Background Throughout the 19 th and 20 th centuries, extensive logging and timber harvesting practices ruined much of the available mature forests used by cavity nesting species in the U. S. (Roy, et al., 2007). Mature hardwood forest is needed for natural cavity production. Cavities are produced by weather related injuries such as, limb breakage, excavation from woodpeckers, fire, or insect damage (Roy, et al., 2007). These natural cavities provide necessary sites for squirrels, bats, owls, and cavity nesting ducks (Roy, et al., 2007). Overharvesting of timber resulted in significant loss of these natural cavities. Due to natural cavity loss, wood duck (Aix sponsa) numbers plummeted in the U. S. (Soulliere, 1986). To aid in the regrowth of wood duck populations, artificial wood duck houses were erected. Efficacy of Artificial Nest Boxes Near Bemidji, MN Michael Schleif, Mitchell Vollhaber, Kyle Kuechle Dr. Brian J. Hiller, Biology Deptartment Discussion Due to the low use rate found in our 50 box sample, the cost per hatchling could be higher than other areas that use similar nest box programs. • To check the 50 nest boxes one time each year would cost $410.41. – That comes out to $3.91 per hatchling. • If this was extrapolated out to the 500 boxes roughly in place, it would cost $4,104.10. – These findings are based on a $0.56 per mile reimbursement based on federal standard mile rates and a $15.00 hourly pay rate which is typical of a wildlife technician in Minnesota who would be preforming these duties. • These findings do not include lumber costs for new boxes and replacement parts. Therefore, an assessment of natural cavity abundance of a particular area should be performed to determine if artificial nest boxes are needed before a nest box program is started. References Minnesota Forest Resources Council. (2003) Forest Resource Management Plan: North Central Landscape. North Central Regional Landscape Committee. Soulliere, G. J. (1988) Density of Suitable Wood Duck Nest Cavities in a Northern Hardwood Forest. Journal of Wildlife Management. 52 (1), 86-89. Soulliere, G. J. (1986) Cost and Significance of a Wood Duck Nest-House Program in Wisconsin: An Evaluation. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 14 (3), 391-395. Roy, C. L., Gates, R. J., and Zwicker, E. H. (2007) Project Availability of Natural Cavities for Wood Ducks in Southern Illinois. Journal of Wildlife Management. 71 (3), 875-883. Gorham, Rochelle. Northern Region Area Wildlife Supervisor, MN DNR. Methods The primary study area for this project is the Bemidji area in South West Beltrami County, Minnesota. During the Spring of 2014, 50 nest boxes were sampled to determine species use rates and cost effectiveness of maintenance. If the box was in disrepair or missing it was refurbished or replaced. Additionally, miles driven as well as time spent hiking to and from nest box sites were recorded In the Fall of 2014, the same 50 boxes were revisited. The box was cleaned and prepared for the following nesting season. Miles and time were recorded again to determine differences in access due to seasonality. Miles and labor hours along with hatch rates were used to assess effort and cost involved in maintaining an artificial nest box program and the potential contribution of the program to the local Wood Duck population. Results • Out of the 17 successful boxes, 10 of the boxes were used by Common Goldeneye. – Those 10 boxes yielded a total of 77 membranes. – 5 more of the successful boxes were used by Hooded Merganser with a total of 24 membranes counted. – The last 2 of the successful boxes were used by Wood Ducks, which totaled 4 membranes. • A total of 3 boxes were classified as abandoned. Two of the three boxes were abandoned Hooded Merganser nests. • Comparing the total effort put in checking all nest boxes over the course of the year, the Fall of 2014 required less effort than the Spring checks. However, the distance traveled was less in the Spring of 2014. Boxes Checked Miles Traveled Time (hours) Spring 2014 50 198.0 31.08 Fall 2014 50 212.7 19.42 Common Goldeneye Hooded Merganser Wood Duck Total Percent Successful/ Membranes 10/77 5/24 2/4 17 34% Abandoned 0 3*/6 1*/12 3 6% Depredated 2 0 0 2 4% Table 1 shows the totals effort involved for checking nest boxes for each checking period. Table 2 shows the breakdown of each nest box category and how many membranes were in each box. Boxes classified as “No use” are not included in Table 2. The * denotes the remaining abandoned box which had a mixture of both Hooded Merganser and Wood Duck eggs. Figure 2 shows a box with Hooded Merganser eggs. Figure 3 shows a nest box after cleaning. Figure 4 displays a Common Goldeneye incubating her nest. Figure 1 displays the nest box sample area.