airfields, gravel roads, parking lots, and on flat, gravel rooftops. At one time the population was in serious decline due in part to overhunting, but this species is probably more abundant now 152 than in the past because of its adaptive nature (Jackson and Jackson 2000). It is known for its loud call and broken wing act used to trick intruders, both man and potential predators, away from the nest and young. Illinois History During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Killdeer was a common and well-known summer resident throughout the state (Ridgway 1895; Cory 1909) and continues to be so. Census data indicated increased densities in the north in 1957 compared to 1909 (Graber and Graber 1963). The number of Killdeer in the state varies from year to year, perhaps influenced by the effects of weather extremes on their relatively exposed nests during the April to June nesting season (Graber and Graber 1963). Breeding Bird Survey Trends BBS data show population increases during 1966-2000 and the two subintervals (1966-1979 and 1980-2000) in Illinois and the trend estimates are all significant. From 1966 to 2000 the Killdeer population in Illinois increased at an annual rate of 8.1% (significant, P < 0.01). For the upper Midwest, trend estimates are also positive and significant for all three time periods and the data indicate an increase in population at a rate of 2.7% per year (significant, P < 0.01) between 1966 and 2000. Credibility Index: IL = 1 and UM = 2. Distribution During the atlas project, the Killdeer was a very common breeding species throughout the state and was reported from priority blocks in all 102 counties. It was one of the most frequently reported species from priority blocks during the atlas project (Table 4). Frequency The Killdeer was reported from 948 (95%) priority blocks and 160 nonpriority blocks. It was Confirmed as breeding in 594 (59.5%) of the priority blocks. The Killdeer was one of the easiest species to confirm; its presence could be detected by its “kill-deer, kill-deer” call and the presence of a nest or young by its distraction displays. The most frequently used evidence of Confirmed breeding in priority blocks was the observation of young (334 FL records) followed by distrac- tion displays (173 DD records). Nests with eggs were more difficult to find (36 NE records). The Killdeer would have been Confirmed as a breeding species in many more priority blocks given more sampling time. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** BESS EC e eee ee om mem No. % Sampled %Blocks No. % Sampled Oseeeeee Pere Blocks with records blocks © 0@ Tae om Confirmed 594 59.5 62.7 692 53.8 BOR A" = = a4 Siomem, @0e Probable = 207 20.7 21.8 241 18.7 z Jeg88 8 See 8.0] oon ae Possible 147 14.7 15.5 175 H13.6 BEES eee ee momdmomon 3m Totals 948 +~=—«495.0—S—«*100.0=s«,108S« 86.2 ha ae Be i ies mTesgenes we Bee eeeaee pew # iori pane aie Bian ionty and nonpriority) <e -7 ae ain a - rh es Dan aes Og Be meee oeReeees Seeces speed oseecooteas Be 8.8 qs BEB eee eee ee ee eee se S\\ mee Oe ORE. Soe Jnaee JB Peeee % of 998 sampled priority % of priority blocks COMmMSB7UO0OSOBPe me weee eee oe oepepeee blocks (gray = no records with records for fe] i Y o one Be a Fs for this species) this species 2 2 ae te i ig ral a ae saat eaten oe |e weg a BE BMPR eee eee eee Priority Nonpriority Beeceee slew ee eo eee ee Confirmed & e sea 08 = | oe Eee eee Eropanle ° S82 8 ole mo Os Bee he sgeagma88 Possible U s PSSec@eReesoepetdo bosses BEER Boe a 8 aoe oe oe BecX.gee!| eaeeeceee GG Breeding Bird Survey Trends fee eg enc eolPe Bf oe ee! igen Illinois i oe Ye ee foe Bee eer ; Se e@ oS OM@ eee cee eee [ee a oD BSeecepeedooe SPeeeeeceope Hen WW Ce ao Oa " | a ae (eG co a aeeoOseeee 5 a Os BB \1opBoBhsaeeeeee : Beeee8 0 eo Bs See Be = BUS eee ee eee See eee eee! BSS ese eee etseodaes st an a E ae & See, EE Sees 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 Ore ee ese edeee ee __ cae: aseallies ) = Beas e| ae Upper Midwest Oe a0 98 @ a i @ i B Te oe | we i 5 S| Bees os (ueeape 30+ Bessie tod@se@ebho OmtooO) Ole @ Seoooda a : A a 0+ + 4 4 + 4 ' { 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 g Year Killdeer Richard Day / Daybreak Imagery Code: SPSA Rangewide Distribution: Alaska and northern Canada, south through the U.S. to southern South America. ILLINOIS Abundance: common migrant, uncommon summer resident, decreasing southward. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: open or early successional areas near water, including pond and lake edges, reclaimed strip mine areas, and gravel pits. Nest: a scrape with dry moss lined with grass, on ground. Eggs: 4, brownish, greenish or pinkish buff, with dark brown marks. Incubation: 20—24 days. Fledging: from 17 to 21 days. The Spotted Sandpiper, aptly named for its fully spotted breast during the breeding season, is widespread and generally common; it breeds throughout much of North America from northern Canada and Alaska to the northern boundary of the southern tier of states. Of the five shorebird species that regularly breed in Illinois (Spotted Sandpiper, Upland Sandpiper, Wilson’s Snipe, American Woodcock, and Killdeer), only the Killdeer has a greater North American breeding range than the Spotted Sandpiper. It occurs in a variety of habitats near water, such as beaches, mudflats, rocky shores, streams, and rocks along causeways. A key identification feature of this sandpiper is that it flies or twitters with stiff wings low over the water surface. It teeters along the water’s edge like other shorebird species. Spotted Sandpipers occur alone or in small loose groups. Nests are placed on the ground in a depression usually in herbaceous sy of) a(=Tomoy-lace]e]| el, Actitis macularia vegetation or under low shrubs near a pond, lake, or stream. Like several other shorebird species, the Spotted Sandpiper has a polyandrous mating system, where the female acquires multiple mates, and the males do most of the incubation in several different nests. The number of available males is a primary factor limiting annual female reproductive effort (Oring et al. 1997). Illinois History In the mid-1800s, the Spotted Sandpiper was a very common summer resident in Cook County (Nelson 1876). Toward the end of the 1800s it was “probably the most generally distributed species of the [sandpiper] family, since it is to be found along the banks of nearly every stream, large or small” (Ridgway 1895). During the 1900s, the species remained a common summer resident with more nesting occurring in northern and central parts of the state than in the south (Bohlen 1989). Breeding Bird Survey Trends The Spotted Sandpiper is not adequately sampled by the BBS because of its low relative abundance in the state and the region. The trend for 1966-2000 for Illinois is estimated at 5.4% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.70) and for the upper Midwest population the trend is estimated at —2.3% per year (significant, P = 0.03). Credibility Index: IL = 3 and UM = 3. Distribution During the atlas project, the Spotted Sandpiper was reported most frequently in the northeastern counties where suitable wetlands are more abundant and there were more atlasers than in other areas of the state. This species was reported in priority blocks in 56 counties, decreasing in frequency from north to south. Bohlen (1989) noted that away from Lake Michigan the species is especially attracted to gravel pits and sewage lagoons. Because their habitat may have been inaccessible, the atlas data may underrepresent the true distribution of this species. While still common, the Spotted Sandpiper is probably not as common as it was a century ago. Frequency The Spotted Sandpiper was reported from 150 (15.0%) priority blocks and another 80 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in 36 (3.6%) of the priority blocks, mostly by observation of fledged young (25 FL records). Confirmed records were concentrated in the northeastern counties. The Confirmation in southern Illinois was at the northern end of Carlyle Lake. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks *** “No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 36 3.6 24.0 62 48 Probable 42 42 28.0 67 ne) Possible a jie 48.0 101 79 Totals 150 15.0 100.0 230 179 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority % of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority | Confirmed e _ Probable ® [ ] O _ Possible cy oo) § (Yo By- 1410] 0)/ 0)=)6 135 OTe) Tate mey-latel o)] of=ys Vernon Kleen Code: UPSA Rangewide Distribution: central Alaska, west-central Canada, and U.S. east of the Rockies; winters in South America. ILLINOIS Abundance: uncommon to rare migrant and summer resident. Endangered/Threatened Status: endangered. Breeding Habitat: short-grass fields, pastures and airports. Nest: a scrape or depression lined with grass, on ground. Eggs: 4, cream or pinkish buff, with reddish brown marks. Incubation: 21—27 days. Fledging: about 30-31 days. The Upland Sandpiper, previously known as Field Plover and Upland Plover, is a native of North American prairies. Unlike most shorebirds, it spends most of its life away from water. With the extensive loss of prairies, it has adapted to other short-grass habitats, such as pastures, hayfields, fallow fields, and airports (Becker 1980). The breeding range is the prairie region of the central U.S. and Canada and the northeastern U.S. from the Great Plains to the Atlantic Coast. In the eastern part of its range, its numbers are much reduced with the extensive loss of grasslands, but it is still common in parts of the Great Plains (Jackson et al. 1996). Upland Sandpipers on their breeding territories are easily recognized by sight or sound. Distinctive behaviors include a unique wing-fluttering flight and a wing-stretching posture when 136 Bartramia longicauda landing or sitting on a post. Distinctive sounds include a warble and a loud, wolf-call-like whistle. Upland Sandpipers nest in depressions on the ground in a clump of vegetation. Illinois History During the 1800s the Upland Sandpiper was a very common summer resident throughout Illinois (Nelson 1876; Ridgway 1895; Ford 1956) and thousands more passed over during migration (Cooke 1888). However, unregulated hunting led to its near extinction in the early 1900s (Ridgway 1915). Once protective laws were enacted, the population recov- ered. Following the change from mixed farming to the intensive monoculture of corn and soybeans, the population plummeted again and has yet to recover. Because of its low population level and loss of essential habitat, the Upland Sandpiper is listed as an endangered species in Illinois. Breeding Bird Survey Trends This species is uncommon on IIlinois BBS routes. The trend estimates for 1966-2000 are 8.3% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.15) for Illinois and -0.5% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.64) for the upper Midwest. Credibility Index: IL = 3 and UM = 2. Distribution During the atlas project, the Upland Sandpiper was found in priority blocks in 26 widely scattered counties in the north- ern two-thirds of the state. Only 30 years ago the Upland Sandpiper regularly nested as far south as Williamson and Perry counties (Kleen, pers. obs.). Prairie Ridge State Natural Area in Jasper County is now the southernmost known site. Currently the largest concentration of nesting birds is a dozen or more pairs that occur every year at Midewin National Tallgrass Prairie in Will County. The species occurs at other protected sites with suitable habitat, including the Lost Mound National Wildlife Refuge in Jo Daviess County and Nachusa Grasslands in Lee and Ogle counties. Frequency The Upland Sandpiper was reported from 41 (4.1%) priority blocks and 16 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in 12 (1.2%) of the priority blocks. The calls and warbles of the Upland Sandpiper, which can be heard over a long distance, aided in their detection in May and June. Nests were difficult to find. Confirmed records in priority blocks were the result of observing young (9 FL records), distrac- tion displays by the adults near suspected nests (2 DD records), and nest with young (1 NY record). Breeding Evidence No. % Sampled % Blocks Blocks with records __ Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled blocks Confirmed 12 2 29.3 19 1.5 Probable 9 0.9 22.0 14 LI Possible 20 2.0 48.8 24 1.9 Totals 41 4.1 100.0 57 44 "998 priority blocks ** 1286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority _% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed @& r Probable ye Possible [] O Breeding Bird Survey Trends Upper Midwest F | Ls 51 S) Oar ee PE .? 04 4 ' ' : ; ay, 1966 1971 1976-1981 1986 = 199] 1996 2000 Year Upland Sandpiper 137 Wilson’s Snipe Gallinago delicata Dennis Oehmke Code: WISN Rangewide Distribution: Eurasia, all of North America, from northern Alaska and Canada south to northern South America. ILLINOIS Abundance: common migrant; rare summer resident, decreasing southward; rare to uncommon winter resident, decreasing northward. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: wet grassy areas. Nest: a scrape lined with dead grass, leaves or moss, on ground in small clump of grass. Eggs: 4, brownish to olive-buff, wreathed with brown marks. Incubation: |8—20 days. Fledging: about 19-20 days. The Wilson’s Snipe, formerly known as the Common Snipe, is an abundant and widespread shorebird in North America that is found in many wet areas during migration (Mueller 1999). It breeds throughout Canada and Alaska and the northern U.S. The Wilson’s Snipe inhabits marshy areas at the edge of water and thickets and avoids detection with its cryptic coloration and by freezing in place rather than flying at the approach of perceived danger. When flushed, it utters a single, raucous grunt and swiftly zigzags away. As part of their courtship flights male snipe produce a hollow winnow- ing sound, caused by the vibration of the outer tail feathers during their rapid diagonal dives (Tuck 1972). Their long 138 bills are used for probing the mud and soft soil in search of insects, earthworms, and other invertebrates. Nests are placed on the ground within a clump of vegetation along the edge of marshes or in wet meadows. Illinois History In the mid-to-late 1800s the Wilson’s Snipe was “not a rare summer resident” in Cook County (Nelson 1876) and some remained “to breed in both states, but more commonly in Wisconsin than in Illinois” (Cory 1909). During the early decades of the 1900s, it was considered a rare summer resident in the Chicago region (Ford 1956). In the late 1950s Graber and Graber (1963) found the species only in the northern part of Illinois. There are records for summer birds in central Illinois as recently as the 1980s (Bohlen 1989). With the continued degradation and disappearance of wetlands, the snipe must certainly be less common now than it was even 50 years ago. Breeding Bird Survey Trends Too few Wilson’s Snipe are detected on BBS routes to reliably estimate population trends in Illinois. For the upper Midwest the trend estimate for 1966—2000 is —0.1% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.96). For the subinterval time periods from 1980 to 2000, BBS data indicate a decrease of —3.6% per year (significant, P < 0.01) from 1980 to 2000. Credibility Index: IL = none and UM = 2. Distribution The Wilson’s Snipe was reported in priority blocks in eight counties. Atlas data indicate that a small, disjunct population has survived in wetlands in northern Illinois, but the species probably occurs in greater numbers and more places than identified during the atlas project. Frequency Wilson’s Snipes were reported from 10 (1.0%) priority blocks and 9 nonpriority blocks. The only Confirmed breeding record was in a nonpriority block in Winnebago County. Snipe nests and young are extremely difficult to detect (Eaton 1988). The snipe’s courtship occurs early in the season and concludes by early May, well before the atlas surveys which began in June. Therefore, it is likely that snipe were inadvertently missed in several atlas blocks and could be expected to breed in suitable wetlands, especially in the northern part of the state. It is also possible that some of the atlas records represent males performing displays during migration (Mueller 1999). Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks *_ All Blocks ** “No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks with records blocks Confirmed 0 0.0 0.0 I 0.1 Probable 5 0.5 50.0 8 0.6 Possible 5 0.5 50.0 10 0.8 Totals 10 1.0 100.0 19 es * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority _% of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed & ® | Probable © | Possible [J O Breeding Bird Survey Trends Upper Midwest 47 3 tT heat 0 | T opeuee. Z | ma es tat or: = | 0 +r T —— + + + re { 1966 1971 1976 1981 1986 1991 1996 2000 | y s s i= Wilson’s Snipe 139 rN aatela(erzlamulforelelereler 4 Toro) [o) oF DML ALe g oS OTs (WAY AO) Rangewide Distribution: southeastern Canada and eastern U.S. 115 Hie) Abundance: common migrant, fairly common summer resident, rare winter resident (in south). Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: moist bottomlands and thickets along streams, and abandoned fields and early successional areas. Nest: a scrape lined with dead leaves, on ground. Eggs: 4, pinkish buff to cinnamon, somewhat wreathed with brown marks. Incubation: 20-21 days. Fledging: about 14 days. The American Woodcock is a squat, fat bird with big feet, long bill, eyes near the top of its head, and practically no tail. The woodcock is a shorebird but inhabits woods and fields, especially moist, brushy successional woodlands and edges between woods and fields. It is most active at night when it is foraging for worms and insects in the moist soil. Birds return to the breeding grounds in early spring and males soon begin their elaborate courtships. The ritual, which occurs primarily at dawn and dusk, includes a peenting stint on the ground, an aerial ascent with whirring wings, a warbled whistle while circling high overhead, and a twittering of sounds on descent. The male repeatedly performs this ritual. Since nesting occurs in early spring, nests may fail because of late snowstorms. Woodcocks nest on the ground in wooded areas, along woody edges, and in brushy areas along streams. They are widely distributed in the eastern half of the 140 Dennis Oehmke U.S. and southeastern Canada, although their numbers have recently declined due in part to the decreasing availability of early successional woodlands and young forest (Keppie and Whiting 1994). Illinois History During the late 1800s and early 1900s, the American Woodcock was found throughout the state (Ridgway 1895) and was a common summer resident (Cory 1909). It contin- ued to be a common summer resident, at least in the Chicago region, during the first half of the 1900s (Ford 1956). It is apparently still a fairly common breeding species in appro- priate habitat throughout the state. Breeding Bird Survey Trends Breeding birds return to Illinois as early as February and males soon begin their courtship display. Because peak courtship display and nesting are mostly completed by May, BBS surveys, which are generally conducted in June, likely miss the American Woodcock in Illinois. Sample size and relative abundance are low in the state; the trend for 1966— 2000 is estimated at —2.7% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.82). The trend estimate for the upper Midwest is positive at 3.0% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.52) for 1966-2000. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service woodcock surveys indicate significant (P < 0.01) long-term (1968-2002) declines in the eastern and central regions of —2.3% and —1.6% per year, respectively (Kelley 2002). Credibility Index: IL = 3 and UM = 3. Distribution The breeding population of the American Woodcock was scattered throughout the state during the atlas project. Because of its nocturnal and crepuscular behavior and very early breeding season (March through May), most breeding activities were completed by the time atlas surveys began. Thus, this species may have been underreported by the atlas project. It was reported in priority blocks in 57 counties and Confirmed as breeding in 15 of them. It is possible that woodcock breed in every Illinois county. Frequency The American Woodcock was reported from 141 (14.1%) priority blocks and another 69 nonpriority blocks. Breeding was Confirmed in 23 (2.3%) of the priority blocks, with most being reports of young birds (18 FL records). It was Con- firmed in 16% of the 141 priority blocks in which it was reported, which is a relatively low rate of confirmation. Since male woodcock perform their courtship rituals during migration (Peterjohn and Rice 1991), the records classified as Probable breeding based on courtship behavior should be accepted with caution. Breeding Evidence Priority Blocks * All Blocks ** No. % Sampled % Blocks No. % Sampled Blocks — with records blocks Confirmed 23 Pee! 16.3 45 35 Probable 52 ae 36.9 78 6.1 Possible 66 6.6 46.8 87 6.8 Totals 141 14.1 100.0 210 16.3 * 998 priority blocks ** | 286 total blocks (priority and nonpriority) % of 998 sampled priority % of priority blocks blocks (gray = no records with records for for this species) this species Priority Nonpriority Confirmed 8 Probable Possible C O r-Virl=Jalerclam i Lelele (ele ¢ 141 Ring-billed Gull Larus delawarensis Joe Milosevich Code: RBGU Rangewide Distribution: southern Canada, south through much of the U.S. into Mexico. ILLINOIS Abundance: common migrant and winter resident; fairly common summer resident in northeast but uncommon elsewhere, decreasing southward. Endangered/Threatened Status: none. Breeding Habitat: undisturbed islands and peninsulas. Nest: a scrape lined with grass and debris, on the ground. Eggs: 2-4, buffy white, with brown marks. Incubation: 20-31 days. Fledging: not specifically known. The Ring-billed Gull, a common bird in North America, can be found nearly everywhere there are large bodies of water. They often feed and rest, however, in fields far from water. The species has adapted to civilization and is often seen at waste disposal sites and shopping-center parking lots as well as feeding in fields and nesting on rooftops. The breeding range is primarily the northern U.S. and southern and central Canada. The Ring-billed Gull population has increased rapidly in the last 50 years, especially in the Great Lakes region (Jackson et al. 1996). This species was nearly decimated by plumage and egg hunters in the late 1800s and early 1900s (Ryder 1993). The Ring-billed Gull is a colonial species, with colonies sometimes made up of thousands of nests. Because it is a ground nester, colonies are usually located where there is some protection from predators, such as on islands and peninsulas. Illinois History The Ring-billed Gull, the most common gull species in Illinois, is a relative newcomer as a breeding species in the 142 state. During the 1800s, it was strictly a migrant and a periodic winter resident with only a few pairs occasionally breeding as far south as Wisconsin (Cory 1909). Up to the early 1950s the species was still only a common migrant with a few birds summering on Lake Michigan (Ford 1956). During the 1960s and 1970s, the summer population in- creased significantly. The first nesting in Illinois, reported in July of 1975, was a colony of about 800 birds on an island in Lake Calumet (Kleen 1975). The population has continued to grow and expand. Thousands now nest at Lake Calumet, and smaller colonies are occasionally found in Lake, Will, and La Salle counties. In 2001, a group of several hundred birds was found nesting on the flat rooftop of a large vacant building in western Cook County (Anderson 2002; Kleen 2002b); this behavior was first reported from Ontario (Blokpoel and Smith 1988). Breeding Bird Survey Trends The BBS does not adequately sample most colonial nesting species. The sample size in Illinois is small and the trend estimate for 1966-2000 of 36.4% per year (nonsignificant, P = ().21) may not be reliable. For the upper Midwest the trend estimate is 6.7% per year (nonsignificant, P = 0.11) for the period 1966 to 2000. Population trends may be influenced by water levels in the Great Lakes, with lower water levels exposing additional nesting locations (Southern 1987). Credibility Index: IL = 3 and UM = 2. Distribution Confirmed priority block records for the Ring-billed Gull were limited to southern Cook County during the atlas project. It is widely distributed as a nonbreeding species along Lake Michigan, in Will County, and along the Illinois and Mississippi rivers. Formerly limited to being only a</