Partners in Flight
Bird Conservation Planfor

The Upper Great Lakes Plain(Physiographic Area 16)

Partners in Flight
Bird Conservation Planfor

The Upper Great Lakes Plain(Physiographic Area 16)
byMelinda G. Knutson, Greg Butcher, Jane Fitzgerald, and Julie Shieldcastle
1 November 2001

Suggested citation: Knutson, M. G., G. Butcher, J. Fitzgerald, and J.
Shieldcastle. 2001. Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for The Upper
Great Lakes Plain (Physiographic Area 16). USGS Upper Midwest Environmental
Sciences Center in cooperation with Partners in Flight. La Crosse, Wisconsin.

Please direct comments to:
Greg Butcher
PIF Midwest Regional Coordinator
21375 Ann Rita Drive
Brookfield, Wisconsin 53045
262-797-8463
gregbutcherwi@hotmail.com

1Partners in Flight Physiographic Area 16, The Upper Great Lakes Plain

2

Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 5
PREFACE ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
SECTION 1: THE PLANNING UNIT ....................................................................................................... 9
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................. 9
CONSERVATION ISSUES ............................................................................................................................. 11
GENERAL CONSERVATION OPPORTUNITIES ................................................................................................ 13
SECTION 2: AVIFAUNAL ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 14
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS ..................................................................................................................... 14
PRIORITY SPECIES ...................................................................................................................................... 15
SECTION 3: HABITATS AND OBJECTIVES....................................................................................... 19
HABITAT-SPECIES GROUPINGS ................................................................................................................... 19
GRASSLANDS ............................................................................................................................................. 20
Ecology and conservation status .......................................................................................................... 20
Bird habitat requirements..................................................................................................................... 20
Grasslands: Henslow’s Sparrow, Greater Prairie-Chicken, Dickcissel, Bobolink, Upland Sandpiper,
Short-eared Owl, Grasshopper Sparrow, Northern Bobwhite, and Northern Harrier ....................... 20
Grassland Bird Conservation Area (GBCA) Model ......................................................................... 22
Population objectives and habitat strategies ........................................................................................ 23
Grassland conservation opportunities.................................................................................................. 24
Evaluation of assumptions - research and monitoring ......................................................................... 24
Outreach ............................................................................................................................................... 25
SAVANNA-WOODLANDS ............................................................................................................................ 25
Ecology and conservation status .......................................................................................................... 25
Bird habitat requirements..................................................................................................................... 26
Savanna-woodland: Red-headed Woodpecker, Baltimore Oriole, Long-eared Owl (winter) .......... 26
Population objectives and habitat strategies ........................................................................................ 27
Savanna-woodland conservation opportunities.................................................................................... 27
Evaluation of assumptions- research and monitoring .......................................................................... 27
Outreach ............................................................................................................................................... 28
SHRUBS ..................................................................................................................................................... 28
Ecology and conservation status .......................................................................................................... 28
Bird habitat requirements..................................................................................................................... 28
Grass-shrub: Field Sparrow, Loggerhead Shrike, Northern Bobwhite, American Woodcock,
American Tree Sparrow (winter)...................................................................................................... 28
Shrub: Bell’s Vireo, Brown Thrasher, Willow Flycatcher, Yellow-breasted Chat, Bewick’s Wren 29
Shrub-Forest: Golden-winged Warbler, Blue-winged Warbler, Black-billed Cuckoo, Yellow-billed
Cuckoo, and White-eyed Vireo ........................................................................................................ 30
Population objectives and habitat strategies ........................................................................................ 31
Shrub conservation opportunities......................................................................................................... 31
Evaluation of assumptions - research and monitoring ......................................................................... 32
Outreach ............................................................................................................................................... 32
FORESTS .................................................................................................................................................... 32
Ecology and conservation status .......................................................................................................... 32
Bird habitat requirements..................................................................................................................... 33
Broadleaved forest: Cerulean Warbler, Acadian Flycatcher, Kentucky Warbler, Canada Warbler,
Whip-poor-will, Hooded Warbler, Mourning Warbler, Wood Thrush, Yellow-throated Warbler,
Northern Goshawk (winter), Ruffed Grouse (year-round, priority in winter), Eastern Screech-Owl(year-round, priority in winter)......................................................................................................... 33
Cerulean Warbler Conservation Area (CWCA) Model .................................................................... 34
Riparian forest: Prothonotary Warbler, Louisiana Waterthrush ...................................................... 35

3

Coniferous forest: Blackburnian Warbler........................................................................................ 36
Population objectives and habitat strategies ........................................................................................ 36
Forest conservation opportunities ........................................................................................................ 37
Evaluation of assumptions- research and monitoring .......................................................................... 37
Outreach ............................................................................................................................................... 38
WETLANDS ................................................................................................................................................ 38
Ecology and conservation status .......................................................................................................... 38
Bird habitat requirements..................................................................................................................... 39
Grass-wetlands: Sedge Wren, Black Rail, Sandhill Crane, Whooping Crane ................................. 39
Marshes: Wilson’s Phalarope, Black Tern, Forster’s Tern, King Rail, Marsh Wren, Northern
Rough-winged Swallow, Redhead, Trumpeter Swan, American White Pelican .............................. 40
Shrub-wetlands: Golden-winged Warbler, Black-billed Cuckoo, Swamp Sparrow ......................... 40
Riparian: Peregrine Falcon, Bald Eagle (winter) .............................................................................. 41
Swamp (forested) wetlands: American Black Duck, Hooded Merganser........................................ 41
Sand beaches: Piping Plover, American White Pelican.................................................................... 41
Population objectives and habitat strategies ........................................................................................ 42
Wetland conservation opportunities ..................................................................................................... 43
Evaluation of assumptions - research and monitoring ......................................................................... 43
Outreach ............................................................................................................................................... 44
LITERATURE CITED .............................................................................................................................. 44
APPENDIX A. IMPORTANT BIRD AREASA IN THE UPPER GREAT LAKES PLAIN (PIF16).. 53
APPENDIX B. BIRD SPECIES LISTED AS THREATENED, ENDANGERED, OR SPECIAL
CONCERN BY STATES IN THE UPPER GREAT LAKES PLAIN (PIF16) DURING 2001A. ........ 55
APPENDIX C: PARTNERS IN FLIGHT SPECIES ASSESSMENT AND CRITERIA FOR
PRIORITY RANKING. ............................................................................................................................. 584

Partners in Flight
Bird Conservation Plan
For the Upper Great Lakes Plain(Physiographic Area 16)(Area - 19,159,100 ha)

Executive Summary
Description – The Upper Great Lakes Plain covers the southern half ofMichigan, northwestern Ohio, northern Indiana, northern Illinois, southern
Wisconsin, southeastern Minnesota, and northeastern Iowa. Glacial morainesand dissected plateaus are characteristic of the topography. A “driftless area”
was not glaciated during the Pleistocene and emerged as a unique area of great
biological diversity. Broadleaf forests, oak savannas, and a variety of prairie
communities are the natural vegetation types. Today almost half of the area iscovered by corn or soybean agriculture and more than a quarter of the area isdevoted to pasture, hay, and mixed crops. More than 7% of the area isurbanized, with several large and growing urban areas, including Chicago,
Illinois, and Detroit, Michigan.
Priority Bird Populations and Habitats
Grasslands
Henslow’s Sparrow – Requires tall and dense vegetation, with a deep litter layer;
will not tolerate heavy or moderate grazing or early or late haying.
Greater Prairie-Chicken – Extirpated from the area, except in Wisconsin, where
the population is small but stable. Requires large areas of grass (800 hectares
or more), with short grass for leks and tall grass for nests and young.
Dickcissel – Populations vary from year to year, depending on precipitation in thecore of its range. Requires medium-height and medium-dense vegetation with amoderate litter layer.
Bobolink – Habitat requirements similar to Dickcissel.
Upland Sandpiper – Prefers short grass with a moderate litter layer; displays
from posts.
Short-eared Owl (winter) – Rare breeder in area, but more common in winter;5populations variable from year to year. Requires large areas of tall, dense grasswith a deep litter layer.
Savanna-woodlands
Red-headed Woodpecker – Found in a variety of woodland habitats; preferssavannas and open woodlands. Requires dead trees for nesting and roosting.
ShrubsGolden-winged Warbler – Center of range retreating northward from this area,
probably due to competition and hybridization with Blue-winged Warbler.
Requires large openings in forests with extensive shrubs and grass; does well in
wetlands.
Blue-winged Warbler – Expanding range northwestward into this area; competes
and hybridizes with Golden-winged Warbler. Requires large openings in forests
with shrubs and grass; prefers uplands to wetlands.
Bell’s Vireo – At northeastern edge of range in this area; declining throughout its
range.
Field Sparrow – Requires oldfield habitats: grass with emerging shrubs andyoung trees.
Black-billed Cuckoo – Populations variable, high during caterpillar outbreaks.
Requires dense shrubs, with or without trees; prefers riparian areas.
Forests
Cerulean Warbler – At northwestern edge of range in this area. Requires large
areas of deciduous forest, with uneven canopy.
Acadian Flycatcher – At northern edge of range in this area. Requires large
areas of deciduous forest.
Kentucky Warbler – At northern edge of range in this area; expected to breed
only in southwestern Wisconsin and northeastern Iowa. Nests on ground in
shrubby portions of large, mature forests.
Prothonotary Warbler – At northern edge of range in this area. Nests in cavities
in wet forests.
Wetlands
Black Rail – Status in Midwest unclear; no known breeding population, but
scattered spring sightings are reported. Requires wet meadows.
American Black Duck (winter) – Populations in this area have declined
6precipitously due to competition and hybridization with Mallards. Prefers wooded
swamps for nesting.
Wilson’s Phalarope – Near eastern edge of range (except for population insouthern Ontario). Requires wet meadows next to ponds, such as prairie
potholes.
Conservation recommendations and needs - Geographic areas where
opportunities exist to restore large tracts of high-quality grassland, forest,
savanna, wetland, and riparian habitats should be identified so conservation
efforts can be directed toward them. Monitoring and inventory efforts should be
increased for species whose habitat affinities and population trends are
unknown. Research is needed to better determine associations between
landscape condition and parameters of population growth so conservation efforts
can be implemented at the scale most effective in producing a population
response.
Policy makers, wildlife agencies, private-lands specialists, and the general public
need more information about habitat requirements of priority birds and usefultools to undertake conservation actions. Because 94% of PIF16 is privately
owned, the actions of private landowners are critical to the success ofconservation initiatives. Private-lands programs should address the economic
realities of local communities and provide incentives for practices that produce
the habitat structure needed by priority bird species, especially in landscapes
where those habitats are in short supply. Partnerships that pool resources andavoid duplication of efforts are encouraged. Outstanding efforts to educate andto conserve habitat should be appropriately recognized by communities andstates.
The following specific recommendations address research, monitoring, andoutreach needs of high priority species in PIF16:
1. Grassland and forested habitats over a wide range of hydrologicalconditions, from wet to dry, are needed to sustain the high diversity of bird
species found historically in PIF16. Identify large tracts of grassland andmature forest, as well as high quality savanna, shrub, wetland, andriparian forest habitats, and high quality migration habitat as a basis forconservation actions.
2. Promote science-based management of bird habitats; integrate research,modeling, planning, and management efforts.
3. Monitor populations to determine whether population objectives are beingmet.
4. Increase inventory and monitoring efforts for those species whose trends
are unknown.
5. The Bird Conservation Area (BCA) concept sets specific landscape sizeand configuration prescriptions for habitats based on the needs of highpriority species. Evaluate the usefulness of the BCA concept for7

sustaining populations of high priority species and revise prescriptions as
our knowledge of population requirements for species advances.
6. Identify and conserve bird population sources in grasslands, forests,
savannas, shrubs, and wetland habitats, based on the best available
science. Plan research to address gaps in our knowledge.
7. Develop policy recommendations that address economic incentives forprivate landowners to manage their land in accordance with birdconservation plans.
8. Work to build public/private partnerships to conserve and restore habitats
for high priority species.
9. Recognize outstanding efforts to educate landowners and conserve
habitat.
10. Partner with international groups to ensure adequate winter and migration
habitat for migrating species.
We identify a few location-specific conservation opportunities in hopes ofstimulating PIF partners to identify other conservation opportunities within PIF16:
1. Grassland habitats in southern Wisconsin hold potential as grassland
BCAs (Sample and Mossman 1997).
2. Forest BCAs could be established in the Driftless Area of northeastern
Iowa, southeastern Minnesota, and southwestern Wisconsin and insouthwestern Michigan.
3. Riparian restoration along streams, rivers, and wetlands over the entire
PIF16 could greatly enhance habitat for riparian/savanna and shrub
nesting species.
Preface
Partners in Flight (PIF) is a voluntary, international coalition of government
agencies, conservation groups, academic institutions, and private businesses
and citizens dedicated to “keeping common birds common.” The goal of PIF is to
direct resources toward the conservation of birds and their habitats throughcooperative efforts in North America and the Neotropics. The focus of PIF is
generally limited to the conservation of land birds, but the intent is to complement
similar efforts for waterfowl, shorebirds, and other taxa. Partners in Flight now
joins with the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, United States
Shorebird Conservation Plan, and North American Waterbird Conservation Plan
under the umbrella of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI).
The focus of NABCI is long-range planning to ensure viable populations of allnative bird species and management of native ecosystems to support functional
avifaunal communities.
The foundation of PIF’s bird conservation strategy is a series of Bird
Conservation Plans (BCPs), of which this document is one. Recommendationsin the plans are based upon sound science and consensus among interested

8groups and knowledgeable individuals. The goals of the BCPs are to:
1. Identify species and habitats most in need of conservation.
2. Establish objectives for bird populations and habitats in physiographic
areas (ecoregions) and states.
3. Identify the general habitat requirements of priority species at the site
level.
4. Identify the quantity and quality of habitat required by birds at thelandscape scale.
5. Recommend needed conservation actions and suggest opportunities toaccomplish them.
Many bird species of the United States migrate through or winter in othercountries in the Western Hemisphere. Many species have lost importantmigration or wintering habitat and some are directly exposed to toxicants andpersecution (Basili and Temple 1999). It is beyond the scope of Bird
Conservation Plans to recommend conservation objectives for other countries.
However, PIF is partnering with like-minded counterparts throughout thehemisphere to deliver integrated bird conservation at the necessary geographic
scale. For more information about Partners in Flight, see the Web sitewww.partnersinflight.org.
Section 1: The planning unit
Background
Partners in Flight Physiographic Area 16, the Upper Great Lakes Plain (PIF16) isapproximately 19.2 million ha (45 million acres) covering southeastern
Minnesota, northeastern Iowa, southern Wisconsin, southern Michigan, northern
Illinois, northern Indiana, and northwestern Ohio (see map at
http://www.cast.uark.edu/pif/main/mainmap.htm). The area comprises thenorthern portion of Bailey’s Ecoregion 222, Eastern Broadleaf Forest(Continental) Province (Bailey et al. 1994) and includes North Central UnitedStates Driftless and Escarpment Section (222L), Southwestern Great Lakes
Morainal Section (222K), South Central Great Lakes Section (222J), and Erieand Ontario Lake Plain Section (222I). Two Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) (Sauer
et al. 2001) Regions compose PIF16: the Driftless Area and the Great Lakes
Plain.
Geologically, the area is composed of morainal hills and dissected plateaus(McNab and Avers 1994). The geomorphology of all sections, except the
Driftless Area, is dominated by glacial drift. The soils are Alfisols and Mollisols
arising from Cenozoic till and Paleozoic carbonates. Elevations range from 177
to 503 m (580 to1650 feet). The growing season is from 140 to175 days.
Presettlement vegetation was broadleaf forest dominated by oak-hickory, beechmaple and oak savanna communities (McNab and Avers 1994).
Drought-resistant communities of oak savanna were historically more common in9the drier, western portion of the region and on sandy soils. Curtis (1959)
described the historical landscape of interspersed prairie, oak savanna, andmesic forests occupying southern Wisconsin. Today, the dominant land cover iscorn, soybeans, hay, pasture, and mixed crops (see map set attached at end of
document or at http://www.cast.uark.edu/pif/main/midwest/16table.htm.
Scattered forests of oak-hickory and elm-ash-cottonwood are found across theregion. Large human population centers include Milwaukee, La Crosse,
Madison, and Green Bay, Wisconsin; Chicago and suburban Illinois; Gary andFort Wayne, Indiana; Flint, Grand Rapids, Detroit, and Lansing, Michigan; andToledo, Ohio.
Water is abundant in the region; precipitation ranges from 67 to 114 cm (27 to 45in.) per year (McNab and Avers 1994). The Great Lakes form part of thenorthern boundary of the region. Smaller lakes also occur in the northern portion
where the postglacial soils are poorly drained. The southern portions are
dominated by large river systems, including the Chippewa, Mississippi,
Wisconsin, Rock, Illinois, Grand, and Maumee.
Of the 19.2 million ha in PIF16, 94% (18.1 million ha) is in private ownership.
Federal land comprises 1% of the total land area (Table 1). All of PIF16 falls
within Region 3 of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and is the focusof two ecosystem management efforts by the USFWS, the Upper Mississippi
River Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem and the Great Lakes Ecosystem (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1994). Thirteen National Wildlife Refuges (2,700 ha) arelocated in this region (http://midwest.fws.gov/) as well as four properties
managed by the National Park Service (17,300 ha;
http://www.nps.gov/htdocs3/hfc/carto/NPSMAP.html), including the St. Croix
National Scenic River, Effigy Mounds National Monument, and the Indiana
Dunes National Lakeshore. Two National Scenic Trails meander through theregion (http://www.nps.gov/htdocs3/hfc/carto/TRAILMAP.html). A 3,600-ha
portion of the Manistee National Forest in Michigan is included in our region, andDepartment of Defense lands total 32,400 ha. State parks and forests occupy
about 842,900 ha.
Table 1. Land ownership in PIF16.
Description

Area (acres)

Other
National Wildlife Refuge
National Forest
National Recreation Area
State Park
Military, government reservation
Indian reservation
Wilderness, wild and scenic river
State Forest

44,610,446
234,2518896
6178
219,91980,06070,176
206,823
1,862,887

10

Area (ha)18,053,600
94,8003600
2500
89,00032,40028,40083,700753,900% of Total
94.23
0.49
0.02
0.01
0.46
0.17
0.15
0.44
3.93

Description

Area (acres)

National Monument, National Landmark
Total

42,50147,342,136

Area (ha)17,20019,159,100% of Total
0.09
100.00Conservation issues
Most of the presettlement forests and oak savanna grasslands in PIF16 havebeen converted to agricultural crop lands, primarily corn, soybeans, hay, pasture,and mixed grains (see maps at
http://www.cast.uark.edu/pif/main/midwest/16table.htm. There have been heavy
losses in forest communities, which now occur primarily as remnants infragmented landscapes and occupy about 14% of the area. Oak savanna andprairie communities have virtually disappeared, except in a few locations whereconservation efforts have saved or restored them. Fire suppression andintensive agricultural and urban land use are the primary factors preventing theland from reverting to presettlement conditions. Despite heavy habitat losses,
the bird communities are still rich, especially forest and prairie bird communities.
Prairie birds in PIF16 may be more abundant now than in presettlement times
because of the dramatic conversion of land to agricultural crops, including hay.
Wetland bird communities are favored by the moist climate and abundance ofwater. However, cowbird parasitism and nest predation are potential limiting
factors in fragmented habitats (Herkert 1994a, Robinson et al. 1995), but see(Knutson et al. In prep., Gustafson et al. In press).
PIF16 encompasses portions of both the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River.
The Great Lakes basin is the largest body of freshwater in the world. The Upper
Mississippi River and tributary corridors provide the largest area of contiguous
fish and wildlife habitat remaining in the Central United States (Wiener et al.
1998). The Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge alone
provides breeding and migration habitat for over 290 bird species (Knutson andKlaas 1998). The Mississippi River and its associated tributaries have always
provided an important migration route for fish and wildlife. However, because ofcontinuing wetland and forest losses, expansion of urban and agricultural areas,
navigation, and channelization of many rivers, the Mississippi River’s importancehas greatly increased in recent history (Wiener et al. 1998, U.S. Geological
Survey 1999). Wetlands of the Great Lakes and the Mississippi River serve a
critical role as migration and stopover sites for many species of waterbirds andshorebirds. The concentrations of individuals (Appendix A) found during thesebrief but critical migration times are a function of the enormous food resources
provided by highly productive wetland systems.
Wetland losses in the Midwestern states are estimated to range from 35 to 99%(Noss et al. 1995). Of the 25.8 million ha (64 million acres) of original wetland
habitat in Region 3 of the USFWS (eight states: Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri,
Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio), only 9.4 million ha remains, aloss of 64% (Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). The rate of wetland destruction has

11slowed in the last decade, but sedimentation and pollution of wetlands continues.
Even where many wetlands remain, land-use changes have reduced theirbiodiversity. Small wetlands have been drained into larger ones. The resulting
loss of small, shallow wetlands negatively affects native species dependent onthese areas and reduces wetland edge habitat critical to the life cycles of many
species. Wetlands also play an important role in maintaining ecosystem
functions by protecting shorelines, recharging groundwater, cycling nutrients, andstoring floodwater.
Nationwide, riparian zones have suffered the worst losses of any type of wetlandfrom the 1970s to the 1980s (1.4 million ha, 3.5 million acres). The area ofriparian forest in the North-central U.S. in 1940 was estimated at 6.9 million ha,
dropping to 5 million ha in 1980 (-27.5%; Mitsch and Gosselink 1993). Estimatesof Midwestern losses of riparian forest vary from 20-90%, depending upon stateand investigator (Noss et al. 1995). Functions of riparian forests include shading
and temperature regulation of streams, contributions of woody litter, and theprovision of other unique habitat values (Knutson et al. 1996, Shaw and Bible
1996).
Vegetative dynamics in a floodplain result from a complex interplay between
sediment deposition and flood disturbance over long time scales (Junk et al.
1989, Sparks et al. 1998). Today, most rivers and streams are anthropogenicallycontrolled with channelization, levees, and locks and dams (Sparks et al. 1998).
Resultant changes in the annual hydrograph are affecting riparian forest
regeneration (Yin et al. 1997, Sparks et al. 1998). Early successional floodplain
species are disappearing, and chronically wet conditions do not favor latesuccessional species. With the loss of American elm (Ulmus americana) as a
canopy tree from Dutch elm disease, silver maple (Acer saccharinum) dominates
most riparian forests. Tree species diversity in floodplain forests tends to belower than it was historically (Yin et al. 1997, Knutson and Klaas 1998).
Losses of tallgrass prairie in the Midwest and Great Plains are estimated atroughly 90% west of the Mississippi River and about 99% east of the Mississippi
River (Noss et al. 1995). Large blocks of grassland habitats are very rare
because of the intensity of farming (Herkert et al. 1996, Best et al. 1997, Ryan etal. 1998b), although the Conservation Reserve Program has temporarily
provided additional grassland habitat. As a group, grassland birds areexperiencing steeper population declines than any other group (Herkert 1995,
Herkert et al. 1996) and are a focus of management concern for the USFWS(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1999).
Drought-adapted oaks and hickories dominate upland forest habitats in thewestern portion of the region, with maple-basswood in moist locations and on
north slopes (Bailey 1995). In the eastern portion of the region, beech-maple
forest predominates with oak and hickory found on sites with dry or sandy soils.
These forests are considered climax communities for the region and will maintaindominance in the absence of fire. Before European settlement, periodic fires

12created oak savannas on poor or dry soils.
Savanna and woodland habitats were once common in the Driftless Area of
Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Illinois (Kline 1997). More than 99% of theoriginal 11-13 million ha (27.9-32.1 million acres) of savanna-woodland in the
Midwest has been converted to cropland or degraded by fire suppression andover-grazing (Nuzzo 1985). This savanna community is now considered
endangered, with less than 1% of presettlement land area remaining (Noss et al.
1995). Frequent fires (naturally-occurring or set by Native Americans)maintained savannas and prevented succession to closed-canopy forest. Fire
suppression and conversion to agriculture has eliminated oak savannas asfunctioning ecosystems. Biodiversity in savanna communities is typically highbecause savannas represent an ecotone between forest and prairie (Leach andGivnish 1999).
The Driftless Area was not covered by glaciers during the latter part of the
Pleistocene epoch and is characterized by highly dissected uplands with deeply
cut valleys (Curtis 1959). Streams cutting through karst bedrock have createdcliffs and algific talus slopes, providing habitat for plant and animal species thatare either unique to this area or at the limits of their ranges (Glenn-Lewin et al.
1984). As a result, the region is characterized by high biodiversity (Pusateri et al.
1993, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources 1994b, a, Knutson and Klaas
1997).
General conservation opportunities
PIF16 is included in the Upper Mississippi River & Great Lakes Region Joint
Venture (UMRGLR JV) of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan
(NAWMP) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). The goals of this joint venture
are to restore grassland and wetland habitats and return waterfowl populations to
mid-1970 levels. Originally, the UMRGLR JV focused on enhancing habitat for
migrating and breeding waterfowl. Since 1986, more than 238,000 acres of
wetlands and retired croplands in the UMRGLR JV have been restored to native
vegetation. NAWMP is an ambitious conservation initiative and has been highly
successful due to conservation actions undertaken by the partners as well as
exceptionally good hydrologic conditions during the 1990s. Recently, UMRGLR
JV voted to become an all-bird initiative and is expected to play a major role incoordinating and catalyzing conservation for all birds in PIF16 (whichcorresponds closely to Bird Conservation Region 23 – the Prairie Hardwood
Transition).
The Nature Conservancy (TNC) is actively working to protect rare habitats andexamples of large, intact ecosystems in PIF16 (www.tnc.org). Examples of TNC
initiatives in this region include the Baraboo Hills, Wisconsin (Last Great Place),
the Tallgrass Prairie and Oak Savanna Initiative in Wisconsin, Kankakee Sands
prairie restoration in Indiana, and forest restoration initiatives in the Chicago
area.

13

Many Important Bird Areas (IBAs) have been designated in PIF16 (Appendix A).
The IBA program was first developed by BirdLife International, Cambridge,
United Kingdom (www.birdlife.net), with sites identified on the basis of significant
bird concentrations during migration, breeding, or nonbreeding seasons.
Records of IBAs of global, continental, or national significance are kept by theAmerican Bird Conservancy in The Plains, Virginia, and will be published soon.
Additional state-level IBAs will be identified over the next few years by state
chapters of the National Audubon Society. Once sites are identified, however,action should be taken to ensure that they maintain their integrity over time.
There is particularly high potential for conserving and enhancing wildlife habitat
values in the Driftless Area. The proportion of the landscape presently forested(30-50%) means that modest conservation efforts could greatly enhance habitat
quality for birds. Small changes in land-use practices such as consolidating
fragmented forests, planting native prairie species on marginal agricultural land,
enlarging existing grasslands, and improved riparian zone management could
move the landscape from moderately to very productive for many wildlife
species.
Geographic information systems (GIS) and ecoregional descriptions at theSection, Subsection, and Sub-subsection (Albert 1995) levels also can be used
to identify areas within PIF16 where grassland, forest, and other landscapes
currently are most intact and would benefit most quickly from restoration or otherconservation efforts. Subsection units may be of the appropriate size fordeveloping conservation guidelines for specific locales. Restoration planners
should consider patterns of soil distribution, potential natural vegetation, existing
vegetation and land use, and other kinds of ecological information specific to theplanning unit in question. This information is now available for a large portion of
PIF16 (Albert 1995).
Section 2: Avifaunal analysis
General characteristics
More than 197 bird species breed in PIF16. Various approaches have beenused identify high priority bird species. All states in PIF16 designate species asthreatened, endangered, or special concern based on population status within
the state (Appendix B). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has identified
Resource Conservation Priority (RCP) Species for each region. Region 3, which
includes PIF16, lists 36 bird species on their RCP list
(http://midwest.fws.gov/pdf/priority.pdf). Population trends for nesting or
migration guilds, based on the national Breeding Bird Survey, have been used to
examine general population trends for large groupings of birds (Sauer et al.
2001). If fewer than half of the species in these groups have positive trends, thespecies group is considered to be of conservation concern. Grassland andwetland birds seem to be faring the worst among the groupings in PIF16 (Table
2).
14

Table 2. Adjusted proportion of bird species with significant positive population
trends (1966-2000) among selected bird groups in the Driftless Area and theGreat Lakes Plain subregions of PIF16. Adapted from Sauer et al. (2001).
Adjusted proportion of species with significant positive
trendsaBird group

Driftless Area (N)Great Lakes Plain (N)Grassland

0.00 (10)0.00 (13)Wetland0.00 (6)0.35 (20)

Successional/scrub

0.21 (14)0.39 (18)

Woodland

0.48 (21)0.57 (28)Urban

0.27 (11)0.42 (12)Neotropical migrant

0.29 (34)0.38 (42)

Short distance migrant

0.30 (30)0.39 (36)Permanent resident

0.38 (13)0.56 (16)All species
0.29 (82)aNumber of species used in the analysis (encountered on >14 routes).

a0.41 (111)

Priority species
One goal of Partners in Flight is to keep common birds common by focusing
conservation attention on vulnerable species before they require legal protection
as threatened or endangered. Species are considered of conservation priority for
Bird Conservation Plans if they meet one of several criteria (Carter et al. 2000,
see Appendix C). The criteria assign rankings based upon a species’ relative
abundance, size of breeding and nonbreeding distributions, local or global
population trends, and the degree to which PIF16 in question is a center ofabundance for that species. It is inferred that these criteria are indicators of a
species’ vulnerability to extinction (Beissinger et al. 2000).
Species for which the planning unit is a center of abundance and also show
significant declines in population trend need immediate conservation attention.
Species that have a large proportion of their population breeding in the planning
unit, but are not declining, do not warrant immediate conservation action.
However, they should be considered of high conservation responsibility and theirneeds considered in long-range planning. In addition, species currently listed as
threatened or endangered may be the focus of federal and state restoration
efforts in PIF16. These species do not have PIF16 scores because they
currently have no populations in the area, but land managers should seek tomaintain or increase appropriate habitat for these species, especially if they were
present historically.
The priority species for PIF16 are given in Tables 3 (breeding) and 4 (wintering),

15

arranged by habitat preference. The importance of this region to birds during
migration is beyond the scope of this plan. Waterfowl are not addressed
because they are the focus of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan.
Breeding shorebirds and nongame waterbirds are considered in this plan when
they have a high priority score, although they will also be covered in plans
focused on those groups. Species common names follow the Check-list of North
American Birds, 7th ed. (American Ornithologists' Union 1998).
Table 3. Priority Species during the breeding season by habitat type for theUpper Great Lakes Plain, Physiographic Area #16, from the Partners in Flight
Species Prioritization Database 2000.
TH

Species

7 Habitat G- G- G- G- TB AI PT x7
seq
RA BD ND TN

Tier% AI+ TB+
POP PT TN

WL
statusHenslow's
Sparrow
Greater PrairieChicken
Dickcissel
Bobolink
Upland Sandpiper
Short-eared Owl
Grasshopper
Sparrow
Northern
Bobwhite
Northern Harrier

2111

GR

4

3

5

4

4

3

5

28

I.

6.77

EHP

358

GR

3

5

5

4

4

2

3

26

I.

2198
2199
475
796
2112

GR
GR
GR
GR
GR

2
2
3
4
3

2
2
2
1
1

4
2
3
1
2

4
4
4
4
3

4
4
3
4
3

2
3
2
2
2

5
5
5
3
5

23
22
22
19
19

I.
I.
I.
II.C.

372

GR

2

2

2

3

3

2

5

19

258

GR

4

1

1

3

4

3

3

19

Sedge Wren

1614

3

3

3

3

4

3

2

21

Sandhill Crane

429

GRWE
GRWE

3

2

4

3

3

4

1

20

Golden-winged
Warbler
Blue-winged
Warbler
Bell's Vireo
Field Sparrow
Black-billed
CuckooBrown Thrasher
Willow Flycatcher
White-eyed Vireo
Yellow-billed
CuckooYellow-breasted
Chat*Bewick's Wren
*Loggerhead
Shrike1781 SH-F

4

4

4

4

4

2

3

25

1780 SH-F

4

3

4

3

3

3

3

1423 SH
2095 GR-SH
726 SH-F

3
3
4

3
2
2

5
2
2

3
3
3

4
3
3

2
4
4

1732 SH
1296 SH1412 SH-F
727 SH-F

3
3
3
3

1
1
2
1

3
4
4
2

2
2
2
3

3
3
3
3

1886

3

1

3

2

1601 SH1409 GR-SH

3
3

2
1

2
1

Red-h.

1067

4

2

2

SH

SA

8

8

5

8

1.00

7
8
7
6
7

8
8
7
8
6

1.26

7

6

II.C.

0.83

6

7

II.C.

3.40

5

7

1.98

5

6

I.

0.34

4

8

EHP

23

I.

6.23

6

6

MP

3
5
4

23
22
22

I.
I.
I.

0.06
5.76
3.40

4
9
8

7
6
6

EHP

4
4
2
2

5
3
3
5

21
20
19
19

II.A.

2.79
0.03
0.39

9
7
4
7

5
5
5
6

3

2

5

19

0.05

6

5

3
3

3
4

2
2

3
3

18
17

0.01

5
4

6
7

3

3

4

5

23

4.16

9

6

16

I.

0.68
4.09
0.45

MHP
MP
MP

MP

Species
Woodpecker
Baltimore OrioleTH

7 Habitat G- G- G- G- TB AI PT x7
RA BD ND TN
seq

Tier

2260

SA

3

2

3

2

3

5

2

20

Cerulean Warbler
Acadian
Flycatcher
Kentucky Warbler
Canada Warbler
Whip-poor-will
Hooded Warbler
Mourning Warbler
Wood Thrush
Yellow-throated
Vireo

1828
1294

BF
BF

4
3

4
2

4
4

4
3

4
3

2
2

3
5

25
22

I.
I.

1841
1866
819
1864
1843
1693
1428

BF
BF
BF
BF
BF
BF
BF

4
4
4
3
3
3
4

3
2
2
2
3
2
2

4
3
3
4
3
4
3

3
4
3
3
3
4
3

3
3
3
3
2
3
3

2
2
2
2
2
2
3

3
3
3
3
3
1
1

22
21
20
20
19
19
19

I.

Blckburnian
Warbler

1812

CF

3

2

3

3

3

2

3

19

Prothonotary
Warbler
AmericanWoodcock
La. Waterthrush

1835

RF

4

3

4

3

3

2

3

22

I.

521

RF

4

2

3

3

3

3

3

21

III.B

1840

RF

4

2

3

4

3

2

3

21

II.C.

Peregrine Falcon

324

U

5

1

1

3

4

2

3

19

II.C.

% AI+ TB+
POP PT TN

WL
status

6.69

7

5

0.44
0.41

4
7

8
6

EHP

5
4
5
4
5
3
4

6
7
6
6
5
7
6

MP

0.01
1.06
0.02
0.27
1.47
5.31

5

6

0.12

4

6

MHP

2.05

6

6

MHP

5

7

4

7

0.14

MHP

Whooping Crane
184 WE5 5 5 5 5 2 5 32
I.
0
7
10
EHP
Piping Plover
445 WE
5 4 4 4 5 2 5 29
I.
0
7
9
EHP
Black Rail398 WE
5 4 4 4 4 2 3 26
I.
5
8
EHP
Trumpeter Swan
184 WE
4 4 4 4 1 2 5 24
I.
7
5
EHP
Wilson's
522 WE
3 2 5 4 3 2 3 22
I.
5
7
MHP
Phalarope
American Black197 WE
4 2 3 3 4 2 3 21 II.C. 0.20 5
7
MHP
Duck
2 3 3 3 3 3 3 20
66
Am. White Pelican 100 WE
Black Tern
586 WE3 1 2 3 4 2 5 20 II.C. 0.40 7
7
Hooded237 WE4 2 4 2 3 2 3 20
0.71 5
5
Merganser
Forster's Tern
574 WE3 3 3 2 3 2 3 19
1.24 55King Rail404 WE4 2 4 2 2 2 3 19
5
4Marsh Wren
1615 WE
3 2 2 3 4 2 3 19 II.C. 0.87 57
3 1 3 2 2 5 3 19 II.A. 3.84 8
4
N. Rough-w.
1530 WE
Swallow
Redhead
216 WE3 2 2 3 4 2 3 19 II.C.
5
7
Swamp Sparrow2126 WE
3 2 2 2 2 4 4 19 II.A. 1.86 8
4Species - Official common name from the AOU Checklist, 7th Edition.
7th seq - A number that allows the list to be sequenced in taxonomic order according to the 7th
Edition of the AOU checklist.
G-RA - Global relative abundance, usually based on Breeding Bird Survey data.
1=100+ per BBS route (abundant), 2=30-99.9 (common), 3=10-29.9 (fairly common),
4=1-9.9 (uncommon), 5=less than 1 (rare).
G-BD & G-ND - Global scores for breeding distribution (BD) and wintering distribution (ND)
1=20% or more of North America, 2=10-19.9%, 3=5-9.9%, 4=2.5-4.9%, 5=less than 2.5%
2(551,500 km ).

17

G-TN - Global score for threats in the nonbreeding season; 1=population should maintain present
level or increase, 2=75-99% should remain, 3=50-74%, 4=25-49%, 5=less than 25% may
remain.
TB - Threats to successful breeding in PIF16; 1=population should maintain present level orincrease, 2=75-99% should remain, 3=50-74%, 4=25-49%, 5=less than 25% may remain.
AI - Importance of PIF16 for breeding of the species, calculated, if possible, by comparing relative
abundance on the Breeding Bird Survey within PIF16 to the species’ highest relative
abundance in any physiographic area (see G-RA, below) 1=0-0.9% of max., 2=1-9.9%,
3=10-24.9%, 4=25-49.9%, 5=50%+.
PT - Population trend for PIF16, usually determined from the Breeding Bird Survey; 1=significant
increase, 2=stable, or apparent increase, 3=uncertain, 4=apparent decline, 5=significant
declines
x7 - A total score that sums PT, AI, TB, G-RA, G-BD, G-ND, & G-TN.
Tier - Priority Tier; I=total score 22+; IIA=score 19-21, AI+PT 8+; IIB=19-21, high %pop; IIC=1921, TB 4+; IIIA=19-, high %pop; IIIB -listed as a national species of concern; IVA Federally listed (E/T); IV-B - state listed, game bird, overabundant, or other local interest.
% pop - Percentage of the species’ population breeding in PIF16.
AI&PT - A combined score that, if high, suggests a species is a local priority regardless of total
score.
TB&TN - A combined threats score.
WL status – Watch List status (a global designation of the National Audubon Society, based onscores from a previous version of the database) – EHP = Extra High Priority, MHP =Moderate High Priority, MP=Moderate Priority.

Table 4. Priority Species in winter by habitat type for the Upper Great Lakes
Plain, Physiographic Area #16, from the Partners in Flight Species Prioritization
Database 2000.
TH

Species

7
Habitat G- G G- G- TN AI- G- x7
seq
RA BD ND TB
W PT

Tier

AI+ TB+ WL statusPT TN

Gr. Prairie-Chicken*
Short-eared Owl*
Northern Bobwhite*
Northern Harrier*

358
796
372
258

Field Sparrow*
Am. Tree Sparrow

GR
GR
GR
GR

3
4
2
4

5
1
2
1

5
1
2
1

4
4
3
4

4
4
3
3

2
4
3
2

3
5
5
4

26
23
20
19

I.
I.
II.A.
II.C.

5
9
8
6

8
8
6
7

2095 GR-SH
2091 GR-SH

3
2

2
2

2
2

3
2

3
2

4
4

5
5

22
19

I.
II.A.

9
9

6
4

Red-h. Woodpecker*
Long-eared Owl

1067
2260

SA
SA

4
3

2
2

2
3

3
2

3
3

3
5

5
2

22
20

I.

8
7

6
5

Northern Goshawk
Ruffed Grouse
E. Screech-Owl

267
349
759

BF
BF
BF

5
4
4

1
2
2

1
2
2

3
3
3

3
2
2

3
3
5

3
3
1

19
19
19

6
6
6

6
5
5

Rusty Blackbird

2216

V

4

1

2

2

3

2

5

19

7

5

10
7
9
6
6
6

7
7
5
6
7
6

Am. Black Duck+
197 WE4 2
3 4 3 5 5 26
Redhead+
216 WE3 2
2 4 3 3 4 21
Greater Scaup+
221 WE3 2
2 2 3 4 5 21
Bald Eagle
254 WE4 2
1 3 3 3 3 19
Canvasback+215 WE3 1
2 4 3 2 4 19
Bufflehead+
233 WE4 2
1 3 3 3 3 19
+PIF plans do not address waterfowl.
*These species are also considered breeding season priorities in PIF16.

18

I.
II.C.
II.A.
II.C.

MP

MP

MHP

Species - Official common name from the AOU Checklist, 7th Edition.
7th seq - A number that allows the list to be sequenced in taxonomic order according to the 7th
Edition of the AOU checklist.
G-RA - Global relative abundance, usually based on Breeding Bird Survey data,1=100+ per BBS
route (abundant), 2=30-99.9 (common), 3=10-29.9 (fairly common), 4=1-9.9(uncommon), 5=less than 1 (rare).
G-BD & G-ND - Global scores for breeding distribution (BD) and wintering distribution (ND)
1=20% or more of North America, 2=10-19.9%, 3=5-9.9%, 4=2.5-4.9%, 5=less than 2.5%
2(551,500 km ).
G-TN - Global score for threats in the nonbreeding season; 1=population should maintain present
level or increase, 2=75-99% should remain, 3=50-74%, 4=25-49%, 5=less than 25% may
remain.
TB - Threats to successful breeding in PIF16; 1=population should maintain present level orincrease, 2=75-99% should remain, 3=50-74%, 4=25-49%, 5=less than 25% may remain.
AI - Importance of PIF16 for breeding of the species, calculated, if possible, by comparing relative
abundance on the Breeding Bird Survey within PIF16 to the species’ highest relative
abundance in any physiographic area (see G-RA, below) 1=0-0.9% of max., 2=1-9.9%,
3=10-24.9%, 4=25-49.9%, 5=50%+.
PT - Population trend for PIF16, usually determined from the Breeding Bird Survey; 1=significant
increase, 2=stable, or apparent increase, 3=uncertain, 4=apparent decline, 5=significant
decline.
x7 - A total score that sums PT, AI, TB, G-RA, G-BD, G-ND, & G-TN.
Tier - Priority Tier; I=total score 22+; IIA=score 19-21, AI+PT 8+; IIB=19-21, high %pop; IIC=1921, TB 4+; IIIA=19-, high %pop; IIIB -listed as a national species of concern; IVA Federally listed (E/T); IV-B - state listed, game bird, overabundant, or other local interest.
% pop - Percentage of the species’ population breeding in PIF16.
AI&PT - A combined score that, if high, suggests a species is a local priority regardless of total
score.
TB&TN - A combined threats score.
WL status – Watch List status (a global designation of the National Audubon Society, based onscores from a previous version of the database) – EHP = Extra High Priority, MHP =Moderate High Priority, MP=Moderate Priority.

Section 3: Habitats and Objectives
Habitat-species groupings
In general, species showing the greatest population declines are associated with
disturbance-dependent systems such as grasslands (Henslow’s Sparrow,
Dickcissel, Bobolink, and Upland Sandpiper), grass-shrub habitats (Field
Sparrow and Brown Thrasher), and savannas (Red-headed Woodpecker).
Several savanna and shrub species have relatively high PIF Area Importancescores (Table 3). Populations of several of the highest priority species (e.g.,
Greater Prairie-Chicken, Black Rail, Golden-winged Warbler, Blue-winged
Warbler, Bell’s Vireo, and Cerulean Warbler) are poorly sampled by the Breeding
Bird Survey (BBS), and therefore population trends are poorly known. Inventory
and monitoring should be priority efforts for these species. The Cornell
Laboratory of Ornithology has completed an atlas project for Cerulean Warbler(http://birds.cornell.edu/cewap/) and is undertaking one for Golden-winged
Warbler (http://birds.cornell.edu/gowap/). These projects are designed to identify
concentrations of the species, but provide no information on trends.
19

We address the needs of high priority species grouped into grassland, shrub,
savanna, forest, and wetland habitats. Management recommendations address
both umbrella species such as the Greater Prairie-Chicken and the Cerulean
Warbler, as well as general habitat requirements of other priority species
associated with a habitat type.
Grasslands
Ecology and conservation status
Before European settlement, tallgrass prairie was interspersed within oaksavanna, beech-maple (Fagus sp. and Acer sp.), and maple-basswood (Acer sp.
and Tilia sp.) forests and woodlands (McNab and Avers 1994). Today, roughly
50% of PIF16 is planted in corn and soybeans. Native prairie now covers lessthan 1% of the land surface, although surrogate grasslands such as pastures andhayfields occupy approximately 25% of the area. Whereas pasture and hayfields
provide habitat for some species of grassland birds, the vegetation structure ofheavily grazed pastures is not attractive to high priority species (Sample andMossman 1997), and eggs and nestlings in early-mown hayfields are destroyedwhen hay is cut and harvested (Rodenhouse et al. 1995, Herkert 1997a).
Grasslands that have resulted from the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP),
however, may be helping to stabilize declines of priority species such as
Henslow’s Sparrow (Johnson and Schwartz 1993, Best et al. 1997, Herkert
1997b, Ryan et al. 1998b). Unfortunately, there is no assurance that the CRP
program will continue to be offered in the long-term, and much of this land could
revert to cropland once existing contracts expire.
Bird habitat requirements
Grasslands: Henslow’s Sparrow, Greater Prairie-Chicken, Dickcissel, Bobolink,
Upland Sandpiper, Short-eared Owl, Grasshopper Sparrow, Northern Bobwhite,
and Northern Harrier
Greater Prairie-Chickens require the largest tracts of grassland of all grassland
birds in PIF16, therefore their habitat requirements are the most difficult to attain(Schroeder and Robb 1993). They can be considered an umbrella species formany other grassland birds with less stringent habitat requirements (Merrill et al.
1999, Winter and Faaborg 1999, Niemuth 2000, Poiani et al. 2001). Greater
Prairie-Chickens are nonmigratory, with home ranges >800 ha (2000 acres)during certain times of year (Robel et al. 1970, Horak 1985). Greater PrairieChickens prefer landscapes dominated by native prairie or mixed-grass pastures(Jones 1963, Schroeder and Robb 1993, Ryan et al. 1998a). Management
practices such as rotational burning or light grazing can be employed to maintain
desirable grassland structure (McKee et al. 1998, Niemuth 2000).
Habitats managed for prairie chickens in Wisconsin and Illinois also provide
habitat for Short-eared Owls and Northern Harriers (Hamerstrom 1986, Walk
20

1998, Herkert et al. 1999). Northern Harrier is listed as a species of concern inMichigan and Wisconsin and as state endangered in Indiana and Iowa. Harriers
require large, open, ungrazed, often wet, grasslands with adequate small
mammal populations (MacWhirter and Bildstein 1996). Short-eared Owls use thesame medium-to-tall grasslands for breeding and winter foraging that Greater
Prairie-Chickens use for nesting and roosting (Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom
1957, Short and Drew 1962, Hamerstrom and Hamerstrom 1973, Voous 1988,
Holt and Leasure 1993, Walk and Warner 1999). Disturbance regimes used tokeep grasslands from succeeding to woody vegetation are credited withmaintaining habitat for the microtine rodents that the owls and harriers prey upon
(Colvin and Spaulding 1983, Hamerstrom 1986). Presence of Short-eared Owls
is unpredictable, however, as populations fluctuate yearly because of variation insmall mammal populations (Holt and Leasure 1993). Both Short-eared Owls andNorthern Harriers have nested at two grassland sanctuary complexes insoutheastern Illinois also occupied by remnant flocks of Greater Prairie-Chickens(Herkert et al. 1999). Harriers preferred fields not disturbed by management in
the year prior to the breeding season, whereas Short-eared Owls were more
likely to nest in areas that had been disturbed within the year.
A study of Wisconsin grasslands found higher grassland bird densities inlandscapes where the cover types were less diverse and were dominated bygrassland, pasture and hayfields (Ribic and Sample 2001). The Henslow’s
Sparrow, Dickcissel, Bobolink, Sedge Wren, and Grasshopper Sparrow prefer
grasslands with moderate-to-tall and moderate-to-dense vegetation, and amoderate-to-deep litter layer (Martin and Gavin 1995, Pruitt 1996, Sample andMossman 1997, Walk and Warner 2000). All will use nonnative hayfields andpastures as well as native grasslands if they find the vegetation structure
attractive (Johnson and Igl 1999). Sedge Wrens and Henslow’s Sparrows areintolerant of all but the lightest grazing pressure (Sample and Mossman 1997).
Disturbances used to maintain grasslands, such as fire, grazing, and mowing,
are tolerated by these species, but only if the disturbance occurs infrequently
enough to allow the grass to attain the height and structure the species prefer(Swengel and Swengel 2001). Sedge Wrens and Henslow’s Sparrows areunlikely to use fields until a few years after such disturbances (Sample andMossman 1997). Mowing should be deferred until after the breeding season(May to mid-July), as it destroys nests and nestlings of these ground-nesting
passerines and has a severe and negative effect on their annual reproductive
output (Best et al. 1997).
The appropriate size for a grassland bird management unit is the subject ofintense research (Walk and Warner 1999, Johnson and Igl 2001). The minimumsize management unit for Greater Prairie-Chickens in Missouri is estimated at 65
ha (160 acres) (Kirsch 1974, Horak 1985, Ryan et al. 1998a). Landscapes
composed entirely of small prairie patches, regardless of total prairie habitat
available, may be inadequate for conserving Greater Prairie-Chickens. Horak(1985), in Kansas, recommended that at least 33% of the land within the range ofa flock of prairie chickens be kept in permanent grassland, with an interspersion

21

of 75% grassland and 25% cropland considered optimum. For grassland
passerines in Illinois, a 50 ha (125 acres) patch had a 50% probability ofcontaining Bobolinks, whereas 55 ha (138 acres) were needed for Henslow’s
Sparrows (Herkert 1994b). A meta-analysis of grassland passerine reproductive
success in the Midwest (Herkert et al. In prep.) indicated that nest predation rates
were lower in prairies >1,000 ha (2,462 acres) in all states and for all species
examined. To clarify management unit recommendations for grassland birds,
PIF developed the Grassland Bird Conservation Area (GBCA) Model. The
GBCA model is now under research (D, Johnson, pers. comm.); results of thisresearch will allow refinement of the model.
Grassland Bird Conservation Area (GBCA) Model
Habitat restoration aimed at reducing grassland fragmentation is needed to boost
reproductive success and increase the acreage of suitable habitat for grassland birds. The
Partners in Flight Grassland Bird Conservation Area (GBCA) model describes a theoreticallandscape where grassland birds can be supported in high abundances and with adequate
reproductive success (Sample and Mossman 1997). Research into factors affecting density
and reproductive success of grassland-nesting birds in the Midwestern United States(Johnson and Igl 2001, Herkert et al. In prep., Fitzgerald et al. In press) support propositionsof the model:
1. Large patches are better than small.
2. Blocks roughly 1000 ha (2,500 acres) or larger have a more positive effect on density
and reproductive success than do patches of smaller size.
3. The ratio of grassland, and to a lesser degree woodland, in the landscapesurrounding a patch also influences densities and reproductive success of grassland
birds.
The BCA model calls for a 4,000 ha (10,000 acre or 16 square mile) management unit at thecenter of which is an 800 ha (2,000 acre, about 3 square mile) block of grassland referred toas the “core.” Where Greater Prairie-Chickens are a focal species, the core should becentered upon one or more leks and managed in tracts >65 ha (160 acres). Rotationalburning at 3-5 year intervals and light grazing are acceptable management practices, as longas the grassland structure remains adequate to attract and support the priority species.
Management is planned so the preferred structure for the Greater Prairie-Chicken nesting,brood-rearing, and roosting cover are all available within each core area in any given year.
The 3,200 ha (8,000 acres) matrix surrounding the core contains >800 ha (2,000 acres) of
grassland habitat, resulting in a conservation unit with >40% grassland. Minimum area
requirements of high priority passerines should be met if 50% of the grassland tracts in thematrix are >40 ha (100 acres). The presence of woody vegetation is considered hostile tograssland bird density and reproductive success and should be <1% of the core or <5% of
the matrix. Cereal and row crops may occupy the remaining area within the matrix and areassumed to have a neutral effect on grassland bird density and reproductive success.
In geographic areas where Greater Prairie-Chickens are not a target species, 800 ha coreareas may not be necessary (Johnson and Igl 2001). In this case, high quality habitat for thetarget species should still occupy >40% of the BCA, hostile (wooded) habitat should occupy<5%, and the core area should be as large as possible to benefit other area-sensitive
grassland species. At least 50% the grassland acreage should be in tracts >40 ha (100acres) to reduce nest predation. Management of grassland tracts should be planned toprovide for the habitat needs of all the target species in any given breeding season.

22

Table 5. Microhabitat associations and responses to management for selectedhigh priority grassland species.
a

Grass
cover

Forb
cover

Littercover

Native/
b
cult

Mowed

GrazedBurnedArea

Greater PrairieChicken

Mod

Light to
mod.

Mod.

Both

Delay

Light

Yes

Henslow’s Sparrow

Dense

Light to
mod.

Thick

Both

Delay

Light

Yes

Bobolink

Dense

Light

Thick

Both

Yes

Light

Yes

Sedge Wren

Dense

Light

Thick

Both

Delay

Light

Yes

Grasshopper
Sparrow

Light
to
mod.
Dense

Light to
mod.

Light
to
mod.
Mod.

Both

Yes

Light

Yes

100 ha(250 a)50 ha(125 a)30 ha(75 a)
10 ha(25 a)
30 ha(75 a)

Both

Delay

Light

Yes

Species

Northern Harrier

Mod

c

d

e

a

Based on Sample and Mossman (1997) and Johnson and Igl (1999).
Native/cult: Species preference for nesting in native grass, non-native or cultivated grass, orboth.
c
Mowed: Yes = species will nest in a site the first breeding season after mowing; Delay = species
avoids a site for 2 years after disturbance.
dGrazed: No = species avoids grazed areas; Light = species will tolerate light grazing.
eBurned: Yes = species tolerates burning as a management practice, but may delay occupationfor > 2 years after the disturbance.
f
Area: Minimum size of grassland tract for 50% probability of occurrence.
b

Population objectives and habitat strategies
Henslow’s Sparrow populations have been declining at a rate of 6.2% (P<0.01)
per year from 1966-2000 in Region 3 of the USFWS (includes PIF16) (Sauer et
al. 2001). Greater Prairie-Chicken populations have been declining at a rate of
5.7% (P<0.29) per year from 1966-2000 in Region 3 of USFWS (Sauer et al.
2001).
1. Increase Henslow’s Sparrow and Greater Prairie-Chicken populations by
3%/yr in USFWS Region 3 from 1980-2010, based on BBS data.
2. Monitor populations of other grassland species to ensure that population
trends are stable or increasing through 2010.
3. Restore > 10 GBCAs within PIF16 by 2010.
4. Restore grasslands to > 30% of the landscape in 3 (17 total in PIF16)
ecoregional subsections (Albert 1995) of PIF16 by 2020. Apply
recommendations for GBCAs in these ecoregions. At a minimum,
encourage the planting of native grassland plant species and appropriate
rotational mowing or grazing practices to control woody plant succession.

23f

100 ha(250 a)Grassland conservation opportunities
1. Identify large areas of grasslands within PIF16 as targets for conservation
and restoration. The greatest opportunities in PIF16 for appliedmanagement of open grasslands are in conjunction with existinggrasslands on federal, state, or other conservation lands. Examples
include reclaimed mine lands and abandoned military lands. Some states
are engaged in proactive conservation planning for GBCAs. For example,
the Wisconsin DNR has identified potential GBCAs in southwestern
Wisconsin and is seeking conservation partners for this effort (D. Sample,
pers. comm.).
2. Apply GIS models developed for grassland birds in other ecoregions
within PIF16.
3. Recent developments in agricultural management practices such as
intensive rotational grazing may also provide opportunities for grassland
bird habitat management on private lands (D. Sample, pers. comm.).
4. Work to build public-private partnerships to conserve and restore habitats
for high priority species. Partner with the USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service to maximize wildlife benefits of federal agricultural
incentive programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP).
Work with landowners to better understand new agricultural management
practices and their implications for grassland bird conservation. Provide
economic incentives for private landowners to manage their land in accord
with bird conservation plans.
Evaluation of assumptions - research and monitoring
1. Additional research is needed on the fundamental assumptions of the
GBCA model. Specific questions include: (a) Is nesting successconsistently influenced by patch size? (b) Does the amount of grassland in
the surrounding landscape influence nesting success within specificpatches? (c) Does forest cover negatively impact grassland bird nest
success within patches? (d) How many trees create a negative impact andat what distance from nesting territories?
2. Additional research is needed on the effects of various management
practices (e.g., burning, haying, and grazing) on the nest success ofgrassland birds breeding within managed grasslands in the region.
3. More information is needed on the effects of scale on grassland bird
response to habitat management (i.e., is bird response to management
similar on large and small patches and in landscapes with high and low
levels of grass in the surrounding landscape?).
4. Specific management recommendations should be tested with GIS
modeling.
5. Monitor populations to determine whether population objectives are being
met. Increase monitoring and inventory efforts for those species whose
trends are unknown.

24Outreach
1. Educate the public about the importance of conserving grassland habitats
for grassland birds.
2. Educate land managers about habitat requirements for high priority
species.
3. Recognize outstanding efforts to educate and to conserve habitat.
4. Partner with international groups to ensure adequate winter and migration
habitat for Neotropical migrants.
Savanna-woodlands
Ecology and conservation status
Before European settlement, fire frequency varied spatially and temporally withfluctuations in climate and population densities of Native Americans (McClainand Elinga 1994), influencing the proportion of woody-to-herbaceous plants inprairie-woodland ecotones (McPherson 1997). Savanna-woodland habitats
resulted from trees and shrubs invading prairies during periods of infrequent fireand from prairies invading woodlands during periods of increased fire frequency(Nuzzo 1985, Taft 1997). As a result, the structure of habitats in the ecotone
may have ranged from open prairie with a few scattered trees and shrubs towoodlands with intermediate canopy closure. Savannas are defined as areas
with a well-developed herbaceous ground cover composed principally of prairie
species and tree densities ranging from one per acre to roughly 50% canopy
closure. Woodland refers to sites with a comparable understory, but with canopy
closure of 50-80% (Packard 1993, Taft 1997). Fire-adapted tree species such asbur, black, northern pin, and white oak dominate the canopy in both instances(Nuzzo 1985). Several species of birds that respond favorably to savannawoodland restoration in Illinois either nest or forage in shrubs or small trees,
indicating the importance of the shrub layer to birds in those habitats (Brawn
1998).
Whereas savanna-woodland habitats are known to be floristically diverse, thefaunal composition of those habitats is less well known. Few globally rare
species occur in savanna-woodland habitats; however, many species occurring
here have become regionally rare (Taft 1997). Numerous plant taxa reach theirpeak densities in savanna-woodland habitats rather than in prairies or closed
canopy forests (Packard 1988, 1991, 1993). Differences in bird community
structure between savanna-woodland and forest habitats in an Illinois study weresignificant, with 63% of the variation between bird communities in fire-disturbed
savanna-woodland and closed-canopy woodlands accounted for by habitat type.
Species such as the Northern Bobwhite, Red-headed Woodpecker, Eastern
Towhee, Indigo Bunting, Summer Tanager, and Baltimore Oriole weresignificantly more abundant in savanna-woodland habitats (Brawn 1998).

25

Unfortunately, more than 99% of the original 11-13 million ha (27.9-32.1 million
acres) of savanna-woodland in the Midwest has been converted to cropland or
degraded by fire suppression and over-grazing (Nuzzo 1985). Wide-scale
restoration of savanna-woodland habitats would greatly benefit the species thatreach their highest densities in those habitats.
Bird habitat requirements
Savanna-woodland: Red-headed Woodpecker, Baltimore Oriole, Long-eared Owl(winter)
Red-headed Woodpecker is the classic savanna bird, preferring areas withrelatively large, widely-spaced canopy trees with an open, grassy understory(Brawn 1998, Smith 2000). However, the species can be found in habitats with avariety of canopy cover, from floodplain forest to relatively open golf courses.
The Red-headed Woodpecker is a cavity-nesting species, requiring dead anddying trees for nest sites. The wintering Long-eared Owl roosts in dense, woody
vegetation of riparian woodlands or isolated tree groves adjacent to open
habitats used for foraging (Marks et al. 1994). It is an opportunist that feeds
upon a variety of small mammals in open habitats. Neither species is known tohave large habitat area requirements.
Recent work by Brawn (1998) in savanna-woodland habitats in Illinois indicatedthat 10 of 12 species of birds experienced greater nesting success in woodlands
that were restored by prescribed burning than in undisturbed closed-canopy
forests, although size of tract had little effect. On sites >100 ha (250 acres)“landscape burns” or fires that are allowed to burn the tract differentially withrespect to aspect, slope, moisture gradients, etc., should be employed to createa mosaic of habitats and variation in the proportion of woody-to-herbaceousunderstory plants at the landscape scale.
Table 6. Habitat requirements for selected high priority savanna-woodland
species in PIF16
Species (Source)

Nesting habitat

Habitat limitations

Red-headed
Woodpecker(Smith 2000)

Open deciduous
Population declines
woodland, savanna,
attributed toold burns or clearings. competition from
Prefers dead trees
European starlings>70 cm dbh, needs
and declining
high density of cavity
availability of suitable
trees.
nest-cavity substrate
Baltimore Oriole
Open deciduous or
Not area-sensitive,
riparian woodlands.
compatible with urban(Rising and Flood
Tall (>10m), widelyand agricultural land
1998)
spaced trees,useespecially elm, maple,
birch, willow,
sycamore, andcottonwooda(Friedmann 1963, Friedmann et al. 1977, Friedmann and Kiff 1985)

26

Parasitism risk

a

None

Low: rejects cowbird
eggsPopulation objectives and habitat strategies
Red-headed Woodpecker populations have been declining at a rate of 3.8%
(P<0.001) per year from 1966-2000 in Region 3 of the USFWS (Sauer et al.
2001). Populations of wintering Long-eared Owls have experienced significant
declines across their wintering range (Sauer et al. 1996).
1. Increase Red-headed Woodpecker populations by 3%/yr in USFWSRegion 3 from 1980-2010, based on BBS data; increase populations of
wintering Long-eared Owls as measured by the Christmas Bird Count.
2. Monitor populations of savanna species (Baltimore Oriole) to ensure that
population trends are stable or increasing through 2010.
3. Since savanna bird species do not appear to be area-sensitive, savanna
restoration is appropriately applied to sites <800 ha (2,000 acres) in sizewith soils, floristic composition, topography and other indications ofhistorical savanna/woodlands. On sites >100 ha (250 acres) landscapeburns will provide a mosaic of habitats (fire intensity varies across the
management unit) and variation in the proportion of woody andherbaceous understory plants at the landscape scale. Many species ofbirds require the presence of shrubs or small trees in the understory; thishabitat component should be maintained.
4. Restore at least 50 blocks of savanna >100 ha (250 acres) in PIF16 by
2010. The savanna should have no more than 0.5-4.7 trees/ha within anative prairie grassland matrix (Nelson et al. 1998). Trees within savanna
blocks should be allowed to attain maturity and continue to stand after
death, with a mean minimum snag size of 30 cm diameter at breast height(dbh).
Savanna-woodland conservation opportunities
Conservation actions should focus on maintaining some public lands assavanna-grasslands. Frequent use of fire is required to maintain open savanna
habitats; the landscape quickly reverts to shrub-forest habitats in the absence offire. Successional pressures make it difficult for private landowners to maintainthese habitats. Livestock grazing can partially substitute for fire in maintaining
savanna habitats and grazing is an economically valuable tool for private
landowners. GIS is potentially useful for identifying existing savanna-grassland
habitats within PIF16. Non-profit groups like The Nature Conservancy areexperimenting with management approaches for savanna-grassland habitats in
Wisconsin.
Evaluation of assumptions- research and monitoring
1. More research is necessary to determine habitat associations, densities,
and reproductive success of savanna bird communities in PIF16.

27

2. Information is needed about the effects of savanna restorations (usually
directed at restoring plant biodiversity) on bird populations.
3. Savanna birds don’t appear to be area-sensitive; however, the importanceof landscape context (adjacency to urban areas, contiguous forests or
grasslands) in savanna restoration and effects on avian community
structure and population viability should be examined.
4. Little is known about how bird species use savanna-woodland habitats
during migration.
5. Determine winter population trends for Long-eared Owls using Christmas
Bird Count data.

Outreach
Outreach efforts directed toward private landowners willing to devote small
acreages to conservation are needed to provide sufficient habitat to stabilize
regional populations of savanna species. Outreach efforts should encourage
private landowners, municipalities, and non-profit groups to create savanna-likehabitats in backyard woodlots, urban parks, and other semi-natural sites such as
cemeteries while maintaining dead trees and snags. These management options
should be evaluated to determine their value for stabilizing savanna-associatedbird populations.
ShrubsEcology and conservation status
Shrub habitats are early successional habitats that occur on abandoned
agricultural land, recently logged forest lands, hedgerows bordering crop fields,
powerline rights-of-way, and riparian buffer strips. In the absence of fire or
intensive management, shrublands tend to succeed to forests in PIF16.
Hedgerows and powerline rights-of-way tend to be stable features of thelandscape, whereas the other types of shrublands either quickly convert toforests or are maintained as grasslands or crops (Knick and Rotenberry 2000).
Burning may provide managers with a tool for managing shrublands (Aquilani etal. 2000); however, burning will be difficult to implement in long, narrow habitat
patches (powerline rights-of-way and hedgerows). Selective cutting andherbicidal treatment of trees may be needed to maintain these types of shrub
habitats.

Bird habitat requirements
Grass-shrub: Field Sparrow, Loggerhead Shrike, Northern Bobwhite, American
Woodcock, American Tree Sparrow (winter)28

Shrub: Bell’s Vireo, Brown Thrasher, Willow Flycatcher, Yellow-breasted Chat,
Bewick’s Wren
Grass and shrub species differ mainly in the height and density of shrub habitats
they use. Robinson et al. (1999) found that shrub bird species in Illinois weregenerally not area sensitive, although Brown Thrashers were twice as abundantin fields >6 ha (15 acres) than in smaller fields. Nests of Brown Thrashers
typically were located in hedgerows and shrubs at edges of fields, while Field
Sparrows used the interior of fields. Brown-headed Cowbirds and Blue Jays
(potential nest predators) also were more frequent in hedge and tree rows.
Brown Thrashers and Field Sparrows prefer grasslands with relatively high shrub
densities (Carey et al. 1994, Cavitt and Haas 2000). The Woodcock prefers
young forest edges and, unlike other members of the grass-shrub community, isa game species.
Bell’s Vireo reaches the northeastern edge of its range in PIF16 (Brown 1993). It
is apparently undergoing a rangewide decline and may be lost from the edges of
its range unless sufficient shrub habitat is maintained (Budnik et al. 2000).
Northern Bobwhite is at the northern edge of its range in PIF16. It is susceptible
to cold winters and to intensive farming practices (Brennan 1999). This species
also appears to be undergoing a rangewide decline and is a game species.
Although the Loggerhead Shrike does not score high as a priority species in
PIF16, the migratory subspecies that breeds in this region is nearly extirpated(Pruitt 2000). Reasons for the decline are unclear. Speculation focuses on
habitat loss and changes in farming practices both here, on the breeding
grounds, and on the wintering grounds (Chabot et al. 2001), where our migrant
subspecies must compete for space and food with resident shrike populations(Yosef 1996). The Loggerhead Shrike was included as 1 of 15 species in a pilot
project by the Commission for Environmental Cooperation aimed at enhancing
international cooperation between Canada, Mexico and the U.S. ontransboundary/migratory species of concern (Pruitt 2000).
Similarly, Bewick’s Wren does not score as a high priority species, but theeastern subspecies is nearly extirpated from PIF16 and other areas east of theMississippi River. Population decline may be due to lack of shrub habitat neededby the species or increased competition with expanding populations of the House
Wren (Kennedy and White 1997).
The American Tree Sparrow is only a winter resident in this region. American
Tree Sparrows inhabit grassy areas interspersed with shrubby vegetation during
winter, where they feed on seeds and other plant material (Naugler 1993).
Populations vary greatly from year to year, depending especially on snow cover.

29

Shrub-Forest: Golden-winged Warbler, Blue-winged Warbler, Black-billed
Cuckoo, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, and White-eyed Vireo
Golden-winged Warblers and Blue-winged Warblers breed exclusively in early
successional patches within a larger forested matrix (Confer 1992). The Goldenwinged Warbler is listed as a species of very high priority on the Partners in
Flight Watchlist and is of higher conservation concern than the Blue-winged
Warbler, with which it hybridizes. Both species inhabit openings within the forest
with well-developed herbaceous and shrub layers, such as bogs, swamps,
recently logged or burned sites, abandoned farmland and windthrows (Confer
1992). Habitat becomes unsuitable approximately 20 years after disturbance.
Golden-winged Warblers seem to prefer 10-15 ha (25-40 acre) sites, eachsupporting several pairs. Territories typically include a forest edge along theirperimeter. Both species nest on or close to the ground.
Historically, Golden-winged and Blue-winged Warblers were geographicallyisolated, but the populations came into contact as abandonment of farmland
spread westward, providing an expansion route for the Blue-winged Warbler(Confer 1992). Competition and hybridization with Blue-winged Warblers may be
negatively affecting Golden-winged Warbler populations, but more research isneeded to better understand the interactions between these closely related
species.
In Illinois, Black-billed Cuckoos were found in thickets adjacent to waterways
where the surrounding vegetation was predominantly grass, but not at forested
sites (Robinson et al. 1999). Other studies have found them in young woodlands(Spencer 1943).
Table 7. Habitat requirements for selected priority shrub species in PIF16.
Species (Source)

General habitat

Nesting substrate

Foraging substrate

Field Sparrow(Best 1978)

Grasslands with lowmedium shrub density (1535% shrub cover)Shrubby grassland, early
successional forest, wet
sites
Shrubby grassland, early
successional forest

Ground or in woody
vegetation generally< 1m
Ground or low shrub

Ground or in shrubs

Ground or low shrub

Ground or shrubs

Willow swamps and thickets

Deciduous shrub 02m

Trees and shrubs

Moderate-to-dense shrub
cover

Woody vegetation,
usually within 1-3m
of ground

Woody vegetation,
usually within 3m ofgroundGolden-winged Warbler(Confer 1992)
Blue-winged Warbler(Ehrlich et al. 1988)
Willow Flycatcher(Sedgwick 2000)
Brown Thrasher(Cavitt and Haas 2000)

30

Ground or shrubs

Species (Source)

General habitat

Nesting substrate

Foraging substrate

Black-billed Cuckoo(Spencer 1943)

Shrub and early
successional forests.
Populations fluctuate in
response to caterpillar
outbreaks.
Young forests and old fields

Woodland edges,
thickets. Prefers
shrub or low tree,
dense cover

Trees and shrubs

GroundGround – primarily
earthworms

American Woodcock(Keppie 1994)

Population objectives and habitat strategies
Golden-winged Warbler (-1.4%/yr; P< 0.06), Brown Thrasher (-1.8%/yr;
P<0.001), Field Sparrow (-3.0%/yr; P<0.001), and Black-billed Cuckoo (-1.3%/yr;
P<0.07) populations have declined significantly in USFWS Region 3 from 19662000 (Sauer et al. 2001). Populations of American Tree Sparrows haveexperienced significant declines across their winter range (Sauer et al. 1996).
Loggerhead Shrike populations have declined 8.4%/yr (P<0.001) in USFWSRegion 3 from 1966-2000 (Sauer et al. 2001). Bewick’s Wren populations havedeclined 2.8%/yr (P<0.32) in USFWS Region 3 from 1966-2000 (Sauer et al.
2001).
1. Increase Golden-winged Warbler, Brown Thrasher, Field Sparrow, Blackbilled Cuckoo, and Bell’s Vireo populations by 3%/yr in USFWS Region 3
from 1980-2010, based on BBS data. Increase wintering populations ofAmerican Tree Sparrows in PIF16 based on Christmas Bird Count data.
2. Every effort should be made to restore populations of Loggerhead Shrike
and Bewick’s Wren (eastern subspecies) in PIF16.
3. Monitor populations of other shrub species (Northern Bobwhite, American
Woodcock, Willow Flycatcher, Yellow-breasted Chat, Blue-winged
Warbler, Yellow-billed Cuckoo, and White-eyed Vireo) to ensure that
population trends are stable or increasing through 2010.
4. Restore shrub plant communities in locations where large GBCAs are noteconomically feasible.
Shrub conservation opportunities
Conservation opportunities exist on abandoned agricultural land or land being
restored to forest. Shrubs, as mid-successional communities, do not have longterm stability in one location; the location of shrub communities is dynamic withina landscape mosaic. It is difficult to manage directly for shrub communities as
they tend to have little economic value to landowners, unlike grasslands orforests. Shrub communities are heavily dependent upon large-scale land use
patterns and economic forces affecting other land use types (agriculture andforestry). Powerline rights-of-way should be managed to support populations ofshrub-nesting birds. Conservation efforts for the Northern Bobwhite provide an
31

opportunity for cooperative efforts with upland gamebird biologists.
Evaluation of assumptions - research and monitoring
1. Research is needed to better define the bird community associated withdifferent shrub habitats and the factors supporting viable populations inthese habitats. Predation and cowbird parasitism patterns should bebetter described. Issues of edge vulnerability should be examined.
2. Additional research is needed on the effects of management practices tosustain shrub communities within a landscape matrix. Agricultural andforest practices (hedgerows, silvicultural practices) should be studied todetermine which practices favor shrub nesting species.
3. More information is needed about the value of shrublands for migrating
passerines. Anecdotal observations suggest shrublands provide highnutritional value during migration, especially shrubs that leaf out or flower
early in spring or carry fruits in the fall.
4. Determine winter population trends for American Tree Sparrow using
Christmas Bird Count data.
Outreach
1. Educate the public about the importance of shrubs to nesting andmigrating birds.
2. Educate land managers about habitat requirements for high priority shrubnesting species. Work with landowners to better understand the effects ofagricultural and silvicultural management practices and their implications
for shrubland bird conservation.
3. Work to build public-private partnerships to conserve and restore habitats
for shrub species. Partner with the USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service to maximize wildlife benefits of agricultural practices
focusing on shrub habitats, such as riparian buffers and living snowfences.
4. Work to educate utility companies regarding appropriate management ofrights-of-ways for shrub-nesting birds.
Forests
Ecology and conservation status
Mesic forests in PIF16 have suffered major losses of area (20-90%) since preEuropean settlement (Noss et al. 1995) and now occupy about 14% of thelandscape. An exception is the Driftless Area, where forest cover ranges from30-50% of the landscape (Knutson et al. In prep.). Forests in PIF16 historicallywere disturbed by fire, ice, and windstorms (McNab and Avers 1994). Becauseof the abundance of water in PIF16, riparian forests are an important componentof the forested landscape and the riparian zones of some of the largest river
systems (Mississippi and Wisconsin Rivers) are under federal or state32

management. Management issues surrounding forests in PIF16 include: (1)sustainable timber harvest aimed at maintaining appropriate wildlife habitat forsensitive species and (2) effects on the riparian plant community stemming fromhydrologic changes induced by locks and dams, channelization, and levees.
Tree species diversity in large river floodplain forests tends to be lower than it
was historically, possibly due to hydrologic changes (Yin et al. 1997, Knutson
and Klaas 1998).
Bird habitat requirements
Broadleaved forest: Cerulean Warbler, Acadian Flycatcher, Kentucky Warbler,
Canada Warbler, Whip-poor-will, Hooded Warbler, Mourning Warbler, Wood
Thrush, Yellow-throated Warbler, Northern Goshawk (winter), Ruffed Grouse(year-round, priority in winter), Eastern Screech-Owl (year-round, priority inwinter)
The Cerulean Warbler is a high priority forest-nesting species with exceptional
habitat requirements. It represents an umbrella forest-nesting species in PIF16
because it requires large forest tracts of mature or old-growth forest (Hamel
1992, Hamel 2000b, a, Rosenberg et al. 2000), a resource relatively rare within
PIF16. In some physiographic areas a minimum tract size of 1600-1700 ha(4,000-4,200 acres) is needed for occupancy (Hamel 2000b, Rosenberg et al.
2000). Cerulean Warblers may be present in tracts <100 ha (250 acres)(Rosenberg et al. 2000), but many studies indicate that mature, unfragmented
forests ranging from hundreds to thousands of hectares are needed to support
stable populations.
Little is known about factors affecting reproductive success in this species,
including the relationship between tract size and reproductive success. Although
the historic center of the Cerulean Warbler range is the upper Ohio River valley,
the species has recently expanded its range to occupy (or reoccupy) regions,
including PIF16, where appropriate habitat conditions exist (Hamel 2000b). The
species is found breeding in bottomland and riverine forests and also in dry
ridge-top forests (Rosenberg et al. 2000). Large, mature trees, a multilayered
canopy, and canopy gaps from small-scale disturbances also seem to beimportant habitat features. Therefore, existing large forested tracts within PIF16
should be identified and their habitat value for Cerulean Warblers assessed.
Forest restoration efforts for Cerulean Warblers would also benefit a number ofother area-sensitive forest-nesting birds, including the Wood Thrush (Roth et al.
1996), Acadian Flycatcher (Bielefeldt and Rosenfield 1997), Kentucky Warbler(McDonald 1998), Canada Warbler (Conway 1999), Hooded Warbler (Evans
Ogden and Stutchbury 1994), Mourning Warbler (Pitocchelli 1993), Nashville
Warbler (Williams 1996), and Yellow-throated Vireo (Rodewald and James 1996)
in upland habitats and Prothonotary Warbler (Petit 1999) and Louisiana
Waterthrush (Robinson 1995) in bottomland habitats (Robbins et al. 1989). The
Whip-poor-will is not known to be area-sensitive, but its ground nests arevulnerable to predators (Ehrlich et al. 1988).

33

In addition to the area and spatial arrangement of forest tracts, the size, species
composition, and density of trees may be important. Silvicultural practices may
play an important role in the value of managed forests for Cerulean Warblers andother forest-dependent species (Rodewald and Smith 1998, Thompson et al.
2000). Recent studies on silvicultural practices such as group-cut vs. clear-cut
indicate neither practice supports populations of interior forest birds (King et al.
1998). Selective harvest creates the least amount of edge, but converts a standfrom older age classes to younger age classes. Modeling is a useful tool forplanning sustainable harvest rates across the landscape to support populationsof forest-interior or savanna birds (Axelsson and Ostlund 2001).
Many private woodlands in PIF16 are grazed by domestic livestock, principally
cattle. This practice may be detrimental to the reproductive success of forestnesting birds for several reasons. Heavy grazing reduces understory cover,changes the plant species composition of the forest understory, retards tree
regeneration, and causes soil compaction (Popotnik and Giuliano 2000). The
effects of these changes primarily affect ground and understory-nesting species(Ammon and Stacey 1997). Cowbird parasitism increases for all vulnerable
species when grazing is practiced, as cattle attract cowbirds (Gates and Evans
1998, Goguen and Mathews 1998, Morris and Thompson 1998, Goguen andMathews 2000).
Cerulean Warbler populations continue to decline precipitously, even though little
is known about the specific habitat requirements that support populations. We
propose a Cerulean Warbler Conservation Area (CWCA) model, similar to the
GBCA for grassland birds, based on existing syntheses of the literature (Hamel
2000b, a). The following guidelines will focus conservation efforts in PIF16 until
new research refines our understanding of habitat requirements for Cerulean
Warblers and other high priority forest-nesting birds. Overbrowsing by deer canhave similar negative impacts on forest-dwelling birds that require dense
understory vegetation (Alverson et al. 1988, Alverson et al. 1994).
Cerulean Warbler Conservation Area (CWCA) Model
We estimate that sustainable breeding populations of Cerulean Warblers in PIF16 require>700 ha (1730 acres) core blocks of mature, mesic hardwood forest, with low edge-to-arearatio (Robbins et al. 1989, Hamel 2000b) within an approximately 4,000 ha (10,000 acre)
matrix. The surrounding matrix should be >50% forested, with >25% mature forests and<15% hostile habitat (cowbird feeding sites such as short-grass, intensive animal grazing or
feed lots) (Thompson 1994). Within the core block, at least 25% of the canopy trees should
be mature trees >20 m in height and 25-55 cm diameter at breast height (dbh) with canopy
cover from 65-85% (Hamel 1992, Robbins et al. 1992, Oliarnyk and Robertson 1996,
Robbins et al. 1998). Management should emphasize long rotations, and strategies that
produce a varied 3-dimensional stand with extensive development of vertical diversity andcanopy gaps (Hamel 2000b). In addition, observers note that Cerulean Warblers have better
nesting success with an open forest understory (Oliarnyk and Robertson 1996). Unevenaged management and old-growth or wilderness management are most likely to achievethese goals. An alternative, higher quality prescription, from the perspective of the Cerulean

34

Warbler, may be achievable in some heavily forested subsections of PIF16. This alternativemodel calls for a landscape matrix of 8,000 ha (20,000 acres) where >70% of the land isforested and managed according the principles outlined above (Hamel 2000b). Woodlots
within CWCAs should not be grazed by domestic livestock, and deer populations should be
kept at a minimum .
Restoration of CWCAs will also benefit a number of other area-sensitive forest and riparianassociated bird species. Therefore, additional considerations for these species areappropriate. For example, sufficient numbers of large canopy trees should remain to create
large snags for woodpecker populations. Maintain >20 cavity trees X rotation age per 40 ha(100 acres) within stands, with a mean minimum size of 30 cm dbh to provide adequate
habitat for cavity-nesters (Green 1995). The rotation age factor is necessary because
woodpeckers excavate new sites each year. Disturbance to forests should focus on units in
the 10-15 ha (25-40 acre) range, to accommodate the spatial preference of the Goldenwinged Warbler (Confer 1992).
Restored streams and rivers should retain a high quality vegetated riparian zone five times
the width of the normal stream channel to restore meanders, oxbows, and the full range ofnative riparian vegetation, including tree species richness (Large and Petts 1994, Knutson etal. 1996). This width would also meet the habitat needs of a diverse suite of riparian forestnesting birds.

Riparian forest: Prothonotary Warbler, Louisiana Waterthrush
Wide, diverse, riparian forests are globally rare, have high bird species richness,and provide habitat for forest-savanna species of concern in PIF16, such as the
Cerulean Warbler and Red-headed Woodpecker (Stauffer and Best 1980,
Knutson et al. 1996, Hamel 2000a). Floodplain forests host more bird species
than do other habitat types (Best et al. 1995), and songbird abundances infloodplain forests can be twice as high as upland forests (Stauffer and Best 1980,
Knutson et al. 1996). Even though wide floodplains support more species thannarrow floodplains (Stauffer and Best 1980, Knutson et al. 1996), even small
patches of floodplain forest in large river systems can provide valuable habitat forforest-nesting songbirds (Stauffer and Best 1980, Knutson et al. 1996, Knutson
et al. 1999). Therefore, conservation efforts should emphasize restoration ofdiverse riparian forests along small, headwater streams (needed by the
Louisiana Waterthrush) as well as large, continental riparian systems like theMississippi River (needed by the Prothonotary Warbler and Cerulean Warbler).
Table 7. Habitat requirements for selected riparian forest species in PIF16.
Species (Source)

General habitat

Nesting substrate

Foraging substrate

Prothonotary Warbler(Petit 1999)

Floodplain and swamp
forests with dead standing
snags
Gravel-bottom streams
flowing through hilly,
deciduous forest

CavityTrees

Ground cavities intree roots or logs
along streams

Ground, water edges

Louisiana Waterthrush(Robinson 1995)

35

Coniferous forest: Blackburnian Warbler
PIF16 falls on the southern edge of summer range for the Blackburnian Warbler(Morse 1994, Patten and Burger 1998). The species prefers hemlock forests andthreats to the species in PIF16 are primarily from deforestation.

Population objectives and habitat strategies
Forest bird species populations have generally increased in Region 3 of the
USFWS from 1966–2000 (Sauer et al. 2001). However, total population levels
are presumably well below pre-European settlement levels because of extensive
forest losses to agriculture and urban development prior to the beginning of the
Breeding Bird Survey in 1966. Nest success of forest birds in the Driftless Area
was found to be relatively high and cowbird parasitism low (Knutson et al. In
prep., Gustafson et al. In press). Based on population trends, present habitat
conditions seem to be sustaining populations of many forest-nesting birds within
PIF16, despite forest fragmentation.
PIF16 comprises the NW portion of the Cerulean Warbler range in the US.
Populations of the Cerulean Warbler have been declining at 5.7%/yr (P<0.01)
from 1966-2000 within USFWS Region 3 (Sauer et al. 2001).
1. Increase Cerulean Warbler populations by 3%/yr in USFWS Region 3
from 1980-2010, based on BBS data.
2. Monitor populations of forest-nesting species (Acadian Flycatcher,
Kentucky Warbler, Canada Warbler, Whip-poor-will, Hooded Warbler,
Mourning Warbler, Wood Thrush, Yellow-throated Warbler, Blackburnian
Warbler) to ensure that population trends are stable or increasing through2010. Night monitoring is required for the Whip-poor-will.
3. Restore > 10 CWCAs within the current distribution of the Cerulean
Warbler in PIF16 by 2010.
4. Restore forests to >0% of the landscape in 3 ecoregional subsections (17total in PIF16) (Albert 1995) within the current distribution of the Cerulean
Warbler in PIF16 by 2020. Within these subsections, implement the
CWCA described above. (Allow trees to attain maturity and remain
standing after death. Conserve cavity-producing trees within harvested
stands.)
5. Restore 2,000 km of riparian zones along streams and rivers within PIF16
by 2010. Restored streams and rivers should retain a high quality
vegetated riparian zone 5 times as wide as the normal stream channel.
Forested riparian buffers should strive for a diverse native tree community.
Restoration should focus on a continuum of stream size, from small,
headwater streams to large, continental riparian systems like theMississippi River.
6. Discourage domestic livestock grazing in woodlands targeted for songbird36conservation.
7. Minimize deer population levels in woodlands targeted for songbird
conservation.
Forest conservation opportunities
1. The best opportunities for large, contiguous forest conservation for
Cerulean Warblers and other interior forest-nesting species exist in
association with current public land managed for wilderness, recreation, or
wildlife conservation. The specific breeding habitat requirements for the
Cerulean Warbler put its needs in conflict with short-rotation and evenaged timber production, but are consistent with selection cuts that leavesome mature trees. Large blocks of forest habitat, potentially meeting theabove criteria, should be identified in PIF16 and CWCAs establishedwherever feasible. Parts of the Driftless Area (the Yellow River State
Forest in Iowa, Wyalusing State Park, and South Kettle Moraine in
Wisconsin, and the Whitewater Wildlife Management Area, Minnesota),
and Alleghan State Game Area, Fort Custer, and Waterloo Recreation
Area in southwestern Michigan should be considered for restoration as
CWCAs.
2. In the water-rich PIF16, the potential for restoration of wide riparian forest
corridors presents major opportunities to benefit forest songbirds becauseof multiple bird habitat values and because riparian restoration also
addresses wider societal concerns regarding flooding and water quality.
3. Opportunities for forest restoration on private land exist within many state
forest management programs and within the USDA Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) riparian buffer program and other federal
cost-share programs administered by the NRCS. Many state forestry
initiatives focus on improving woodlot quality and regeneration throughdiscouraging woodlot cattle grazing. Removing domestic grazers fromwoodlots has the potential to improve forest habitat for songbirds as wellas supporting forest regeneration.
Evaluation of assumptions- research and monitoring
1. Little is known about the breeding biology and species-specific responses
to management of forest-nesting species within PIF16. More informationis needed about habitat associations, densities, and reproductive successin oak hickory forests like those of PIF16, especially for the Cerulean
Warbler, Acadian Flycatcher, Kentucky Warbler, Canada Warbler, Whippoor-will, Hooded Warbler, Mourning Warbler, Wood Thrush, and Yellowthroated Warbler.
2. Habitat factors limiting reproductive success, such as thresholds of forest
size, landscape context, and forest plant community characteristics should
be identified to avoid population declines in the future. Changes in timber
management, economics, and the demographics of private landowners

37

may also influence habitat quality in the future. Identifying and monitoring
the large-scale factors that limit regional populations of forest-nesting birds
is necessary, even for species with currently stable populations.
3. Model forest habitat quality using GIS to enhance science-based
management of bird habitats in PIF16. Identify large tracts of forest
habitats in PIF16 as a basis for conservation planning, including all forest
tracts >4000 ha (10,000 acres), all ecoregional subsections with >50%
forest cover, and high quality riparian corridors.
4. Research factors contributing to forest and riparian bird population
stability, including associations between landscape factors and indices ofreproductive success and the effectiveness of the CWCA model insustaining populations of high priority species.
5. Identify cost-effective methods for identifying bird population sources inforested habitats.
Outreach
1. Develop policy recommendations that address economic incentives forprivate landowners to manage their land to benefit forest-nesting birds.
2. Educate the public about the importance of large tracts of deciduous forest
and wide riparian zones to forest bird conservation.
3. Educate silviculturists and land managers about habitat requirements forhigh priority species.
4. Work to build public/private partnerships to conserve and restore habitats
for high priority species. Work to revise timber management practices tobenefit wildlife.
5. Recognize outstanding efforts to educate and to conserve habitat.
6. Partner with international groups to ensure adequate winter and migration
habitat for neotropical migrants, especially the Cerulean Warbler.
Wetlands
Ecology and conservation status
Many wetlands in PIF16 formed as a result of the Wisconsin glaciation
approximately 14,000 years ago (McNab and Avers 1994). Poorly drained soils,
holding basins, and kettles resulted in the formation of wetland types including
wet meadows, shallow water, and permanent deep-water. The types of wetlands
found across the region can vary with soil type and differences in hydrology.
Both vegetation composition and hydrology will affect which species of birds use
a particular wetland for breeding, feeding, and migratory stopover.
Wetlands across the lower 48 states have decreased by 53% from the 1780s to
1980s (Dahl 1990). In Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio,and Iowa, the wetland loss has ranged from 42% to 90%. Wetland losses havebeen attributed to agriculture (87%) and urban development (8%) (Steiner et al.
1994). Government incentive programs such as the Swampbuster provision of
1990, Food Security Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and the Wetland
38

Reserve Program have helped restore and preserve wetlands (Steiner et al.
1994).
Loss and degradation of wetlands are limiting factors for many wetland birds(Brown and Dinsmore 1986, 1991, Fairbairn and Dinsmore 2001). Wetlands >10
ha (25 acres) in size accommodate most wetland-dependent bird species.
Because preferred vegetation type and water levels vary by species,
incorporating both shallow and deep-water emergent habitats into the overall
land management plan is often an appropriate management strategy (Naugle etal. 2001). Complexes of wetlands support more species than isolated wetlands,
making them a high priority for conservation (Fairbairn and Dinsmore 2001,
Naugle et al. 2001). Water level management can be used to accommodate theneeds of species requiring different types of wetlands. Wetland restorations
have been successful in providing more breeding and migration habitat for
wetland species.
Wetland habitats important to birds in PIF16 include:
1. Wet meadows, often dominated by sedges, whose soils tend to remain
saturated or are very shallowly flooded.
2. Emergent wetlands, characterized by perennial rooted herbaceous
vegetation. The term hemi-marsh is used to describe emergent wetlands
with approximately 50% of the area in open water and 50% wetland
vegetation. Dominant vegetation in emergent wetlands includes cattails(Typha), bulrushes (Scirpus), and sedges (Carex).
3. Shrub wetlands, dominated by woody vegetation < 6 m in height, including
bogs, early-successional forested wetlands, and shrub-swamps (Cowardin
et al. 1979).
4. Sandy beaches associated with lakes and rivers.
5. Bottomland hardwood forests.
Bird habitat requirements
Grass-wetlands: Sedge Wren, Black Rail, Sandhill Crane, Whooping Crane
Black Rails nest in wet meadows and shallow areas of emergent marshes(Eddleman 1994). Breeding habitat consists of areas with short dense
vegetation and saturated or shallowly flooded soils (Hands et al. 1989, Legareand Eddleman 2001). PIF16 represents the northern portion of the breeding
range for this species. Unfortunately, little is known about Black Rail distribution,
abundance, or breeding biology, especially in the Midwest. The major threat toBlack Rail populations is believed to be habitat loss. Shallow wetland habitats
are most vulnerable to conversion to agriculture or urban development. Sandhill
Cranes are attracted to similar habitats, but they are much more common thanBlack Rails (Tacha et al. 1992). Sedge Wrens usually nest in wet meadows, but
are also found in drier upland grasses (Ehrlich et al. 1988).
The federally endangered Whooping Crane is also associated with shallow

39

wetland habitats (Timoney 1999). The Whooping Crane is the target of federal
and state agency efforts to establish a second continental migratory population at
Necedah National Wildlife Refuge (La Crosse Tribune, 23 September 2001, pg.
C1). In 2000, ultralight aircraft were successfully used to induce migratory
behavior in Sandhill Cranes as a test species. The Sandhill Cranes returned to
Necedah NWR on their own in the spring of 2001. In 2001, Whooping Cranes,
raised by USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center and Necedah National
Wildlife Refuge are being trained to migrate from Wisconsin to Florida using
ultralight aircraft (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Press Release,
October 17, 2001;
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/caer/ce/news/rbnews/2001/011017co.htm).
Marshes: Wilson’s Phalarope, Black Tern, Forster’s Tern, King Rail, Marsh Wren,
Northern Rough-winged Swallow, Redhead, Trumpeter Swan, American White
Pelican
Nest sites for King Rails range from moist soil to water depths <22 cm (8.6 in.)
(Meanley 1992). Improved nest success occurs in large vegetated beds within
impounded units. Borrow units and dikes provide travel lanes for predators.
Densely vegetated sites are also important for migration as well as nesting(Meanley 1992). Marsh Wrens nest primarily in large expanses of cattails andfrequently nest over water (Kroodsma and Verner 1997). Populations in
Michigan declined dramatically during the twentieth century, presumably due tomarsh destruction (Brewer et al. 1991).
Forster’s Tern, Black Tern, and Trumpeter Swan need large wetlands >20 ha (50acres) for foraging (Bergman et al. 1970, McNicholl 1982, Dunn and Agro 1995,
Shuford 1999, Naugle et al. 2001). The Black Tern requires a water depth of 0.51.2 m (1.5-4 feet) for nesting (Novak 1992). Reduction of mammalian and avian
predators promotes successful nesting of Forster’s Terns. Trumpeter Swans
were extirpated as breeders in PIF16, but are being reintroduced by several
states in the region (Mitchell 1994). Trumpeter Swans and American White
Pelicans need large wetlands to take off and land.
Wilson’s Phalarope is near the eastern edge of its range in PIF16. It prefers
shallow marshes and ponds where it can twirl for insects while swimming, but it
will also feed on mudflats (Colwell 1994).
Shrub-wetlands: Golden-winged Warbler, Black-billed Cuckoo, Swamp Sparrow
Bogs and other shallow wetlands dominated by an herbaceous-shrub component
may provide suitable habitat for the high priority Golden-winged Warbler. (Seethe shrub section of this document). The Black-billed Cuckoo also utilizes
shrubby riparian areas (see the shrub section of this document). Swamp
Sparrow is one of the most frequently occurring species in this habitat in PIF16;
nonetheless, it is a priority species due to widespread population declines(Mowbray 1997).

40

Riparian: Peregrine Falcon, Bald Eagle (winter)
Peregrine Falcon and Bald Eagle populations are recovering from the effects of
DDT poisoning that occurred during the 1950s and 1960s (Ehrlich et al. 1988,
Kirk and Hyslop 1998, Buehler 2000). Sources of DDT and DDE have largely
been eliminated or reduced so that they are not affecting reproductive successfor these species (but see Henny et al. 1982). Bald eagle populations along theMississippi River have experienced steady increases, as evidenced by nest
counts (E. Nelson, pers. comm.). Bald Eagles congregate in large numbers
around open water with adequate fish prey during winter (Buehler 2000). The
locks and dams of the Mississippi River and other large rivers provide open water
throughout the winter in PIF16. Peregrine Falcons are successfully nesting on
buildings in urban areas in many parts of PIF16. In 2000 the first nesting attemptin several decades was made on a historic cliff nesting site along the Mississippi
River near La Crosse, Wisconsin (M. Knutson, pers. obs.).

Swamp (forested) wetlands: American Black Duck, Hooded Merganser
American Black Ducks breed in a wide range of forested wetlands (Longcore2000). Black Duck populations have been affected by intense hunting pressure,interactions with Mallard populations, and habitat loss. Hunting restrictions andhabitat restoration are believed to be the most effective management actions.
Hooded Mergansers nest in tree cavities in forested wetlands (Dugger et al.
1994). This species is vulnerable to habitat loss through river channelization anddeforestation and possibly the effects of acid rain.
Sand beaches: Piping Plover, American White Pelican
Preservation of existing beaches along the Great Lakes is important for thefederally endangered Piping Plover, currently absent as a nester in this region(Haig 1992). Protecting large areas of sandy, undisturbed habitat is required if
the plover is to return as a nester. Mudflats are needed as migration feedingareas during April–May and August–September. Suitable undisturbed breeding
habitat seems to be the limiting factor for this endangered species (Buehler et al.
1991).
Table 8. Habitat requirements for selected priority wetland bird species in PIF16.
Species (Source)

Nesting Habitat

Foraging Areas

Migration Habitat

Trumpeter Swan
(Mitchell 1994)

Hemi-marsh withmuskrat or beaver
houses, area > 5 ha (12acres).

Hemi-marsh, area > 5
ha (12 acres).

Emergent marshes andarea croplands,
February–May,
September–November.
Needs large areas totake off.

41

Species (Source)

Nesting Habitat

Foraging Areas

Migration Habitat

Black Tern
(Novak 1992, Shuford
1999)

Hemi-marsh situation cattail, bulrush, water
lilies selected; water
depth at nest 0.5 - 1.2m; > 10 ha (25 acres)
requirement

Over open water inwetlands >20 cm deepKing Rail(Meanley 1992)

Heavily vegetatedinterior marshes; water
depth moist soil up to
22 cm water depth.
Shallow freshwater
marshes and salt
marshes
Undisturbed sandy
beaches; vary inamount from 4,000 m 30,547 m

Usually found in heavy
cover

Open water foraging
areas >3 ha (7 acres)and undisturbed
roosting
sandbars/beaches;
May–June; August–
September
Wetlands; April–May;
August–September.

Black Rail
(Eddleman 1994)
Piping Plover(Haig 1992)

Bald Eagle(Livingston et al. 1990)

Hemi-marsh or river orlakes with large trees

Wet grasslands

In Lake Michigan foragein splash zone; others
use sandflats, mudflats,
beaches, and dredge
islands.
Clean rivers and lakes

Little known. March–
May; September–
October.
Undisturbed foraging
areas of mudflats andsandflats important
April–September.
Wetlands >15 ha (40acres) for foraging inmigration and breeding
March–September

Population objectives and habitat strategies
Populations of Black Terns have been declining at 4.4%/yr (P<0.04) from 19662000 within USFWS Region 3 (Sauer et al. 2001). Declines should be halted byprotection of existing wetlands and management of those wetlands for conditions
that support both Black and Forster’s Terns. Goals for restoration of Black Ternpopulation levels should be developed in conjunction with those of other wetlanddependent species covered under the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan, U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, and North American Waterbird Plan.
Black and King Rails are secretive in nature and their status within the region ispoorly understood. The objective for these species is to develop and implement
region-wide monitoring programs using protocols similar to the Marsh Monitoring
Program (Weeber and Vallianatos 2000), to better understand their distribution,
abundance, and breeding and stopover biology. Remaining wet meadow habitat
should be protected from degradation or conversion to other kinds of land use.
In contrast, Sandhill Crane populations have dramatically increased 11.5%(P<0.001) from 1966-2000 within USFWS Region 3 (Sauer et al. 2001).
The Whooping Crane, Piping Plover, and Trumpeter Swan are the focus of stateand federal recovery programs within PIF16. We support these plans andobjectives.
1. Establish a migratory population of Whooping Cranes in PIF16 by42

2002; consistently add to the flock in subsequent years.
2. Establish a nesting population of Piping Plovers in PIF16 by 2005.
Maintain and protect remaining lakeshore beaches as Piping Plover
nesting areas.
3. Increase Trumpeter Swan by 3%/yr in USFWS Region 3 from 19802010.
4. Search for Black Rail populations in PIF16 and enhance and protect
habitat if found.
5. Monitor populations of other wetland species (Wilson’s Phalarope,
Forster’s Tern, Sedge Wren, Marsh Wren, Northern Rough-winged
Swallow, Redhead, Swamp Sparrow, American Black Duck, Hooded
Merganser, Golden-winged Warbler, Black-billed Cuckoo, American
White Pelican) to ensure that population trends are stable or increasing
through 2010.
6. Increase wetland area by 10% in all states in PIF16 by 2010.
7. Identify and maintain shallow wetlands as rail migration habitat during
April-May and August-September.
8. Identify and maintain deepwater wetlands >20 ha (50 acres) in size for
migrating American White Pelican, Trumpeter Swans, and Bald Eagles
during March to May and August to November.
Wetland conservation opportunities
Private-public partnerships should be employed to increase the area of existing
wetland complexes. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan
(NAWMP) and Ducks Unlimited (DU) have been successful in protecting andrestoring wetland habitats, primarily for waterfowl; however, many other wetland
birds also benefit from these efforts. NAWMP and DU efforts in PIF16 arecoordinated through the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint
Venture, with headquarters in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s Region 3 office in
Minneapolis, Minnesota.
The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (www.manomet.org/USSCP) has
international, national, and regional goals focusing on stabilizing populations of
all shorebird species. The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan
(www.nacwcp.org) is dedicated to planning for sustainable populations,distributions, and habitats of waterbirds throughout North America, including
breeding, migratory, and wintering ranges. The Partners in Flight community will
be working with these other initiatives under the auspices of the North American
Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). The purpose of NABCI is to integrate
habitat conservation efforts to support sustainable populations of all priority
wetland avifauna in PIF16.
Evaluation of assumptions - research and monitoring
1. Adequately assess the status and distribution of Black and King Rails
43

throughout PIF16.
2. Research factors contributing to wetland bird population viability,
including basic biology and life history requirements of secretive marsh
birds, especially rails, and associations between landscape factors andindices of density and reproductive success.
3. Identify large wetland complexes in PIF16 as a basis for conservation
planning (all ecoregional subsections with >20% wetland cover).
Identify stop-over migration habitats for wetland birds to ensure thatkey links in the migration chain are not broken.
4. Model wetland habitat use and migration stop-over habitats using GIS
to enhance science-based management of bird habitats in PIF16.
5. Monitor populations to determine whether population objectives arebeing met. Adopt protocols similar to those used in the MarshMonitoring Program (Weeber and Vallianatos 2000) for monitoring
secretive wetland birds. Increase monitoring efforts for species whose
trends are unknown.
6. Identify cost-effective methods for identifying population sources inwetlands.
7. Develop policy recommendations that address economic incentives forprivate landowners to manage wetlands in accordance with birdconservation plans.
Outreach
1. Educate the public about the importance of wetlands to waterfowl andother wetland species.
2. Educate land managers about habitat requirements for waterfowl andother wetland species.
3. Work to build public-private partnerships to conserve and restore
habitats for high priority species. Partner with the USDA Natural
Resources Conservation Service to maximize wildlife benefits offederal incentive programs like the Wetland Reserve Program (WRP).
Work with the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint
Venture (UMRGLR JV) of the North American Waterfowl Management
Plan (NAWMP) to restore wetland habitats.
4. Recognize outstanding efforts to educate and to conserve habitat.
5. Partner with international groups to ensure adequate winter andmigration habitat for waterfowl and other wetland species.
Literature citedAlbert, D. A. 1995. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: aworking map and classification. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-178. U.S. Forest Service, North
Central Forest Experiment Station. St. Paul, Minnesota.
Alverson, W. S., W. Kuhlman, and D. M. Waller. 1994. Wild forests: conservation biology andpublic policy. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
Alverson, W. S., D. M. Waller, and S. L. Solheim. 1988. Forests too deer: edge effects in northern
Wisconsin. Conservation Biology 2:348-358.
thAmerican Ornithologists' Union. 1998. Check-list of North American birds, 7 edition. American

44Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.
Ammon, E. M., and P. B. Stacey. 1997. Avian nest success in relation to past grazing regimes ina montane riparian system. Condor 99:7-13.
Aquilani, S. M., D. C. LeBlanc, and T. E. Morrell. 2000. Effects of prescribed surface fires onground- and shrub-nesting neotropical migratory birds in a mature Indiana oak forest,
USA. Natural Areas Journal 20:317-324.
Axelsson, A. L., and L. Ostlund. 2001. Retrospective gap analysis in a Swedish boreal forest
landscape using historical data. Forest Ecology and Management 147:109-122.
ndBailey, R. G. 1995. Description of the ecoregions of the United States, 2 edition. U.S. Forest
Service Misc. Publ. 1391, Washington, D.C.
Bailey, R. G., P. E. Avers, T. King, and W. H. McNab, editors. 1994. Ecoregions and subregionsof the United States (map). U.S. Geological Survey, Washington, D.C.
Basili, G. D., and S. A. Temple. 1999. Winter ecology, behavior, and conservation needs ofDickcissels in Venezuela. Studies in Avian Biology 19:289-299.
Beissinger, S. R., J. M. Reed, J. M. Wunderle, S. K. Robinson, and D. M. Finch. 2000. Report of
the AOU Conservation Committee on the Partners in Flight species prioritization plan.
Auk 117:549-561.
Bergman, R. D., P. Swain, and M. W. Weller. 1970. A comparative study of nesting Forster's andBlack Terns. 82:435-444.
Best, L. B. 1978. Field Sparrow reproductive success and nesting ecology. Auk 95:9-22.
Best, L. B., H. Campa, K. E. Kemp, R. J. Robel, M. R. Ryan, J. A. Savidge, H. P. Weeks, and S.
R. Winterstein. 1997. Bird abundance and nesting in CRP fields and cropland in the
Midwest: a regional approach. Wildlife Society Bulletin 25:864-877.
Best, L. B., K. E. Freemark, J. J. Dinsmore, and M. Camp. 1995. A review and synthesis ofhabitat use by breeding birds in agricultural landscapes of Iowa. American Midland
Naturalist 134:1-29.
Bielefeldt, J., and R. N. Rosenfield. 1997. Reexamination of cowbird parasitism and edge effects
in Wisconsin forests. Journal of Wildlife Management 61:1222-1226.
Brawn, J. D. 1998. Effects of oak savanna restoration on avian populations and communities inIllinois. Illinois Natural History Survey. Champaign, Illinois.
Brennan, L. A. 1999. Northern Bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The
Birds of North America 397. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Brewer, R., G. McPeak, and J. Adams, R. 1991. The Atlas of Breeding Birds of Michigan.
Michigan State University Press, East Lansing, Michigan.
Brown, B. T. 1993. Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North
America 35. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Brown, M., and J. J. Dinsmore. 1986. Implications of marsh size and isolation for marsh bird
management. 50:392-397.
---. 1991. Area-dependent changes in bird densities in Iowa marshes. Journal of the Iowa
Academy of Science 98:124-126.
Budnik, J. M., M. R. Ryan, and F. R. Thompson. 2000. Demography of Bell's Vireos in Missouri
grassland-shrub habitats. Auk 117:925-935.
Buehler, D. A. 2000. Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The
Birds of North America 506. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Buehler, D. A., T. J. Mersmann, J. D. Fraser, and J. K. D. Seegar. 1991. Nonbreeding bald eagle
communal and solitary roosting behavior and roost habitat on the northern Chesapeake
Bay. Journal of Wildlife Management 55:273-281.
Carey, M., D. E. Burhans, and D. A. Nelson. 1994. Field Sparrow (Spizella pusilla). A. Poole and
F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America 103. Academy of Natural Sciences,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Carter, M. F., W. C. Hunter, D. N. Pashley, and K. V. Rosenberg. 2000. Setting conservation
priorities for landbirds in the United States: the Partners in Flight approach. Auk 117:541548.
Cavitt, J. F., and C. A. Haas. 2000. Brown Thrasher (Toxostoma rufum). A. Poole and F. Gill,
editors. The Birds of North America 557. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.

45

Chabot, A. A., R. D. Titman, and D. M. Bird. 2001. Habitat use by Loggerhead Shrikes in Ontario
and Quebec. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:916-925.
Colvin, B. A., and S. R. Spaulding. 1983. Winter foraging behavior of Short-eared Owls (Asioflammeus ) in Ohio. American Midland Naturalist 110:124-128.
Colwell, M. A. 1994. Wilson's Phalarope (Phalaropus tricolor). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The
Birds of North America 83. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Confer, J. L. 1992. Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors.
The Birds of North America 20. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Conway, C. J. 1999. Canada Warbler (Wilsonia canadensis). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. Birds
of North America 421. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of wetlands anddeepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington,
D.C.
Curtis, J. T. 1959. The vegetation of Wisconsin: an ordination of plant communities. University of
Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin.
Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetland Losses in the United States 1780's to 1980's. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. Washington, D.C.
Dugger, B. D., K. M. Dugger, and L. H. Fredrickson. 1994. Hooded Merganser (Lophodytes
cucullatus). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America 98. Academy of
Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Dunn, E. H., and D. J. Agro. 1995. Black Tern (Chlidonias niger). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors.
The Birds of North America 147. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Eddleman, W. R. 1994. Black Rail (Laterallus jamaicensis). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The
Birds of North America 123. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder's handbook. Simon and Schuster,Inc., New York, New York.
Evans Ogden, L. J., and B. J. Stutchbury. 1994. Hooded Warbler (Wilsonia citrina). A. Poole and
F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America 110. Academy of Natural Sciences,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Fairbairn, S. E., and J. J. Dinsmore. 2001. Local and landscape-level influences on wetland bird
communities of the prairie pothole region of Iowa, USA. Wetlands 21:41-47.
Fitzgerald, J., M. Winter, J. Herkert, and D. Pashley. In press. An approach to developing
conservation strategies for tallgrass prairie birds in the fragmented landscapes of theMidwestern United States. University of Arkansas Press, Fayetteville, Arkansas.
Friedmann, H. 1963. Host relations of the parasitic cowbirds. U. S. National Museum Bulletin 233.
Friedmann, H., and L. F. Kiff. 1985. The parasitic cowbirds and their hosts. Proceedings of theWestern Foundation of Vertebrate Zoology 2:225-304.
Friedmann, H., L. F. Kiff, and S. I. Rothstein. 1977. A further contribution to knowledge of the hostrelations of the parasitic cowbirds. Smithsonian Contributions to Zoology 235.
Gates, J. E., and D. R. Evans. 1998. Cowbirds breeding in the central Appalachians: spatial andtemporal patterns and habitat selection. Ecological Applications 8:27-40.
Glenn-Lewin, D. C., R. H. Laushman, and P. D. Whitson. 1984. The vegetation of the Paleozoic
Plateau, northeastern Iowa. Proceedings of the Iowa Academy of Sciences 91:22-27.
Goguen, C. B., and N. E. Mathews. 1998. Songbird community composition and nesting successin grazed and ungrazed pinyon-juniper woodlands. Journal of Wildlife Management
62:474-484.
---. 2000. Local gradients of cowbird abundance and parasitism relative to livestock grazing in awestern landscape. Conservation Biology 14:1862-1869.
Green, J. C. 1995. Birds and forests. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul,
Minnesota.
Gustafson, E. J., M. G. Knutson, G. J. Niemi, and M. Hammer Friberg. In press. Evaluation of
spatial models to predict vulnerability of forest birds to brood parasitism by Brown-headed
Cowbirds. Ecological Applications.
Haig, S. M. 1992. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus). A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill,46

editors. The Birds of North America 2. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Hamel, P. B. 1992. Cerulean warbler, Dendroica cerulea. Pages 385-400 in K. J. Schneider and
D. M. Pence, editors. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts.
---. 2000a. Cerulean Warbler (Dendroica cerulea). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North
America 511. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
---. 2000b. Cerulean Warbler Status Assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort Snelling,
Minnesota.
Hamerstrom, F. 1986. Harrier, hawk of the marshes: the hawk that is ruled by a mouse.
Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Hamerstrom, F. N., Jr., and F. Hamerstrom. 1957. A guide to Prairie Chicken management.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin 188. Madison, Wisconsin.
---. 1973. The Prairie Chicken in Wisconsin: highlights of a 22-year study of counts, behavior,
movements, turnover, and habitat. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
Technical Bulletin 64. Madison, Wisconsin.
Hands, H. M., R. D. Drobney, and M. R. Ryan. 1989. Status of the Black Rail in the northcentral
United States. Missouri Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, School of Forestry,
Fisheries, and Wildlife, University of Missouri. Columbia, Missouri.
Henny, C. J., F. R. Ward, K. E. Riddle, and R. M. Prouty. 1982. Migratory peregrine falcons,
Falco peregrinus, accumulate pesticides in Latin America during winter. Canadian FieldNaturalist 96:333-338.
Herkert, J. R. 1994a. The effects of habitat fragmentation on Midwestern grassland bird
communities. Ecological Applications 4:461-471.
---. 1994b. Status and habitat selection of the Henslow's Sparrow in Illinois. Wilson Bulletin
106:35-45.
---. 1995. An analysis of Midwestern breeding bird population trends: 1966-1993. American
Midland Naturalist 134:41-50.
---. 1997a. Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus population decline in agricultural landscapes in the
Midwestern USA. Biological Conservation 80:107-112.
---. 1997b. Population trends of the Henslow's Sparrow in relation to the Conservation Reserve
Program in Illinois, 1975-1995. Journal of Field Ornithology 68:235-244.
Herkert, J. R., R. D. A., D. A. Wiedenfeld, M. A. Winter, J. L. Zimmerman, W. E. Jensen, E. J.
Finck, D. H. Wolfe, S. K. Sherod, M. A. Jenkins, J. Faaborg, and S. K. Robinson. In prep.
A regional analysis of the effects of grassland fragmentation on nesting success ofbreeding birds.
Herkert, J. R., D. W. Sample, and R. E. Warner. 1996. Management of Midwestern grassland
landscapes for the conservation of migratory birds. Pages 89-116 in F. R. Thompson,
editor. Management of Midwestern landscapes for the conservation of neotropicalmigratory birds. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-187. U.S. Forest Service, North Central Forest
Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Herkert, J. R., S. A. Simpson, R. L. Westemeier, T. L. Esker, and J. W. Walk. 1999. Response of
Northern Harriers and Short-eared Owls to grassland management in Illinois. Journal of
Wildlife Management 63:517-523.
Holt, D. W., and S. M. Leasure. 1993. Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus). A. Poole and F. Gill,
editors. The Birds of North America 62. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Horak, G. J. 1985. Kansas Prairie Chickens. Wildlife Bulletin 3. Kansas Fish and Game
Commission. Pratt, Kansas.
Johnson, D. H., and L. D. Igl. 1999. Effects of management practices on grassland birds,
04JUN99. USGS Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center. Jamestown, North Dakota,
Home Page: http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/grasbird.htm.
---. 2001. Area requirements of grassland birds: a regional perspective. Auk 118:24-34.
Johnson, D. H., and M. D. Schwartz. 1993. The Conservation Reserve Program and grassland
birds. Conservation Biology 7:934-937.
Jones, R. E. 1963. Identification and analysis of Lesser and Greater Prairie-Chicken habitat.

47

Journal of Wildlife Management 27:757-778.
Junk, W. J., P. B. Bayley, and R. E. Sparks. 1989. The flood pulse concept in river-floodplain
systems. Canadian Special Publication of Fish and Aquatic Sciences 106:110-127.
Kennedy, E. D., and D. W. White. 1997. Bewick's Wren (Thryomanes bewickii). A. Poole and F.
Gill, editors. The Birds of North America 315. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Keppie, D. M. 1994. American Woodcock (Scolopax minor). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The
Birds of North America 100. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
King, D. I., C. R. Griffin, and R. M. DeGraaf. 1998. Nest predator distribution among clearcut
forest, forest edge and forest interior in an extensively forested landscape. Forest
Ecology and Management 104:151-156.
Kirk, D. A., and C. Hyslop. 1998. Population status and recent trends in Canadian raptors: a
review. Biological Conservation 83:91-118.
Kirsch, L. M. 1974. Habitat management considerations for Prairie Chickens. Wildlife Society
Bulletin 2:124-129.
Kline, V. M. 1997. Orchards of oak and a sea of grass. Pages 3-21 in S. Packard and C. F. Mutel,
editors. The tallgrass restoration handbook for prairies, savannas, and woodlands. Island
Press, Washington, D.C.
Knick, S. T., and J. T. Rotenberry. 2000. Ghosts of habitats past: contribution of landscapechange to current habitats used by shrubland birds. Ecology 81:220-227.
Knutson, M. G., M. Hammer-Friberg, G. J. Niemi, and W. E. Newton. In prep. Forest songbird
nest survival in a forest/grassland transition zone.
Knutson, M. G., R. K. Hines, C. M. Sveum, T. J. Fox, and C. E. Korschgen. 1999. Floodplain
forest songbirds of the Upper Mississippi River. Passenger Pigeon 61:307-310.
Knutson, M. G., J. P. Hoover, and E. E. Klaas. 1996. The importance of floodplain forests in theconservation and management of neotropical migratory birds in the Midwest. Pages 168188 in F. R. Thompson, editor. Management of Midwestern landscapes for theconservation of neotropical migratory birds. General Technical Report NC-187. U.S.
Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station, St. Paul, Minnesota.
Knutson, M. G., and E. E. Klaas. 1997. Declines in abundance and species richness of birds
following a major flood on the Upper Mississippi River. Auk 114:367-380.
---. 1998. Floodplain forest loss and changes in forest community composition and structure in theUpper Mississippi River: a wildlife habitat at risk. Natural Areas Journal 18:138-150.
Kroodsma, D. E., and J. Verner. 1997. Marsh Wren (Cistothorus palustris). A. Poole and F. Gill,
editors. Birds of North America 308. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Large, A. R. G., and G. E. Petts. 1994. Rehabilitation of river margins. Pages 401-418 in P.
Calow and G. E. Petts, editors. The rivers handbook: hydological and ecologicalprinciples. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, United Kingdom.
Leach, M. K., and T. J. Givnish. 1999. Gradients in the composition, structure, and diversity of
remnant oak savannas in southern Wisconsin. Ecological Monographs 69:353-374.
Legare, M. L., and W. R. Eddleman. 2001. Home range size, nest-site selection and nesting
success of Black Rails in Florida. Journal of Field Ornithology 72:170-177.
Livingston, S. A., C. S. Todd, W. B. Krohn, and R. B. Owen, Jr. 1990. Habitat models for nesting
Bald Eagles in Maine. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:644-653.
Longcore, J. R. 2000. American Black Duck (Anas rubripes). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The
Birds of North America 481. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
MacWhirter, R. B., and K. L. Bildstein. 1996. Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus). A. Poole and F.
Gill, editors. The Birds of North America 210. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Marks, J. S., D. L. Evans, and D. W. Holt. 1994. Long-eared Owl (Asio otus). A. Poole and F. Gill,
editors. The Birds of North America 133. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Martin, S. G., and T. A. Gavin. 1995. Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). A. Poole and F. Gill,
editors. The Birds of North America 176. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.

48

McClain, W. E., and S. L. Elinga. 1994. The occurrence of prairie and forest fires in Illinois andother Midwestern states, 1679-1854. Erigenia 13:79-90.
McDonald, M. V. 1998. Kentucky Warbler (Oporornis formosus). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The
Birds of North America 324. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
McKee, G., M. R. Ryan, and L. M. Mechlin. 1998. Predicting Greater Prairie-Chicken nest
success from vegetation and landscape characteristics. Journal of Wildlife Management
62:314-321.
McNab, W. H., and P. E. Avers. 1994. Ecological subregions of the United States. U.S. Forest
Service, WO-WSA-5. Washington, D.C.
McNicholl, M. K. 1982. Factors affecting reproductive success of Forster's Terns at Delta Marsh,
Manitoba. Colonial Waterbirds 5:32-38.
McPherson, G. 1997. Ecology and management of North American savannas. University of
Arizona Press, Phoenix, Arizona.
Meanley, B. 1992. King Rail (Rallus elegans). A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, editors. The
Birds of North America 3. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Merrill, M. D., K. A. Chapman, K. A. Poiani, and B. Winter. 1999. Land-use patterns surrounding
Greater Prairie-Chicken leks in northwestern Minnesota. Journal of Wildlife Management
63:189-198.
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. 1994a. Natural communities and rare species of
Houston County. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources. St. Paul, Minnesota.
---. 1994b. Natural communities and rare species of Winona County. Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources. St. Paul, Minnesota.
Mitchell, C. D. 1994. Trumpeter Swan (Cygnus buccinator). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The
Birds of North America 105. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
nd
Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands, 2 edition. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York, New York.
Morris, D. L., and F. R. Thompson, III. 1998. Effects of habitat and invertebrate density on
abundance and foraging behavior of Brown-headed Cowbirds. Auk 115:376-385.
Morse, D. H. 1994. Blackburnian Warbler (Dendroica fusca). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The
Birds of North America 102. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Mowbray, T. B. 1997. Swamp sparrow (Melospiza georgiana). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The
Birds of North America 279. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Naugle, D. E., R. R. Johnson, M. E. Estey, and K. F. Higgins. 2001. A landscape approach toconserving wetland bird habitat in the prairie pothole region of eastern South Dakota.
Wetlands 21:1-17.
Naugler, C. T. 1993. American Tree Sparrow (Spizella arborea). A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F.
Gill, editors. The Birds of North America 37. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Nelson, J. C., R. E. Sparks, L. DeHaan, and L. Robinson, editors. 1998. Presettlement andcontemporary vegetation patterns along two navigation reaches of the Upper Mississippi
River. USGS Biological Resources Division, Reston, Virginia.
Niemuth, N. D. 2000. Land use and vegetation associated with Greater Prairie-Chicken leks in an
agricultural landscape. Journal of Wildlife Management 64:278-286.
Noss, R. F., E. T. LaRoe, III, and J. M. Scott. 1995. Endangered ecosystems of the United States:
a preliminary assessment of loss and degradation. USDI, National Biological Service.
Washington, D.C.
Novak, P. G. 1992. Black Tern Chlidonias niger. Pages 149-169 in K. J. Schneider and D. M.
Pence, editors. Migratory nongame birds of management concern in the Northeast. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Newton Corner, Massachusetts.
Nuzzo, V. A. 1985. Extent and status of Midwest oak savanna: presettlement and 1985. Natural
Areas Journal 6:6-36.
Oliarnyk, C. J., and R. J. Robertson. 1996. Breeding behavior and reproductive success of
Cerulean Warblers in southeastern Ontario. Wilson Bulletin 108:673-684.
Packard, S. 1988. Just a few oddball species: restoration and rediscovery of the tallgrass prairie.
Restoration and Management Notes 6:13-22.
---. 1991. Rediscovering the tallgrass savanna of Illinois. in G. V. Burger, J. E. Ebinger, and G. S.

49

Wilhelm, editors. Proceedings of the Oak Woods Management Workshop. Eastern Illinois
University, Charleston, Illinois.
---. 1993. Restoring oak ecosystems. Restoration and Management Notes 11:5-16.
Patten, M. A., and J. C. Burger. 1998. Spruce budworm outbreaks and the incidence of vagrancy
in eastern North American wood-warblers. Canadian Journal of Zoology 76:433-439.
Petit, L. J. 1999. Prothonotary Warbler (Protonotaria citrea). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The
Birds of North America 408. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Pitocchelli, J. 1993. Mourning Warbler (Oporornis philadelphia). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The
Birds of North America 72. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Poiani, K. A., M. D. Merrill, and K. A. Chapman. 2001. Identifying conservation-priority areas in a
fragmented Minnesota landscape based on the umbrella species concept and selectionof large patches of natural vegetation. Conservation Biology 15:513-522.
Popotnik, G. J., and W. M. Giuliano. 2000. Response of birds to grazing of riparian zones. Journalof Wildlife Management 64:976-982.
Pruitt, L. 1996. Henslow's Sparrow status assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort
Snelling, Minnesota.
---. 2000. Loggerhead Shrike status assessment. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Fort Snelling,
Minnesota.
Pusateri, W. P., D. M. Roosa, and D. R. Farrar. 1993. Habitat and distribution of plants special to
Iowa's Driftless Area. Journal of the Iowa Academy of Sciences 100:29-53.
Ribic, C. A., and D. W. Sample. 2001. Associations of grassland birds with landscape factors insouthern Wisconsin. American Midland Naturalist 146:105-121.
Rising, J. D., and N. J. Flood. 1998. Baltimore Oriole (Icterus galbula). A. Poole and F. Gill,
editors. The Birds of North America 384. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Robbins, C. S., D. K. Dawson, and B. A. Dowell. 1989. Habitat area requirements of breeding
forest birds of the Middle Atlantic States. Wildlife Monographs 103:1-34.
Robbins, C. S., J. W. Fitzpatrick, and P. B. Hamel. 1992. A warbler in trouble: Dendroica cerulea.
Pages 549-562 in J. M. Hagan, III and D. W. Johnston, editors. Ecology and conservationof neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C.
Robbins, M. B., B. R. Barber, and K. Zyskowski. 1998. Census of Cerulean Warblers along theUpper Current River, with comments on the status of other riparian species. Bluebird
65:10-16.
Robel, R., J. Briggs, J. Cebula, N. Silvey, C. Viers, and P. Watt. 1970. Greater Prairie-Chicken
ranges, movements, and habitat usage in Kansas. Journal of Wildlife Management
34:286--306.
Robinson, S. K., E. J. Heske, and J. D. Brawn. 1999. Factors affecting the nest success of edge
and shrubland birds. Final Report, Federal Aid Project W-125-R. Illinois Department of
Natural Resources. Springfield, Illinois.
Robinson, S. K., F. R. Thompson, III, T. M. Donovan, D. R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995.
Regional forest fragmentation and the nesting success of migratory birds. Science
267:1987-1990.
Robinson, W. D. 1995. Louisiana waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors.
The Birds of North America 151. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Rodenhouse, N. L., L. B. Best, R. J. O'Connor, and E. K. Bollinger. 1995. Effects of agricultural
practices and farmland structures. Pages 269-293 in T. E. Martin and D. M. Finch,
editors. Ecology and management of neotropical migratory birds. Oxford University
Press, New York, New York.
Rodewald, P. G., and R. D. James. 1996. Yellow-throated Vireo (Vireo flavifrons). A. Poole and F.
Gill, editors. The Birds of North America 247. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Rodewald, P. G., and K. G. Smith. 1998. Short-term effects of understory and overstory
management on breeding birds in Arkansas oak-hickory forests. Journal of Wildlife
Management 62:1411-1417.
Rosenberg, K. V., S. B. Barker, and R. W. Rohrbaugh. 2000. An atlas of Cerulean Warbler

50

populations. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, New York.
Roth, R. R., M. S. Johnson, and T. J. Underwood. 1996. Wood Thrush (Hylocichla mustelina). A.
Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America 246. Academy of Natural Sciences,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Ryan, M. R., L. W. Burger, D. P. Jones, and A. P. Wywialowski. 1998a. Breeding ecology ofGreater Prairie-Chickens (Tympanuchus cupido) in relation to prairie landscapeconfiguration. American Midland Naturalist 140:111-121.
Ryan, M. R., L. W. Burger, and E. W. Kurzejeski. 1998b. The impact of CRP on avian wildlife: areview. Journal of Production Agriculture 11:61-66.
Sample, D. W., and M. J. Mossman. 1997. Managing habitat for grassland birds: a guide for
Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, Wisconsin.
Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2001. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results
and analysis 1966-2000. Version 2001.2. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center.
Laurel, Maryland.
Sauer, J. R., S. Schwartz, and B. Hoover. 1996. The Christmas Bird Count Home Page. Version
95.1. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center. Laurel, Maryland.
Schroeder, M. A., and L. A. Robb. 1993. Greater Prairie-Chicken (Tympanuchus cupido). A.
Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America 36. Academy of Natural Sciences,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Sedgwick, J. A. 2000. Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The
Birds of North America 533. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Shaw, D. C., and K. Bible. 1996. An overview of forest canopy ecosystem functions withreference to urban and riparian systems. Northwest Science 70:1-6.
Short, H. L., and L. C. Drew. 1962. Observations concerning behavior, feeding, and pellets ofShort-eared Owls. American Midland Naturalist 67:424-433.
Shuford, W. D. 1999. Status assessment and conservation plan of the Black Tern (Chlidonias
niger surinamensis) in North America. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Denver, Colorado.
Smith, K. G. 2000. Red-headed Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus). A. Poole and F. Gill,
editors. The Birds of North America 518. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Sparks, R. E., J. C. Nelson, and Y. Yin. 1998. Naturalization of the flood regime in regulated
rivers: the case of the Upper Mississippi River. BioScience 48:706-720.
Spencer, O. R. 1943. Nesting habits of the Black-billed Cuckoo. Wilson Bulletin 55:11-22.
Stauffer, D. F., and L. B. Best. 1980. Habitat selection by birds of riparian communities:
evaluating effects of habitat alteration. Journal of Wildlife Management 44:1-15.
Steiner, F., S. Pieart, E. Cook, J. Rich, and V. Coltman. 1994. State wetlands and riparian area
protection programs. Environmental Management 18:183-201.
Swengel, S. R., and A. B. Swengel. 2001. Relative effects of litter and management on grassland
bird abundance in Missouri, USA. Bird Conservation International 11:113-128.
Tacha, T. C., S. A. Nesbitt, and P. A. Voh. 1992. Sandhill Crane (Grus canadensis). A. Poole and
F. Gill, editors. The Birds of North America 31. Academy of Natural Sciences,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Taft, J. B. 1997. Savanna and open woodland communities. Pages 24-54 in M. W. Schwartz,
editor. Conservation in highly fragmented landscapes. Chapman and Hall, New York,New York.
Thompson, F. R., J. D. Brawn, S. Robinson, J. Faaborg, and R. L. Clawson. 2000. Approaches toinvestigate effects of forest management on birds in eastern deciduous forests: Howreliable is our knowledge? Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:1111-1122.
Thompson, F. R., III. 1994. Temporal and spatial patterns of breeding Brown-headed Cowbirds in
the Midwestern United States. Auk 111:979-990.
Timoney, K. 1999. The habitat of nesting Whooping Cranes. Biological Conservation 89:189-197.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Upper Mississippi River/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem Action
Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 3. St. Paul, Minnesota.
---. 1998. North American Waterfowl Management Plan: Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes
Region Joint Venture implementation plan update. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region
3. Fort Snelling, Minnesota.

51

---. 1999. Fish and Wildlife Resource Conservation Priorities, Region 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Region 3. Fort Snelling, Minnesota.
U.S. Geological Survey. 1999. Ecological status and trends of the Upper Mississippi River
System 1998: a report of the Long Term Resource Monitoring Program. USGS Upper
Midwest Environmental Sciences Center. La Crosse, Wisconsin.
Voous, K. H. 1988. Owls of the northern hemisphere. William Collins Sons and Co., Ltd., London,
United Kingdom.
Walk, J. W. 1998. Winter roost sites of Northern Harriers and Short-eared Owls on Illinois
grasslands. Journal of Raptor Research 32:116-119.
Walk, J. W., and R. E. Warner. 1999. Effects of habitat area on the occurrence of grassland birds
in Illinois. American Midland Naturalist 141:339-344.
---. 2000. Grassland management for the conservation of songbirds in the Midwestern USA.
Biological Conservation 94:165-172.
Weeber, R., and M. Vallianatos, editors. 2000. The Marsh Monitoring Program 1995-1999:
monitoring Great Lakes wetlands and their amphibian and bird inhabitants. Bird Studies
of Canada in cooperation with Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Port Rowan, Onatario, Canda.
Wiener, J. G., C. R. Fremling, C. E. Korschgen, K. P. Kenow, E. M. Kirsch, S. J. Rogers, Y. Yin,
and J. S. Sauer. 1998. Mississippi River. M. J. Mac, P. A. Opler, C. E. P. Haecker, and P.
D. Doran, editors. Status and trends of the Nation's biological resources. USGS
Biological Resources Division, Reston, Virginia.
Williams, J. M. 1996. Nashville warbler (Vermivora ruficapilla). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The
Birds of North America 205. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Winter, M., and J. Faaborg. 1999. Patterns of area sensitivity in grassland-nesting birds.
Conservation Biology 13:1424-1436.
Yin, Y., J. C. Nelson, and K. S. Lubinski. 1997. Bottomland hardwood forests along the Upper
Mississippi River. Natural Areas Journal 17:164-173.
Yosef, R. 1996. Loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus). A. Poole and F. Gill, editors. The Birds
of North America 231. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.

52

Appendix A. Important Bird Areasa in the Upper Great Lakes Plain (PIF16).
Name

State

Illinois Beach State ParkIL

DesigbnationN

Dugger Wildlife
Area/Minnehaha State Fish andWildlife Area
Gibson Lake
Jasper-Pulaski Fish andWildlife Area
Jefferson Proving Ground
Indiana Shoreline of Lake
MichiganMuscatuck National Wildlife
RefugeErie MarshIN

G>320 nesting Henslow’s Sparrows (> 1% of
population), example of reclaimed mine land

IN
IN

G
G

>1% Interior Least Terns> 32,000 Greater Sandhill Cranes in migration

IN
IN

G
G

> 942 nesting Henslow’s Sparrows, 55,264 acres
Waterfowl, migration stopover for Piping Plover

IN

C

MI

G

Fish Point Wildlife Area
Muskegon Wastewater System
Nananquing Point Wildlife Area

MI
MI
MI

G
G
C

Shiawassee National Wildlife
RefugeWalkinshaw Wetlands
Bernard W. Baker Sanctuary
Karn Plant
Lake Erie Metropark
Metrobeach Metropark
Pt. Mouillee
St. Clair River and Lake St.
Clair
Cedar Point National Wildlife
RefugeKillibuck Marsh Wildlife Area
Magee Marsh State Wildlife
Area
Metzger Marsh Wildlife Area
Ottawa National Wildlife
RefugeWest Sister Island

MI

G

Canada Geese (St. James Bay pop.) migration
and wintering habitat
Forster’s Tern and Black-bellied Plover migration
stopover>5,000 Tundra Swans, >30,000 other waterfowl>50,000 waterfowl
Diving ducks (Lesser Scaup, Canvasback) during
migration> 48,000 waterfowl, 8,984 acres

MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI
MI

G
G
G
G
G
G
G

OH

GNL

OH
OH

G
GNL

OH
OH

GNL
G

OH

CNL

East Lake (Lake Erie)OH

G

Headlands Beach State Parkand Fairport Harbor
Mouth of Huron River
Lakeshore Metropark(Cleveland)

OH

G

OH
OH

G
G

53

Justification
Ducks and Geese (>10,000)>3% of Greater Sandhill Crane population>1,000 Sandhill Cranes during fall migration>20,000 Common Mergansers
Hawk migration>19,000 Canvasback in winterMigrating ducks, terns, shorebirds>10,000 wintering Redheads, >14,000
Canvasback in migration>25,000 waterfowl>26,000 waterfowl
Migrants, adjoins Ottawa National Wildlife
Refuge>50,000 shorebirds, >50,000 ducks>100,000 waterfowl, 8,316 acres of marsh,
shorebird fall migration
Heron/egret rookery said to be largest in GreatLakes>20,000 Bonaparte’s Gulls, > 50,000 Redbreasted Mergansers>10,000 Bonaparte’s Gulls, 700-1,600 Common
Terns, >75,000 Red-breasted Mergansers>40,000 Bonaparte’s Gulls>9,500 Bonaparte’s Gulls, >5,000 Common
Goldeneyes, > 4,000 Common Mergansers,>15,000 Herring Gulls, >40,000 Red-breasted
Mergansers

Name

State

Lorain (lake off Lorain)OH

DesigbnationG

Medusa Marsh
Horicon National Wildlife
RefugeOH
WI

G
G

Menominee County
Northern Kettle Moraine State
ForestUpper Mississippi River
National Wildlife and Fish
Refuge and Trempealeau
National Wildlife Refuge

WI
WI

SNL

WI,
MN,
IA, ILG

Justification>17,000 Red-breasted Mergansers, >600
Caspian Terns, >600 Common Terns, >50,000
Ring-billed Gulls, >5,000 Bonaparte’s Gulls>2500 Pectoral Sandpiper>100,000 waterfowl, shorebird migration,
RAMSAR site (globally important wetland),
12,911 acres
Breeding warblers
Large concentrations of passerines> 16,900 Tundra Swan, > 136,000 Canvasbacks,>96,700 Lesser Scaup, >270,000 waterfowl
during migration, >5,700 pairs Great Blue Heron,concentrations of nesting Neotropical migrants,
78,500 ha (200,000 acres) of wetlands

aDesignated by the American Bird Conservancy (C. Chipley, pers. comm.).
bG=Global, C=Continental, N=National, and L=Local significance.

54Appendix B. Bird species listed as threatened, endangered, or special
concern by states in the Upper Great Lakes Plain (PIF16) during 2001a.
Common Name

IA

IL

IN

MI

MN

OH

WI

Piping Plover
Henslow’s Sparrow
Short-eared Owl
King Rail
Bald Eagle
Peregrine Falcon# ofStates
7
7
7
7
7
7

E
T
E
E
E
E

E
E
E
E
T
E

E
E
E
E
E
E

E
T
E
E
T
E

E
E
SC
E
SC
T

E
SC
SC
E
E
E

Northern Harrier
Barn Owl
Red-shouldered Hawk

6
6
6

E
E
E

E
E
T

E
E
SC

SC
E
T

Cerulean Warbler
Trumpeter SwanBlack Tern
Forster’s Tern
Loggerhead Shrike
Black-crowned Night-Heron
OspreyCommon Tern

5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5

SC
E
E

SC
T
SC
SC

Upland Sandpiper
Wilson’s Phalarope
Long-eared Owl
Hooded Warbler
American Bittern
Bewick’s Wren
Least Bittern
Yellow-crowned Nt-Heron
Common Moorhen

4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4

Greater Prairie-Chicken
Louisiana Waterthrush
Sandhill Crane
Marsh Wren
Northern Goshawk
Least Tern
Yellow-headed Blackbird
Snowy Egret
Kirtland’s Warbler
Yellow Rail

3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3

American Black DuckGolden-winged Warbler
Dickcissel
Acadian Flycatcher
Worm-eating Warbler
Sedge Wren
American White Pelican
Black-backed Woodpecker
Yellow-throated Warbler
Virginia Rail

2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

SC
SC

E
E
T
E
E
E
E
E

E
E
E

SC
E
E
E
E

E

E
E
E

E
E
E
E
E

E
E

SC
E
T

19
18
16

19
18
15

SC
T

SC
E
E

T
E

25
24
20
19
17
16
15
13

24
19
13
-

SC
T

T

22
22
17
20
18
18
18
17
15

21
-

26
21
20
19
18
17
17
13
-

26
17
19
m
m

21
25
23
22
22
21
20
19
18

26
20
15

E
T
E
E
T

SC
T
SC
SC

T
SC
SC

T
SC

SC

SC

SC
SC

E
T

16 W
c
Score
23
19
17

SC

E

T
E
E
T
E
T

SC
T
T

E
T
SC
SC
SC/FL
E

16 B
b
Score
29
28
19
19
17
18

E
E
E
E
SC

SC
SC
SC
T
E
T

T
SC
E
SC
SC

SC
SC

E
E
SC
T
E

SC

SC
E
T

E
E
SC

T
SC
E

E

E

SC

SC
SC
SC
E

T
E
E

SC

SC
SC
E

SC
T
E

55

SC

Common Name
Sharp-shinned Hawk
Western Meadowlark
Cooper’s Hawk
Lark Sparrow
MerlinGreat Egret
Cattle Egret
Caspian Tern
Little Blue Heron
Nelson’s Sharp-t Sparrow# ofStates
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2

Bachman’s Sparrow
Mississippi Kite
Sharp-tailed Grouse
Spruce Grouse

2
2
2
2

Black RailBell’s Vireo
Kentucky Warbler
Prothonotary Warbler
RedheadCanada Warbler
Swainson’s Hawk
Grasshopper Sparrow
Prairie Warbler
Canvasback
Brown Creeper
Red-necked Grebe
Yellow-breasted Chat
Lesser Scaup
Common Snipe
Purple Martin
Horned Grebe
Northern Saw-whet Owl
Pied-billed Grebe
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
Common Goldeneye
Dark-eyed Junco
Black-and-white Warbler
Broad-winged Hawk
Northern Waterthrush
Winter Wren
Evening Grosbeak
Hermit Thrush
Double-crested Cormorant
Sora
Pine Siskin
Common Loon
Swainson’s Thrush
Tennessee Warbler
Franklin’s Gull
Le Conte’s Sparrow
Little Gull
Marbled Godwit

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

IA

IL

IN
SC
SC

MI

MN

OH

16 W
c
Score
14
15
16
m
m
m

SC
T

-

-

26
23
22
22
19
21
20
19
19
15
18
18
14
17
16
16
16
15
14
14
14
13
12
11
-

21
19
18
18
17
17
16
13
16
16
14
13
10
M
M
M
m
m
m
m

SC
SC
SC
E
T

SC
T
T
E

SC
SC
SC
T
SC
E

E
SC

E

SC

16 B
b
Score
17
17
16
16
14
9
-

WI

E
SC

SC
SC
SC

E
T
T
SC
SC
E
E
SC
E
SC
T
E
SC
SC
SC
SC
T
SC
T
E
SC
E
SC
SC
E
E
SC
E
SC
SC
SC
T
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC
SC

56

Common Name
Yellow-bellied Flycatcher# ofStates
1

IA

IL

IN

MI

MN

OH

WI
SC

16 B
b
Score
-

16 W
c
Score
m

Baird’s Sparrow
1
E
Black Vulture
1
SC
Burrowing Owl
1
E
Chestnut-coll. Longspur
1
E
Chuck-Will’s-Widow
1
SC
Great Gray Owl
1
SC
Magnolia Warbler
1
E
Sprague’s Pipit
1
E
Swainson’s Warbler
1Ea
E = Endangered; T = Threatened; SC = Special Concern; SC/FL = Special Concern in the statebecause it is federally listed.
b
PIF16 total score (breeding).
c
PIF16 total score (wintering), M = regularly migrates through PIF16 but not present for breedingor wintering, m = rarely or irregularly observed in PIF16 but not present for breeding or wintering.

57

Appendix C: Partners in Flight species assessment and criteria for priority
ranking.
The Partners in Flight species assessment was first developed in 1991 and has
been continually reviewed and refined in the years following its inception(Beissinger et al. 2000, Carter et al. 2000). The system ranks each species ofNorth American breeding bird based upon six measures of conservation
vulnerability and one measure of conservation responsibility (importance ofarea). These vulnerability factors include (1) relative abundance, (2) size of
breeding range, (3) size of nonbreeding range, (4) threats to the species inbreeding areas, (5) threats to the species in nonbreeding areas, and (6)population trend. Each species is given a score of 1-5 in each category, with 1
indicating the least amount of vulnerability and 5 the most. Scores in eachcategory are then summed to produce a composite score with a potential range
from 7-35. Species with high overall scores are considered most vulnerable toextinction (though many are not listed as threatened or endangered) and needcareful monitoring across their ranges.
One of the most influential factors for determining species of conservation priority
is the species’ population trend. It is important to focus active management inthose areas where declines can be stabilized or reversed. Species whose
populations are declining range-wide may or may not be declining in a given
planning unit. Area Importance scores identify areas where a high proportion of
the population is found. Relative abundance scores in the PIF prioritization
scheme are independent of the size of the planning unit, but percentage of
population is not. Thus, relative abundance could be the same in a 100,000 and
200,000 sq. kilometer planning unit, but the percentage of the population would
be twice as great in the latter.
After calculating a total composite score within the planning unit for each species,
the following criteria identify priority species. Species are listed according to thefirst criteria they meet, although they may qualify under several criteria:
I. The species’ total score is >22 and it occurs in the region in manageable
numbers (i.e., AI>1).
IIa. The species’ total score is 19-21, with the sum of Area Importance (AI)and Population Trend (PT) >8. Thus, species with moderate total
scores and moderate relative abundances in the planning unit areincluded only if their population trends are declining significantly. A
species with high relative abundance in the area is included if its
population trend is unknown or declining.
IIb. The species’ total score is 19-21, and the percentage of its total
population breeding in the planning unit is >8%. Planning units withlarge proportions of the population have more influence on a species’
global population than do areas with smaller numbers of individuals.

58IIc. The species’ total score is 19-21, and threats during the breeding andnonbreeding seasons (TB + TN)>5, or the local TB or TN=5.
III. The species is a PIF “Watch List” species with an AI>2. (The Watch List
includes species with the highest PIF priority rankings across their
entire range. Most Watch List species also qualify under criteria I or
II.)
IV. A species is federally listed as threatened or endangered. Most of these
are included in one of the above categories.
V. A species is of local management interest because it is hunted, has othersocioeconomic or cultural values, is state listed, or is listed in anotherconservation plan.
Partners in Flight species priority lists for all species and conservation areas areavailable on the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory’s home page:
http://www.rmbo.org.

59