Upper Mississippi / 

Great Lakes Joint Venture

Landbird Habitat Conservation 

Strategy – 2020 Revision
Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture

Landbird Habitat Conservation Strategy – 2020 Revision

Joint VentureLandbird Committee Members:

Kelly VanBeek, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Migratory Birds), Co-chair 

Chris Tonra, The Ohio State University, Co-chair

Mohammed Al-Saffar, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Joint Venture)

Dave Ewert, American Bird Conservancy

Erin Gnass Giese, University of Wisconsin – Green Bay

Allisyn-Marie Gillet, Indiana Dept. of Natural Resources

Shawn Graff, American Bird Conservancy

Jim Herkert, Illinois Audubon

Sarah Kendrick, Missouri Dept. of Conservation

Mark Nelson, U.S.D.A. Forest Service

Katie O’Brien, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Migratory Birds)

Greg Soulliere, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Joint Venture)

Wayne Thogmartin, U.S. Geological Survey

Mike Ward, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign

Tom Will, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Migratory Birds)

Recommended citation: Soulliere, G. J., M. A. Al-Saffar, K. R. VanBeek, C. M. Tonra, 

M. D. Nelson, D. N. Ewert, T. Will, W. E. Thogmartin, K. E. O’Brien, S. W. Kendrick, 

A. M. Gillet, J. R. Herkert, E. E. Gnass Giese, M. P. Ward, and S. Graff. 2020. Upper 

Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture Landbird Habitat Conservation Strategy – 2020 

Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota, USA.

Cover photo: Whip-poor-will, by Ian Sousa-Cole.
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

STRATEGY SUMMARY ..................................................................................................1

Acknowledgements.......................................................................................................2

CALL TO ACTION............................................................................................................3

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ....................................................................................7

Regional Overview..........................................................................................................8

Pre-European Settlement and Current Land Cover ........................................................9

Relationship to Other Conservation Plans ...................................................................12

Landbird Stakeholder Surveys....................................................................................12

STRATEGIC HABITAT CONSERVATION ....................................................................13

Biological Planning.......................................................................................................14

Focal Species and Habitat Associations ......................................................................14

Land Cover and Habitat Assessment...........................................................................18

Conservation Estate ...................................................................................................20

Conservation Design .....................................................................................................22

Integrating Social Objectives......................................................................................22

Adapting to System Change .......................................................................................24

Habitat Delivery............................................................................................................24

Habitat Quantity vs. Quality.......................................................................................25

Conservation Categories and Reporting ......................................................................25

Monitoring and Research...............................................................................................27

FULL ANNUAL CYCLE.................................................................................................27

Breeding .......................................................................................................................28

Molt..............................................................................................................................28

Migration......................................................................................................................28

Overwintering ...............................................................................................................30

Airspace – All Seasons..................................................................................................31

HABITAT CHAPTERS....................................................................................................33

Watch List Prioritization and Goals................................................................................34

Grassland Birds.............................................................................................................37

Population and Habitat Objectives..............................................................................40

Conservation Design..................................................................................................41
ii

Habitat Delivery ........................................................................................................44

Forest Birds ..................................................................................................................51

Population and Habitat Objectives..............................................................................55

Conservation Design..................................................................................................56

Habitat Delivery ........................................................................................................58

Urban Birds and Developed Lands.................................................................................64

Biological Foundation................................................................................................66

Urban Conservation and Bird Cities ...........................................................................68

MONITORING AND RESEARCH...................................................................................70

Monitoring Needs .........................................................................................................72

Research Needs.............................................................................................................74

COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH.......................................................................77

TIMETABLE AND COORDINATION ............................................................................80

LITERATURE CITED .....................................................................................................81

APPENDICES..................................................................................................................95

Appendix A. Common and scientific names of birds......................................................96

Appendix B. Class descriptions from 2016 National Land Cover Database.....................97

Appendix C. Descriptions of Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs)...................................99

Appendix D. Planning focal species habitat accounts................................................... 103

Appendix E. Breeding focal species BCR abundance estimates, trends, and goals......... 121

Appendix F. Integration of biological and social objectives.......................................... 127

Appendix G. Check list of community-based (Bird City) conservation actions.............. 129
1

STRATEGY SUMMARY

The goal of this revised Joint Venture (JV) Landbird Habitat Conservation Strategy 

(Strategy) is to guide regional conservation that results in habitat to support populations of 

priority landbird species and related social values, consistent with continental bird 

conservation goals. Priority birds include JV focal species used for regional planning, as 

well as other species considered a high conservation concern by JV partners. The target 

audience includes those involved with planning, developing, and implementing landbird 

conservation at state and Bird Conservation Region (BCR) scales. However, information 

presented in this Strategy should also help clarify potential roles for local-scale managers, 

leading to best practices for work areas within a regional context. New to this iteration of the

Strategy is organization by grassland- and forest-bird habitats. Also new is emphasis on 

people and the role of human dimensions research to guide bird conservation. For example, 

the document includes a novel chapter regarding conservation of urban birds and developed 

lands.

Unlike the 2007 JV Landbird Strategy, with its continental top-down approach, this revision 

provides far more regional-scale information regarding land cover (and bird habitat) change, 

landscape ecology, and important threats to birds. The Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC)

section conveys a regional overview for each SHC planning component, whereas sections 

devoted to grasslands, forests, and urban birds offer guild-specific information and 

objectives, along with a conservation design to target bird habitat delivery. Due to the vast 

diversity of landbird species and habitats, ecological systems, land-use patterns, and 

conservation opportunities across this large JV region, recommendations provided for bird 

habitat actions are general. However, links to online resources provided throughout the 

document offer supplementary conservation information and management examples. Joint 

Venture scientists also plan to assist conservation partners developing smaller-scale tactical 

bird-habitat delivery plans with more explicit management actions upon request. 

In This Strategy

• A Call to Action reviews global, continental, and regional conditions resulting in loss of 

biological diversity and declining bird abundance, as well as prospective JV responses. 

• Estimates of landbird focal species population sizes and distributions, estimates of landcover distribution and area important to primary landbird guilds, and assessment of 

abundance and distribution of people throughout the JV region. 

• Regional landbird population and habitat trends, review of full annual cycle management 

considerations, and assessment of bird habitat threats likely to limit population growth for 

species of high conservation concern. 

• Biological models and maps displaying landscape designs to more effectively target 

grassland and forest conservation actions intended to reverse landbird population 

declines. 

• Detailed technical information, including focal species habitat needs, along with breeding 

focal species 10- and 30-year population goals linked to the continental Partners in Flight 

Landbird Conservation Plan. 
2

• Summary of Regional Management Actions at the end of the grassland, forest, and urban 

chapters, providing a useful shortcut for those seeking only bird-habitat delivery 

guidance. 

• Sections regarding high priority monitoring and research needs, communications, and JV 

program coordination.

This Strategy establishes regional objectives for landbird population and habitat conservation 

while using current data and new tools for integrating social considerations into bird habitat 

decisions. The JV planning effort will continue to adapt as our knowledge of human 

dimensions improves along with our understanding of factors limiting population growth of 

landbirds through the full annual cycle.

Acknowledgements: Numerous bird research scientists and habitat specialists reviewed drafts 

of the strategy and provided comments and editorial suggestions resulting in a muchimproved final product. These individuals included: Nicole Michel (National Audubon 

Society), Andy Forbes (U.S. FWS, Migratory Bird Program), Mike Eichholz (Southern 

Illinois University), Brendan Shirkey (Winous Point Marsh Conservancy), Anna Buckardt 

Thomas (Iowa Department of Natural Resources), Josh Vest (U.S. FWS, Prairie Pothole Joint 

Venture), Bob Ford (U.S. FWS, Partners in Flight), Bill Vermillion (U.S. FWS, Gulf Coast 

Joint Venture), Laura Kearns and Joe Lautenbach (Ohio Division of Wildlife), John Coluccy 

(Ducks Unlimited),Vic Lane (Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy), Angela LarsenGray (NCASI Impact Science Solutions), Ted Gostomski and Dave Peitz (U.S. National Park 

Service), Peg Robertson (USDA Forest Service), Kent Van Horn (Wisconsin Department of 

Natural Resources), and Doug Gorby (U.S. FWS, Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint 

Venture). Two social scientists, Jessica Barnes (Virginia Tech University) and Ashley 

Gramza (Arkansas Game and Fish Commission), provided unique and very helpful 

perspectives regarding human dimensions and better integrating people into bird 

conservation planning and habitat delivery. Mike Schroer (Missouri Department of 

Conservation), Auriel Fournier (Illinois Natural History Survey), Dave Fehringer (The 

Forestland Group), Anne Mini (ABC, Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture), and Ryan 

Brady, Alaina Gerrits, Sumner Matteson, Dave Sample, and Richard Staffen (all Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources) provided feedback on sections of the draft strategy. 

The Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture region occupies ancestral and 

contemporary homelands of First Nations people, including but not limited to the Dakota 

Sioux, Delaware, Fox, Ho-Chunk, Illini, Ioway, Kickapoo, Mascouten, Menominee, Miami, 

Ojibwe, Odawa, Otoe-Missouria, Potawatomi, Sauk, Shawnee, and Wyandotte. The JV 

acknowledges enormous contributions indigenous peoples have made, and continue to make, 

in the conservation of migratory birds and their habitats in the region.
3

CALL TO ACTION

Preamble: Not many years ago, in a typical Midwestern woodlot, the calls from roosting 

blackbirds could be almost deafening on a fall evening. An early winter walk through a 

snow-covered grassland mightreveal countless meadowlarks, bursting from tufts of shelter 

after a migration stopover. Remember, too, the nighthawks and whip-poor-wills breaking 

the silence of summer darkness with their unique vocalizations – and the predictable coating 

of “bugs” on the windshield after a country drive, reflecting abundant forage for insecteating birds. The numerous assemblies of birds, abundant insects, and related natural 

components of a healthy environment have been gradually fading from our lives during the 

Anthropocene – the current period in which human activity has become a dominant influence 

on the Earth and its inhabitants. Since 1970, bird abundance in North America has declined 

30% – we have 3 billion fewer birds than 50 years ago (Rosenberg et al. 2019).

Although well meaning, past conservation approaches and their collective impact will not be 

enough to forestall continued bird population declines. Fortunately, some very influential 

forces are expressing the need for a paradigm shift that could positively affect our 

environment, bird habitats, and people. For example, there is a growing focus by the U.S. 

military (The Center for Climate and Security 2019), technology companies and industry 

(Bowers 2020, Worland 2020a), and even the International Monetary Fund (Worland 2020b)

to address climate change. Continental conservation plans for waterfowl (NAWMP 2012, 

2018) and landbirds (Rosenberg et al. 2016) are expanding their reach to work with novel 

partners and integrate social objectives (e.g., clean drinking water, carbon sequestration, 

outdoor recreation) with bird habitat planning and management. Traditional conservation 

funding (https://nabci-us.org/funding) is stable, but new sources are under consideration 

(https://wildlife.org/policy/recovering-americas-wildlife-act/) that can significantly increase 

financial support for bird habitatrestoration and retention. The safeguarding role of Land 

Conservancies and Land Trusts is expanding, with increased engagement in policy

development, government conservation programs, and with interested communities and 

individuals. Finally, technological advances and social science research are improving our 

ability to target conservation to meet both biological (bird habitat) and social objectives 

(Gurdak and Roe 2010, Snep et al. 2016, Soulliere and Al-Saffar 2017, Steven et al. 2017), 

increasing the relevance of birds and their habitats to society. 

Wildlife scientists and business leaders alike are increasingly aware of public concerns 

regarding climate change, human well-being, and the need to remain relevant to people who 

provide needed financial and political support. However, conservation awareness must 

translate into effective conservation actions to reverse declining bird abundance. This 

document provides scientific information to help understand the status of landbirds and their 

habitats, reasons for declining population abundance, and a path forward to slow and 

eventually reverse downward population trends. Challenges across the upper Midwest are 

diverse and uncertain, but conservation opportunities abound. Recommendations presented 

here can increase effectiveness of bird-habitat conservation, which will take different forms 

depending on each situation. By weaving environmental, social, and business priorities into 

a collective vision for diverse ecological systems, there is hope for healthier landscapes that 

meet the needs of birds and people.
4

Birds are excellent indicators of environmental health and ecosystem integrity (Morrison 

1986, Burger and Gochfeld 2004), and our ability to monitor birds over large spatial scales 

far exceeds that of other wildlife. Decline in bird abundance resulting from anthropogenic 

stressors (Sekercioglu et al. 2004, IUCN 2019) has been documented since about 1970, when 

large-scale bird population monitoring began. Globally, nearly one in five bird species has 

an imperiled status (Butchart et al. 2004). In the United States, 99 bird species and 

subspecies are listed as federally threatened or endangered (USFWS 2020), and without 

effective intervention over 200 additional species are expected to become candidates for 

listing in coming decades (Butcher et al. 2007). Despite these declines, the demand for birdrelated tourism and the economic importance of birds is increasing. 

Avian biodiversity concerns are not limited to rare birds, as once-common species are also 

rapidly declining in abundance. Across North America, nearly three quarters of grassland 

bird species have declined since 1970, amounting to a >50% loss in abundance for this group 

(Figure 1). As a result, there are an 

estimated 700 million fewer 

grassland birds in North America 

today than just 50 years ago. Loss 

in abundance of forest birds has not 

been as severe, but over the last five 

decades, nearly two-thirds of bird 

species breeding in eastern forests 

have declined (Rosenberg et al. 

2019). This change amounts to a 

17% loss in population abundance, 

equivalent to nearly 170 million 

fewer birds breeding in eastern 

forests compared to 1970, despite a 

5% net increase in forest area over 

the same 50-year period (Oswalt et 

al. 2019).

Within the Midwestern U.S., the 

number of birds moving through the 

airspace during migration declined 

by nearly 40% from 2007 to 2017

(Rosenberg et al. 2019). Across the 

Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes JV region, 22–45% of breeding landbirds monitored 

annually have declined since 1970, and 16–22% of monitored species are expected to decline 

another 50% within the next 30 years. If these trajectories continue unabated, by 2080 an 

estimated 3–9% of once-common species breeding in the JV region will become quasiextinct – insufficiently abundant to determine population status using current monitoring 

methods (Stanton et al. 2016; Figure 2; see Appendix A for species scientific names).

Figure 1. Population change by primary biome in 

North American birds (from Rosenberg et al. 2019): 

(A) proportional population abundance change from 

1970 to 2017 (± 95% credible interval) and (B) 

proportion of species declining in each biome. 

A B
5

Habitat loss and degradation appear to be primary factors driving bird populations 

downward. However, free-ranging domestic cats (Felis catus) kill an estimated 2.4 billion 

birds annually within the contiguous U.S. (Loss et al. 2013b), whereas collisions with 

human-constructed objects (buildings, automobiles, communication towers, wind turbines) in 

the U.S. account for more than 

800 million bird deaths per 

year (Loss et al. 2015). 

Another direct but less obvious 

source of mortality is 

agricultural pesticides. These 

losses have not been 

enumerated for the U.S., but in

Canada pesticides are 

estimated to kill more than 2.5 

million birds per year (Calvert 

et al. 2013). In the Midwestern 

U.S., bird losses from

agricultural pesticides would 

likely be no less than this 

number (Mineau 2004; Mineau 

and Whiteside 2006, 2013), 

given the toxicity of 

agricultural insecticides has 

increased as much as 120-fold 

since the year 2000 (Douglas et 

al. 2020). 

Indirect losses in bird 

populations come through 

reduced survival, often related 

to low food availability. For example, aerial insectivorous birds such as swallows, swifts, 

nightjars, and flycatchers have experienced significant declines across North America, in part 

because of declining abundance of high-quality insect prey (Spiller and Dettmers 2019). 

Burrowing mayflies (Hexagenia spp.) have declined by >50% over primary waterways 

including the Upper Mississippi River and Western Lake Erie Basin since 2012 (Stepanian et 

al. 2020). Likely causes of declines in both insect abundance and species richness include 

agricultural intensification, loss of native plant communities, and pesticides (Ewald et al. 

2015, Sánchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys 2019). Finally, sub-lethal effects of agricultural 

chemicals cause physiological and behavioral abnormalities in birds that can prevent 

successful completion of key life history stages, such as migration (Eng et al. 2019).

Loss and degradation of bird habitats operate in concert with these direct and indirect sources 

of annual mortality that apparently exceed annual productivity for many species. Numerous 

studies associate recent grassland and farmland bird declines in the JV region to some aspect 

of land-use intensification. Most prominent are loss of native grassland, declining area of 

pasture and other semi-natural plant communities, increasing size of agricultural fields, rowFigure 2. Sample of bird species breeding in the Prairie 

Hardwood Transition (BCR 23) and predicted number of 

years (± 95% C.I.) until species will fall below a detection 

threshold for population assessment, resulting in potential 

imperilment status (Stanton et al. 2016).
6

crop monocultures with denser and more uniform structure, increased inputs of fertilizers and 

pesticides, and reduced fallowing of fields (Herkert 1994, McLaughlin and Mineau 1995, 

Best et al. 1997, Murphy 2003, Stanton et al. 2018). The quality of forest bird habitat within 

portions of the region also declined, especially related to simplification (lost diversity) and 

fragmentation – caused by past timber harvest regimes, pathogens, invasive species, and 

over-abundant deer populations – largely impacting forest understory-nesting and areasensitive birds (Alverson et al. 1988, Robinson and Wilcove 1994, Donovan et al. 1995). In 

contrast, numbers of forest bird species were 

stable or increased within and across the 

relatively healthy National Forests of 

northern Minnesota and Wisconsin in recent 

years (Niemi et al. 2016).

It is clear past efforts to conserve birds are 

not sufficient to forestall losses in our global, 

national, and regional avifauna, let alone restore population abundance to some historic level. 

Why is this? In large part, because the footprint of the conservation community is small

relative to the magnitude of threats facing birds. We have simply lacked sufficient political 

and financial advantage to counter these forces, plus our understanding of people and 

methods to shape human behaviors to benefit birds (via social science research) are limited. 

The habitat contributions of public lands are essential to wildlife populations, but they alone 

have not been (nor will they be) enough to stem the losses in regional bird abundance. In 

fact, the vast majority of landbird habitat loss and population declines in the Midwest U.S. 

during recent decades occurred on private lands. As such, if the conservation community is 

to effectively address declines in bird populations, we must gain the trust of private 

landowners (Ciuzio et al. 2013) and emphasize private lands in bird habitat conservation 

(Cunningham 2005, Thogmartin and Rohweder 2009, Brasher et al. 2019). 

Therefore, to sustain healthy landbird populations in the JV region, we must increase 

meaningful connections with stakeholders having greatest influence on Midwestern 

landscapes. We need to integrate bird habitat concerns with land-use policies, fully account 

for human and political dimensions, and consider the broader range of ecosystem services 

when advocating conservation practices. We need to increase engagement with state and 

local governments, seek public support for remedies to bird threats, and collaborate on 

human needs that can be resolved with conservation actions. We will also need to 

collaborate with corporations, agri-business, developers and civic planners, the timber 

industry, and other commodity groups, to seek common ground. Finally, we must take bird 

habitat planning and delivery beyond the JV region to understand how migratory bird 

populations are limited and where conservation will be most effective during the full annual 

cycle. This Strategy provides a foundation to overcome some, perhaps many, of these 

challenges facing landbirds, but measurable success will depend on our valuable partnerships 

and the people of this region.

“This loss of bird abundance signals an 

urgent need to address threats to avert 

future avifaunal collapse and associated 

loss of ecosystem integrity, function and 

services” (Rosenberg et al. 2019).
7

BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT

A primary role of bird habitat joint ventures is to implement continental bird conservation 

plans at the regional scale, with partners sharing resources and knowledge to complete local 

projects that address regional and continental conservation concerns. The Upper Mississippi 

/ Great Lakes Joint Venture (JV) is one of 22 bird habitat joint ventures in North America 

(NABCI 2000). These self-directed partnerships of government conservation agencies, nongovernment organizations, corporations, tribes, and individuals formally accepted 

responsibility to implement international bird conservation plans within a specific geographic 

area (see https://www.fws.gov/birds/management/bird-conservation-partnership-andinitiatives/migratory-bird-joint-ventures.php). Widely accepted as the model for 

collaborative conservation in North America, joint ventures provide the best means to 

translate science into effective regional and smaller-scale bird habitat implementation. The 

goal of this Strategy is to guide regional conservation that results in habitat to support 

populations of priority landbird species and related human desires, consistent with 

continental bird conservation goals.

Primary audience: Wildlife biologists, conservation social scientists, and other conservation 

professionals involved in bird habitat planning, implementation (habitat delivery), and/or 

evaluation of grassland, forest, and other upland communities used by landbirds. This JV 

Strategy is especially for those seeking:

1) Regional and state-level landbird conservation planning linked to continental 

initiatives, 

2) Species-habitat associations and current habitat threats to landbird populations, 

3) Large-scale scientific landbird population and habitat information, plus local scale 

connection to conservation partners and information sources (via internet links), 

4) Regional decision support tools (e.g., maps, models, projections) to assess conservation 

opportunities and more effectively target landbird habitat actions, and 

5) Information regarding monitoring and research needed to track populations, measure 

management success, fill information gaps, test planning assumptions, and improve 

landbird habitat delivery over time. 

Partners developing conservation grant applications and project proposals that include

landbirds may find information in this Strategy essential.

Partners in Flight (PIF) produced the first North American Landbird Conservation Plan in 

2004 (Rich et al. 2004), largely focused on results of a comprehensive species vulnerability 

assessment for the U.S. and Canada. It also provided a “Watch List” that identified species 

of highest conservation concern, along with a summary of their status, monitoring needs, and 

estimates of population size, leading to continental population objectives. A 2007 Upper 

Mississippi / Great Lakes JV Landbird Habitat Conservation Strategy (Potter et al. 2007) 

stepped-down priorities of the 2004 PIF Plan, concentrating on species of high continental 

concern with relatively high dependence on the JV region. In 2016, PIF revised the North 

American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rosenberg et al. 2016) with science-based biological 

objectives, including emphasis on conservation throughout the full annual cycle. The 2016

PIF Plan also encourages decision makers to guide policy and allocate resources to promote 

the importance of birds as indicators for environmental health and human quality of life. 
8

Finally, the PIF Plan clearly links continental landbird conservation priorities to each bird 

habitat joint venture with individual regional profiles (Rosenberg et al. 2016).

In this JV document, we provide regional objectives for landbird populations and their 

habitats and find complementary relationships with other conservation plans and human 

dimension considerations. We assembled the best available population and bird habitat data 

and technological tools to guide conservation planning. We relied on the most recent science 

in our planning process and identified information gaps and assumptions that require 

investigation to improve subsequent iterations of the Strategy. Compared to the 2007 JV 

Landbird Strategy (Potter et al. 2007), which was based primarily on focal species 

assessments, this document emphasizes trends in landscape cover types important to different 

bird groups, particularly forests and grasslands, but also urban lands and airspace. The

approach resulted in better integration of top-down (continental PIF priorities) and bottom-up

(BCR-scale bird habitat trends) understanding and planning. Bird populations and associated 

community types were organized into separate grassland and forest chapters. These sections 

encompass focal species and their habitat threats, key planning considerations such as 

distribution of their current and potential habitats, and identification of broad management 

approaches providing a foundation for local-scale bird habitat decisions. In addition to 

working closely with the JV Management Board regarding Strategy content, our JV Landbird 

Committee collected stakeholder opinions and feedback via email questionnaire (Ewert et al. 

2014) and personal interviews (Soulliere et al. 2019). 

The Strategy is written with goals expressed over the 30-year PIF Plan time horizon, but JV 

objectives may be refined as knowledge of social science and regional landbird conservation 

improves. Moreover, because of the complexity in planning for this diverse bird group and 

the dynamic nature of conservation in 

this region (e.g., landscape change, 

technological tools, financial and human 

resources for conservation), the Strategy 

includes numerous internet links to 

supplemental information. Updated 

spatial data analyses and future localscale tactical plans guiding bird habitat 

delivery will also be available on the JV 

website www.umgljv.org.

Regional Overview

The JV region encompasses all or 

portions of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 

Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin (Figure 

3). Immense natural resources of this 

area have influenced human settlement 

patterns and development intensity. 

There were over 60 million people 

Figure 3. Boundaries of the Upper Mississippi /

Great Lakes Joint Venture region (bolded black line), 

states (thin black line), and associated Bird 

Conservation Regions (BCRs, color discerned).
9

living within the JV region as of 2010 (USCB 2010), but human population density varies 

substantially.

The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) has subdivided and classified the 

continent into Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) for planning purposes (Bird Studies 

Canada and NABCI 2014; https:/nabci-us.org/resources/bird-conservation-regions-map/). 

Similar bird communities, habitats, and resource management issues characterize these 

planning units. The JV region is largely covered by BCRs 22 (Eastern Tallgrass Prairie), 23 

(Prairie Hardwood Transition), and the U.S. portion of 12 (Boreal Hardwood Transition). 

Portions of BCR 24 (Central Hardwoods) and 13 (Lower Great Lakes / St. Lawrence Plain) 

also occur within the JV boundary (Figure 3). BCRs are further subdivided into State × BCR 

polygons in portions of this Strategy to assist JV partners with smaller-scale landscape 

assessment and bird-habitat objective setting. 

Landscape composition and associated bird habitats largely determine the role each JV 

partnership will play in conservation of priority species identified in the 2016 PIF Plan. 

Likewise, depending on location, some regions are critical to priority species during the 

breeding period whereas other locations provide important migration and wintering habitats. 

Large and diverse JV regions like ours provide bird habitats during multiple life-cycle 

periods. Land-cover composition and interspersion, combined with soil characteristics, 

hydrology, and other physiographic features, result in differences among BCRs that influence 

distribution and abundance of landbirds across the JV region. Understanding these 

functional differences and trends in key cover types is essential to informed conservation 

decisions.

Pre-European Settlement and Current 

Land Cover

Awareness of a landscape’s natural 

cover conditions is necessary for 

effective conservation planning, as 

soils, hydrology, and climate govern 

plant communities and succession 

tendencies. Local managers must use

principles of landscape ecology to 

develop appropriate conservation 

actions, respecting historical conditions 

in concert with assessing current 

ecological circumstances and future 

threats and opportunities (see 

Thogmartin et al. 2014). Various data 

sources were combined to generate a 

model-based image of landscape 

composition in the JV region before 

colonization by Europeans (Figure 4). 

Forests were the most dominant cover 

Figure 4. Predicted distribution of dominant land covers

prior to Euro-American settlement of the Upper 

Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture (JV) region 

(LANDFIRE 2018). JVregion (black line) and Bird 

Conservation Region (blue lines) boundaries indicated. 

See Appendix B for detailed land cover descriptions.
10

type based on this analysis, but grasslands and wetlands (both woody and herbaceous) were 

also vast. European settlement resulted in extensive wetland drainage and conversion of 

prairie, savanna, and forest to agriculture and developed land. Historical estimates suggest 

that forest area in the 10 states encompassing the JV region is only half as abundant as during 

the 1600s but still a dominant land cover today. Following initial losses, forest area 

gradually increased, with timing of losses and gains varying among states (Figure 5). 

Figure 5. Forest area (1 ha = 2.5 acres) in ten states associated with the Upper Mississippi / Great 

Lakes Joint Venture region (Oswalt et al. 2019). Estimates of 1630 original forest area were from 

Kellogg (1909), based on 1907 forest area data and historic land clearing information. These data are 

for general reference only to convey the relative extent of forest at the time of European settlement.

Current landscape cover types within the JV region vary from heavily forested in the north 

and east to agriculture-dominated in the south and west (Figure 6). Largely nutrient-poor 

soils in the north (BCR 12) support evergreen, deciduous, and mixed forests with extensive 

areas of forested wetland and thousands of glacial lakes. Vegetation communities more 

closely resemble historical conditions in BCR 12. In much of the central and south (BCRs 

23 and 22), however, human-induced landscape changes have altered physical (i.e., 

hydrology) and ecological (i.e., plant succession) processes and introduced numerous 

nonnative invasive plants. See Appendix C for detailed descriptions of each BCR.

Density and species composition of landbirds vary considerably across the JV region 

depending on land cover types and life-cycle period. Whereas extensive northern forests are 

essential breeding locations for large numbers of landbirds, migration corridors around the 

Great Lakes and habitat patches further inland are critical for northern breeding species 

 -

 2

 4

 6

 8

 10

 12

 14

1630* 1907 1920 1938 1953 1963 1977 1987 1997 2007 2012 2017

Million hectares

Year

Forest land area in North Central States

Illinois Indiana Iowa Michigan

Minnesota Missouri Ohio Wisconsin

Kansas Nebraska
11

during migration. New monitoring approaches and technological advances 

(https://midwestmigrationnetwork.org) have helped recognize the importance of the JV 

region in providing stopover habitat to migrating landbirds. 

Figure 6. Landscape composition of the Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture region (2016 

National Land Cover Database, Yang et al. 2018). JV region (black line) and Bird Conservation 

Region (blue lines) boundaries indicated; see Appendices B (land-cover class descriptions) and C 

(BCR descriptions) for more detail.

The consequences of an expanding human population and intense land use in the southern 

two-thirds of the region have been long-term loss and degradation of most bird habitats. A 

PIF vulnerability assessment of threats to landbirds found urbanization and changing forest 

conditions of greatest importance in their Continental Threat Index (Rosenberg et al. 2016), 

and these factors are prominent in the JV region. In much of the region, prairie and savanna, 

wet meadows, and shrubby / young forest transition zones have been replaced by 
12

monocultures and hard edges of row crops, invasive plants, mid-successional to mature 

forest, or development. Native grasslands have been subject to the greatest level of 

conversion and degradation because of intense row-crop agriculture, development, and fire 

suppression. Understanding the economic, legislative, and social foundations for intensified 

land use will be necessary for the JV to increase landbird populations.

Relationship to Other Conservation Plans

The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI 2000) facilitates conservation of 

all North American bird species through promoting coordinated delivery of habitat 

conservation for landbirds, waterbirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl. Continental population 

assessments, species prioritization, and general planning guidelines were completed for each 

of these four bird groups in separate North American plans. The most recent PIF Plan 

(Rosenberg et al. 2016) provided updated landbird species vulnerability assessments, 

population estimates, population trends, and area importance scores which were used when 

developing this regional landbird strategy revision. Smaller scale “blueprints for conserving 

our nation's fish and wildlife and preventing endangered species” are in State Wildlife Action 

Plans (SWAPs), whose bird-related conservation priorities typically align closely with JV 

regional priorities. 

Other planning documents, such as those resulting from the Landscape Conservation 

Cooperatives (another system of regional natural-resource partnerships), are helping to 

identify large-scale environmental stressors and mitigation prospects with potential to benefit 

landbirds (e.g., Conservation Fund 2016 report addressing Gulf Hypoxia). Moreover, 

opportunities exist to integrate social objectives into landbird planning as well as 

conservation for pollinators (e.g., https://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/ccaa.html; Cardno

Inc. 2020) and other wildlife that share the need for healthy upland plant communities. 

Recently completed JV waterfowl and waterbird strategies (Soulliere at al. 2017, 2018) 

provide sound examples of integrating regional biological and social objectives with a theme 

for growing the relevancy of wetland-bird habitats to people. 

Landbird Stakeholder Surveys

Considering the diversity of demands on JV partners, and concern about declining societal 

connection with the outdoors and natural resources, the JV Science Team sought an 

improved understanding of stakeholder views regarding landbird habitat conservation. In 

2014, the JV Landbird Committee developed a short questionnaire survey for conservation 

stakeholders concerning implementation of the 2007 JV Landbird Habitat Conservation 

Strategy (Ewert et al. 2014). In 2019, the JV Landbird Committee conducted a more indepth information gathering exercise, this time using structured interviews of JV 

Management Board members and other stakeholders likely to use JV landbird planning 

products (Soulliere et al. 2019). Questions were thorough and standardized, and the 

interview process allowed for greater inter-personal communication and clarification.

Responses by interviewees had direct application to this Strategy revision, especially 

questions regarding planning tools that JV partners would find most useful for landbird 

conservation decisions (Figure 7). 
13

Figure 7. Planning tools that landbird stakeholders (n = 28) in the Upper Mississippi / Great 

Lakes Joint Venture region indicated would be most useful, based on interviews of 

conservation agency and organization representatives (Soulliere et al. 2019). 

STRATEGIC HABITAT CONSERVATION

Implicit in the Strategy goal is that JV partners will 1) lose no native landbird species 

currently occurring in the region, 2) return species of concern to agreed-upon levels of 

former abundance, and 3) be strategic and adaptive in conservation planning and bird habitat 

delivery. The JV community views conservation as a multifaceted science, with planning, 

implementation, and evaluation acting as integrated components of management that strive 

for greater long-term benefit from conservation investments (NEAT 2006). This approach is 

partner-based, science-driven, and comprises an iterative planning cycle. Conservation plans 

change over time as progress in meeting objectives, costs and benefits of techniques, and key 

planning assumptions are tested and evaluated. Strategic conservation for JVs starts by 

planning at larger spatial and temporal scales, with JV regional plans providing intermediate 

or stepped-down priorities from continental plans to smaller-scale plans (e.g., SWAPs) and 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

RESPONSES
14

conservation actions. It is the cumulative impact of these local-scale projects that ultimately

achieve JV regional goals.

Considering the complexity of current bird habitat threats, strategic habitat conservation

(SHC) may be the best system to restore and maintain landbird populations at goal levels. 

Moreover, understanding people’s desires for bird-related recreation or ecosystem services 

can influence support and placement of bird habitats. 

Thus, addressing regional landbird conservation requires the JV to: 

1) Determine population and habitat objectives for priority species at ecologically 

meaningful scales (State × BCR) and in concert with the PIF continental plan.

2) Identify the most significant factors limiting population growth for priority species

throughout the full annual cycle.

3) Integrate human dimensions (HD) and social science into the biological aspects of 

SHC (https://nabci-us.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Incorporating-HumanDimensions-into-Joint-Venture-Implementation-Plans.pdf) to improve understanding 

and support.

4) Pool resources and target conservation to ensure efficient and effective bird habitat 

delivery that also meets human demands.

5) Measure and evaluate results, documenting both successes and failures, and 

continually improve conservation planning and management actions over time. 

Components of SHC – Biological Planning, Conservation Design, Habitat Delivery

(implementation), and Monitoring and Research – provide the foundation for this Strategy. 

Below is a summary of each SHC component as they relate to the grassland, forest, and 

urban bird habitat sections of the document.

Biological Planning

Biological planning establishes a foundation for effective bird habitat conservation by 

describing current conditions and trends, establishing species-habitat relationships, 

recognizing population-limiting factors within and outside the JV region, and identifying 

conservation goals. Focal species (Appendix D) are selected as representatives for various 

guild-habitat associations. Their 

population responses (e.g., abundance, 

distribution, reproductive success) then 

provide measures of progress toward 

objectives achievement. 

Focal Species and Habitat Associations

Conservation planners use terms such as focal and surrogate when developing lists of 

representative management umbrella and management indicator species. The umbrella 

concept assumes that activities undertaken for a focal species will benefit a suite of 

ecologically similar species (Zacharias and Roff 2001). Likewise, management indicators 

are species selected to focus conservation delivery, typically for population recovery and/or 

The JV will:

 Lose no native landbird species

 Return species to acceptable abundances

 Practice Strategic Habitat Conservation
15

ecosystem diversity (Caro 2010). Changes in populations of management indicators should 

reflect the effects of conservation activities and common environmental influences on other 

species within the community represented by the focal species (see USFWS 2014). Use of

JV focal species in this Strategy provides a means to elevate awareness and concentrate 

partner efforts on species of high conservation concern, whose continental populations are 

monitored, and whose population abundance may be influenced by conservation actions in 

the JV region. However, we also emphasize the need to understand life-cycle connectivity 

and the potential for a species breeding in one region to be limited by habitat or other factors 

during nonbreeding periods.

Criteria for selecting focal species included the following: 

1) Relatively high continental and/or regional conservation concern, 

2) JV region is important to continental population during at least one life-cycle period, 

3) Strongly associated with a plant community or complex of cover types important to a 

community of landbird species that can be classified by regional spatial data, 

4) Potential factors limiting population abundance have been identified, even if not 

completely understood, some of which may occur outside the JV region, and 

5) A system of population monitoring has been established or data-informed population 

abundance estimates have been developed. 

Using the 2016 PIF Plan information specific to the Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes JV in

concert with the updated PIF Avian Conservation Assessment Database (ACAD; Partners in 

Flight 2020a), 15 species of conservation concern were selected to represent bird-habitat 

guilds during breeding and nonbreeding periods across BCRs in the JV region (Table 1 and 

Appendix D). The ACAD contains biological information generated by the PIF Species 

Assessment Process, a peer-reviewed, scientific methodology for evaluating information 

related to the conservation of birds (Panjabi et al. 2020). 

Population trends of JV focal species are assumed to generally reflect a suite of co-occurring 

species characterized by a given plant community or complex of cover types. However, 

given the range of landscape-level influences and the multifaceted nature of habitats used by 

a single species during the full annual cycle, this assumption may be invalid. Likewise, 

assuming that multiple landbird species will respond similarly to focal species habitat 

restoration and retention is largely untested. Finally, much of the spatial data used to develop 

this regional Strategy (i.e., NLCD) is not of adequate resolution to interpret species-specific 

habitat area or quality. For these reasons, we do not quantify focal species habitat objectives 

using literature- or expert-based population density estimates. Rather, we establish bird 

habitat objectives at the NLCD cover-class level using general habitat characteristics of 

grassland and forest bird guilds and landscape change analysis. In addition, we provide a 

variety of information resources regarding focal-species habitat requirements, threats, and 

environmental trends to inform the often-complex situational decisions of local managers. 
16

Breeding Nonbreeding BCRs By 2026 By 2046

Forests and barrens

Eastern Whip-poor-will X 12, 23, 22, 24 Slow decline >60% Increase >5%

Red-headed Woodpecker X 12, 23, 22, 13, 24 Slow decline >60% Increase >5%

Wood Thrush X 12, 23, 22, 13, 24 Slow decline >60% Increase >5%

Golden-winged Warbler X 12, 23

Kirtland's Warbler X 12

Cerulean Warbler X 23, 13, 24 Slow decline >60% Increase >5%

Canada Warbler X 12, 23 Slow decline >60% Increase >5%

Rusty Blackbird X 12

Blackpoll Warbler X 12

Grasslands

Henslow's Sparrow X 12, 23, 22, 24 Slow decline >60% Increase >5%

Bobolink X 12, 23, 22, 13, 24 Slow decline >60% Increase >5%

Eastern Meadowlark X 12, 23, 22 Slow decline >45% Stabilize, <25% loss

Short-eared Owl X 22, 24

American Tree Sparrow X 23, 13, 24

Urban

Chimney Swift X 12, 23, 22, 13, 24 Slow decline >60% Increase >5%

Table 1. Focal species (by habitat category) used for landbird conservation planning in the Upper Mississippi / 

Great Lakes Joint Venture (JV) region, including color-coded population status and vulnerability, primary period 

of occurrence in JV region, Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) of greatest importance, and breeding population 

(BPOP) goals from the 2016 Partners In Flight (PIF) Plan. a

a The Avian Conservation Assessment Database (ACAD; Partners in Flight 2020) provides science-based species status 

relative to extinction risk at the continental scale using color-coded Watch Lists: high/urgent conservation need = red, 

moderate conservation need = yellow, and common birds in steep decline = brown. Current (2020) ACAD status is different 

from 2016 PIF Plan for Kirtland's Warbler and Chimney Swift (we used 2020 ACAD status). BPOP goals are from 2016 PIF 

Plan and relate to Watch List status: Recover = red, Prevent / Reverse Decline = yellow, and Stabilize = brown. Species 

occurring in the JV region primarily during the non-breeding period do not have BPOP goals for the region. 

Primary period 

Habitat category, species, 

and ACAD statusa

BPOP goal (compared to 2016)

Follow Recovery Plan (maintain/expand)

Follow Recovery Plan (increase >50%)

The primary cover types they depend on (Table 1) often categorize landbirds, but each 

species requires specific features within these broad plant communities and some species 

require multiple community types in close proximity. Thus, landscape cover types, habitat 

components within cover types, and juxtaposition of these cover types often determine 

habitat quality for birds. For initial spatial data analysis and bird habitat modeling, we 

identified simple cover-type and areal combinations comprising typical habitats for JV focal 

species. In addition, species with higher levels of PIF conservation concern were sorted into 

guilds associated with focal species and grouped by habitat descriptions (Table 2). The most 

recent spatial data available from the 2016 National Land Cover Database (NLCD; Yang et 

al. 2018), supplemented with 2014 LANDFIRE biophysical settings (LANDFIRE 2018), 

were used to designate habitat associations and assess areas that potentially meet focal 

species requirements. 
17

Habitat group description Watch List

(Red and Yellow) Regional Concern Common Birds in

Steep Decline 

Regional Stewardship

(by BCR)

Eastern deciduous forest (mature): 

Primarily oak-hickory or maplebasswood mixed-mesophytic 

communities; also mixed oak-pine 

Eastern Whip-poor-will

Red-headed Woodpecker

Wood Thrush

Cerulean Warbler

Black-billed Cuckoo

Kentucky Warbler

American Woodcock

Yellow-billed Cuckoo

Chuck-will's-widow

Northern Flicker

Least Flycatcher

Eastern Wood-Pewee

Great Crested Flycatcher

Blue Jay 

Scarlet Tanager

Black-and-white Warbler

Rose-breasted Grosbeak

Eastern Whip-poor-will (24)

Black-billed Cuckoo (12)

Worm-eating Warbler (24)

Kentucky Warbler (24)

Bottomland hardwood forest 

(mature): Lowlands dominated by 

cottonwood, ash, sycamore, red and 

silver maple, box-elder, elms, or 

sweetgum 

Red-headed Woodpecker

Prothonotary Warbler Yellow-billed Cuckoo Rusty Blackbird

Early successional eastern 

forest/shrubland: Includes a variety 

of communities including beaverwetlands, abandoned pastureland, 

early regeneration following 

disturbance (both hardwood and 

coniferous forests), power-line right-ofways, and reclaimed strip mines

Eastern Whip-poor-will

Golden-winged Warbler

Black-billed Cuckoo

Prairie Warbler 

American Woodcock

Eastern Kingbird

Brown Thrasher

Loggerhead Shrike

Eastern Towhee

Field Sparrow

Blue-winged Warbler 

Yellow-breasted Chat 

Orchard Oriole

American Tree 

 Sparrow Golden-winged Warbler (12)

Eastern northern hardwood and 

mixed forests (early to mature): Areas 

typically dominated by maple, beech, 

aspen, and birch, but including a 

significant component of red and white 

pine and or hemlock

Eastern Whip-poor-will

Golden-winged Warbler

Canada Warbler

Black-billed Cuckoo

Olive-sided Flycatcher

Connecticut Warbler

American Woodcock

Northern Saw-whet Owl

Least Flycatcher

Eastern Wood-Pewee

Great Crested Flycatcher

Veery

Black-and-white Warbler

Scarlet Tanager

Rose-breasted Grosbeak

Rusty Blackbird

Golden-winged Warbler (12)

Broad-winged Hawk (12)

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker (12)

Veery (12)

Ovenbird (12)

Nashville Warbler (12)

Mourning Warbler (12)

Blackburnian Warbler (12)

Chestnut-sided Warbler (12)

Black-throated Blue Warbler (12)

Black-throated Green Warbler (12)

Jack pine and oak-pine barrens: 

Relatively open and typically 

dominated by jack pine (early to mixed 

age) on sandy soils

Kirtland's Warbler

Prairie Warbler

Eastern Kingbird

Eastern Towhee

Common Nighthawk

Brewer's Blackbird

Spruce-fir conifer forest (early to 

mature): Areas dominated by balsam 

fir and or white spruce; black spruce 

bogs or flats; lowland white cedar

Canada Warbler

Olive-sided Flycatcher

Evening Grosbeak

Connecticut Warbler 

Northern Saw-whet Owl

Black-backed Woodpecker

Rusty Blackbird

Blackpoll Warbler

Pine Siskin

Eastern grassland: Historicallyoccurring native herbaceous 

communities with bluestem, grama, and 

or wheatgrass; remnant Eastern 

Tallgrass Prairie; human-created 

agricultural grasslands (including 

pasture, hay, and mixed plantings); and 

grass-dominated reclaimed strip-mines

Henslow's Sparrow

Bobolink

Greater Prairie-Chicken

Le Conte's Sparrow

Eastern Meadowlark

Northern Bobwhite

Sharp-tailed Grouse

Upland Sandpiper

Northern Harrier

American Kestrel

Eastern Kingbird

Barn Swallow

Loggerhead Shike

Sedge Wren

Brown Thrasher

Vesper Sparrow

Grasshopper Sparrow

Short-eared Owl

Horned Lark

Brewer's Blackbird

Henslow's Sparrow (22)

Dickcissel (22)

Oak savanna: Native prairie grasses 

and forbs with a sparse tree canopy, 

usually dominated by bur oak

Red-headed Woodpecker

Northern Flicker

American Kestrel 

Eastern Wood-Pewee

Eastern Kingbird

Tree Swallow

Brown Thrasher

Eastern Towhee

Common Nighthawk

Freshwater wetlands: Emergent 

marshes dominated by plants such as 

cattails, rushes, sedges, pickerelweed, 

wild rice, and arrow arum; other 

freshwater wetlands associated with 

streams, rivers, and lakes, often with 

shrub-scrub

Olive-sided Flycatcher

Le Conte's Sparrow

American Woodcock

Northern Harrier

Belted Kingfisher

Willow Flycatcher

Tree Swallow

Bank Swallow

Barn Swallow

Sedge Wren

Marsh Wren

Generalist/urban/aerial insectivore: 

Urban and exurban habitats dominated 

by human structures, both residential 

and commercial; farm homesteads; 

excavations and landfills; bridges

Chimney Swift

Tree Swallow

Bank Swallow

Barn Swallow

Common Grackle

Common Nighthawk

Table 2. Habitat associations and Partners in Flight continental population status (PIF 2020) for landbirds of conservation concern 

occurring in the Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture (JV) region. Groupings are for general planning purposes only (JV focal 

species in bold), as habitat descriptions are simplified and individual species may use multiple habitat categories. Regional Stewardship 

includes species with >25% of global population occurring in a BCR (BCR number listed; includes BCR area outside JV region). 
18

Game bird focus.—Hunters, through a variety of funding streams, provide financial support 

for much of the wildlife habitat conservation conducted by government agencies and several 

non-government organizations in the JV region. Based on the recent JV landbird stakeholder 

survey (Soulliere et al. 2019), these conservation agencies and organizations seek synergistic 

management opportunities for game (hunted) and non-game species. Habitat actions focused 

on grassland songbirds and Ring-necked Pheasants, and forest songbirds and Eastern Wild 

Turkey, were two examples provided by survey respondents. Similarly, management for

early successional eastern forests can benefit American Woodcock, Ruffed Grouse, and 

Golden-winged Warbler. Landbird stakeholders generally indicated management should 

focus on community health and biodiversity, with less emphasis on individual game species. 

However, some JV partners require significant management focus on hunter interests. 

Several traditional game species are included on the PIF lists of conservation concern for the 

JV region including the migratory American Woodcock and non-migratory Greater PrairieChicken, Northern Bobwhite, Sharp-tailed Grouse, and Ring-necked Pheasant (Table 2). 

Some of these species remain abundant within their core ranges, but populations have 

declined in areas where grassland and young-forests are disappearing. Addressing the needs 

of game species, in addition to JV focal species, may be especially important when 

integrating social and biological objectives. 

Land Cover and Habitat Assessment

Breeding population objectives in the 2007 JV Landbird Strategy were linked to the first PIF 

Plan (Rich et al. 2004). Associated JV habitat objectives were generated using biological 

models to calculate the estimated amount of breeding habitat needed to accommodate 

regional populations at JV objective levels. This objective setting approach was referred to 

as top-down planning. However, because implementation occurs at local scales, planning 

should also include an assessment of existing species abundances and trends in associated 

habitats at smaller scales to complete a complementary bottom-up planning procedure. The 

JV completed State × BCR assessments providing general extent and distribution of NLCD 

land covers associated with JV focal species (https://umgljv.org/planning/state-by-bcrplans/). However, NLCD has lower accuracy classifying some cover types over others 

(Wickham et al. 2017), and NLCD-based estimates of primary plant communities do not 

translate into estimates of high-quality bird habitats. Trend measures of some bird habitats 

may be improved using the U.S.D.A. Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) and U.S.D.A.

National Resources Inventory (NRI). Although not spatially explicit, these sources include 

detailed information regarding plant community composition, structure, and change, with 

corresponding statistical uncertainty across larger geographic extents like States, BCRs, and 

the entire JV region. 

New spatial data were used to assess regional land cover status for this Strategy, providing an 

updated indicator of general bird habitat trends. Using biophysical information (LANDFIRE 

2018), land-use/land-cover back-casting models (Sohl et al. 2016), and recent satellite-based 

land cover data (NLCD, Yang et al. 2018), we calculated the area of primary cover types 

most likely to influence landbird populations during four periods: pre-European settlement, 

1938, 2001, and 2016 (current). Our analysis found the greatest degree of landscape change 

in the JV region occurred between pre-European settlement and 1938 (Table 3). Immense 
19

areas of grassland/herbaceous (native prairie) and forest were converted to cultivated 

cropland and pasture/hay, accounting for 37 million and 21 million ha, respectively, by 1938. 

The most dominant land cover categories in the JV region by 1938 were cultivated cropland 

(38%), forest (23%), pasture/hay (22%), and wetland (10%; woody and herbaceous 

combined). Development (i.e., urbanization with ≥20% impervious surface) accounted for 

an estimated 2% of land cover in 1938. 

Land Cover Pre-settlement 

(LANDFIRE) 

1938 (NLCD 

backcasted)

2001 

(NLCD) 

2016 

(NLCD) 

Change (ha) 

2001 to 2016

Grassland/herbaceous 26,105,535 3,151,431 3,510,351 3,368,639 0.13 1.07 0.96 -141,713

Hay/pasture 0 21,035,769 11,838,650 10,582,286 0.50 0.89 -1,256,364

Shrub/scrub 109,195 190,088 407,625 626,235 5.73 3.29 1.54 218,610

Forest (upland, all types) 55,030,747 22,184,769 22,536,822 22,269,302 0.40 1.00 0.99 -267,521

Deciduous 44,436,478 17,763,994 16,354,765 16,150,927 0.36 0.91 0.99 -203,838

Evergreen/conifer 5,178,643 2,161,113 1,682,018 1,600,737 0.31 0.74 0.95 -81,282

Mixed forest 5,415,626 2,259,663 4,500,039 4,517,638 0.83 2.00 1.00 17,598

Wetland (total) 13,538,408 9,702,869 11,427,800 11,419,637 0.84 1.18 1.00 -8,163

Forested/woody No data 7,839,081 9,458,293 9,542,210 1.22 1.01 83,916

Emergent herbaceous No data 1,863,788 1,969,507 1,877,428 1.01 0.95 -92,079

Cultivated cropland 0 37,358,594 37,005,655 37,992,779 1.02 1.03 987,124

Developed 0 1,810,431 4,102,483 4,440,056 2.45 1.08 337,573

High intensity 0 376,939 449,215 1.19 72,276

Medium intensity 0 964,533 1,118,525 1.16 153,992

Low intensity 0 2,761,011 2,872,315 1.04 111,304

Developed open space 0 4,024,528 4,124,006 1.02 99,478

Open water (inland only) 2,726,570 2,080,125 2,579,670 2,605,172 0.96 1.25 1.01 25,501

Barren land 103,577 23,100 180,447 185,922 1.80 8.05 1.03 5,475

Total area 97,614,035 97,537,175 97,614,033 97,614,033 1.00 1.00 1.00 0

Currentb

 area versus 

Pre-settle 1938 2001

Table 3. Estimated area (ha; 1 ha = 2.5 acres) in primary cover types most likely influencing landbird populations in 

the Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture region from pre-European settlement, 1938, 2001, and 2016.a 

a

Area estimates were generated from model-based spatial data in LANDFIRE (2018), National Land Cover Data (NLCD; Yang et al. 

2018), and back-casting models (Sohl et al. 2018). Cover type class inaccuracies vary widely, with varying amounts of bias 

resulting from map-based estimates. There are ongoing efforts to produce model-based and model-assisted estimates of covertype area that have statistical validity and corresponding estimates of uncertainty. 

b

Current is the calculated area for each cover type in 2016, and values in columns compare to current (e.g., current 

grassland/herbaceous is 13% of the pre-settlement area, 107% of the 1938 area, and 96% of the 2001 area). 

Between 2001 and 2016, apparent loss of forest and grassland continued, but the greatest loss 

by area was pasture/hay, with nearly 1.3 million ha of net loss (Table 3). Cover classes with 

greatest estimated area increases during this period were cultivated cropland (+1 million ha) 

and development (+338,000 ha). Most new developed lands were classified low- to mediumintensity (20–80% impervious surface). Shrub/scrub also appears to have expanded in recent 

years, with an estimated 218,000 ha gain (Table 3), but forest and shrub/scrub communities 

can be quite dynamic. For example, succession stages following a severe fire or commercial 

clear-cut (i.e., complete harvest of stand) typically move from forest, to bare ground and 

grassland/ herbaceous (for a few years), to shrub/scrub (for some years), and finally back to 

forest. Much of the estimated recent expansion in shrub/scrub occurred in BCR 12, where 
20

the practice of clear-cutting has most influenced forest structure. However, disturbance and 

resulting regeneration of early successional forest varies considerably, both spatially and 

temporally (Figure 8; also see Nelson and Reams 2017). 

Figure 8. Forest area (1 ha = 2.5 acres) classed as young aspen (Populus spp.) based on Forest 

Inventory and Analysis data (M. Nelson, unpublished data, USDA Forest Service) for northern states 

in the upper Great Lakes region; area estimates include seedling and sapling stages (shrub/scrub in 

NLCD) and recently cut aspen stands. 

Recent State × BCR assessments (https://umgljv.org/planning/state-by-bcr-plans/) found 

expansion of developed land (i.e., areas with constructed materials and 20–100% impervious 

surfaces) occurred at a surprisingly high rate in central and southern portions of the JV 

region. Bird Conservation Regions 13, 23, 24, and 22 had the greatest proportional change to 

developed land between 2001 and 2011. Increases in developed land coverage resulted 

mostly from conversion of cultivated cropland, grassland/herbaceous and pasture/hay, and 

upland forest. Much of this land-cover conversion represented urban sprawl, occurring 

primarily adjacent to and between existing human population centers. Some of the greatest 

losses in bird-friendly land cover since 2001 occurred in BCR 22, where significant areas of 

grassland/herbaceous and pasture/hay were converted to cropland and developed land. 

However, substantial gains in herbaceous wetland also occurred in BCR 22, especially 

around large river floodplains in Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas.

Conservation Estate

Conservation lands include areas in public ownership, land trust and conservancy ownership,

or private-land under conservation easement. The lands and associated bird habitats are 

generally considered protected from development. Primary sources of spatial data available 

to help measure distribution and abundance of conservation lands in the JV region included 

the Protected Areas Database of the United States (PAD-US; USGS 2018) and the National 

Conservation Easement Database (NCED 2020). Staff at the JV Science Office pooled and 

cleaned these data for compilation errors, then developed a regional map of current 

conservation lands (Figure 9; see PAD and NCED websites for periodic updates). Although 

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

1965 1980 1993 2005 2010 2015

Million hectares

Inventory (median year)

Young (0-20 years) aspen timberland Minnesota

Wisconsin

Michigan
21

some of the spatial data reflect areas of acquisition interest (not yet acquired) rather than 

actual ownership, the resulting image provides a general configuration of protected lands 

across the region. Most public land is in the north (BCR 12), but there are concentrations of 

protected land in central and southern areas. Local concentrations of private land under 

perpetual and 30-year conservation easement through the Wetlands Reserve Program 

(recently renamed Wetland Reserve Easement [WRE] Program) are also prominent in 

portions of the region. Not displayed are Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) lands, 

especially valuable to grassland-nesting birds (Herkert 2007). These easement contracts are 

more temporary (typically 10–15 years), and CRP lands have frequently been converted back 

to agriculture when contracts expire (Morefield et al. 2016). 

Figure 9. Location of Federal, State, or Other conservation lands in the Upper Mississippi / Great 

Lakes Joint Venture region. The Other ownership category includes private land with perpetual/longterm conservation easement, conservancy/trust land, and county, township, and city-owned land. 

Some apparent public-land blocks encompass areas of acquisition interest or tribal-lands rather than 

complete ownership by a conservation agency. Map based on Protected Areas Database of the United 

States (PAD-US; USGS 2018) and the National Conservation Easement Database (NCED 2020). 
22

Conservation Design

Conservation design has been described as a process (to design) and a product (a design) that 

helps achieve partner missions, mandates, and goals while ensuring sustainability of 

ecosystem services for current and future generations (Bartuszevige et al. 2016, Campellone 

et al. 2014). Conservation design for JVs offers a landscape assessment and means to 

quantify and broadly target partner objectives (Soulliere and Al-Saffar 2017). The process 

involves combining biological and social geospatial data to create tools such as decisionsupport maps that prioritize landscapes to support JV objectives. Using spatial analysis, we 

assessed landscape conditions and characteristics needed to achieve particular biological 

outcomes. A primary step to complete this effort includes partner consensus around regional 

population objectives and commitment to conservation implementation. Detailed 

conservation design information (decision support maps) related to bird guilds are found in 

the forest, grassland, and urban chapters of the Strategy and in Appendix F. Using locally 

pertinent information, decision support maps can be refined to inform smaller-scale 

management actions. 

Landscape conservation design by JVs involves using the best available information to 

efficiently target conservation and achieve objectives developed during biological and social 

planning. Ideally, spatially explicit habitat objectives result from a thorough understanding 

of species-habitat associations, factors limiting population growth, and characteristics of high 

quality habitat (e.g., features resulting in enhanced breeding success and survival). The 

continually evolving biophysical conditions of our JV region due to social, economic, and 

natural influences add a dynamic and very challenging level of complexity to planning. 

Improved understanding of ecological and social systems over time will help JV partners to 

more effectively identify and retain the most important bird habitats in the future.

Integrating Social Objectives

To increase the social relevance of conservation, bird habitat restoration and retention may be 

targeted to locations already important to bird watchers or to locations potentially important 

to outdoor recreationists due to their proximity to human population centers (Devers et al. 

2017). We used eBird (Sullivan et al. 2009) data collected from 2010–2020 for JV focal 

species to develop a spatial layer depicting areas of greatest importance to bird watchers. 

High- and low-density neighborhoods (Figure 10A) were generated with a kernel density 

analysis from GPS locations and frequency of bird observations. We assumed conservation 

activity in these high activity neighborhoods should be a primary focus to increase 

birdwatcher retention and recruitment. To identify areas of potential importance to general 

outdoor recreation, we based a kernel density analysis on U.S. census data – distribution and 

abundance of people across the JV region, and open space within urban landscapes. The 

resulting map depicts neighborhoods of conservation opportunity within and around human 

population centers, including buffer areas of 50 km on average surrounding cites (Figure 

10B). Developed Open Space (NLCD 2016, Appendix B) within urban areas and 

undeveloped lands extending out from urban lands represent the predicted geographic 

distribution of greatest bird-related recreational opportunity based on distance recreationists 

readily travel from home (Devers et al. 2017). Thus, we expect potential conservation 
23

landscapes of average distance ≤50 km from where people reside (i.e., population centers) to 

receive greatest use by current and new outdoor recreationists if available and accessible to 

the public.

Figure 10. Distribution of 

bird-viewing activity (A; 

2010–2020 eBird records for 

all JV focal species) and 

potential recreation areas 

associated with humanpopulation centers (B; 

potential high-use areas 

averaging <50 km from 

human concentrations 

determined using 2010 U.S 

Census data) in the Upper 

Mississippi / Great Lakes 

Joint Venture region.

A

B
24

Adapting to System Change

This Strategy seeks to provide the best possible guidance regarding landbird populations and 

targeting habitat conservation at the JV regional and BCR scales as well as factors most 

likely to influence bird population trends. Understanding land-cover change, including the 

wildland-urban interface (https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/48642), is essential to long-term 

planning for landscapes that benefit birds and people. Beyond the many traditional and 

obvious threats to bird habitats, there are other potential sweeping influences to consider 

when developing long-term conservation strategies. Examples of challenges with high levels 

of uncertainty in the JV region include impacts from exotic and invasive species, flood 

intensity and duration, human land use (agriculture and development), and especially climate 

change – warmer winters, higher amounts of precipitation, and amplified storm intensity 

(SWCS 2003, USGCRP 2017).

If land cover changes continue at current rates, traditional decision-support models that guide 

planning and conservation efforts will become less relevant. The composition of migratory 

birds occurring at any one location is difficult to predict, but forecasting future species 

response to habitat management may be impossible due to accelerated environmental change. 

In addition, the focus on customary wildlife products (e.g., abundance and distribution) 

familiar to previous generations of wildlife managers may need to become more pliable as 

we plan and work in significantly altered and changing systems. Drawing on information 

developed by diverse regional science partners outside bird conservation may be key to 

addressing uncertainty in conserving bird habitats more resilient to environmental changes. 

JV partners must be aware of these principles, as they will become increasingly important in 

future conservation planning and implementation at local scales.

Habitat Delivery

The science of bird habitat conservation has advanced rapidly over the last couple of

decades, but our ability to implement bird conservation plans is challenged by other demands 

on natural resources agencies and organizations. The divide between knowing what to do 

and our ability to get it done is largely due to limited human and financial resources. This 

difference between a planning document and its prescribed bird habitat delivery has been 

termed the “implementation gap” (Rosenberg et al. 2016). Finding new mechanisms and 

resources to bridge this gap is essential if we are to move beyond planning to meaningful 

conservation success for landbirds. The implementation gap stems from four main issues

(our JV emphasis in parentheses):

1) Scope and scale of the challenge (prioritize species of greatest conservation need at 

continental scale that can be influenced with habitat delivery in JV region).

2) Lack of conservation capacity (share resources and use best science to target 

conservation but also expand influence to private lands and public policy).

3) Need for greater societal awareness and engagement (be relevant to society by

engaging people who already appreciate birds as well as those who are motivated by 

human health or other ecosystem services provided by bird habitat ).
25

4) Address uncertainty and adapt conservation methods (improve estimates of bird habitat 

abundance and change, understand bird population response to management, and

predict future conditions likely to influence birds).

Habitat Quantity vs. Quality

Bird habitat objectives are typically expressed as quantity values, yet quality is an equally 

important consideration. Bird-habitat quality measures have included plant community 

diversity, stand-area size and degree of fragmentation, forest understory health, and food 

density. Local-scale management prescriptions must also consider the dynamic nature of 

vegetation composition and structure with changing environmental conditions (e.g., 

precipitation patterns, disturbance regimes), finer-scale interspersion, unique bird-habitat 

features (e.g., snags, cavities), and other aspects influencing site quality for target species of 

birds. Related factors (brood parasitism, disease, pollutants, etc.) may further limit bird 

presence or abundance. Ignoring these bird habitat factors disregards landscape features 

critical to biological diversity and the long-term carrying capacity of an area for birds.

Conservation Categories and Reporting

There was a concern among JV Science Team members that the 2007 landbird-habitat 

delivery categories were confusing to partners and that activities supporting maintenance vs. 

those addressing population deficits required more detail. As we plan, deliver, and evaluate 

management actions in the future, JV partners must be diligent in their focus on activities that 

produce positive responses by focal species and benefits accrued to society while at the same 

time not diminishing habitat value for other species of high conservation concern. We 

recognize there may be management conflicts among species of concern at the project scale, 

but guidance to help weigh tradeoff decisions is available (Thogmartin et al. 2014). Partners 

also must be consistent in habitat accomplishment tracking to better relate accomplishments 

to bird population outcomes (JV goals).

Clearly defined habitat prescriptions coupled with bird population and habitat monitoring 

before and after a conservation action are essential to adaptive management. However, 

establishing measures of conservation success can be more complicated for some cover 

types, such as forest management. For example, cutting a mature forest stand reduces habitat 

features for species dependent on old-growth characteristics while increasing site value to 

species dependent on young-growth characteristics or stands with open patches. Thus, 

monitoring focal species response, overall system biodiversity, and other non-traditional

measures may be needed to evaluate success at multiple scales. The following revised birdhabitat delivery categories for accomplishment reporting better distinguish efforts protecting 

habitats currently valuable to landbirds (retention), from those habitat actions that address 

species population deficits by restoring (restoration) or substantially improving degraded 

sites (enhancement or reconstruction). Other commonly used bird-habitat management 

activities not included in JV accomplishment reporting are also defined below. For 

additional assistance interpreting restoration and enhancement terminology, and 

considerations related to wildlife habitat conservation in highly altered landscapes, the 

Society of Ecological Restoration is a valuable information source.
26

Retention = retaining habitat of relatively high value to target species (i.e., JV focal 

species or guilds) often through fee acquisition (permanent protection), perpetual 

conservation easement, other incentives, or regulation. Retention often involves purchase 

of existing bird habitats on private lands that are vulnerable to future degradation or 

development and transfer of ownership to a conservation agency or organization, assuring 

permanent protection. (Note: Acquisition of degraded sites with anticipated / planned 

restoration to quality bird habitat soon after purchase [<5 years] may be included in both 

retention and restoration categories. While retention often provides legal protection to 

ownership parcels, operational management [defined below] may also be required to 

maintain habitat quality, especially where natural disturbance regimes are interrupted.

Restoration = returning or replacing a lost natural ecosystem, thus reverting altered sites 

where ecological function and bird habitat have been compromised to a system with 

restored ecological functions and high value for focal species or guilds. A common 

example of bird habitat restoration is reverting an agricultural field to a native-plant 

grassland.

Enhancement = improving ecological function and quality of degraded bird habitat with 

practices lasting for extended periods (>10 years), such as eradicating monoculture stands 

of invasive plants and replacement with desirable species, removing exotic plant species 

from within native-plant stands, or similar actions to increase community diversity and 

health. Enhancement elevates long-term carrying capacity for focal species or guilds 

(i.e., increasing occurrence, recruitment, or survival) but does not reduce biodiversity, 

ecological functions, or habitat values for other species of conservation concern.

Operational management = periodic or annual manipulation of areas under a persistent 

management regime to achieve desired outcomes for focal species or guilds. 

Management includes actions considered routine for the location to retain quality bird 

habitat (e.g., burning established grassland to reduce brush and retain herbaceous plant 

diversity).

Operational maintenance = repair or replacement of infrastructure or equipment with 

limited life expectancy but necessary to conduct bird habitat management at this location. 

Closely related to operational management, this type of work typically occurs at areas 

intensively managed due to altered hydrology and surrounding human-influenced 

landscapes, or maintaining traps to remove cowbirds for improving Kirtland’s Warbler 

productivity. Reporting may simply include costs to complete maintenance rather than 

acres affected.
27

Only JV-related migratory bird habitat retention, restoration, and enhancement activities and 

costs are reported annually to the U.S. Congress. However, partners should consider tracking 

additional activities associated with operational management and maintenance to assess 

annual costs related to these categories, as well as 

return on investment. Results of outcome-based 

monitoring at project sites are essential to measure 

effectiveness and practice adaptive management.

Monitoring and Research

Monitoring and research programs are often 

synonymous in bird conservation. For purposes of 

this Strategy, most monitoring includes efforts 

designed and implemented to establish population 

status and measure progress toward meeting bird 

population and habitat objectives, and social 

objectives. In addition to large-scale abundance 

surveys, monitoring is essential to assess site conditions (and human desires/attitudes) before 

proposing management actions as well as measuring results of past conservation activity. 

Research projects, in contrast, are designed to answer specific questions that arise from 

uncertainties (knowledge gaps) or assumptions inherent in conservation planning. For 

example, habitat quality may be evaluated by assessing density of focal species, physical or 

environmental characteristics (e.g., vegetation related to quality habitat), or vital rates (e.g., 

survival and production). Bird-habitat use surveys that also measure changes in vital rates in 

response to environmental conditions offer an opportunity to test hypotheses about factors 

that limit population growth. Even more beneficial are surveys closely integrated with 

explicit management decisions, where biological and social predictions and testing are used 

to learn about the effects of conservation practices. In this Strategy, we provide foundational 

research and monitoring objectives, with lists of complementary and more specific evaluation 

needs available and periodically updated on the JV website.

FULL ANNUAL CYCLE

The majority of avian ecology research has focused on the breeding period, resulting in 

limited knowledge regarding other portions of the annual cycle for most species. Fewer than 

10% of species-specific studies have included more than one season or interactions between 

seasons (e.g., carry-over effects), leaving critical aspects of population dynamics unexplored

(Marra et al. 2015). Seasonal interactions at the population level may obscure drivers of 

breeding abundance trends (Wilson et al. 2011). Thus, it is critical to identify limiting factors 

and their role in population dynamics across all phases of the annual cycle. Below we 

describe important aspects of each stage of the migratory bird annual cycle and identify areas 

of research need for landbirds occurring in the JV region. We also discuss airspace as 

habitat because this component of bird life influences all annual-cycle periods. 

SHC
28

Breeding

Reproductive success (fledglings/adult) is a key parameter to measure breeding season 

habitat quality considering adult landbird survival is generally high during this period (e.g.,

Sillett and Holmes 2002, Rockwell et al. 2017). Habitat features most important to breeding 

landbirds include nesting cover and surrounding structure, plus adequate food resources. 

Breeding success can be limited by food supply (e.g., Nagy and Holmes 2005), nest 

predation (e.g., Sherry et al 2015), and their combined effects (Zanette et al. 2006). Speciesspecific information regarding breeding habitat characteristics, requirements, and potential 

limitations is located in the habitat chapters and Appendix D.

Molt

The least understood period of the annual cycle is during seasonal feather molt, with survival, 

species-specific habitat requirements, and spatial aspects being particularly important 

information needs (Tonra and Reudink 2018). Many species of landbirds overlap prebasic 

and/or prealternate molts with migration (i.e., molt-migrations; Leu and Thompson 2002; 

Pyle et al. 2018; Tonra and Reudink 2018). These molt-migration events range from smallscale movements to extended stopovers in particular molting areas to continuous molt during 

active migration. The consequences of molt-migration strategies are additional habitat 

considerations and resource needs within stopover sites. Thus, locations used as stopover 

sites during molt must meet the energetic and nutrient needs for feather production, in 

addition to migratory refueling.

In one example from the JV region, Wright et al. (2018a) documented prealternate moltmigration during spring staging of Rusty Blackbird in Ohio and found that intensity of molt 

interacts with body condition to influence stopover duration. Many species likely remain on 

breeding territories throughout the molt period, but the extent to which they use the same or 

different resources during migration needs additional research. Lastly, information regarding 

the impact that molt has on subsequent stages of the annual cycle through carry-over effects 

(Harrison et al. 2011), such as migration survival and speed, is required to better understand 

its role in productivity and population dynamics.

Migration

Research examining landbird survival across the annual cycle estimated highest mortality 

occurred during migration (Sillett and Holmes 2002, Klaassen et al. 2014, Rockwell et al. 

2017, Rushing et al. 2016). Two JV focal species of high conservation concern – Rusty 

Blackbird and Blackpoll Warbler – occur in the region almost exclusively during their 

respective migration periods. Because a relatively high proportion of these two species’ 

populations depend on the region during fall and spring migration, addressing their habitat 

needs during these life-cycle periods is a JV focus. 

There are two classes of bird migration habitat, each with their own mortality risks: stopover 

and airspace. The relative importance of each to a species within the JV region may depend 

upon migration strategy (Alerstam and Lindstrom 1990; Alerstam 1991). Landbirds that use
29

an energy-minimizing (hopping) strategy make many short stopovers interspersed with 

relatively short bouts of flight. These species will require multiple patches of adequate 

stopover habitat distributed across the region, as well as minimal impediments to airspace. 

Species that employ a time-minimizing (jumping) strategy make few stopovers between 

longer bouts of flight. They tend to stage when they do stop, with large numbers of 

individuals congregating for long periods to rest and refuel (Warnock 2010). Protection and 

enhancement of such areas in the JV region can be of great importance to some species, such 

as Rusty Blackbird (Wright et al. 2018b). Understanding the overall migration ecology of 

birds is critical to prioritizing habitat management. A conceptual framework describing 

landbird stopover habitat in anthropogenic terms (Mehlman et al. 2005) has been useful for 

planning:

Fire Escapes.—Sites that are infrequently used, but are at times utterly vital, such as 

during severe weather events. Habitat quality may be too low to allow birds to gain 

significant mass, but they can survive, take shelter, and typically acquire fresh water. 

Fire escape sites are normally adjacent to significant barriers such as deserts or large 

bodies of water.

Convenience Stores.—Habitat patches along bird migratory routes, such as small parks 

or woodlots in a non-forested matrix. These sites offer a place where birds can rest and 

gain mass, perhaps between flights to higher quality sites. A given Convenience Store 

may be better able to serve the needs of some species than others.

Full-service Hotels.—Larger and often more diverse stopover sites, Full-service Hotels 

are places where all needed resources (food, water, and shelter) are relatively abundant 

and available. These places can serve many individuals of many species. 

It is unclear to what extent in-route habitats limit migrant bird populations, but the success of 

an individual migrant is dependent on several factors, primarily the energetic state of the 

migrant and the abundance and spatial configuration of stopover habitat (Moore and Simons 

1992). Networks of stopover sites in the JV region should be linked, and conservation of 

stopover areas must be in the context of the full annual cycle. To minimize threats affecting 

migrants, conservation activities should pay particular attention to potential bird habitats

(grasslands, wetlands, and forests of all successional stages) imbedded in urban and 

agricultural landscapes and near Great Lakes shorelines and riparian corridors. Critical 

stopover networks have been identified along western Lake Erie (Ewert et al. 2006), lake 

shorelines of Wisconsin (Grveles et al. 2011), the Chicago region (Byrne 2008), and southern 

Ontario (Bryan et al. 2011). Forests ≤25 km from Lakes Michigan, Huron, Erie, and Ontario 

provide important stopovers (Ewert et al. 2012; also see Great Lakes Migratory Bird 

Stopover portal).
30

Overwintering

The primary need of wintering birds is habitat that ensures high seasonal survival (Rockwell 

et al. 2017). Some species, such as American Tree Sparrow and Short-eared Owl (Appendix 

D), occur in the JV region primarily during winter. However, most landbird species breeding 

in and migrating through the region over-winter from the southern U.S. to central South 

America. Focal species associated with forest habitats overwinter largely in the Neotropics, 

where threats typically relate to deforestation depending on forest type and overwintering 

location (Rosenberg et al. 2016). Many landbirds winter in disturbed habitats (Johnson et al. 

2004). For example, agroecosystems hold great promise in providing suitable habitat for 

Migratory Bird Stopover Facts

 Many species are more flexible in their selection of stopover habitat than breeding or 

wintering habitat, and some select different habitat types on migration routes (Petit 2000).

 Migrants may select different stopover habitat depending on a bird’s age and sex (Woodrey 

2000, Marra and Holmes 2001) or molt status (Wright et al. 2018a).

 Birds often use different habitats during spring and fall migration (Petit 2000, Buler et al. 

2007, Buler and Moore 2011).

 Forests ≤25 km from Great Lakes shorelines are used as stopovers at a higher rate than 

associated forest areas further inland (Ewert et al. 2012).

 Migrants do not always use the same routes each season; there is much variability due to 

weather, barriers, and timing (Mehlman et al. 2005, Cooper et al. 2017). 

 While birds make macro-habitat decisions just prior to landfall (Buler et al. 2007), microhabitat decisions after arriving at a site depend on food availability, competition, and presence 

of predators (Moore and Simons 1992, Barrow et al. 2000, Wright et al. 2018b). 

 Plant communities with greater complexity support greater bird species richness during the 

migration period (Moore et al. 1990).

 Habitat fragmentation may have less effect on fitness of migrants compared to breeding birds, 

and corridors of less suitable cover can facilitate movement to resource-rich sites (Petit 2000).

 High densities of migrants have been found in isolated habitat patches surrounded by large 

areas of unsuitable agricultural and urban cover (Bonter 2009, Buler and Dawson 2014).

 Importance of mortality during migration to the overall annual survival is uncertain, though it 

may be relatively high for some species (e.g., Sillett and Holmes 2002, Newton 2004, 

Rockwell et al. 2017).
31

some forest-dwelling species, in particular shade grown coffee farms that provide sufficient 

tree canopy (Rosenberg et al. 2016). Grassland focal species overwinter from the 

southeastern U.S. (Henslow’s Sparrow, Eastern Meadowlark) to South America (Bobolink). 

Like northern breeding areas, loss of fire to maintain grasslands is also a concern across 

wintering areas. Direct mortality occurs from trapping and other persecution for species 

using agricultural habitats outside the U.S. (e.g., Bobolink).

There is a growing body of literature documenting the prevalence of within-season 

relocations for overwintering landbirds (Stutchbury et al. 2016). A recentstudy using a 

network of long-term monitoring stations (Monitoreo de Sobrevivencia Invernal, MoSI) 

across the southern U.S., Central America, and northern South America found multiple 

wintering species have low residency rates, suggesting birds may shift among habitats during 

this period (Ruiz-Gutierrez et al. 2016). Residency rates between sites indicates birds are 

responding to relative habitat quality (e.g., Bulluck et al. 2019). Tracking data has 

documented within-season movements of hundreds to thousands of kilometers for some focal 

species, including Eastern Whip-poor-will (Tonra et al. 2019) and Bobolink (Renfrew et al. 

2013). The prevalence of such movements by landbirds is largely unknown, yet implications 

for conservation are substantial, potentially requiring focus on wintering habitats across 

multiple countries for the same species.

Of the JV focal species

(Table 1), published 

estimates of overwinter 

survival are only available 

for Kirtland’s Warbler 

(Rockwell et al. 2017), 

Wood Thrush (Conway et 

al. 1995), and Henslow’s 

Sparrow (Thatcher et al. 

2006), representing a 

limited understanding of 

how this period may limit 

population growth. Moreover, because landbird species often use multiple wintering 

habitats, variation in survival probability (e.g. Johnson et al. 2006) may result from disparate

habitat quality. Finally, body condition related to winter habitat quality can result in seasonal 

carry-over effects, such as sub-lethal but negative impacts during spring migration (Bearhop 

et al. 2004) and breeding (e.g. Reudink et al. 2009).

Airspace – All Seasons

Healthy airspace is a habitat component required throughout the annual cycle, essential to 

birds and other flying organisms (Diehl 2013, Diehl et al. 2018). Aerial insectivores depend 

on food-rich airspace to forage, and survival of migrating birds is higher when anthropogenic 

obstructions are limited. Aspects of airspace such as light, wind, and geomagnetic field can 

affect the ability of birds to complete migratory flights. As a result, managing features of 

airspace that impede migration or cause mortality during flight can an important part of 

Winter abundance trends (% annual change) by Bird 

Conservation Region (BCR) for some PIF priority species 

that overwinter in the JV region, based on Audubon 

Christmas Bird Counts, 1966-2017 (Meehan et al. 2018).

Species BCR

12 13 22 23 24

American Tree Sparrow 0.32 -0.34 -1.87 0.18 -2.37

Short-eared Owl N/A -1.96 -2.59 N/A 0.92

Horned Lark -0.32 2.7 -1.02 1.33 -2.77

Long-eared Owl N/A -3.35 -4.48 N/A N/A

Pine Siskin 2.73 -5.54 -2.87 -6.52 -4.58
32

migratory bird conservation. The greatest issue facing bird use of airspace is mortality 

caused by collisions with anthropogenic structures, including buildings, power lines, 

communication towers, and wind turbines. 

Buildings and Lights.—Collisions with buildings result in an estimated 600 million birds 

killed in the U.S. annually (Loss et al. 2014a). Factors affecting the rate of fatal collisions 

include amount of light (Evans Ogden 2002, Zink and Eckles 2010), amount of surface glass 

(e.g., Klem 2009, Borden et al. 2010), and the amount and proximity of vegetation (Klem et 

al. 2009, Borden et al. 2010). Two effective approaches to minimizing collisions are 

treatment of glass to disrupt the reflective surface (Klem 2009) and minimizing light emitted 

at night. Detailed information with products and recommendations to reduce collisions with 

buildings is available: (https://abcbirds.org/program/glass-collisions/ and

https://pa.audubon.org/sites/default/files/static_pages/attachments/deterrent_methods-doublesided-31_july_2018.pdf). 

Light emissions appear to be an especially 

important consideration in the JV region, as 

several cities rank as the highest weighted 

risk of bird mortality (accounting for spatial 

variation in volume of migration traffic) 

during migration, including: Indianapolis, St. 

Louis, Minneapolis, and Chicago, which 

ranks the highest nationally (Horton et al. 

2019). Furthermore, several JV focal species 

(Table 1) appear to be disproportionately 

prone to building collisions (Loss et al. 

2014a). Light pollution from cities can also affect migration behavior, including flight 

altitude (Cabrera-Cruz et al. 2019). Beginning with the Fatal Light Awareness Program 

(FLAP) in Toronto, many cities have instituted “Lights Out” programs, which have 

effectively limited migrant bird mortalities in urban areas (e.g. Evans Ogden 2002). These 

programs engage building owners who commit to minimizing light emissions during 

migration periods (https://www.audubon.org/conservation/existing-lights-out-programs).

Power Lines.—Collisions with and electrocution from power transmission lines are the 

second greatest anthropogenic mortality risk in airspace, causing an estimated 25 million bird

deaths in the U.S. annually (Loss et al. 2014b). Species that are large and less maneuverable 

in flight appear to be at greatest risk to these collisions (Bevanger1995). The Avian Power 

Line Interaction Committee (APLIC; 2006, 2012) developed best practices for minimizing 

collisions and mortalities from power lines, including use of low conductivity materials when 

feasible and optimizing distances between parts. Research has demonstrated the 

effectiveness of retrofitting lines under these recommendations (e.g., Harness and Wilson 

2001, Dwyer et al. 2014). Targeted approaches in high-risk areas are probably most 

advisable, given the undertaking necessary to retrofit large arrays (Loss et al. 2015).

Communication towers.—Collisions with communication towers cause an estimated 6.6 

million bird deaths annually in North America (Longcore et al. 2012). The factors 

Cities Active in Lights-out Program

 Ohio – Akron/Canton, Cincinnati, 

Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo

 Michigan – Detroit

 Illinois – Chicago

 Indiana – Indianapolis

 Wisconsin – Milwaukee

 Minnesota – Minneapolis-St. Paul

 Missouri – St. Louis
33

influencing collisions most are tower height and the presence of guy-wires, both positively 

associated with collision rate (Gehring et al. 2011). Three JV focal species are estimated to 

have annual mortality from communication tower collisions ranging from 1–3% of their total 

population size (Golden-winged Warbler, Canada Warbler, Henslow’s Sparrow; Longcore et 

al. 2013). The best approach to minimizing collisions, outside of limiting height and 

guywires, is replacing steady-light with pulsed-lighting fixtures (Gehring et al. 2009).

Wind turbines.—Fatality estimates from collisions with wind turbines are relatively low, 

causing an estimated 234,000 mortalities in the U.S. annually (Loss et al. 2013a). However, 

small‐bird fatalities at wind turbines are likely underestimated in many monitoring reports 

(Smallwood et al. 2020). Furthermore, this type of mortality is expected to grow, as the 

number of wind facilities is projected to increase by 20% in the next decade, and wind 

turbine height is increasing at these facilities (Loss et al. 2013a). In order to ensure the 

environmental benefits of wind energy come at a minimal ecological cost, research 

supporting well-informed siting decisions is critical. The primary causes of high collision 

rates with wind turbines are height and placement within high-traffic migration corridors 

(Smallwood and Thelander 2008). 

Siting decisions of new wind energy-generation projects is especially critical in locations like 

western Lake Erie, where shallow water and consistent high winds create great potential for 

offshore power generation facilities in this area annually hosting high concentrations of 

migrants. One project is already in the planning and early implementation stages offshore 

from the city of Cleveland (“Icebreaker”; Nations and Gordon 2017), with a goal of 

eventually expanding offshore wind facilities across the Great Lakes 

(http://www.leedco.org/index.php/about-icebreaker). While this wind energy project is an 

enormous opportunity for economic development that reduces carbon emissions, widespread 

offshore wind facilities in the Great Lakes could present significant threats to migrating

birds. Two critical information needs to inform planning in this regard are the rate at which 

birds cross the open water of the Great Lakes, and the spatial distribution of any 

disproportionately high-traffic crossing areas. The limited information available suggests 

some species primarily cross Lake Erie during spring migration (Rusty Blackbird, Yellowrumped Warbler, and American Redstart), as opposed to navigating around the lakeshore 

(Dossman et al. 2016, Wright et al. 2018b).

HABITAT CHAPTERS

The 2007 JV Landbird Habitat Conservation Strategy (Potter et al. 2007) was linked to the 

first PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004) in multiple ways. 

Priority species at the continental scale occurring in manageable numbers in the JV region 

served as planning focal species. Regional JV goals were stepped-down from the continental 

PIF Plan, and goals in both documents aspired to double population size for most species of 

conservation concern (Rich et al. 2004, Potter et al. 2007). Population estimates were 

provided by PIF (Rich et al. 2004; Rosenberg and Blancher 2005) and population deficits for 

JV focal species were calculated (population goal - current population = deficit) for BCRs in
34

the JV region. Estimates of breeding densities in high-quality habitat were gathered (or 

generated) from the literature for focal species, and habitat objectives were developed via 

models for the JV region, States, BCRs, and each State × BCR polygon (Potter et al. 2007).

Whereas this substantial 2007 JV planning effort resulted in a valuable and informed starting 

point for regional landbird conservation, populations that were declining in the region have 

continued their downward trend. Moreover, landbird habitat objectives established in the 

2007 JV Strategy eventually were considered unrealistic or of limited relevance to landbird 

conservation stakeholders (Soulliere et al. 2019) in the context of ongoing landscape and 

environmental change. A similar realization at the continental scale resulted in a revised 

approach to population objective setting in the latest PIF Plan (Rosenberg et al. 2016). 

Because objectives are fundamentally value-based, the PIF community streamlined the 

process, beginning with basic questions framed around species extinction and acceptable 

levels of commonness. Continental PIF abundance goals are now statements of desired 

future condition phrased as Recover, Prevent Decline, Reverse Decline, and Stabilize

(Rosenberg et al. 2016).

Watch List Prioritization and Goals

We used the 2016 PIF goal categories for this Strategy: 1) recover species of greatest 

conservation concern (Watch List – Red), prevent decline of species considered highly 

vulnerable due to restricted range and small population (Watch List – Yellow R), reverse

trends for declining species of concern (Watch List – Yellow D), and stabilize downward 

population trends of common birds in steep decline. Conservation plans developed for two 

Recovery species of greatest conservation concern, Kirtland’s Warbler (KWCT 2015) and 

Golden-winged Warbler (Roth et al. 2019), offer abundance objectives separate from the 

2016 PIF Plan. These documents also provide detailed habitat conservation practices 

benefiting suites of birds occurring in common areas. Note: Kirtland’s Warbler populations 

have steadily increased since 1990 and the species was moved from Watch List – Red to 

Watch List – Yellow R since completion of the 2016 PIF Plan. 

For other JV focal species, recent breeding abundance estimates (PIF 2020; Table 4) were 

used as a baseline condition to establish 10- and 30-year goals for both future abundance and 

annual trends. These projected abundance estimates will serve as JV population goals for 

declining species, aligning with PIF’s general approach (Rosenberg et al. 2016): “The 

objectives reflect a short-term desire to slow and then halt declines, at a minimum, for all 

these bird groups. The long-term objectives provide targets for longer range conservation 

planning, and reflect the desire to return declining Watch List species to at least a portion of 

their former abundance. ... Given population trends and the results of these assessments and 

partner dialogue, species objectives may be adjusted in the future as part of an adaptive 

conservation framework.”
35

12 13 22 23 24

Forests and Barrens

Eastern Whip-poor-will 1,829,900 113,100 0 74,700 13,500 15,600 216,900 12

Red-headed Woodpecker 1,802,600 3,900 6,700 358,000 52,200 21,600 442,400 25

Wood Thrush 12,191,400 261,100 75,300 367,200 302,400 253,800 1,259,800 10

Golden-winged Warbler 393,300 283,100 0 0 29,800 0 312,900 80

Kirtland's Warblerb 4,800 4,800 0 0 0 0 4,800 100

Cerulean Warbler 528,900 2,000 4,700 2,100 19,500 33,400 61,700 12

Canada Warbler 2,597,400 291,200 0 0 2,600 0 293,800 11

Grasslands

Henslow's Sparrow 408,200 1,800 208,700 38,400 47,700 296,600 73

Bobolink 10,195,300 637,100 17,400 561,400 576,800 1,200 1,793,900 18

Eastern Meadowlark 24,431,700 199,300 84,000 5,769,200 677,400 250,400 6,980,300 29

Urban

Chimney Swift 8,808,600 79,900 120,500 1,164,200 355,800 156,600 1,877,000 21

a Model-based, mean breeding abundance estimates (rounded to nearest 100) derived from BBS data (2006-2015) by Partners in Flight 

(2020b). Model methodology is documented in Will et al. (2020). Estimates are not provided for focal species occuring in the JV 

region primarily during non-breeding periods (American Tree Sparrow, Blackpoll Warbler, Rusty Blackbird, and Short-eared Owl).

b Kirtland's Warbler estimates from Kirtland's Warbler Conservation Team (KWCT 2015).

Table 4. Focal species used for landbird conservation planning in the Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture 

(JV) region, and breeding population abundance estimates (BPOP) within USA/Canada, JV region, and Bird 

Conservation Region (BCR: area within JV region only).a

Habitat category and

species

USA/Canada 

BPOP

BCRs (BPOP in JV region only) Total

(JV region)

Portion of

USA/CAN 

BPOP (%)

The PIF approach links trend and future abundance goals, prescribing 10- and 30-year annual 

trend goals for each species in a designated watch list category. Manipulating projected

trends over time and at various geographic scales provided insight into the magnitude of 

change needed in different geographies to achieve larger-scale goals. We applied a trendbased tool developed for Bobolink (J. Herkert, Illinois Audubon) to other JV focal species to 

determine interrelated BCR population objectives that when rolled up would meet JV 

regional population abundance goals. Initial BCR-scale abundance trends for BCRs 12, 22, 

and 23 were generated from BBS data collected during 2006–2015 (Sauer et al. 2017). 

Species abundance trends for the relatively small portions of BCR 13 and 24 within the JV 

region were also determined using BCR-wide trend estimates for the purpose of population 

objectives setting. Our method of adjusting annual trends to meet 30-year population 

abundance goals required that very negative trends in some BCRs be significantly dampened 

and ultimately reversed to positive trends. The approach also assumed recent positive trends 

for some species could not be sustained indefinitely, and these upward trajectories were 

generally dampened down over time. Trend forecasts to meet abundance goals are described 

below by PIF watch list category, with species-specific details included in Appendix E.

Watch List – Red, recover (Golden-winged Warbler). Population objectives are provided 

in a species-specific conservation plan (Roth et al. 2019). 
36

Watch List – Yellow R, prevent decline (Henslow’s Sparrow; Yellow R due to restricted 

range and small population). We dampened all initial trends 50% by year-10 and 

furthermore brought all trends to 0 by year-30. This manipulation resulted in achieving 

PIF trend and abundance goals in the JV region while accounting for the relatively large

and currently increasing population in BCR 22, with a conservative prediction that the 

current increasing condition is unsustainable. Note: Kirtland’s Warbler was recently 

moved from Watch List Red to Watch List Yellow-R, and its population objectives are 

detailed in a separate species-specific plan (KWCT 2015).

Watch List – Yellow D, reverse decline (Red-headed Woodpecker, Eastern Whip-poorwill, Wood Thrush, Cerulean Warbler, Canada Warbler, Bobolink,Chimney Swift; 

Yellow D due to declining populations). In general, we tried to achieve the PIF goal of 

slowing declines by 60–75% across the entire JV region, which meant manipulating BCR 

trends variably for each species. We then adjusted annual trends in each BCR by a 

similar magnitude in order to derive a 5% total population increase in 30 years (per the 

PIF 2016 guidance).

Common birds in steep decline (Eastern Meadowlark). We slowed initial trends by 60% 

and brought all annual trends to zero by year-30, therefore stabilizing populations at a 

level lower than current population abundance (≤25% loss per PIF 2016 guidance). 

We provide additional information regarding developing population objectives, including 

projected abundance trends by BCR with more concerted and effective conservation vs. the 

status quo (Appendix E). The numerical difference in projected abundance over time 

between a scenario with concerted conservation effort (our 30-year objective) and the status 

quo (business as usual) is presented in summary tables and population abundance graphs,

which highlight the significant challenge ahead to reverse declines for many JV focal species.

Our ability to quantify bird habitat objectives based on biological models and species-habitat 

relationships was limited due to the incredible diversity of regional landscapes, the varied 

and dynamic nature of threats to bird populations, lack of bird habitat-quality measures (e.g., 

production and survival rates) from existing spatial data, and uncertainty around breeding 

density estimates for JV focal species. Moreover, we lacked complete understanding of 

factors most limiting focal species population growth during the full annual cycle. Using the 

best information available, we describe primary threats to grassland and forest birds in the JV 

region and provide general habitat objectives based on recent land cover change. We 

assumed that retaining current areas of key plant communities and restoring potential bird 

habitats to recent and measurable extents would provide logical aspirational goals for the JV. 

We also assumed local managers and associated conservation networks, when provided focal 

species habitat descriptions and guidance to target key geographies would generate the most 

appropriate habitat retention, restoration, and enhancement decisions based on their area 

knowledge. 

Meeting range-wide population goals will require focal species conservation addressed at the 

BCR scale (Appendix E) and ultimately targeted to State × BCR units, where local bird 

habitat actions are planned and delivered. The following grassland and forest sections 
37

establish large-scale objectives while also providing resources (via internet links) to help 

inform local bird conservation decisions. Trends in relevant landscape cover types (see Land 

Cover and Habitat Assessment, page 18) and species-habitat relationships (Appendix D) 

provided the foundation for these habitat recommendations. Finally, this Strategy has 

integrated human dimensions into conservation planning, recognizing the importance of bird 

habitats to human quality of life (e.g., outdoor recreation, water filtration, and carbon 

sequestration). We provide a unique section titled Urban Birds and Developed Lands, 

highlighting the growing habitat overlap between birds and people in this JV region.

_________________________________________

Grassland Birds

Intensification of row crop agriculture and expanding 

development (Table 3) are primary and obvious 

challenges to grassland birds in the JV region, whereas 

less quantifiable negative influences include pesticide

use, invasive species, and effects of climate change. In 

addition to direct habitat loss, the quality of grasslands

as bird habitat is also a concern, particularly at remnant 

and reconstructed (i.e., replanted native species) grasslands and working lands, such as 

pasture and hay land. Lack of disturbance has resulted in declining habitat quality at native 

and restored grasslands by allowing woody and invasive herbaceous plants to colonize sites 

(Fuhlendorf and Engle 2001). Too much disturbance can also be a problem, with complex 

relationships existing between annual grazing (ranching) intensity, the timing of that grazing, 

and the timing of burns (Davis et al. 2016). In the Kansas Flint Hills of the western JV 

region, extensive and uniform annual burning (vs. patch burning) has resulted in loss of 

prairie structural diversity (Fuhlendorf and Engle 2004, NRCS and WHMI 2005). In 

Missouri, Iowa, and further east, managing dense monoculture-grass stands for grazing lands 

has resulted in low quality habitat for grassland birds where diverse pastures once existed

(George et al. 2009, 2013). Nevertheless, policies and practices that keep ranches intact and 

grass-based agriculture on the landscape is favorable to other land use alternatives (i.e., row 

crops, rural development/fragmentation).

Publicly owned grasslands may not be susceptible to agricultural conversion or development, 

but they often occur within working landscapes where they face threats of habitat 

fragmentation via land-cover changes on surrounding ownerships. They also frequently lack 

adequate disturbance, resulting in subsequent loss of diversity. Bird occupancy on both 

private and public lands is influenced by patch size and habitat fragmentation. These 

characteristics impact nest survival and brood parasitism, but the extent of their effect is 

variable, depending on other aspects of landscape composition (Benson et al. 2013). 

Grassland bird occupancy generally increases in larger grassland patches (Herkert et al. 1996, 

Ribic et al. 2009), whereas smaller patches and more edge typically leads to increased brood 

parasitism (Benson et al. 2013).

To compare relative importance of the numerous threats to grassland bird habitats, we used 

the Open Standards approach (Conservation Measures Partnership 2013) with focus on BCR 

Grassland Bird Focal Species 

Breeding (B) / Nonbreeding (NB)

Henslow's Sparrow - B

Bobolink - B

Eastern Meadowlark - B

Short-eared Owl - NB

American Tree Sparrow - NB
38

22, where grasslands historically and currently were most extensive in the JV region (Figures 

4 and 6). Threats on privately owned vs. public lands were evaluated and ranked by an 

expert team of JV scientists based on each threat’s extent, severity, and irreversibility to 

grasslands during the next 10 years (Table 5). Threat categories of greatest concern, and 

most likely associated with downward trends in grassland bird populations (i.e., those 

ranking Very High and High [red and orange in Table 5]), are summarized below.

OS category OS threat Private Public

1.1 Housing & Urban Areas 3.3 2.6

1.2 Commercial & Industrial Areas 3.2 2.6

2.1 Annual & Perennial Non-Timber Crops 3.3 2.7

3.1 Oil & Gas Drilling 2.3 1.9

3.2 Mining & Quarrying 2.3 2.2

3.3 Renewable Energy 2.5 2.0

4.1 Roads & Railroads 2.6 2.3

4.2 Utility & Service Lines 2.1 2.1

7.1 Fire & Fire Suppression 2.9 3.0

7.2 Dams & Water Management / Use 2.3 2.0

7.3 Other Ecosystem Modifications 2.0 1.5

7.4 Removing / Reducing Human Maintenance 2.3 2.6

8.1 Invasive Non-Native / Alien Plants & Animals 3.2 2.9

8.2 Problematic Native Plants & Animals 2.5 2.5

8.3 Introduced Genetic Material 2.4 2.1

9.5 Airborne Pollutants 3.0 2.9

11.3 Changes in Temperature Regimes 2.9 2.9

11.4 Changes in Precipitation & Hydrological Regimes 2.7 2.7

11.5 Severe / Extreme Weather Events 2.8 2.8

Table 5. Threat categories used by Open Standards (OS; Conservation Measures 

Partnership 2013) and average threat scores (0-4) for privately-owned and public grasslands 

in Bird Conservation Region 22 within the Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture 

(JV) region, generated by a team of JV grassland-bird experts. Threats assessed for the next 

10 years ranked Very High (>3.0), High (≥2.5 to <3.0), and Moderate (≥1.5 to <2.5). 

Threats considered lower priority were not listed.

Residential and Commercial Development (OS 1.1, 1.2).—Human development ranked 

highest among threats to grasslands (Table 5) because of current expansion trends, 

proportionately high conversion of private grasslands/croplands to development, and its high 

irreversibility score. Residential sprawl reduces survival and reproduction of many native 

plant and wildlife species, decreases native species richness (including insect prey), and 

increases nonnative species richness (Hansen et al. 2006). Moreover, with expanded exurban 

development comes growth in commercial development and its associated infrastructure 

(roads, power lines, and rights-of-way). Remaining bird habitats typically become 

fragmented, which leads to greater disturbance from human activities and exposure to 

predators like free-ranging domestic cats and raccoons. Developed areas also create barriers 

to movement between grassland patches and cause direct mortality through collisions with 

vehicles or buildings (McLaughlin et al. 2014, Renfrew et al. 2019).
39

Agriculture (OS 2.1).—Native tallgrass and mixed-grass prairies in the JV region are 

vulnerable to agricultural conversion because of their nutrient rich soils and high suitability 

for crop production (Comer et al. 2018, Wilsey et al. 2019b). Cropland was considered 

highest among the suite of threats on private land (Table 5) due to recent trends in expansion 

of corn and soybean production, especially for biofuels (Lark et al. 2015). Remnant 

grassland patches in row-crop settings are often fragmented and low quality for grassland 

birds because of edge effects like increased rates of predation, brood parasitism, and 

invasions by nonnative plant species (Winter et al. 2000). Furthermore, agricultural practices 

may cause direct losses or sub-lethal effects on grassland birds. Haying early and more 

frequently, for example, is one of the greatest threats to Bobolinks in the Midwest, causing

high nest mortality rates and overall reduction in productivity (Renfrew et al. 2019). 

Grassland birds are also vulnerable to pesticides because they are more likely to forage and 

nest in open agricultural settings. Pesticide use may cause toxicity via ingestion of treated 

seeds, which can lead to mortality or sub-lethal effects (e.g. reduced nesting success) on birds 

that are frequently exposed (Hallmann et al. 2014, Stanton et al. 2018). Increased use of 

neonicotinoid insecticides in recent years has been linked to significant declines in grassland 

birds (Li et al. 2020); pesticide acute toxicity is a better correlate of U.S. grassland bird 

declines than agricultural intensification (Mineau and Whiteside 2013). 

Renewable Energy (OS 3.3).—An increasing demand for renewable energy to meet carbon 

reduction standards and secure energy independence has led to proliferation of wind farms, 

especially in open landscapes, with their relatively high winds and open space (Shaffer and 

Buhl 2016, Renfrew et al. 2019). However, we have much to learn regarding the effects of 

expanding renewable energy infrastructure on grassland birds. The footprints and sweeps of 

large wind-towers result in direct loss of grassland bird nesting habitats and airspace, in 

addition to habitat fragmentation due to associated roads, power lines, and rights-of-way 

(Kuvlesky et al. 2007). Breeding birds also display avoidance behaviors to turbines, which 

has further reduced area of available habitat in native prairie (Shaffer and Buhl 2016, Winder 

et al. 2015). Collisions with wind turbines lead to direct mortality of grassland birds 

although these appear to be rare and often not thought to cause population level effects 

(Kuvlesky et al. 2007). Large-scale solar energy facilities and associated infrastructure also 

cause direct habitat loss for many of the same reasons as wind energy. Because renewable 

energy technology is relatively new, there has been only limited evaluation of direct effects 

on birds (Lovich and Ennen 2011). Its growing popularity in the Midwest warrants further 

investigation. 

Natural System Modifications (OS 7.1, 7.4).—Fire suppression has resulted in the need for 

prescribed burns, mowing, or other types of maintenance in many grassland systems to 

reduce the litter layer and woody encroachment, while adding structural diversity and

maintaining the unique array of disturbance-adapted plant species (Wilsey et al. 2019b). Too 

much disturbance (e.g., over grazing or overuse of fire), however, can lessen structural plant 

diversity and eliminate suitable bird nesting cover, while too little leads to woody 

encroachment that lowers breeding success or excludes species that avoid woody growth and 

edges (Winter et al. 2000, Vodehnal and Haufler 2007, Graves et al. 2010). Deliberate

actions to manage and maintain healthy grasslands are required in much of the JV region, and 

loss of this management ability is a serious threat especially on publicly owned lands.
40

Invasive Non-Native / Alien Plants & Animals (OS 8.1).—Generally, grassland birds use 

native or non-native plant communities where structural diversity results in suitable habitat. 

However, some non-native invasive plants, like tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) and 

Sericea lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneate) often planted for pasture, outcompete native grassland 

species and can homogenize plant and insect communities (Vodehnal and Haufler 2007, 

Shaffer and DeLong 2019). These effects have reduced grassland bird abundance and 

species diversity, especially on private lands, while also making conditions suitable to lessdesirable species like Brown-headed Cowbird, a brood parasite (Shaffer and DeLong 2019). 

Invasive grasses can result in higher nest predation and parasitism rates, but effects vary by 

bird species (Jaster et al. 2013, Ruth 2015, Maresh-Nelson et al. 2018). 

Airborne Pollutants (OS 9.5).—Drift from herbicide use on croplands (e.g., toxic sprays) was 

considered a threat because it can lead to simplification of vegetation structure and plant 

diversity in nearby grasslands. Air-borne insecticides can reduce insect abundance, requiring 

birds to travel greater distances for food, and cause direct mortality or sub-lethal effects, 

resulting in reduced nest success, increased predation, and starvation risk (Martin et al. 2000,

Stanton et al. 2018, Renfrew et al. 2019).

Climate Change (OS 11.3, 11.4, 11.5).—Rising temperatures, changes in hydrological 

regimes, and extreme weather events associated with climate change threatens grassland 

birds. Climate change can interfere with grassland management, such as chemical control of 

invasive plants and prescribed fire (e.g., shortened affective burn periods). Grasslands are 

particularly vulnerable because they have little buffering capacity due to their openness and 

often fragmented nature (Jarzyna et al. 2016). Grassland birds also have some of the highest 

climate velocities, with accelerated shifts in home range that will further strain populations 

already facing dramatic habitat declines (Wilsey et al. 2019c). Phenological mismatches 

with food resources, and intense and uncontrolled fire may lead to increased mortality and 

reductions in grassland bird breeding success, causing overall population-level changes 

(Crick 2004, Skagen and Adams 2012, Wilsey et al. 2019c).

Population and Habitat Objectives

Population objectives for breeding grassland focal species (Henslow’s Sparrow, Bobolink, 

and Eastern Meadowlark) were developed in accordance with 2016 PIF Plan guidance 

(Appendix E). Assessing population trends and relative abundance across the JV region 

helps state- and local-scale habitat implementers define their potential role in individual focal 

species conservation. Depending on a species range and habitat requirements, certain subregions (e.g., BCRs) are more important to reverse downward trends (Figure 11). Although 

grassland-bird habitat objectives were not quantified using biological models, we used the 

NLCD to estimate current area of potential habitat and the area lost since 2001 within each 

State × BCR polygon. We then developed a conservation design for restoring and targeting 

the area of recently lost habitats for grassland focal species within the JV region.
41

Figure 11. Conceptual depiction 

of Eastern Meadowlark 

population abundance goal and 

current trend in Bird 

Conservation Regions (BCRs) of 

the Upper Mississippi / Great 

Lakes Joint Venture. Solid lines 

characterize long-term goal 

achievement (population stability 

via new habitat conservation),

whereas current trend (status 

quo) is indicated by dashed lines. 

Note: About 15% of the Eastern 

Meadowlark’s global population 

breeds in BCR 22 (Panjabi et al. 

2020), the most important area 

for this species in the JV region.

Habitat actions in BCR 22 will 

likely result in greatest impact 

dampening or reversing the

downward trend across the JV region.

Conservation Design

Targeting conservation begins with knowing where grasslands once naturally occurred 

(Figure 4) and where open lands (combining NLCD 2016 herbaceous, pasture/hay, cultivated 

cropland, and emergent herbaceous wetland) important to grassland birds remain today. 

Geospatial analysis was used to identify grasslands in open landscapes where restoration and 

expansion of grass is likely to have the greatest bird response. Building on identified patches 

(Figure 12A), grassland restoration is the primary means to expand habitat area to address 

focal species population deficits. Grassland retention (and enhancement) should be 

emphasized on small and large patches, especially within areas (Figure 12B) currently 

supporting relatively high grassland bird abundance and diversity (see Appendix D for focal 

species distribution and abundance).

Extensive blocks of herbaceous grassland and pasture/hay remain in Kansas, Nebraska, 

Missouri, and Iowa (Figure 12), but much of the pasture in Missouri and Iowa is dominated 

by tall fescue (Festuca arundinacea) and smooth bromegrass (Bromus inermis) with limited 

value to birds. Reconstruction of these large monoculture stands to native prairie could result 

in significant gains for breeding grassland birds in BCR 22. Smaller-scale grassland 

restoration opportunities exist throughout the JV region where relatively open lands persist. 

The PIF Grassland Bird Conservation Area (BCA) model helps visualize opportunities for 

piecing together local habitat complexes with greater value to birds (Figure 13) based on 

principles of grassland bird ecology (Sample and Mossman 1997). The model integrates 

needs of species requiring small vs. large habitat areas (e.g., Henslow’s Sparrow vs. 

Meadowlark and Greater Prairie-Chicken, respectively) at the patch and landscape scale 

(Fitzgerald et al. 2000) and where working agricultural lands represent a prominent land use. 
42

Figure 12. Areas where grassland bird 

habitats occur (A) and where grasslands are 

the most prominent land cover (B) in the 

Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint 

Venture region. Image A reflects areas 

where grassland (combining NLCD 2016 

herbaceous and pasture/hay) is ≥20% of 

land cover in landscapes with ≥70% total 

open-land (combining NLCD herbaceous, 

pasture/hay, cultivated cropland, and 

emergent herbaceous wetland). Image B 

reflects areas with ≥20% grassland in 

landscapes with ≥70% total open-land, but 

where grasslands occur in contiguous 

patches ≥50 ha (125 acres) in size. Note: 

Spatial analyses were completed using 100 

ha pixels, thus areas with grassland patches 

≥50 ha (B) reflect areas where landscapes

are ≥50% contiguous grassland.

A

B
43

Grassland BCA.—Encompassing ≥4,000 ha (10,000 acres) with minimal forest cover, a 

Grassland BCA is anchored by a contiguous core area of permanently protected high-quality 

grassland bird habitat at least 800 ha (2,000 acres) in size (Figure 13). Around this core is a 

matrix of primarily private agricultural lands, preferably managed for suitable bird habitats or 

at least maintained to be neutral in how the land use affects bird life (e.g., small grains). 

Parcels should include permanent grass cover, totaling about 10% of the BCA, and long-term 

/ long-rotation grass cover (e.g., CRP grasslands, light- to moderately-grazed pasture, and/or 

idle field), totaling 10–20% of the BCA. The remaining area (50–60%) may consist of active 

farmland (Figure 13). Ideally, all privately owned lands would be secure from development 

and forestation that could threaten area openness and viability for grassland birds. Designed 

to support grassland bird species with large and small area requirements, the BCA model can 

be downscaled where target species do not require such large open areas (Walk et al. 2010).

Figure 13. Conceptual diagram of a Grassland Bird Conservation Area in a Midwest working 

landscape (from Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, unpublished report) encompassing a 

complex of open-land cover types (2.5 acres = 1 ha).

Recent evaluations of scale-specific habitat associations and occupancy in Wisconsin 

(Guttery et al. 2017) provided further insight to the complexity of designing landscapes for 

obligate grassland bird species. However, the Grassland BCA model continues to provide a 

feasible framework to focus conservation efforts in mixed working landscapes with a realistic 

expectation of benefiting grassland-nesting birds. Moreover, open-land complexes

comprised of grassland/herbaceous, pasture/hay, cultivated cropland, and emergent 
44

herbaceous wetland can provide grassland birds critical migration and wintering habitat. 

Data from the annual Christmas Bird Count (Meehan et al. 2018) suggest significant portions 

of the global wintering populations of American Tree Sparrow (45%), Short-eared Owl

(24%), and Horned Lark (16%) occur in the JV region.

Habitat Delivery 

Grassland birds occupy a wide spectrum of habitats ranging from short/sparse vegetation to 

tall/dense vegetation, across a wide range of soil moistures and with varying levels of 

disturbance and structure (Figure 14). Thus, large-scale and diverse grassland systems best 

meet the varied habitat associations required by assemblages of grassland birds (Herkert et al. 

1996). In much of the JV region, greatest benefits will result from conservation actions that 

build on remnant prairie, existing grassland core areas, and native-grass restorations or 

reconstructions adjacent to existing core areas (Figures 12 and 13). Focusing grassland 

conservation efforts on and near existing grassland complexes in relatively open landscapes 

is our most effective course of action for grassland bird conservation across the JV Region.

At the local scale, simply connecting small grassland parcels (e.g., establishing 

grassland/open-land corridors, removing mature trees within and between grassland patches) 

can increase site suitability for area-sensitive species.

Prescribed fire, mechanical disturbance (e.g., brush clearing, mowing), and grazing are 

effective management tools to maintain openness and diversity in vegetative structure, and 

their rotation and duration of use will result in varied species response (Figure 14). 

Managing grasslands for birds requires a balance of long-term need for disturbance to 
45

maintain preferred plant composition and structure against the more immediate needs of safe 

nesting and brood-rearing habitat. Because disturbance is essential to grassland health, 

availability of alternate habitats in the surrounding landscape beyond the disturbed area is an 

important management consideration. 

Figure 14. Grassland birds occurring in the Prairie Hardwood Transition (BCR 23) respond to a 

continuum of vegetation structure; a diversity of management actions, regimes, and timing; and 

varying edaphic conditions. Species-specific requirements may depend on life stage: placement of 

Greater Prairie-Chicken at multiple locations in the schematic illustrates its changing habitat needs 

during the breeding period (e.g., lekking, nesting, brood rearing). This representation of bird 

occurrence along gradients of vegetation, management, and soil moisture in Wisconsin grasslands 

based on historical data and expert opinion (David Sample, Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources, 

used with permission). Specific species requirements can vary across the JV geography.

Grassland bird conservation may involve acquisition and public land management to retain or 

connect key prairie areas, but successful large-scale safeguarding of grasslands will need to 

focus on private lands where agriculture covers most of the region’s historic prairie and 

savanna. There are useful examples of public-private collaborative grassland conservation 

efforts benefitting birds at local scales (see https://www.iowadnr.gov/conservation/birdconservation-areas), and small grassland patches have been integrated into traditional rowcrop agriculture while providing multiple ecosystem services (pollinator use, nutrient 

retention, flood control, carbon sequestration). Prairie Strips, a program piloted at Iowa State 

University to restore permanent linear grasslands in row-crop matrices, has also improved

soil and water retention and provided habitat patches useful as stopovers for migrating 
46

grassland birds. Precision farming and associated removal of poor-producing portions of 

fields from production incentivizes farmers to maintain or increase yield while decreasing

cost and increasing patches of grassland bird-friendly habitat. Working with social scientists, 

JV partners can learn more about agricultural landowners in the region in order to better 

target programs that appeal to their desires and needs.

Large-scale government incentive programs likely hold the greatest promise to restore and 

retain significant areas of grassland in the JV region. Established by the 1985 U.S. Farm 

Bill, the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) has been responsible for restoration of more 

grassland bird habitat than any other government-sponsored effort in recent decades. Under 

this cost-share and rental payment program, the government pays land-owners to take certain 

lands out of production, converting cropland to natural cover such as cool-season grasslands 

or native prairie, wildlife and pollinator plantings, buffer strips, and grassed waterways 

(https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/national/programs/?cid=stelprdb1041269). 

The primary purpose of the program is to reduce land erosion, improve water quality, and 

deliver wildlife benefits by removing highly erodible or environmentally sensitive land from 

agricultural production through long-term rental agreements.

Between 1985 and 1993, implementation of the CRP resulted in establishment of about 14 

million ha (35 million acres) of grassland across the U.S. Acreage enrolled in CRP 

fluctuated over time but stayed relatively stable between 1994 and 2007. Since 2007, 

however, nationwide CRP area has been declining, and as of 2018 there were 9 million ha 

(22.6 million acres) enrolled. Highest CRP enrollment in the JV region occurred in the mid1990s at 2.8 million ha (7 million acres), with >80% of conservation practices considered 

beneficial to grassland wildlife. Total CRP enrollment in the JV region declined 30–40% 

from its peak, but trends have varied by state (Figure 15). Currently the states of Iowa, 

Missouri, and Illinois account for most of the CRP area in the JV region.

Figure 15. Total area (acres; 1 acre = 0.4 ha) by state within the Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes 

Joint Venture region enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) since its 1985 inception 

(includes all conservation practices).

0

500,000

1,000,000

1,500,000

2,000,000

1986 1991 1996 2001 2006 2011 2016

CRP acres (all practices)

Year

ILLINOIS INDIANA IOWA KANSAS MICHIGAN

MINNESOTA MISSOURI NEBRASKA OHIO WISCONSIN
47

Federal policies such as the Ethanol Fuel Standards (Renewable Fuel Standard mandating 

crop-based fuel), agricultural crop insurance, and waning support for various aspects of the 

Conservation Title of the Farm Bill (principally CRP) have increasingly inhibited integrated 

agro-ecological landscapes capable of sustaining both food production and healthy grassland 

bird populations. In the absence of consistent federal and state policy protecting grasslands, 

economic tools such as habitat exchanges, market-based compensatory mitigation programs, 

and direct payments for ecosystem services may offer promising means for restoring grass to 

the landscape and the bird populations reliant on them. Understanding landowner 

motivations for participating in conservation programs and the intersection between prices 

and decision-making will be essential. For example, participating in CRP has major financial 

implications, but decisions also are driven by family dynamics, personal conservation ethic, 

and complexity of enrollment (Reimer and Prokopy 2013, Ranjan et al. 2019).

Establishing meaningful habitat objectives for grassland bird focal species is difficult, 

considering uncertainty about policies and programs influencing land use, and our limited 

knowledge regarding which stage of the annual cycle most affects species abundance. 

However, using NLCD we estimated the area of current potential grassland bird habitat in the 

JV region (i.e., 2016 NLCD classes Grassland/herbaceous and Pasture/hay) and the area of 

this cover type recently lost (comparing 2016 NLCD to 2011, 2006, and 2001). Although 

NLCD land cover classes vary in map accuracy (Wickham et al. 2017), these spatial data 

provide a practical habitat baseline for long-term restoration and retention targets to help 

reverse declining populations of grassland birds. 

Current grassland bird habitat in the JV region is most abundant in BCR 22, especially in 

Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, Nebraska, and Illinois, where grassland restoration and retention 

opportunity is greatest (Table 6). Grassland restoration and retention opportunity is also 

considerable in BCR 23, particularly in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Bird habitat 

objectives (Table 6), combined with grassland distribution and abundance data (Figures 12A 

and B), should be used to direct conservation, especially through large private-land initiatives 

such as the CRP. In addition, descriptions of high quality habitats for focal species

(Appendix D), an understanding of the varied disturbance/management needs of grassland 

birds (e.g., Figure 14), and local priorities (e.g., sediment retention, pollinator conservation)

can be integrated when developing smaller-scale (e.g., State × BCR) habitat delivery 

strategies. Local land cover spatial arrangements may be further informed using the annual 

Cropland Data Layer. 

Grassland conservation delivery may be quite variable across the JV region and over time. 

For example, market-based solutions appealing to landowners may include using warmseason grass to diversify forage for cattle, biofuel production (Meehan et al. 2010), carbon 

sequestration on agricultural lands, new cultivars and cropping systems, or market-based 

solutions like the National Audubon Society’s Conservation Ranching Program that provides

a product premium for beef certified bird-friendly. An evaluation of Audubon Conservation 

Ranches during the first four years of the program (2016-2019) found that grassland bird 

communities were significantly more abundant and diverse compared to conventionally 

managed ranch lands (N. Michel, National Audubon, unpublished report). 
48

State BCR Herbaceous Hay/pasture Herbaceous Hay/pasture Combined Herbaceous Hay/pasture Combined

Iowa 22 190,516 1,330,840 28,896 278,464 307,360 219,413 1,609,304 1,828,717

23 18,551 161,673 712 34,369 35,081 19,264 196,041 215,305

Illinois 22 45,736 725,806 4,227 56,468 60,696 49,963 782,275 832,238

23 2,915 61,009 146 4,085 4,231 3,061 65,094 68,155

Indiana 22 27,544 179,046 2,614 16,529 19,143 30,158 195,574 225,732

23 8,581 107,295 257 10,365 10,623 8,838 117,660 126,499

24 32,065 427,381 0 32,999 32,999 32,065 460,380 492,445

Kansas 22 1,955,570 1,638,531 55,065 125,725 180,790 2,010,635 1,764,257 3,774,892

Michigan 12 313,791 143,695 22,147 7,883 30,031 335,938 151,578 487,516

23 77,998 305,146 3,997 16,693 20,690 81,994 321,839 403,833

Minnesota 12 114,502 272,610 0 18,042 18,042 114,502 290,652 405,155

22 23,287 60,411 1,976 9,217 11,194 25,263 69,629 94,892

23 33,782 421,770 0 50,420 50,420 33,782 472,190 505,972

Missouri 22 38,430 2,648,993 0 416,899 416,899 38,430 3,065,892 3,104,322

Nebraska 22 296,069 68,307 56,791 10,118 66,910 352,860 78,425 431,285

Ohio 13 15,557 419,953 0 27,080 27,080 15,557 447,034 462,591

22 15,265 347,681 0 40,950 40,950 15,265 388,630 403,895

23 5,088 30,734 412 2,848 3,260 5,500 33,582 39,082

24 1,171 32,877 0 2,611 2,611 1,171 35,488 36,658

Wisconsin 12 53,818 133,404 10,686 10,483 21,169 64,505 143,887 208,392

22 1,950 23,745 1,100 2,304 3,404 3,050 26,049 29,099

23 69,934 1,019,873 5,630 80,792 86,422 75,564 1,100,665 1,176,229

Total by BCR 

12 482,111 549,709 32,834 36,409 69,242 514,945 586,118 1,101,063

13 15,557 419,953 0 27,080 27,080 15,557 447,034 462,591

22 2,594,367 7,023,360 150,670 956,675 1,107,345 2,745,037 7,980,035 10,725,072

23 216,849 2,107,498 11,154 199,573 210,728 228,003 2,307,072 2,535,075

24 33,236 460,258 0 35,610 35,610 33,236 495,868 529,103

Total JV region 3,342,120 10,560,779 194,658 1,255,348 1,450,005 3,536,778 11,816,126 15,352,904

a

 Grassland bird habitat objectives include a Combined category as inaccuracy in spatial data interpretation between Grassland/herbaceous and 

Pasture/hay can be high. Grassland/herbaceous is generally considered more bird friendly than Pasture/hay due to less agricultural manipuation. 

Retention objectives may be achieved by a number of approaches, but especially programs and policies focused on private lands. 

Current area (ha) Restoration Retention (current + restoration) 

Area objectives (ha)a 

Table 6. Current potential grassland bird habitat, plus long-term (30 year) habitat restoration and retention objectives, in the Upper 

Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture (JV) region by state and Bird Conservation Region (BCR). Area (ha; 1 ha = 2.5 acres) 

estimates are based on National Land Cover Data (NLCD; Yang et al. 2018) classes Grassland/herbaceous and Hay/pasture, and 

referred to as potential bird habitat due to lack of habitat-quality measures. Current area reflects 2016 NLCD estimates, whereas 

restoration objectives reflect the area of each habitat type lost between 2001 and 2016 (a "0" value in cell = gain during 2001-2016). 

Unless indicated otherwise, long-term habitat retention objectives are equivalent to 2001 NLCD estimates for these cover types (current 

area + restoration objective = retention objective). Shaded cells indicate 2016 (not 2001) area estimate was highest based on NLCD 

estimates (i.e., there was a gain betweenn 2001 and 2016), thus retention objective reflects the more recent (higher) area amount. See 

Appendix D for detailed descriptions of habitats used by grassland bird focal species. 
49

Several large and local scale habitat strategies with potential to affect grassland birds were 

detailed in the Full Life-Cycle Conservation Plan for Bobolink (Renfrew et al. 2019). 

Scientists within the agricultural community are also promoting biological or Regenerative 

Farming to address soil and water conservation, climate change, and reducing the use of 

chemicals known to negatively impact soils, insects, and birds 

https://www.midwesternbioag.com/research-results/case-studies/;

https://rodaleinstitute.org/whyorganic/organicbasics/regenerative-organicagriculture/). Improving working 

grasslands will require outreach 

and training in sustainable 

production techniques and 

innovation to address underlying 

economic realities faced by agribusiness. 

Grassland Game Birds.—Conservation agencies and organizations often have dedicated 

funds they are required to use for management of traditional game species, such as Greater 

Prairie-Chicken, Ring-necked Pheasant, Sharp-tailed Grouse, Northern Bobwhite, and 

waterfowl. The habitat needs of grassland, grass-shrub, and grassland-wetland game species 

typically overlap with the needs of non-game landbirds occurring in grasslands. The 

National Wild Pheasant Plan recognizes many of the same habitat challenges discussed in 

this grassland bird chapter. In addition, the Pheasant Plan includes detailed information 

regarding human dimensions, such as hunter recreation and related financial expenditures by 

state. The Pheasant Plan goals comprise state-level targets for pheasant abundance, habitat 

area, and annual harvest. Similarly, Bring Back Bobwhites is a national conservation 

initiative, but detailed population and habitat objectives are in separate documents developed 

by state wildlife agencies. State-level conservation plans also exist for Greater PrairieChicken and Sharp-tailed Grouse, where these species occur in manageable numbers, as well 

as locally breeding waterfowl that benefit from grassland nesting cover.

Pollinators.—Wildlife agencies, NGOs, and some industries are increasingly responding to 

the needs of pollinators (https://www.fws.gov/savethemonarch/ccaa.html). North America’s 

native pollinators are a highly diverse group comprised of bees, butterflies, moths, and other 

insects, as well as hummingbirds and bats. Native pollinators are common in grasslands and 

even developed areas when these locations include patches of cover with a significant nativeforb component. Pollinators are extremely important to the North American economy and 

our quality of life, yet populations of many native pollinator species are in steep decline due 

to habitat loss and pesticide use (https://www.nwf.org/pollinators). Integrating habitat 

actions (Table 6) for game and non-game grassland birds, plus pollinators, can provide 

means to expand the social relevance of grassland conservation. The methodology exists to 

help JV partners combine biological and social objectives and target conservation to benefit 

grassland birds and people (e.g., Appendix F).

Resources: Managing for Grasslands Birds

• https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp1842

• https://www.ontariosoilcrop.org/wpcontent/uploads/2015/08/GrasslandBirdsWorkbook.pdf

• https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENT

S/nrcs143_009930.pdf
50

Summary – Regional Management Actions for Grassland Birds 

 Implement grassland bird habitat restoration and retention objectives (Table 6) at locations 

currently dominated by grasslands (Figure 12B), and where grasslands occur at moderate 

densities and can be expanded into surrounding open landscapes (Figure 12A).

 Restore, reconstruct, and manage grasslands to meet descriptions of quality habitat for 

grassland bird focal species (Appendix D, Figure 14), addressing primary grassland threats 

(Table 5), replacing invasive mono-cultures such as smooth brome and tall fescue, and 

following the general model for Grassland Bird Conservation Areas within open working 

landscapes ≥ 2,500 ha (Figure 13). 

 Translate State × BCR bird habitat objectives (Table 6) to restoration and retention actions via 

conservation networks using a suite of programs (e.g., CRP, EQIP, WRP, State conservation 

initiatives, etc.).

 Engage and integrate with partners outside the traditional landbird conservation community,

working toward grassland restoration and protection initiatives focused on game (hunted) 

species, pollinators, grassland-nesting wetland birds, industry, and biological / regenerative 

farming. 

 Continue to integrate social science into grassland bird planning and habitat delivery, better 

communicate why grassland conservation is advantageous to society, and seek expanded 

social science expertise on the JV Management Board and Science Team.

 Develop and refine models that integrate social and biological objectives to target 

conservation with greater benefits to grassland birds and people (e.g., Appendix F), and with 

the goal of increasing relevance and support for bird conservation. 
51

___________________________________

Forest Birds

Compared to grasslands, forest area in the JV region 

has been relatively stable and remains the dominant 

land cover in BCR 12 and large portions of BCR 23 

and 24 (Figure 6, Appendix C). Encompassing about 

30% of total land cover, the area of upland forest today

is similar to that of the 1930s, and the estimated area of 

forested wetland has increased (Table 3). Prior to 

European settlement, these landscapes were less 

fragmented and disturbance regimes were natural (i.e., 

wind throw and fire). Mature-stand conditions and 

conifers dominated northern mesic forests (Albert 

1995), and eastern deciduous forests were predominantly mature. Oak savanna, jack pine 

barrens, and spruce-fir forest were subject to relatively frequent fires and wind events,

resulting in mosaics of mixed-age stands.

Natural disturbances and transformations in forest composition still occur, but anthropogenic 

activities have become the dominant and more predictable means to set back succession or 

achieve other desired forest conditions. Based on landscape-change assessment, areas of 

shrub/scrub and woody wetland are increasing in northern portions of the JV region, 

replacing areas previously classed as upland forest (Figure 16). Increasing area of 

shrub/scrub in recent years occurred largely in BCR 12, where timber-harvest activity and 

natural disturbances are most prominent (see Land Cover and Habitat Assessment, page 18). 

Much of this gain in shrub/scrub and corresponding loss in upland forest area will revert to 

forest cover following regeneration at harvested and disturbed sites (Nelson et al 2020). 

In the southern half of the JV region, many floodplain forests associated with large rivers are 

declining in area (Figure 16), becoming more open and replaced by the NLCD classification 

open water. Floodplain forests along major rivers are normally very dynamic systems whose 

plant species are adapted to disturbance. However, higher amounts of precipitation and 

longer flooding duration in recent years have resulted in tree mortality, limited tree 

regeneration, and increased openness of woody wetlands (USACE 2012). This condition is 

common where system hydrology has been most altered (i.e., BCR 22 areas with agricultural 

field tiling and ditching) and where riparian tree species such as ash and elm (Fraxinus and 

Ulmus spp.) have been stressed or killed by disease. 

Forest Bird Focal Species 

Breeding (B) / Nonbreeding (NB)

Eastern Whip-poor-will – B

Red-headed Woodpecker – B

Wood Thrush – B

Golden-winged Warbler – B

Kirtland's Warbler – B

Cerulean Warbler – B

Canada Warbler – B

Rusty Blackbird – NB

Blackpoll Warbler – NB
52

Figure 16. Areas of forest/woody land cover change between 2001 and 2016 in the Upper Mississippi 

/ Great Lakes Joint Venture region, generated from National Land Cover Data (NLCD; Yang et al. 

2018) at the HU10 watershed scale (x unit size = 640 km2). Assessment includes change in (A) total 

forest area (all forest types), (B) upland forest, (C) woody wetlands, and (D) shrub/scrub. Note:

NLCD cover-type classification accuracies vary depending on bias resulting from map-based 

estimates (see Appendix B for NLCD cover type descriptions). 

Whereas the northern, largely forested, half of the JV region has experienced far less 

urbanization than other portions, several metropolitan areas do exist (Figure 6), and rural and 

recreational home building is substantial in some counties (Hawbaker and Radeloff 2004, 

Radeloff et al. 2005). Conversion of forest to farmland and forest simplification has also 

occurred (Matteson et al. 2009). Although gross changes from forest diversion (loss of forest 

to non-forest land uses) and reversion (gain in forest from non-forest to forest) have recently 

been similar in area, resulting in minimal net change to total forest cover, forest composition 

and structure can differ substantially between areas lost and gained. Based on current land 

cover trends, extensive net gain in forest area is unlikely in the JV region; thus, addressing 

A B

C D
53

threats to forest birds and their habitats (including habitat quality) may be the best means to 

stabilize declining populations. To inform forest-bird conservation planning, we identified 

and prioritized primary threats across BCR 12 and 23 forests, which encompass most forestbird breeding areas within the JV region (Figures 3 and 6). Using the Open Standards 

approach (Conservation Measures Partnership 2013), a team of JV scientists assessed the 

extent, severity, and irreversibility of each threat to regional forests during the next 10 years 

(Table 7). Threats most important to forests and forest birds in the JV region (i.e., those 

ranking Very High and High [red and orange in Table 7]) were summarized below.

OS category OS threat BCR 12 BCR 23

1.1 Housing & Urban Areas 2.5 2.9

2.1 Annual & Perennial Non-Timber Crops 2.5 2.9

3.2 Mining & Quarrying 2 2

3.3 Renewable Energy 2 2

4.1 Roads & Railroads 2 2.9

4.2 Utility & Service Lines 2 2.4

7.1 Fire & Fire Suppression 3 3

7.4 Removing / Reducing Human Maintenance 2.5 2.9

8.1 Invasive Non-Native / Alien Plants & Animals 2.5 2.5

8.2 Problematic Native Plants & Animals 3 3

8.4 Pathogens & Microbes 3 3

11.3 Changes in Temperature Regimes 2 2

11.4 Changes in Precipitation & Hydrological Regimes 3.5 3.5

11.5 Severe / Extreme Weather Events 2.5 2.5

Table 7. Threat categories used by Open Standards (OS; Conservation Measures Partnership 

2013) and average threat scores (0-4) for forests in Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) 12 and 

23 within the Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture (JV) region, generated by a team 

of JV forest-bird experts. Threats assessed for the next 10 years ranked Very High (>3), High 

(≥2.5 to <3.5), and Moderate (≥1.5 to <2.5). Threats considered low priority were not listed.

Development (OS 1.1).— Expansion of human developments has led to a loss of forest-bird

habitat, forest fragmentation, and degradation of forest quality, which has in turn negatively 

impacted forest bird populations (Frelich 1995, Robinson 1996, Radeloff et al. 2005, Schulte 

et al. 2005, Pidgeon et al. 2007, Rosenberg et al. 2019). Birds near developed areas face 

more human-associated predators (e.g., free-ranging cats), window collisions, invasive 

species (e.g., plants, birds), nest parasites (e.g., Brown-headed Cowbirds), light pollution, 

and loss of large blocks of forest cover (Brittingham and Temple 1983, Dominoni 2015,

Hager and Craig 2014, Gnass Giese et al. 2015, Loss et al. 2015, Niemi et al. 2016). 

Agriculture (OS 2.1).—The JV forest landscape has been fragmented by agriculture related to 

livestock (especially cattle) and row crops (e.g., corn, soybeans, potatoes), which lowers the 

amount of forest cover and increases forest edges, detrimental to many forest-breeding birds 

(Knutson et al. 2004). Forest birds using areas within agricultural landscapes are negatively 

affected by human-associated predators (e.g., raccoons), nest parasites (e.g., Brown-headed 

Cowbirds), and pesticides (Knutson et al. 2004, Loss et al. 2015, Li et al. 2020).
54

Transportation and Service Corridors (OS 4.1).—The JV region is traversed by a substantial 

system of roads, railroad tracks, and power lines, all of which fragment forests and provide 

pathways for invasive plant species (Hawbaker and Radeloff 2004, Radeloff et al. 2005, Fan 

et al. 2013, Gnass-Giese et al. 2015). Anthropogenic linear corridors, in general, affect birds 

primarily through the fragmentation of critical interior-forest habitats. However, collisions 

with vehicles, power lines, and wind turbines, plus electrocutions from power lines, also 

cause high levels of mortality in some areas (Loss et al. 2015). Conversely, creation and 

maintenance of young forest stand conditions within and along transportation and utility 

corridors may benefit bird species associated with this cover type.

Natural System Modifications (OS 7.1, 7.4).—Catastrophic disturbances during European 

colonization (e.g., clearing extensive pine forests) were often followed by slash fires 

resulting in forest regeneration favoring hardwood species like maple, oak, paper birch, and 

aspen. The result of these historic events and subsequent ecological responses has been a 

loss of diversity both in structure and species (Hupperts et al. 2019), and an associated loss of 

forest resilience to threats, such as disease and invasive plants. Moreover, fire suppression 

has resulted in loss and quality of fire-dependent systems, including pine barrens and oak 

savannas.

Invasive and Problematic Species (OS 8.1, 8.2, 8.4).—Invasive and problematic species are 

particularly difficult to address in this JV region due to the high level of commerce-related 

transit (e.g., trucking, rail, and international shipping), human development, and associated 

plant community disturbance. Because most invasive species are difficult and expensive to 

control, their establishment can result in widespread loss of native species and structural 

diversity in forests and lower habitat quality for forest birds (Koenig and Liebhold 2017). 

For example, invasions by the emerald ash borer (Agrilus planipennis) and hemlock woolly 

adelgid (Adelges tsugae) represent insect threats with the potential for permanent loss of 

associated tree species. Introduced earthworms consume leaf litter and reduce cover and 

native-plant richness, and they have been linked to declines in some ground-nesting 

songbirds (Loss et al. 2012). Lower native insect diversity associated with invasive shrubs 

can also reduce the suitability of habitats for nesting birds (Fickenscher et al. 2014). Forest 

pathogens can destroy tree roots and reduce water and nutrient uptake, as well as cause 

cankers or wilt diseases that reduce the flow of water to leaves (e.g., oak wilt in savannas). 

Over-abundant native species, notably white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), can also 

significantly alter breeding forest bird populations by eliminating the forest undergrowth, 

shrub layers, and even regenerating tree saplings (Vitek et al. 2017).

Climate Change (OS 11.4, 11.5).—Climate change is predicted to have far-reaching, 

potentially catastrophic impacts to birds due to rising temperatures and related weather 

events, particularly extreme storms, intense forest fire, and lake/river-level changes (Wilsey 

et al. 2019a). In addition, climate change can disrupt and intensify natural cycles of insect 

populations including forest pests such as spruce budworm. Whereas some forest birds may 

benefit from temporary forage abundance during budworm outbreaks, other bird species 

respond negatively to the long-term change in forest structure and composition (Drever et al. 

2018). Over half of eastern North American forest birds are moderately or highly vulnerable 
55

to climate change, while 98% of boreal forest species are moderately or highly vulnerable 

(Wilsey et al. 2019a). Migration phenology and patterns will change (Jones et al. 2012; 

Wilsey et al. 2019a), potentially resulting in a mismatch of food resources critical during 

migration and breeding periods. Ranges of some forest bird species will shift (or continue to 

shift), while others may disappear entirely due to a lack of required habitat components

(Hitch and Leberg 2007, Zuckerberg et al. 2009, Wilsey et al. 2019a). Finally, changes in 

hydrologic regimes and severe weather events will influence forest birds, particularly related 

to riverine forest lost due to longer flood duration and lack of tree regeneration. 

Population and Habitat Objectives

From a global breeding-bird perspective, forested lands in the JV region are most important 

to Kirtland’s and Golden-winged Warblers, supporting about 100% and 80% of their 

worldwide breeding populations, respectively. Conservation plans developed for Kirtland’s 

Warbler (KWCT 2015; >1,000 pairs with population expansion) and Golden-winged Warbler 

(Roth et al. 2019; 50% increase) used traditional approaches to establish objectives for 

abundance and distribution, and priorities of these detailed species-specific plans are 

supported in this Strategy. For the remaining five forest-breeding focal species (Eastern 

Whip-poor-will, Red-headed Woodpecker, Wood Thrush, Cerulean Warbler, and Canada 

Warbler), population trend and abundance goals that support the 2016 PIF Plan (Appendix E) 

will serve as long-term JV objectives. Although habitat objectives were not generated using 

biological models linked to population objectives, we quantified current area of potential 

forest-bird habitat (by forest type) within each State × BCR polygon and assumed these 

quantities were required to retain current bird population abundances. We also provide 

information to help managers restore and enhance forest-bird habitat quality and to spatially 

target conservation actions to achieve greatest forest-bird population response. 

Kirtland’s and Golden-winged 

Warblers were categorized into 

forest habitat associations (Table 

2), but they both occur in mosaics 

comprising a variety of cover 

types and successional stages, 

largely on managed lands (i.e., 

public and commercial forests). 

Several breeding focal species 

benefit from complexes of diverse

forest, often with maximum habitat quality achieved through management. Healthy forest 

systems typically reflect an assortment of forest stand sizes, ages, species compositions, and 

landscape patterns that support the varied biological needs of birds. One of the great 

challenges of forest planning and management for wildlife is employing a landscape 

approach, recognizing that diverse bird habitat needs are provided within a complex of 

associated forest stands. Each stand provides different attributes at different seral stages, but 

these characteristics may take decades to develop and lost quickly by a timber sale, wildfire, 

or severe wind event. Natural disturbances (fire, wind) are unpredictable, but can comprise 

nearly half of all canopy disturbances in some years (Nelson and Reams 2017). In many 

Management of Kirtland's Warbler habitat results 

in a shifting mosaic of mixed cover types, from 

patches of low-stature grassland to seedling, sapling, 

and pole-sized evergreen forest, typically jack pine. 

Kirtland’s Warbler habitat can support Upland 

Sandpipers, Clay-colored Sparrows, and Brewer's 

Blackbirds in addition to other birds that use a mix 

of young forest and openings for nesting. 
56

unmanaged private lands and some public lands (i.e., wilderness designation), fire and windthrow represent the vast majority of forest-canopy disturbances. Thus, forest planning and 

management must take into account actions that support diverse bird habitats, economic 

interests, and other landowner objectives.

Population objectives were not generated for the nonbreeding period, although threats to and 

characteristics of high-quality stopover and wintering sites have been articulated (see Full 

Annual Cycle, page 27, and Appendix D). From a regional scale, the JV must maintain a

viable network of stopover sites that connect to stopovers in adjoining regions, requiring 

future cross-regional collaboration. The quality of a stopover network is influenced by forest 

patch sizes and distribution, as the distance between these sites impacts fitness of migrants 

(Matthews and Rodewald 2010, MacDade et al. 2011, Wright et al. 2018). Although 

virtually all forests in the JV region have potential for use by migrants, their habitat quality 

(i.e., food and cover provisions) depends largely on tree-species composition and age 

structure, related insect/mast abundance and leaf structure, and patch size (habitat quantity). 

Forests with oaks, hickories, American elm, willows, and birches are generally favored 

during migratory stopover (Graber and Graber 1983, Piaskowski and Albanese 2001, Pollock 

et al. 2004, Wood et al. 2012). Additionally, migrant birds undertake local movements up to 

at least 30 km among stopover sites; the function of these flights remains uncertain but may 

relate to birds finding better habitat or evaluating weather conditions in preparation for the 

next leg of migration (Mills et al. 2011, Taylor et al. 2011, Wright et al. 2018b). 

Conservation Design

We identified primary forest areas in the JV region and completed analyses to determine the 

distribution of areas most important to forest birds. Areas with ≥70% total forest cover (all 

forest types combined) were identified (Figure 17A) and location of the largest contiguous 

forest blocks were determined (Figure 17B). The importance of the northern JV region 

(BCR 12) in providing extensive breeding habitats critical to forest birds was not a surprise

(Niemi et al. 2016), but large forest patches were also common in southern portions of 

Michigan, Wisconsin, and Indiana. Areas within Missouri, Ohio, Illinois, and Iowa included 

substantial expanses with moderate densities of forest cover, reflecting locations of 

potentially high breeding and migratory stopover importance. 

Large- and moderate-sized forest patches with limited fragmentation are especially important 

to the success of breeding forest birds. Areas between moderate-sized patches of forest 

(Figure 17B), including low-intensity development and poorly producing agricultural lands,

may be restored to forest (or expanded forest canopy) over time to increase forest 

connectivity. Forest-dominated areas and even small forest patches are important during the 

nonbreeding period, particularly to birds migrating along the Great Lakes shoreline (Ewert at 

al. 2011). The current need for stopover locations may be greatest where forest cover is most 

limited (BCR 22; Figure 17A), especially along river corridors, other water features, and 

developed areas within the JV region. Forest restoration, however, should not conflict with 

grassland bird conservation, where restoration of herbaceous cover is a better ecological fit

(Figure 4). 
57

Figure 17. Areas where forest-bird 

habitats are the dominant land cover in the 

Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint 

Venture region: A) Locations where 

forested lands (combining NLCD 2016 

Evergreen, Deciduous, Mixed Forest, 

Scrub-Shrub, and Woody Wetland) 

account for ≥70% of total land cover 

within 1 km2 pixels, and B) locations of 

contiguous forest, where 1km2 pixels are 

nearly 100% forested (i.e., continuous 

forest patches are ≥100 ha in size).

A

B
58

Habitat Delivery

The distribution and abundance of total forest cover has been relatively stable in the JV 

region in recent decades when upland forest types, woody wetlands, and shrub-scrub areas 

are combined (Table 3). We provide general forest-bird habitat objectives, with a focus on 

retaining the current distribution of diverse deciduous, evergreen, and mixed forest (Table 8). 

Understanding the distribution and abundance of forest types along with JV focal species 

habitat requirements (Appendix D) is essential when developing local-scale conservation 

activities. For example, healthy and diverse forest-bird communities normally require a 

mosaic of forest types and conditions (Figure 18) that can also withstand timber product 

yields, adapt and remain resilient to climate change, and support human communities. 

Conservation to sustain viable populations of northern-forest breeding species should chiefly 

focus on maintaining large, relatively unfragmented forest blocks (Figure 17B) >10,000 ha in 

size and with limited infrastructure (e.g., permanent roads, development, mining). In central 

portions of the JV region (and BCR 24), retention of areas with ≥70% forest cover (Figure 

17A), especially contiguous patches ≥50 ha in size, is a high priority for forest breeding 

birds. Finally, semi-forested landscapes (<70% forest cover) can be valuable to forest birds, 

especially in BCR 22, where breeding habitat is limited and where management focus should 

be forest restoration and canopy expansion.

Figure 18. Conceptual forest mosaic depicting bird use of various seral stages following canopy 

disturbance such as a timber harvest, fire, or severe wind event in the Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes 

Joint Venture region. The original image was from the Passenger Pigeon Project, portraying

catastrophic canopy disturbance resulting from intense pigeon-colony use. Photos and associated

arrows added to demonstrate the range of forest structure used by breeding JVfocalspecies.
59

State BCR Deciduous Evergreen Mixed Subtotal Shrub/Scrub

Iowa 22 666,977 11,662 112,356 790,995 5,875 129,878 926,748

23 165,880 1,706 20,392 187,978 499 10,259 198,736

Illinois 22 1,105,144 5,662 447,763 1,558,569 5,014 196,414 1,759,996

23 43,151 1,441 15,676 60,268 1,243 8,535 70,046

Indiana 22 413,468 3,546 36,613 453,627 3,715 46,284 503,625

23 126,218 3,558 4,673 134,449 3,118 102,685 240,252

24 1,367,171 18,475 167,632 1,553,278 6,568 49,030 1,608,877

Kansas 22 701,919 4,208 49,098 755,225 13,849 38,797 807,871

Michigan 12 2,048,865 657,465 983,978 3,690,308 189,439 2,220,206 6,099,953

23 1,183,831 97,775 156,156 1,437,762 21,529 1,042,966 2,502,257

Minnesota 12 1,408,118 452,458 949,963 2,810,539 231,308 2,933,952 5,975,799

22 53,796 1,121 8,932 63,849 209 9,293 73,351

23 468,714 19,149 44,470 532,332 4,735 108,248 645,316

Missouri 22 1,543,918 14,070 211,571 1,769,560 10,087 219,551 1,999,198

Nebraska 22 116,508 604 1,346 118,457 692 22,063 141,212

Ohio 13 595,326 7,160 82,244 684,730 7,616 75,842 768,188

22 483,748 5,971 72,768 562,488 2,604 14,009 579,101

23 70,035 1,142 1,398 72,575 148 24,925 97,648

24 76,472 4,253 18,767 99,493 306 394 100,193

Wisconsin 12 1,542,870 137,890 685,411 2,366,171 74,764 1,306,716 3,747,651

22 17,069 1,267 4,607 22,944 157 3,448 26,549

23 1,911,583 142,052 427,310 2,480,944 42,459 958,388 3,481,791

Total by BCR 12 4,999,853 1,247,813 2,619,352 8,867,018 495,511 6,460,874 15,823,403

13 595,326 7,160 82,244 684,730 7,616 75,842 768,188

22 5,102,549 48,111 945,054 6,095,714 42,201 679,736 6,817,652

23 3,969,411 266,823 670,074 4,906,308 73,732 2,256,006 7,236,046

24 1,443,644 22,728 186,399 1,652,771 6,874 49,424 1,709,069

Total JV region 16,110,784 1,592,635 4,503,122 22,206,541 625,935 9,521,882 32,354,358

Table 8. Area (ha) of current forest and woodland cover types and potential forest bird habitats in the Upper Mississippi / 

Great Lakes Joint Venture (JV) region by state and Bird Conservation Region (BCR). Estimates (1 ha = 2.5 acres) are 

based on National Land Cover Data (NLCD; Yang et al. 2018) classes and referred to as potential bird habitat due to lack 

of habitat-quality measures. See Appendix B for details on high quality habitats for forest bird focal species.

Forest (upland) Woody 

wetland

Total forest 

and woodland

The need for food-rich, high-quality migration habitat is especially relevant to the large 

populations of forest birds stopping to rest and refuel in the JV region. Vast forests critical 

for breeding birds in the northern JV region also provide stopover habitats, especially where 
60

management results in structural diversity and where forest composition includes oaks, 

hickories, American elm, willows, and birches. However, forest restoration and retention for 

nonbreeding forest birds is a higher priority in the southern two-thirds of the region (Figure 

17A). Forest cover adjacent (≤25 km) Great Lakes shorelines, where forest birds stop to 

refuel before overwater flights (Lakes Erie and Superior), or follow north-south forested

corridors during migration (Lakes Huron and Michigan), must remain a conservation focus. 

Stopover-management actions

in the southern half of the JV 

region should pay particular 

attention to riparian corridors, 

forest-savanna transitions, and 

forest patches within developed 

areas. Habitat delivery will vary 

by site condition, but managers 

can begin local-scale 

prescriptions following 

principles of sustainable forest 

management. 

Sustainable Forest Management.—By adopting the principles of forest certification programs 

(e.g., Forest Stewardship Council and Sustainable Forestry Initiative) and tenets of ecological 

forestry, bird habitat partners can mitigate and eventually reverse the effects of forest 

simplification and natural system modifications. Sustainable forest management generally 

emphasizes forest attributes important to birds (Audubon Vermont and Vermont Department 

of Forests, Parks, and Recreation 2011) such as:

 Variety of forest age classes and developmental stages across the landscape.

 Complex vertical stand structure (canopy, mid-story, understory, and ground layer).

 Closed canopy (75–80%) in older stands with small gap openings.

 Large diameter (>24 inches diameter at breast height) tree retention.

 Downed woody material, and thick, well-developed litter layer.

 Retention/creation of snags and cavity trees.

 Diversity of native tree species.

 Retention of softwoods within hardwood forests.

Numerous sources of information are available to guide local-scale forest management for JV 

focal species (e.g., see Resources: Managing for Forests Birds text box, page 60), with 

especially detailed guidelines documented in conservation plans for Kirtland’s and Goldenwinged Warblers. In addition, efforts are underway to provide land managers and forestry 

professionals with specific enhancements to forest management practices that benefit priority 

bird species through initiatives such as Forestry with Birds in Mind Toolkits (Michigan), 

Managing Forests for Birds Video Series (Ohio), and Foresters for the Birds Workshops

(Minnesota). New social science research is also informing approaches to bird habitat 

delivery when working with private foresters (Lutter et al. 2018, 2019). 

Resources: Managing for Forests Birds 

• http://vt.audubon.org/sites/default/files/bird-guide.pdf

• https://obcinet.org/healthy-forest-management/

• https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/forestmanagement/guides

• https://mdc.mo.gov/trees-plants/forest-care/missouriforest-management-guidelines

• https://www.treefarmsystem.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/2/

4e2de1420a5fb11d340fd116076e8695/files/manage_your

_woodlands_for_songbird_habitat_07262013.pdf
61

Whereas bird-habitat delivery is local, this Strategy promotes understanding and continually 

adapting management to large-scale influences on birds. The greatest overarching threat to 

forest birds may be climate change, but there remains uncertainty regarding which species 

will be most influenced and where in the annual cycle habitat conservation can best mitigate 

climate change impacts. General adaptation and mitigation strategies regarding bird habitats 

have been described (Wilsey et al. 2019a), and several approaches have been identified to 

guide land managers in retaining healthy forests better able to cope with climate change 

impacts (Swanston et al. 2016). 

Climate Adaptation.—Rules to maintain healthy forests (and bird habitats) in an era of 

accelerated climate change:

 Maintain fundamental ecological functions (i.e., reduce negative impacts to soils, 

maintain/restore hydrology and riparian areas, and restore fire-adapted ecosystems).

 Reduce the impact of biological stressors (e.g., pests and pathogens, invasive species).

 Reduce the risk and long-term impacts of severe disturbances (i.e., address risk and 

severity of catastrophic wildfires, revegetate sites quickly following disturbance).

 Maintain or create refugia (especially for at-risk or sensitive native species and 

communities).

 Maintain and enhance species and structural diversity.

 Increase ecosystem redundancy across the landscape (i.e., manage for apparent bird 

habitat surpluses over a range of sites and conditions).

Role of Land Conservancies and Trusts in Bird Habitat Delivery

Most forests (and grasslands) in the JV region are privately owned, and conserving 

private lands for birds is essential. Land conservancies and trusts are diverse and 

increasingly important vehicles for protecting private, often unique, landscapes

significant to birds. Numerous conservancies with a bird focus in the JV region range 

from The Nature Conservancy (https://www.nature.org/.../great-lakes-birds), with its 

worldwide reach and market-based approaches, to smaller organizations, such as the 

Grand Traverse Land Conservancy in northern Lower Michigan (https://www.gtrlc.org).

In 2013, the Cornell Lab of Ornithology used social science-based methodology to 

conduct a national online survey of land trusts and their attitudes toward bird 

conservation. Results indicated that land trusts, if supported with science and technology, 

could achieve landscape-scale conservation for birds. Subsequently, Cornell Lab 

established the Land Trust Bird Conservation Initiative

(https://www.birds.cornell.edu/landtrust) with a focus on Engaging People, Planning,

Management Guides, and Presentations and Publications. New social science research is 

also informing approaches to bird habitat delivery on private lands and working with 

private foresters (Lutter et al. 2018, 2019).
62

 Promote landscape connectivity (i.e., reduce fragmentation and create corridors).

 Maintain and enhance native-species genetic diversity.

 Facilitate community adjustments through species transitions (i.e., favor species welladapted to predicted conditions, manage for species with wide temperature and 

moisture tolerances, move at-risk species to resilient sites, introduce well-adapted 

species).

 Realign ecosystems after disturbance (i.e., revegetate with best-fitting native species 

after disturbance, and allow natural regeneration to test for future-adapted species).

Because most JV focal species winter 

outside of the region, collaboration 

through strategic partnerships and 

potential investment in conservation 

actions outside the Midwest and U.S. 

will help secure return on investments to 

bird habitats made in the JV region. 

Considering climate-related range shifts,

we must also expand collaboration and 

integration of planning across 

interconnected geographies though 

working groups and initiatives to advance multi-JV landbird conservation. 

Forest Game Birds.—Wildlife management agencies and organizations often have dedicated 

funds they are required to use for management of game species. However, these groups are 

increasingly exploring management opportunities benefiting suites of game and non-game 

birds as components of healthy forest communities. For example, the Michigan Young 

Forests Wildlife Action Plan is framed to address the needs of species like Golden-winged 

Warbler and Eastern Whip-poor-will as well as American Woodcock and Ruffed Grouse, 

while also considering vulnerability of Michigan forest wildlife to climate change and other

threats. Likewise, the Wisconsin Young Forest Partnership provides guidance for earlysuccessional forest game birds, but songbirds dominate the list of benefiting species 

recognized by these conservation partners. The Ruffed Grouse Society and American 

Woodcock Society collaborated to build a model for expanding game bird habitat but with 

attention to other wildlife and the numerous social benefits of sustainable forest management 

(https://ruffedgrousesociety.org/the-ruffed-grouse-society-model-of-working-forests/). There 

also are crossover management opportunities for bird species dependent on old-growth forest 

characteristics, from Cerulean and Canada Warblers to cavity-nesting Wood Ducks and 

Eastern Wild Turkeys. 

Management for birds can benefit other taxa: cavity-nesting bird habitat benefits cavitydenning mammals; providing large trees for birds benefits tree-roosting bats; retaining 

standing dead and downed woody materials for woodpeckers benefits amphibian, reptiles, 

small mammals, and insects; management for early-successional forest and semi-open 

woodlands benefits white-tailed deer as well as Northern Bobwhite and Eastern Wild Turkey. 

As we consider how best to broaden landbird conservation support, understanding and

integrating the needs of game and non-game species of birds and other wildlife with the 

Full Annual Cycle Initiatives

Golden-winged Warbler Working Group

Kirtland’s Warbler Conservation Team

Canada Warbler International Conservation

International Wood Thrush Conservation Alliance

Cerulean Warbler Working Group

Rusty Blackbird Working Group

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act

Midwest Migration Network

Southern Wings
63

desires of people who enjoy birding and hunting will be increasingly important to the success 

of bird habitat delivery. The technology and methodology exists to help JV partners combine 

multiple biological and social objectives and target conservation to benefit forest birds and 

people (e.g., Appendix F).

Summary – Regional Management Actions for Forest Birds

 Implement forest-bird habitat retention objectives (Table 8) at locations currently dominated 

by forest and having a breeding bird focus (Figure 17B), as well as areas where forest cover 

should be expanded to benefit both breeding and migrating forest birds (Figures 17A).

 Manage forests to provide characteristics of high quality habitat for forest-bird focal species 

(Appendix D, Figure 18), addressing primary forest threats (Table 7) and following the 

principles of Sustainable Forest Management.

 Retain and expand large relatively un-fragmented forest blocks (Figure 17B) >10,000 ha in 

size in the north JV region, and connect forest stands in areas with ≥70% forest cover (Figure 

17A) in other portions of the region, especially where contiguous patches can exceed 50 ha in 

size (via restoration).

 Retain and expand forest patches (≥50 ha) and corridors of upland and floodplain forest along 

waterways and within 25 km of Great Lakes shoreline, especially in semi-open (e.g., 

agricultural) landscapes with potentially high-use as migration stopover sites (see habitat 

characteristics described in Migratory Bird Stopover Facts in Full Annual Cycle section).

 Support and encourage full life-cycle conservation efforts for JV focal species at stopover and 

wintering locations outside the JV region.

 Promote forest conservation that integrates game- and non-game bird management objectives, 

as well as other ecological goods and services provided by forests.

 Continue integrating social science into forest bird planning and habitat delivery, including 

seeking expanded social science expertise on the JV Management Board and Science Team.

 Develop and refine models that integrate social and biological objectives to target 

conservation with greater benefits to forest birds and people (e.g., Appendix F) and with the 

goal of increasing relevance and support for bird conservation.

 

 

 

 

 
64

______________________________

Urban Birds and Developed Lands

In our spatially explicit planning, the JV has identified bird habitats using remotely sensed 

land cover data, typically modified using models with species-habitat (e.g., vegetation) 

covariates. Human aggregations – urban areas classed as developed lands – have been 

generally recognized as hostile locations to birds due to subsequent loss of diversity and 

ecological functions (Alberti 2005). However, developed lands are quite variable, with 

corresponding NLCD classes subdivided into levels of intensity (High, Medium, and Low 

Intensity and Developed Open Space) related to building density and amount of impervious 

surface (Figure 6. Appendix B). Vegetative cover increases along this developed-class 

continuum, from virtually none in High Intensity to mostly vegetation (lawn grasses 

primarily) in Open Space. Conversion to developed land is a prominent landscape change 

occurring in the JV region (Appendix C) and developed land classes with greatest area 

expansion in recent years include Medium Intensity, Low Intensity, and Developed Open 

Space (Table 3).

Geologists and ecologists may not agree when the Anthropocene began, but there is 

consensus we are living in a new age, a time in which human activity has become the 

dominant influence on Earth’s climate and environment. As a result, the longstanding 

dichotomy of bird habitats (nature) vs. people habitats (development) is being questioned. 

Perhaps conservation resulting in improved living space for birds and people will be 

necessary to assure a healthy, albeit steadily changing, environment. The foundation for 

urban bird conservation resides in a relatively simple idea: humans and the effects of their 

activities on landscapes are now part of nature and therefore bird habitat. This philosophy 

stands in marked contrast to traditional conventions where people and development stand 

apart from the natural world. It also has profound conservation implications, underscoring

the importance for addressing bird and human habitats in urban settings.

The remotely sensed description of developed lands fails to capture how human cities and 

communities affect landscapes outside defined urban areas. For example, water runoff laden 

with municipal impurities flows through urban waterways, only to permeate aquatic systems 

far from city hubs. Our transportation and industrial activities transform the aerial bird 

habitats above cities and far beyond. Urban centers infiltrate existing natural landscapes in 

space and in time, as raw materials, commodities, and people flow across the ground and in 

the air. Thus, movement of resources to and from human communities links all other 

landscapes. The urban supermarket, and its impervious parking lot, is intimately connected 

in a complex web to the petrochemical-fed monoculture row-crops and vegetable fields in 

rural settings across the Midwest and elsewhere. Yet, urban areas are often centers for ideas 

as well as financial, political, and volunteer support needed for effective conservation 

programs. In this JV region, urban influences are pervasive, and the forecast is for continued 

expansion of developed cover types (Figure 19). Finding conservation opportunity in these 

rapidly expanding landscapes is only prudent. 
65

Figure 19. Current and projected developed lands (National Land Cover Database; all development

classifications combined) to year 2100 in the Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture region, 

including an example of expanded area around Dayton OH. Projection was developed using 

information consistent with the U.S. Geological Survey’s spatially explicit forecasting of land‐use 

change (FORE-SCE) model under scenario A1B (Sohl et al 2018).
66

Biological Foundation

The most important habitat aspects to urban bird conservation include 1) addressing the 

needs for species breeding in developed settings, particularly provision of sites for successful 

nesting and food acquisition, 2) maintaining adequate stopover locations for birds whose 

migration corridors include developed landscapes, and 3) reducing collisions with structures 

and mortality due to other human threats. Landbird habitat needs (Appendix D) and threats 

(Tables 5 and 7) vary by species, and species composition differs across the urban-intensity 

continuum. If we apply the current NLCD developed land-cover classes to species 

distribution, there are relatively few bird species characteristically breeding in the High 

Intensity developed areas. Abundance can be high for Rock Pigeon, House Sparrow, and 

European Starling (all non-native); House Finch; sometimes Chimney Swift (depending on 

chimney status) and Common Nighthawk (depending on roofing practices and predator 

presence); American Crow; and more recently, Peregrine Falcon and even Bald Eagle. Of 

these species, only the Chimney Swift is a JV focal species (Table 1). Medium-to-Low 

Intensity developed-land classes harbor many species, including Downy, Hairy, and Redbellied Woodpeckers; Black-capped Chickadee; White-breasted Nuthatch; American Robin;

Chipping Sparrow; Northern Cardinal, Blue Jay, and Common Grackle. In developed areas 

with more vegetative cover (e.g., Developed Open Space), especially metropolitan parks, 

some 30+ additional species may be added to the list of resident and breeding urban birds, 

including such newcomers as Wild Turkey, Cooper's Hawk, Merlin, and Pileated 

Woodpecker.

In this Strategy, we treat forest and grassland bird habitats as distinct planning categories 

with their respective bird communities and recommended management actions. At the same 

time, we acknowledge many of these management actions can apply to urban-bird habitat 

patches and especially at the urban-wildland interface. Designing bird habitat retention and 

restoration opportunities in urban areas should begin with local-scale inventory of natural 

cover and potential bird habitats within current and projected developed landscapes (Figures 

19 and 20). Areas currently or potentially important (restorable) to landbirds within the 

forecasted development zone are obviously threatened by development. Thus, bird habitat 

patches can be targeted for conservation action (or avoided) based on long-term stakeholder 

desires. The complexes of grassland preserves and restorations developed by the Chicago 

Wilderness Program illustrate how a collaborative effort can have significant outcomes for 

landbirds in urban locales. Following the theme of this Strategy, JV technical staff and 

science partners can provide additional products to assist local partnerships in urban settings 

of the JV region. 

Airspace as Habitat.—Virtually all JV breeding focal species, as well as migrants breeding 

farther north, pass through the airspace of urban centers. City attributes modify this critical 

bird habitat (Alberti 2005, Cabrera-Cruz 2019) with buildings, towers, airplanes, 

transmission wires, industrial exhaust and vehicle-exhaust fumes, light beacons, and 

electromagnetic currents. The interaction of the urban environment with airspace is 

particularly important to landbirds, from the aerial residents gleaning flying insects to the 

millions that occupy that space as migrants. Nocturnally migrating birds are attracted by 

urban lights, apparently drawn to locations where they seek diurnal shelter and food to refuel. 
67

In fact, Nexrad radar images of migrant evening departures (or dawn migrant fallout) reveal 

nearly complete overlap in patterns of traditional landbird stopover concentrations and urban 

land cover (Buler and Dawson 2014). Landbirds concentrate in and around developed areas, 

and bird stopover habitats associated with these areas require conservation (see Full Annual 

Cycle – Migration, page 28).

Figure 20. Zone of projected development around Dayton Ohio by 2100, with current forestland

(green), grassland/open-land (orange), and current development (red) color indicated (land cover 

based on 2016 National Land Cover Database; forest = all NLCD forest classes combined and

grassland/open-land = herbaceous, pasture/hay, cultivated cropland, and emergent herbaceous 

wetland classes combined; also see Figure 19 for more detail).
68

Urban Conservation and Bird Cities

Analyses of threats to grassland and forest birds found expansion of housing and 

commercial/industrial areas (including towers/wind turbines) and the impacts of climate 

change high-ranking direct threats to landbird habitats (Tables 5 and 7). Invasive plants and 

animals, particularly free-ranging domestic cats, also were considered primary threats to 

birds. These anthropogenic influences (including the three threat classes attributed to climate 

change) are elevated in and around developed lands. Because the urban landscape will 

continue to expand across the JV region (Figure 19), increased attention to these threats is 

needed. Some examples of management actions used in and around the urban environment

include reducing light pollution via Lights Out programs, building- and glass-strategies and 

tower-lighting modifications to reduce collisions with structures, electrocution-abatement 

strategies, and bird-friendly wind farm siting (see Full Annual Cycle, Airspace – All Seasons, 

page 31). Practices to enhance bird habitats around housing have included native tree and 

shrub plantings designed to increase forage and cover diversity, and reduction in the numbers 

of free-roaming domestic cats. 

Bird habitat conservation in urban settings is largely about people. Working with social 

scientists, civic planners have realized the importance of urban green space for 

improving public health and decreasing violence (https://smartgrowth.org/6-urban-greenspace-projects-that-are-revitalizing-u-s-cities/). Only recently has the bird conservation 

community identified an interest to better integrate the needs of birds and people (e.g., 

Appendix F). Yet efforts resulting in outreach, participation, and advocacy for healthy 

habitats that benefit birds and people has potential to influence conservation outcomes well 

beyond urban areas and the scope of this Strategy. A platform inspiring community 

decision-making, empowerment, and collaboration to achieve collective impact for 

conservation is an achievable goal. For this transformation to occur, however, communities 

of people must generate those changes, with JV partners serving as the source for science and 

support in conservation implementation. Ultimately, urban communities can build critical 

mass that leads to policy change and political support for conservation; hence, for birds, 

urban environments generate both threats and opportunities.

There are a number of science- and community-based tools available to guide urban-bird 

conservation, such as strategies for upgrading communications tower lighting, ideas for 

reducing cat threats, employing bird-friendly building and glass options, and even birdfriendly commodity shopping. Equally important, there is a structure in place for 

empowering community involvement in bird conservation – the Bird City Program, now 

active in (Bird City) Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Indiana, and severalstates outside the JV 

region. With initial dedicated funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for a national 

coordinator and development of a web-based tools platform, the Bird City Program will 

expand by 2021 to Bird City Americas. The enlarged international effort resulted from a

partnership between American Bird Conservancy, Environment for the Americas, and Nature 

Canada.

Bird City is a community certification program, where interested communities apply for Bird 

City status by meeting a palette of conservation-action criteria (Appendix G) that benefit 
69

breeding and migrant birds. Once designated as a Bird City, the urban community becomes

nationally recognized for its conservation achievements. Related actions result from 

community engagement, with some structure to the requirements, but also with the flexibility 

allowing a community to submit conservation activities commensurate with its particular 

geography and social context. Most programs offer a menu of required criteria or categories 

with nested options for bird-friendly actions most suited to a community’s level of capacity 

and resolve (Appendix G). From the perspective of habitat delivery, this suite of potential 

actions includes guidance for grassland and forest conservation in the urban environment.

Since the Bird City program provides an established platform for directly engaging people 

with birds at the community/urban scale, the JV network can actively endorse and promote

the program. Of particular interest would be support for conservation of JV focal species 

when a city has significant populations occuring during breeding or migration periods. This 

support can include helping to initiate the program in states where it does not already exist, 

serving as technical experts with bird habitat recommendations, or providing dedicated 

capacity for working to secure continued financial support. The Bird City effort may have 

the best potential for urban bird conservation, because of its grounding in community 

engagement that connects people with nature though birds. Municipalities enrolled as Bird 

Cities also hold an annual celebration recognizing World Migratory Bird Day to educate 

communities and raise awareness.

Summary – Management Actions for Birds in Urban Landscapes 

 Assist stakeholders in planning, retaining, and expanding forest and grassland bird habitats, 

with focus on high quality (limited bird threats) migration stopovers and outdoor recreation, at 

logical locations based on forecasted development trends (Figure 19). 

 

 Restore and retain forest, grassland, and open space patches (e.g., see Figure 20) with native 

plant communities benefiting birds, pollinators, and people, with concerted focus on lakeshore 

and riverine corridors where bird habitats may provide greatest social benefits (e.g., green 

space, water filtration). 

 Continue integrating social science into bird planning and habitat delivery in and around 

urban settings, including seeking expanded social science expertise on the JV Management 

Board and JV Science Team.

 Promote community-based (Bird City) conservation actions especially relevant to urban and 

developed landscapes and drawn from best practices of the Bird City Program (Appendix F).

 

 Target and assist ≥2 urban areas (≥20,000 people) annually for enrollment in the Bird City 

program, with focus on how individual locations can benefit JV focal species.
70

MONITORING AND RESEARCH

Monitoring and research in bird conservation are often closely associated, both being 

essential to adaptive planning and management. For purposes of this Strategy, high priority 

monitoring efforts include those useful to measure population status and progress toward 

meeting bird population and habitat objectives (i.e., abundance, trends, and or other 

performance measurements). Priority research, in contrast, is designed to answer specific 

questions that arise from uncertainties or assumptions inherent in conservation planning. 

Habitat quality can be assessed by monitoring density of focal species, physical or 

environmental characteristics (e.g., vegetation related to quality habitat), and/or vital rates 

(e.g., survival and recruitment). Habitat use surveys that measure responses of bird species 

vital rates to environmental conditions offer an opportunity to test hypotheses about factors 

that limit population growth during the full annual cycle. Population surveys closely 

integrated with explicit management decisions, where biological predictions and testing can 

result in measures of conservation effectiveness at local scales. Increasingly, social science 

research has been integrated into bird conservation planning, as results can influence 

methods, communication approaches, and bird-habitat placement. 

The professional bird conservation community can take credit for great progress regarding 

monitoring concerns identified in the 2007 JV Landbird Strategy. Priorities identified and 

addressed include: 1) need for centralized data storage and easy retrieval / access by 

researchers, 2) standard methodologies and integrated techniques across organizations and 

large geographic scales, 3) monitoring precision goals to better detect population abundance 

change, and 4) filling information gaps with statistically valid and relevant information. Data 

from coordinated surveys of bird population abundance and habitats, plus results from 

numerous JV-supported research projects (https://umgljv.org/science/jv-publications/), were 

used when revising this Strategy. The planning effort was also informed by survey data 

regarding landbird stakeholder priorities, human population distribution, and common human 

values related to ecological goods and services provided by natural landscapes. Monitoring 

essential to continued improvements in JV landbird habitat planning and delivery are 

described below.

North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS).—The BBS has been conducted annually 

since 1966, primarily in June after spring migration. This roadside survey, conducted by 

wildlife professionals and qualified volunteer birders, is largely coordinated by the U.S. 

Geological Survey. There are 600 BBS routes within the JV region; routes are typically 40 

km in length with 50 stops that are 0.8 km apart. The BBS may not adequately represent 

some landbird species due to the survey’s proximity to roads and daytime survey 

methodology. However, species population trends and abundance estimates based on the 

BBS are vital to JV conservation planning.

eBird.—Launched in 2002 by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and National Audubon Society, 

eBird provides rich data sources for basic information regarding bird abundance and 

distribution at a variety of spatial and temporal scales worldwide. These data are used to 

understand migration timing and distribution during the full annual cycle, plus relative 

abundance across states and BCRs. A goal of eBird is to maximize the utility and 
71

accessibility of the vast numbers of bird observations made each year by professional and 

recreational bird watchers (>100 million annually). Observations from each participant are 

collated in an international network of eBird users. Data are then shared with a global 

community of stakeholders in real time, including educators, land managers, ornithologists, 

and conservation planners. Information available through eBird has become the foundation 

for better understanding bird distribution in time and space across the western hemisphere, 

and its potential uses and value to conservation are increasing.

Christmas Bird Count (CBC).—The nation's longest-running community science project, 

data collected by CBC participants since the year 1900 have provided a wealth of 

information to researchers and managers interested in the long-term study of early winter 

bird populations across North America. Peer-reviewed articles using CBC data have 

encompassed categories such as community ecology and biogeography, distribution, count 

methods, participation, and population dynamics. 

State and Smaller-scale Population Surveys.—Several state agencies and organizations 

within the JV region have conducted presence/absence surveys when developing and revising 

state Breeding Bird Atlases, or when considering a site for Important Bird Area (IBA) status. 

Atlas data are useful to document the presence and general distribution of a species within a 

state, and related robust point count efforts can result in population density estimates. In 

addition, local data collection associated with landbird research projects can provide valuable 

demographic information. Several national forests, wildlife refuges, and parks within the JV 

region have been part of long-term point-count surveys and local-scale landbird habitat 

monitoring.

Regional Habitat Surveys.—Joint Venture Management Board representatives have provided 

annual reports of major bird habitat accomplishments in each state since completing the 1998 

JV Implementation Plan. This accomplishment reporting has been segmented into upland 

and wetland categories and grouped by protection, restoration, and enhancement. Although 

partners have reported accomplishments that contribute toward their stated focus-area 

objectives, bird habitat measures remain coarse, with very general category definitions 

(upland and wetland) and no rating of habitat quality for landbird focal species. In addition, 

JV partners have long recognized the need to estimate concurrent bird habitat loss in order to 

monitor net change in habitat area over time. Net-change assessments of key land covers for 

this Strategy signify substantial progress in measuring landscape change using the frequently 

(5-year intervals) updated and continually improving NLCD. Local-scale assessment of bird 

habitats also occur through efforts such as the Young Forest Initiative. 

Banding and MAPS.—Capture, leg banding, and recovery data are used to help determine

migration routes and chronology of migratory birds, basic demographic parameters such ageand sex-specific annual survival, and population abundance trends. The Monitoring Avian 

Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) program is a collaborative effort that compares 

banding data collected across multiple stations to identify proximate factors responsible for 

abundance trends. For example, the MAPS effort is used to assess differences in species 

population trends among regions or habitats, and the relationship between population change 

and weather, climate, and habitat loss. Examining vital rates and associated factors can 
72

enhance the effectiveness of conservation by directing resources to the period and places in 

the annual cycle where they are most needed.

Ecological Goods and Services (EGS).—Regional scale partnerships with an EGS focus are 

relatively new and have had an intermittent emphasis by conservation agencies (e.g., 

Landscape Conservation Cooperatives, Midwest Landscape Initiative). Local-scale efforts to 

assess the EGS provided by natural communities are more common and this information can 

benefit bird habitat JVs now integrating social considerations into bird conservation 

planning. Moreover, university researchers and staff at several state and federal agencies 

monitor how human communities prioritize and assess the relative importance of ecological 

goods and services provided by grasslands, forests, rivers, and wetlands. 

U.S. Census and Stakeholder Surveys.—Monitoring trends in human population growth and 

distribution along with participation rates in outdoor activities (e.g., birdwatching, hunting, 

and other recreation) are an increasing focus for bird conservation planning. The U.S. FWS, 

U.S. Census Bureau, and other partners assess trends in human distribution and outdoor 

recreation at approximately 5-year intervals (https://www.census.gov/programssurveys/fhwar). In addition, periodic stakeholder surveys have helped determine desired 

products, satisfaction, and level of knowledge for current conservation programs and funding 

support (e.g., America’s Wildlife Values Project). Similarly, conservation partners in the 

U.S. and Canada conducted a comprehensive bi-national opinion survey of hunters, birders, 

and the public at large to compare attitudes toward wetlands and waterfowl (available at 

nawmp.org), which informed the 2018 North American Waterfowl Management Plan update. 

Finally, several state agencies within the JV region conduct regular constituent surveys for 

hunting, wildlife viewing, and other outdoor recreation (e.g., Illinois Hunter Harvest Survey). 

Smaller scale human dimensions surveys can provide more targeted information than 

national efforts, and state agencies often have flexibility to tailor stakeholder surveys, 

including questions to evaluate local management initiatives.

Monitoring Needs 

Joint Venture partners, especially state and federal agencies have led many of the population 

abundance and habitat survey efforts listed above. We anticipate that partners will continue 

this work and expand effort in strategic areas, including human dimensions research and 

integration of social and biological objectives, as resources become available. Continuation 

of standardized species occurrence and population abundance surveys (e.g., BBS), expanded 

implementation and uses of community-science (eBird), coupled with updated and refined 

spatial data (e.g., NLCD), will provide opportunities to improve geo-referenced bird 

databases for conservation planning through the full annual cycle. Access to population data 

for multi-scale analysis is essential; the Avian Knowledge Network (AKN), BBS, and

increasingly eBird, offer centralized data management and sharing across North America. JV 

partners will benefit by entering relevant monitoring data and using the resources available 

through the AKN. Local-scale bird survival and reproduction studies (cause and effect 

monitoring) also remain essential to assess performance of conservation actions. 
73

The primary source of spatial data measuring extent of cover types potentially providing 

habitat to various landbird guilds across the JV region is the National Land Cover Database 

(NLCD). Measuring change in NLCD land-cover classes was a means to assess gains and 

losses in areas potentially influencing landbirds. However, these data are not useful in 

detecting subtle changes in bird habitat quantity and quality that are likely to result from 

local scale management actions. The U.S.D.A. Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) provides 

tree species composition and forest structural data useful at intermediate scales (e.g., 

township or county) to more thoroughly assess forest bird habitats. The U.S.D.A. National 

Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) maintains increasingly accessible data regarding the 

distribution of grassland / cropland structure and other agricultural land use potentially 

valuable for local-scale grassland bird habitat assessment. These and other landscape data 

sources (e.g., plant community elevation and vegetative-structure via LiDAR) promise more 

sophisticated approaches for landbird habitat evaluation, particularly for grassland cover, 

which undergoes changes frequently at the site scale. 

Science partners must continue to identify and improve regional monitoring strategies and 

survey efforts that complement and support regional and continental landbird habitat 

conservation. Joint Venture staff and Science Team participation on technical committees 

(e.g., Unified Science Team) and related initiatives will help maintain connection between 

biological and social science monitoring efforts important to future bird conservation 

planning. Monitoring should continue to be addressed in a collaborative manner by the JV 

Science Team, state and federal agencies, university researchers, non-government 

organizations, and associated conservation groups that comprise the landbird conservation 

community. Monitoring objectives to help measure JV performance, inform future Strategy 

revisions, and increase conservation effectiveness are provided below. Lists of more specific 

JV monitoring priorities were developed for landbirds and other bird groups (see 

https://umgljv.org/science/), and these lists will be periodically updated.

1) By 2025–30, expand monitoring to establish population abundance, distribution, and vital 

rate estimates for priority landbird species (JV focal species) in the JV region during 

breeding, migration, and wintering periods, and improve understanding of patch (core habitat 

area) or subpopulation persistence, extinction, and colonization.

A. Breeding: Ensure all established BBS routes are completed annually. Support State 

Breeding Bird Atlas updates and other large-scale point count efforts. Continue 

developing spatially explicit population estimation models, taking advantage of 

multiple monitoring datasets (BBS, eBird, other point counts).

B. Migration: Establish / refine protocols to measure abundance, distribution, and 

migration chronology at strategic stopover locations. Encourage all active bird 

banding stations to adhere to banding protocols developed by the Midwest Migration 

Network (https://midwestmigrationnetwork.org/resources/documents/migrationbanding-protocol/download) and support migration monitoring via Motus Wildlife 

Tracking Network stations and targeted eBird survey efforts. Assess distribution of 

MAPS banding stations and seek establishment of new sites as needed to fill gaps. 

C. Wintering: Fill information gaps regarding focal species overwintering in JV region, 

including seasonal survival rates, abundance, and distribution.
74

2) By 2025–30, establish monitoring of landscape change important to bird habitat quantity 

and quality in the JV region, especially related to targeted conservation areas, and evaluation 

of bird response to change. 

A. Determine long-term and short-term land cover (and bird habitat) change to inform 

conservation planning, and identify rapidly developing landscapes to better assess 

need for conservation action or avoidance.

B. Develop robust means to assess land cover changes at fine spatial scales, with the 

ability to detect rapid temporal changes in easily altered cover types (e.g., 

grasslands) and spatially explicit information related to habitat quality.

C. Improve capacity to track bird habitat accomplishments and inventory (build

database) large-scale landbird-habitat restoration projects. Use JV focal species to 

monitor bird response to these restorations (e.g., >100 ha, pre- and postconservation action), plus assess effectiveness of current focal species to measure 

management success.

D. Improve understanding of local scale enrollment in government-sponsored 

conservation programs providing persistent cover for birds (e.g., CRP, CREP, and 

WRP), including social (landowner) drivers to participate and site-specific influence 

to focal species abundance. 

E. Inventory and assess quality of potential bird habitats in urban settings to establish 

guidelines for maintaining/creating high quality habitat for all portions of the full 

annual cycle, but with a particular focus on migratory stopover habitat.

3) By 2025–30, develop and expand taxa-specific monitoring initiatives to meet 

management needs for species inadequately inventoried by the BBS (e.g., raptors, nightjars / 

nocturnally active birds, and rare species).

A. Implement / promote reliable monitoring protocols for nocturnal species and others 

species difficult to detectsuing current methods.

B. Expand raptor and rare species monitoring in areas where population estimates are 

needed.

Research Needs

Research on species demographics and habitat use during the breeding period has been a 

long-term priority in bird conservation, whereas detailed knowledge regarding migration, 

molt, wintering, and the dynamic geographic distributions across the annual cycle has more 

recently gained attention as knowledge gaps hindering effective conservation for migratory 

species. Without an understanding of high-quality habitat characteristics of focal species, 

and links between breeding, stopover, and wintering locations, wildlife managers cannot 

effectively address challenges birds are exposed to throughout the year. In addition to a lack 

of knowledge on migratory connectivity, information on basic ecology of many species 

outside of the breeding period is deficient. Likewise, social science research is an emerging 

priority as people-related assumptions made in bird-habitat planning are often untested. 

Research objectives important to fill knowledge gaps and to test planning assumptions were 

identified below; more detailed research priorities are available for landbirds and other bird 

groups in periodically updated lists (see https://umgljv.org/science/). Although research is 
75

often conducted at local scales, studies may be replicated across larger geographies (e.g., 

BCRs) and results used to create robust models that inform conservation decisions in 

multiple places (Ahlering et al. 2020). Although science that informs management may be in 

conflict with the reward system for some academics (Merkle et al. 2019), increased synergy 

between scientists and bird habitat managers can result in robust studies that achieve goals of 

academics and other key stakeholders.

1) By 2025–30, identify breeding habitat characteristics associated with high population 

density and productivity for priority landbird species (JV focal species). 

A. Where information gaps still exist for focal-species, identify how landscape and sitescale habitat characteristics (e.g., area, plant composition, structure, and 

configuration) are associated with reproductive success, and relate breeding 

population densities to relevant habitat characteristics across the JV geography.

B. Identify spatially explicit key threats (e.g., urbanization/land development, energy 

production, pesticides, invasive species, over-browsing by deer, climate change, fire 

suppression) and their relative influence on reproductive success and/or breeding 

period survivorship of adults and fledglings.

C. Determine the role of the post-fledging period in reproductive output and limiting 

factors (e.g., habitat quality, predation) on post-fledging survival.

2) By 2025–30, identify landscapes and site attributes key to high survival during migration. 

A. Identify important stopover locations; understand how juxtaposition of stopover sites 

influences occupancy and population density; estimate stopover habitat quantity and 

distribution needed for sustaining Midwest migrant populations.

B. Document landscape, site-level habitat features, and site linkages related to landbird 

stopover site quality (i.e., weight gain, duration of stay, survival), especially near the 

Great Lakes and in agricultural and urban settings. Also, determine how these 

factors vary with guilds/species.

C. Examine effects of land-use and environmental change (including climate) on food 

supply, vegetation phenology, and physiological condition of migrants in different 

landscapes, with particular attention to potential phonologic mismatches.

D. Evaluate altitude and angle of ascent/decent of migration relative to land features 

(e.g., shoreline) and lake crossing behavior, especially related to towers, wind 

turbines, and other structures acting as potential sources of mortality during 

migration.

E. Identify explicit connectivity between breeding and wintering areas via migration 

routes.

3) By 2025–30, initiate a range-wide assessment of priority species (JV focal species) to 

understand the importance of nonbreeding locations for species breeding in the JV region, as 

well as those focal species primarily using the region during nonbreeding periods (i.e. molt, 

migration, and overwintering).

A. Evaluate wintering habitats for populations breeding in the JV region to assess 

nonbreeding-season influence (potential carryover effects) on population growth. 
76

B. For species whose wintering population may be dependent on habitats within the JV 

region (e.g., Short-eared Owl and Rusty Blackbird), identify landscapes key to high 

survival and determine whether wintering habitat is limiting population growth.

4) By 2025–30, build and refine models used to develop regional habitat objectives during 

the full annual cycle for priority bird species (JV focal species). 

A. Generate refined breeding density estimates, identify demographic data to model 

current and future species distributions, and determine amount and location of 

habitat needed to meet breeding population objectives. 

B. Generate bird density estimates during migration stopover, identify demographic 

data to model current and future species distributions, and determine amount, 

location, and distribution of habitat needed to meet migration population objectives. 

C. Generate density estimates during winter, identify demographic data to model current 

and future species distributions, and determine amount and location of habitat 

needed to meet population objectives during winter. 

D. Determine focal species habitat needs during post-nesting period (i.e. post-fledging, 

prebasic molt) and extent to which they match or deviate from nesting habitat. 

Determine amount and location of focal species habitat within the JV region.

E. Examine carry-over effects of bird habitat quantity/quality between seasons in the full 

annual cycle. 

F. Using projected future land use and environmental conditions, predict distribution, 

productivity, and survivorship. 

G. Develop tools to refine and validate JV species-habitat models, with emphasis on 

focal species demonstrating steep long-term population decline. 

H. Acquire data necessary to produce integrated population models, or other full annual 

cycle demographic models, of JV focal species in order to identify the portions of the 

full annual cycle that most limit population growth.

5) By 2025, build our understanding about people, such as their needs and desires related to 

birds and bird habitat, and communication methods to help achieve JV objectives. 

A. Support social science research and communications, which is often quite distinct 

from biological science. 

B. Improve effectiveness of communication with private landowners by increasing 

understanding of their values and constraints related to conservation activity on their 

lands, such as economics, culture, and policy.

C. Continue to expand information gathering, and use of data gathered on stakeholders 

or the public to shape JV conservation planning and delivery. 
77

COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH

The JV is a diverse partnership serving an even more diverse network of stakeholders 

interested in bird conservation. Dedicating resources towards internal and external 

communications is essential to tracking our partnership’s progress, keeping JV partners 

informed, engaged, and coordinated, and cultivating support from key constituents. The 

process requires identification of target audiences, key messages, communication methods, 

and evaluating effectiveness of communications. Measuring public (and partner) attitudes, 

opinions, and behaviors requires social science and human dimensions expertise, and, while 

they have received increasing attention at broad scales, the JV has just started to address 

these factors. 

Recent surveys of bird watchers, hunters, and the general public regarding bird habitat 

conservation (see https://nawmp.org/nawmp-udpate/national-survey-birdwatchers) have 

improved our understanding of preferences in information channels and trust in information 

sources. For example, survey respondents indicated a preference for receiving nature-related 

information through personal experience, by reading or accessing online content, and through 

watching visual media online (Wilkins and Miller 2018). People were least interested in 

receiving information through listening to recorded audio media, attending educational 

opportunities, and listening to live audio media. Survey results emphasized the importance 

of having content available online in an easily accessible and appealing format. People 

generally preferred visual media. In addition, people had the highest trust in scientific 

organizations, universities/educational institutions, and friends/family and colleagues 

(Wilkins and Miller 2018). The least trusted information sources were national media/news, 

faith-based organizations, and local media/news. Urban respondents had higher trust levels 

overall, particularly for the government. Hunters and those in rural areas had lower levels of 

trust in the government but higher trust in family/friends.

A primary goal for JV outreach is to promote human behaviors that benefit bird conservation. 

We must remain relevant to stakeholders, including local communities and elected officials 

by understanding their needs and modifying our communication strategies accordingly. 

Some JVs have employed full-time communication specialists or contracted experts to 

develop communication plans to help bridge the gap between conservation plans and bird 

habitat delivery. We currently lack a dedicated communications plan, but JV information 

exchange occurs through internal and external networks formed by the JV Management 

Board, JV Staff, JV Science Team, and members of the FWS Region 3 Migratory Bird 

Program Staff. The aim of internal communication is to share information among existing 

partners, particularly members of the JV Management Board and Science Team, and to 

facilitate completion of JV bird habitat conservation, monitoring, and research initiatives. 

The goals of external communications are to provide recommendations to management 

bodies, recruit new JV partners, raise awareness and support for bird conservation among 

stakeholders and policy-makers, and learn about the conservation activities and needs of 

stakeholders. Coordination of information sharing and product marketing through various 

communication approaches is critical to reach public and private entities that may have 

greater resources to affect bird habitats than our existing partnership. To fulfill these goals, 

the JV has established the following priorities:
78

Internal communications

1) Provide conservation planning and evaluation information and periodically collect 

feedback from internal (and external) landbird stakeholders. Information transfer 

may be in the form of publications and research reports, interviews (e.g., stakeholder 

surveys), partnership bird habitat-accomplishment reports, and various 

communications via the Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture webpage 

(www.umgljv.org).

2) Maintain and share meeting minutes from JV Management Board and Science Team / 

Technical Committee gatherings in a timely manner.

3) Develop annual JV progress reports with bird habitat accomplishments by cover type 

and periodic reports describing JV science advances.

4) Develop short summary documents with visual appeal to market key messages related 

to this Strategy and the JV All-bird Implementation Plan.

5) Maintain and distribute a current list (with contact information) of JV partners, 

including Management Board, Science Team, and Technical Committee members.

6) Maintain and distribute a current list of bird habitat, monitoring, and research 

priorities associated with achieving JV conservation goals.

7) Develop and maintain a current list of completed and on-going research projects, 

including an easily accessible (JV website) library of scientific reports, publications, 

and “step-down plans” (e.g., documents downscaling regional priorities to smaller 

conservation/management units).

8) Provide up-to-date accounts for JV focal species or key bird habitats used for 

planning, including social science and ecological information, species population and 

habitat objectives, and conservation decision tools.

External communications

1) Engage expertise and planning tools (e.g., conservation social science, Open 

Standards) to help identify target audiences, key messages, and methods for 

communication that are expected to increase conservation success for focal species 

and associated habitats. 

2) Exchange coordination (human resources, budget, etc.) information and collaborate 

on priority bird planning, monitoring, and research with other JVs (especially those 

with shared focal species).

3) Collaborate with university, non-government organization (NGO) scientists, state 

wildlife agency scientists (game and nongame), and the continental Unified Science 

Team (which includes PIF scientists) on priority bird planning, monitoring, and 

research at the regional and continental scales.

4) Promote JV bird conservation priorities and planning tools to private and public land 

stakeholders, including information to support the Bird Cities Program promoting 

community engagement and healthy habitats for birds and people.

5) Collaborate on workshops, symposia, and similar gatherings, providing current 

scientific information and management tools to wildlife managers (public and private 

lands), agency species experts, policy-makers, and other stakeholders regarding bird 

habitat conservation in the JV region.
79

6) Participate in evolving communication and outreach initiatives related to NABCI and 

other interests experienced in effectively marketing bird conservation. This effort 

could lead to developing a strategic JV communications plan to help bridge the gap 

between conservation planning and delivery. 

7) Provide above listed materials and other potentially valuable communications to 

external groups via use of contemporary social media platforms (e.g. Twitter, 

Instagram, Facebook, etc.) and the JV webpage (www.umgljv.org).

Target audiences and communication responsibilities

Internal target audiences for communications include:

1) JV Management Board.

2) JV Science Team (Technical Committee and Ad hoc Bird-group Sub-committee 

members).

3) Migratory Bird Program staff of the U.S. FWS.

External target audiences include:

1) Other bird habitat JVs: Prairie Pothole, Atlantic Coast, Rainwater Basin, Playa Lakes, 

Central Hardwoods, Lower Mississippi Valley, Gulf Coast, East Gulf Coastal Plain, 

Appalachian Mountains, and Eastern Habitat and Prairie Habitat (both in Canada).

2) State wildlife agencies, non-government conservation organizations (NGOs), and 

regional science-application partnerships located in the JV region (key contacts not 

on Management Board).

3) Unified Science Team (including the North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

Science Support Team and PIF Science Team).

4) Private landowners and land managers who influence large land holdings potentially 

important to birds, such as land conservancies, professional forestry groups, state 

agriculture/forestry extension programs, county/district outreach foresters and other 

forest management plan writers, and wildlife habitat conservation/restoration 

contractors.

5) Species management groups including the U.S. FWS Ecological Services Program 

(e.g., endangered species), the Mississippi Flyway Council Non-game Technical 

Section and associated committees, and state-agency species biologists.

6) Primary public-land management groups including the U.S. FWS National Wildlife 

Refuge System, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. National Park Service, U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, and state agency and other conservation land managers.

7) National coordinators and/or human dimensions (HD) specialists with Partners in 

Flight, American bird Conservancy, Bird City Americas, Waterbirds for the 

Americas, North American Waterfowl Management Plan, U.S. Shorebird 

Conservation Plan, and North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI).

8) State and federal conservation policy-makers, particularly those jurisdictions not yet 

enrolled in the Bird Cities Program to promote bird conservation by urban 

communities.

9) Bird watchers, hunters, other conservation supporters, and members of the public.

10) University researchers to help ensure investigations by academics meet the applied 

needs of the JV. 
80

Communications and outreach related to partner coordination, bird habitat delivery, and 

timely stories (internet blogs) will be maintained through ongoing professional channels. 

The JV webpage (www.umgljv.org) undergoes regular updates related to meetings, 

conservation initiatives, plans and strategies, and scientific reports. Facebook and other 

social media avenues may be used to promote JV work, and the value of bird habitat to 

birders, hunters, and the public. Management Board members and JV staff also will 

collaborate in hosting gatherings to share information, particularly related to JV conservation 

plans and related efforts. Science partners completing evaluation projects financially 

supported by the JV will be required to provide in-depth completion reports, and they will be 

encouraged to publish study results in peer-reviewed scientific journals and present 

information at professional meetings. Science and planning documents will be available on 

the JV webpage. The JV will also periodically evaluate the need for full-time or part-time 

assistance from a communications professional and weigh this need against other financial 

obligations.

TIMETABLE AND COORDINATION

This revised Landbird Habitat Conservation Strategy reflects one part of the Joint Venture 

conservation effort. Since development of the 2007 Implementation Plan, JV partners have 

expanded and better integrated conservation priorities across bird groups and with increasing 

consideration of social science. JV bird-group strategies in the past have had 15-year time 

horizons for goal achievement, with the expectation that objectives and approaches would be 

updated as needed. The PIF conservation community recently highlighted the importance of 

integrating conservation across JV regions as well as integration of objectives for birds and 

people (Rosenberg et al. 2016). 

The revised 2016 PIF Plan, 

accompanied by new research 

findings and regional 

landscape-change assessment, 

prompted this Strategy 

revision. 

Regional population and 

habitat delivery objectives 

within the bird habitat sections

of this Strategy are linked to the continental PIF Plan. Thus, focal species abundance 

objectives and habitat initiatives for key grassland, forest, and urban settings include a shortterm (10-year) and long-term (30-year) focus. This Strategy, however, will likely be updated 

periodically (i.e., before 30 years) to reflect incremental progress (positive or negative) by JV 

partners, and to reflect changing priorities of national conservation efforts and the JV 

Management Board. Moreover, high priority evaluation objectives identified in the 

Monitoring and Research section of the Strategy have earlier completion targets. Substantial 

knowledge gained through monitoring and research will help define the next interval for 

updating this document. Future content also may be influenced by adjustments in overall 

 JV is dedicated to All-bird Conservation

 Landbird Strategy linked to continental PIF Plan

 Short-term (10-year) and long-term (30-year) focus

 Science Team – planning and evaluation 

 Management Board – habitat delivery and 

reporting, communications, and prioritization 
81

guidelines followed by JVs: Desired Characteristics For Habitat Joint Venture Partnerships

(NSST 2009, unpublished document). 

Development of JV regional conservation plans and strategies has been the responsibility of 

the JV Science Team, whereas local-scale bird habitat delivery has been completed by 

agencies and organizations represented by the JV Management Board and their extended 

partner networks. The JV Coordination staff will generally lead partner coordination, 

communication and outreach, and tracking of bird habitat accomplishments. Managing 

geospatial data, conservation model development, and collaboration with the research 

community has been the responsibility of the JV Science staff. The Joint Venture has an 

established record of achievement following the JV Implementation Plan and Bird-group 

Habitat Conservation Strategies. Using the landbird habitat objectives, decision-support 

tools, and research and monitoring recommendations provided in this Strategy, partners 

should continue to increase conservation efficiency and effectiveness for landbirds and the 

diverse ecological communities they occupy. 

LITERATURE CITED

Ahlering, M., D. Carlson, S. Vacek, S. Jacobi, S., V. Hunt, J. C. Stanton, M. G. Knutson, and E. 

Lonsdorf. 2020. Cooperatively improving tallgrass prairie with adaptive management. 

Ecosphere 11: E03095.

Albert, D. A. 1995. Regional landscape ecosystems of Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin: a 

working map and classification. U.S. Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment 

Station, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.

Alberti, M. 2005. The effects of urban patterns on ecosystem function. International Regional Science 

Review 28(2):168-192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0160017605275160

Alerstam, T., and A. Lindström. 1990. Optimal bird migration: the relative importance of time, 

energy, and safety. In: Gwinner E, editor. Bird migration. Berlin (Germany): Springer.

Alerstam, T. 1991. Bird flight and optimal migration. Trends in Ecology & Evolution, 6:210–215.

Alverson, W. S., D. M. Waller, and S. L. Solheim. 1988. Forests too deer: edge effects in northern 

Wisconsin. Conservation Biology 2:348–358.

APLIC [Avian Power Line Interact. Comm.]. 2006. Suggested practices for avian protection on 

power lines: the state of the art in 2006. Pier Final Proj. Rep. CEC-500-2006-022, 

APLIC/Calif. Energy Comm., Washington, DC.

APLIC [Avian Power Line Interact. Comm.]. 2012. Reducing avian collisions with power lines: the 

state of the art in 2012. Edison Electr. Inst./APLIC, Washington, DC.

Barrow, Jr, W. C., C. Chao-Chieh, R. B. Hamilton, K. Ouchley, and T. J. Spengler. 2000. Disruption 

and restoration of en route habitat, a case study: the Chenier Plain. Studies in Avian Biology 

20:71–87.

Bartuszevige, A. M., K. Taylor, A. Daniels, and M. F. Carter. 2016. Landscape design: Integrating 

ecological, social, and economic considerations into conservation planning. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 40:411–422.

Bearhop, S., G. M. Hilton, S. C. Votier, and S. Waldron. 2004. Stable isotope ratios indicate that 

body condition in migrating passerines is influenced by non-breeding habitat. Proceedings of 

the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 271: S215–S218.

Benson, T. J., S. J. Chiavacci, and M. P. Ward. 2013. Patch size and edge proximity are useful 

predictors of brood parasitism but not nest survival of grassland birds. Ecological 

Applications 23:879–887.
82

Best, L. B., H. Campa, III, K. E. Kemp, R. J. Robel, M. R. Ryan, J. A. Savidge, H. P. Weeks, Jr., 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.

Bevanger, K. 1995. Estimates and population consequences of tetraonid mortality caused by 

collisions with high tension power lines in Norway. J. Appl. Ecol. 32:745–53.

Bird Studies Canada and NABCI. 2014. Bird Conservation Regions. Published by Bird Studies 

Canada on behalf of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative. 

http://www.birdscanada.org/research/gislab/index.jsp?targetpg=bcr Accessed: June 2015.

Bonter, D. N., S. A. Gauthreaux, Jr, and T. M. Donovan. 2009. Characteristics of important stopover 

locations for migrating birds: remote sensing with radar in the Great Lakes Basin. 

Conservation Biology 23:440–448.

Borden, W. C., O. M. Lockhart, A. W. Jones, and M. S. Lyons. 2010. Seasonal, taxonomic, and local 

habitat components of bird–window collisions on an urban university campus in Cleveland, 

OH. The Ohio Journal of Science 110:44–52.

Bowers, J. 2020. Sustainability and disruption go hand and hand. In Fidelity Monitor & Insight 

(monthly financial newsletter), Reno, Nevada USA.

Brasher, M. G., J. J. Giocomo, D. A. Azure, A. M. Bartuszevige, M. E. Flaspohler, D. E. Harrigal, B. 

W. Olson, J. M. Pitre, R. W. Renner, S. E. Stephens, and J. L. Vest. 2019. The history and 

importance of private lands for North American waterfowl conservation. Wildlife Society 

Bulletin 43:338–354.

Brittingham, M. C., and S. A. Temple. 1983. Have cowbirds caused forest songbirds to decline? 

Bioscience 33:31–35.

Byrne, M. A. 2008. Defining conservation issues for bird migration stopover sites in the Chicago 

Wilderness region. Final report, Chicago Wilderness Trust Grant Agreement TR0606.

Bryan, G., A. Hebb, K. Holmes, and D. Kraus. 2011. Federal priorities for biodiversity conservation 

in the Hardwood Plains and Boreal Hardwood Transition Zone Ecozones of Ontario. Final 

draft, October 2011, Canadian Wildlife Service and Nature Conservancy of Canada.

Buler, J. J., F. R. Moore, and S. Woltmann. 2007. A multi-scale examination of stopover habitat use 

by birds. Ecology 88:1789–1802.

Buler, J. J., and F. R. Moore. 2011. Migrant-habitat relationships during stopover along an ecological 

barrier: Extrinsic constraints and conservation implications. Journal of Ornithology 

152:S101–S112.

Buler, J. J., and D. K. Dawson. 2014. Radar analysis of fall bird migration stopover sites in the 

northeastern U.S. The Condor: Ornithological Applications 116:357–370.

Bulluck, L., E. Ames, N. Bayly, J. Reese, C. Viverette, J. Wright, A. Caguazango, and C. Tonra. 

2019. Habitat‐dependent occupancy and movement in a migrant songbird highlights the 

importance of mangroves and forested lagoons in Panama and Colombia. Ecology and 

evolution 9:11064–11077.

Burger, J., and M. Gochfeld. 2004. Marine Birds as Sentinels of Environmental Pollution. EcoHealth

1, doi:10.1007/s10393-004-0096-4.

Butchart, S. H. M., A. J. Stattersfield, L. A. Bennun, S. M. Shutes, H. Resit Akḉakaya, J. E. M. 

Baillie, S. N. Stuart, C. Hilton-Taylor, and G. M. Mace. 2004. Measuring global trends in the 

status of biodiversity: Red List indices for birds. PLoS Biology 2:e383. 

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0020383

Butcher, G. S., D. K. Niven, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, and K. V. Rosenberg. 2007. WatchList: 

the 2007 WatchList for United States birds. American Birds 61:18–25.

Cabrera‐Cruz, S. A., J. A. Smolinsky, K. P. McCarthy, and J. J. Buler. 2019. Urban areas affect flight 

altitudes of nocturnally migrating birds. Journal of Animal Ecology 88(12):1873-1887. 

Calvert, A., C. Bishop, R. Elliot, E. Krebs, T. Kydd, C. Machtans, and G. Robertson. 2013. A 

synthesis of human-related avian mortality in Canada. Avian Conservation and Ecology 

8(2):11. http://dx.doi.org/10.5751/ACE-00581-080211
83

Cardno Inc. 2020. (prepared for the Monarch CCAA/CCA Development Advisory Team) Nationwide 

CCAA/CCA for Monarch Butterfly on Energy and Transportation Lands. Cardno Inc. 

Fitchburg, Wisconsin USA.

Campellone, R., A. Bartuszevige, T. Chouinard, J. Lujan, T. Miewald, B. Murry, R. Nelson, K. 

O’Hara, A. Poe, and A. Robertson. 2014. Minimum Standards for Conservation Design at 

Landscape‐Scales (Landscape Conservation Design): Recommendations from the Landscape 

Conservation Design Minimum Standards Working Group to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service – Office of Science Applications.

Caro, T. 2010. Conservation by Proxy: Indicator, Umbrella, Keystone, Flagship and Other Surrogate 

Species. Island Press, Washington, D.C., USA.

Ciuzio, E., W. L. Hohman, B. Martin, M. D. Smith, S. Stephens, A. M. Strong, and T. Vercauteren. 

2013. Opportunities and challenges to implementing bird conservation on private 

lands. Wildlife Society Bulletin, 37(2): 267-277.

Comer, P. J., J. C. Hak, K. Kindscher, E. Muldavin, and J. Singhurst. 2018. Continent-Scale 

Landscape Conservation Design for Temperate Grasslands of the Great Plains and 

Chihuahuan Desert. Natural Areas Journal Vol. 38(2):196-211.

Conservation Fund. 2016. Mississippi River Basin/Gulf Hypoxia Initiative Conservation Blueprint v 

1.02. Report to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Conservation Measures Partnership. 2013. Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation Version 

3. Creative Commons. https://cmp-openstandards.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/CMP-OSV3.0-Final-minor-update-May-2107.pdf. Accessed November 15 2019. 

Conway, C. J., G. V. Powell, and J. D. Nichols 1995. Overwinter survival of Neotropical migratory 

birds in early‐successional and mature tropical forests. Conservation Biology 9(4).855–864.

Cooper, N. W., M. T. Hallworth, and P. P. Marra. 2017. Light‐level geolocation reveals wintering 

distribution, migration routes, and primary stopover locations of an endangered long‐distance 

migratory songbird. Journal of Avian Biology 48:209–219.

Crick, H. Q. P. 2004. The impact of climate change on birds. Ibis 146:48–56.

Cunningham, M. A. 2005. A comparison of public lands and farmlands for grassland bird 

conservation. The Professional Geographer 57:51–65.

Davis, C. A., R. T. Churchwell, S. D. Fuhlendorf, D. M. Engle, and T. J. Hovick. 2016. Effect of 

pyric herbivory on source-sink dynamics in grassland birds. Journal of Applied Ecology 53: 

1004–1112.

Devers, P. K., A. J. Roberts, S. Knoche, P. I. Padding, and R. Raftovich. 2017. Incorporating human 

dimension objectives into waterfowl habitat planning and delivery. Wildlife Society Bulletin

41:405–415.

Diehl, R. H. 2013. The airspace as habitat. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 28(7):377–379.

Diehl, R. H., A. C. Peterson, R. T. Bolus, and D. H. Johnson. 2018. Extending the habitat concept to 

the airspace. Chapter 3, pp. 47–69 in Chilson, P. B., W. F. Frick, J. F. Kelly, and F. Liechti 

(Eds.). 2017. Aeroecology. Springer Nature, Switzerland.

Dominoni, D. M. 2015. The effects of light pollution on biological rhythms of birds: an integrated, 

mechanistic perspective. Journal of Ornithology 156:409–418.

Donovan, T. M., F. R. Thompson III, J. Faaborg, and J. R. Probst. 1995. Reproductive success of 

migratory birds in habitat sources and sinks. Conservation Biology 9:1380–1395.

Dossman, B. C., G. W. Mitchell, D. R. Norris, P. D. Taylor, C. G. Guglielmo, S. N. Matthews, and P. 

G. Rodewald. 2016. The effects of wind and fuel stores on stopover departure behavior across 

a migratory barrier. Behavioral Ecology 27:567–574.

Douglas, M. R., D. B. Sponsler, E. V. Lonsdorf, and C. M. Grozinger. 2020. County-level analysis 

reveals a rapidly shifting landscape of insecticide hazard to honey bees (Apis mellifera) on 

US farmland. Scientific Reports 10:797. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-57225-w
84

Drever, M. C., A. C. Smith, L. A. Venier, D. J. H. Sleep, and D. A. MacLean. 2018. Cross-scale 

effects of spruce budworm outbreaks on boreal warblers in eastern Canada. Ecology and 

Evolution 8:7334–7345.

Dwyer, J. F., R. E. Harness, and K. Donohue. 2014. Predictive model of avian electrocution risk on 

overhead power lines. Conservation Biology 28:159–68.

Eng, M. L., B. J. Stutchbury, and C. A. Morrissey. 2019. A neonicotinoid insecticide reduces fueling 

and delays migration in songbirds. Science 365(6458):1177–1180.

Evans Ogden, L. J. 2002. Summary Report on the Bird Friendly Building Program: Effect of Light 

Reduction on Collision of Migratory Birds. Fatal Light Awareness Program (FLAP). 5. 

https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/flap/5

Ewald, J. A., C. J. Wheatley, N. J. Aebischer, S. J. Moreby, S. J. Duffield, H. Q. Crick, and M. B. 

Morecroft. 2015. Influences of extreme weather, climate and pesticide use on invertebrates in 

cereal fields over 42 years. Global Change Biology 21:3931–3950.

Ewert, D. N., G. J. Soulliere, R. D. Macleod, M. C. Shieldcastle, P. G. Rodewald, E. Fujimura, J. 

Shieldcastle, and R. J. Gates. 2006. Migratory bird stopover site attributes in the western 

Lake Erie basin. Final report to the George Gund Foundation.

Ewert, D. N., M. J. Hamas, R. J. Smith, M. E. Dallman, and S. W. Jorgensen, 2011. Distribution of 

migratory landbirds along the northern Lake Huron shoreline. Wilson Journal of Ornithology 

123:536–547.

Ewert, D. N., P. J. Doran, K. R. Hall, A. Froehlich, J. Cannon, J. B. Cole, and K. E. France. 2012. On 

a wing and a (GIS) layer: prioritizing migratory bird stopover habitat along Great Lakes 

shorelines. Final report to the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes Landscape Conservation 

Cooperative.

Ewert, D. N., C. L. Roy, G. J. Soulliere, and R. L. Pierce. 2014. Stakeholder input for revision of the 

Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Landbird Habitat 

Conservation Strategy. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture 

Technical Report No. 2014-2, Bloomington, MN, USA.

Fan, Z., W. K. Moser, M. H. Hansen, and M. D. Nelson. 2013. Regional patterns of major nonnative 

invasive plants and associated factors in upper Midwest forests. Forest Science 59(1):38-49.

Fickenscher, J. L., J. A. Litvaitis, T. D. Lee, and P. C. Johnson. 2014. Insect responses to invasive 

shrubs: Implications to managing thicket habitats in the northeastern United States. Forest 

Ecology and Management 322:127-135. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2014.03.003.

Fitzgerald, J. A., J. R. Herkert, and J. D. Brawn. 2000. Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for 

The Prairie Peninsula (Physiographic Area 31). Version 1.0.

Frelich, L. E. 1995. Old forest in the Lake States today and before European settlement. Natural

Areas Journal 15:157–167.

Fuhlendorf, S. D., and D. M. Engle. 2001. Restoring heterogeneity on rangelands: ecosystem 

management based on evolutionary grazing patterns: we propose a paradigm that enhances 

heterogeneity instead of homogeneity to promote biological diversity and wildlife habitat on 

rangelands grazed by livestock. BioScience 51(8):625–632.

Fuhlendorf, S. D., and D. M. Engle. 2004. Application of the fire-grazing interaction to restore a 

shifting mosaic on tallgrass prairie. Journal of Applied Ecology 41:604–614.

Gehring, J., P. Kerlinger, and A. M. Manville. 2009. Communication towers, lights, and birds: 

successful methods of reducing the frequency of avian collisions. Ecological Applications 

19:505–514.

Gehring, J., P. Kerlinger, and A. M. Manville. 2011. The role of tower height and guy wires on avian 

collisions with communication towers. The Journal of Wildlife Management 75(4):848–855.

George, A. D., T. J. O’Connell, K. R. Hickman, and D. M. Leslie, Jr. 2009. Influence of Old World 

bluestem (Bothriochloa ischaemum) monocultures on breeding density of three grassland 

songbirds in Oklahoma. In Tundra to tropics: connecting birds, habitats and people. 
85

Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight Conference. (T. D. Rich, C. 

Arizmendi, D. Demarest, and C. Thompson, Editors). McAllen, Texas, USA, pp. 291–297. 

George, A. D., T. J. O’Connell, K. R. Hickman, and D. M. Leslie, Jr. 2013. Use of Seeded Exotic 

Grasslands by Wintering Birds. Prairie Naturalist 45:77-83.

Gnass Giese, E. E., R. W. Howe, A. T. Wolf, N. A. Miller, and N. G. Walton. 2015. Sensitivity of 

breeding birds to the “human footprint” in western Great Lakes forest landscapes. Ecosphere 

6(6):90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/ ES14-00414.1 

Graber, J. W., and R. R. Graber. 1983. Feeding rates of warblers in spring. Condor 85:139–150.

Graves, B. M., A. D. Rodewald, and S. D. Hull. 2010. Influence of Woody Vegetation on Grassland 

Birds Within Reclaimed Surface Mines. The Wilson Journal of Ornithology 122(4):646–654.

Grveles, K. M., S. W. Matteson, S. Eichhorst, and K. Kreitinger. 2011. Protecting bird migration 

stopover habitat in the western Great Lakes: Final report. Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources, Endangered Resources Program.

Gurdak, J. J., and C. D. Roe. 2010. Review: Recharge rates and chemistry beneath playas of the High 

Plains aquifer, USA. Hydrogeology Journal 18(8):1747–1772.

Guttery, M. R., C. A. Ribic, D. W. Sample, A. Paulios, C. Trosen, J. Dadisman, and J. A. Horton.

2017. Scale-specific habitat relationships influence patch occupancy: Defining neighborhoods 

to optimize the effectiveness of landscape-scale grassland bird conservation. Landscape 

Ecology 32:515–529.

Hager, S. B., and M. E. Craig. 2014. Bird-window collisions in the summer breeding season. PeerJ 

2:e460 https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.460

Hallmann, C., R. Foppen, C. van Turnhout, H. de Kroon, and E. Jongejans. 2014. Declines in 

insectivorous birds are associated with high neonicotinoid concentrations. Nature 511:341–

343.

Hansen, A., R. Knight, J. Marzluff, S. Powell, K. Ireland, P. Gude, and A. Jones. 2006. Effects of 

Exurban Development on Biodiversity: Patterns, Mechanisms, and Research Needs. 

Ecological Applications 15:1893–1905.

Harness, R. E., and K. R. Wilson. 2001. Electric-utility structures associated with raptor 

electrocutions in rural areas. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:612–23.

Harrison, X. A., J. D. Blount, R. Inger, D. R. Norris, and S. Bearhop. 2011. Carry-over effects as 

drivers of fitness differences in animals. Journal of Animal Ecology 80:4–18.

Hawbaker, T. J., and V. C. Radeloff. 2004. Roads and landscape pattern in northern Wisconsin based 

on a comparison of four road data sources. Conservation Biology 18:1233–1244.

Herkert, J. R. 1994. The effects of habitat fragmentation on Midwestern grassland bird communities. 

Ecological Applications 4:461–471.

Herkert, J. R. 2007. Conservation Reserve Program benefits on Henslow’s sparrows within the 

United States. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2749–2751.

Herkert, J. R., D. W. Sample, and R. E. Warner. 1996. Management of Midwestern grassland 

landscapes for the conservation of migratory birds. USDA Forest Service General Technical 

Report PNW NC-187:89–116.

Hitch, A. T., and P. L. Leberg. 2007. Breeding distributions of North American bird species moving 

north as a result of climate change. Conservation Biology 21(2):534–539.

Horton, K. G., C. Nilsson, B. M. Van Doren, F. A. LaSorte, A. M. Dokter, and A. Farnsworth. 2019. 

Bright lights in the big cities: migratory birds’ exposure to artificial light. Frontiers in 

Ecology and the Environment 17:209–214.

Hupperts, S. G., Y. L. Dickinson, C. R. Webster, and C. C. Kern. 2019. Promoting structural and 

species diversity in Great Lakes northern hardwoods: a conceptual model and its application. 

Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research 92:16–25.

IUCN [International Union for the Conservation of Nature]. 2019. The IUCN red list of threatened 

species. http://www.iucnredlist.org/
86

Jarzyna, M. A., B. Zuckerberg, A. O. B. Finley, and W. F. Porter. 2016. Synergistic effects of climate 

and land cover: grassland birds are more vulnerable to climate change. Landscape Ecology 

31:2275–2290.

Jaster, L., W. E. Jensen, and A. R. Forbes. 2013. Abundance, territory sizes, and pairing success of 

male Henslow's Sparrows in restored warm‐ and cool‐season grasslands. Journal of Field 

Ornithology 84:234–241.

Johnson, M. D., T. W. Sherry, A. M. Strong, and A. Medori. 2004. Migrants in Neotropical bird 

communities: an assessment of the breeding currency hypothesis. Journal of Animal Ecology

74(2):333–341.

Johnson, M. D., T. W. Sherry, R. T. Holmes, and P. P Marra. 2006. Assessing habitat quality for a 

migratory songbird wintering in natural and agricultural habitats. Conservation Biology 

20:1433–1444.

Jones, G. M., B. Zuckerberg, and A. T. Paulios. 2012. The early bird gets earlier: a phenological shift 

in migration timing of the American Robin (Turdus migratorius) in the state of Wisconsin. 

Passenger Pigeon 74:131–142.

Kellogg, R. S. 1909. The timber supply of the United States. U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest 

Service. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. p. 24.

KWCT [Kirtland's Warbler Conservation Team]. 2015. Michigan Dept. of Natural Resources, U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and U.S.D.A. Forest Service. 2015 Kirtland's Warbler Breeding 

Range Conservation Plan. 

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Kirtlands_Warbler_CP_457727_7.pdf.

Klaassen, R. H., M. Hake, R. Strandberg, B. J. Koks, C. Trierweiler, K. M. Exo, F. Bairlein, and T. 

Alerstam. 2014. When and where does mortality occur in migratory birds? Direct evidence 

from long‐term satellite tracking of raptors. Journal of Animal Ecology 83:176–184.

Klem, D., Jr. 2009. Avian mortality at windows: The second largest human source of bird mortality 

on earth. In Tundra to Tropics: Proceedings of the Fourth International Partners in Flight 

Conference (T. D. Rich, C. Arizmendi, D. Demarest, and C. Thompson, Editors). Partners in 

Flight, pp. 244–251.

Klem, D. Jr, C. J. Farmer, N. Delacretaz, Y. Gelb, and P.G. Saenger. 2009. Architectural and 

landscape risk factors associated with bird-glass collisions in an urban environment. Wilson 

Journal of Ornithology 121:126–34.

Knutson, M. G., G. J. Niemi, W. E. Newton, and M. A. Friberg. 2004. Avian nest success in 

Midwestern forests fragmented by agriculture. The Condor 106:116–130.

Koenig, W. D., and A. M. Liebhold. 2017. A decade of emerald ash borer effects on regional 

woodpecker and nuthatch populations. Biological Invasions 19(7):2029–2037.

Kuvlesky, W. P., Jr., L. A. Brennan, M. L. Morrison, K. K. Boydston, B. M. Ballard, and F. C. 

Bryant. 2007. Wind Energy Development and Wildlife Conservation: Challenges and 

Opportunities. The Journal of Wildlife Management 71:2487–2498.

LANDFIRE 2018. Biophysical Settings for Conterminous United States. LANDFIRE 1.4.0, U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Geological Survey. 

https://www.landfire.gov/version_comparison.php. Accessed 8 July 2019

Lark, T., J. Salmon, and H. Gibbs. 2015. Cropland expansion outpaces agricultural and biofuel 

policies in the United States. Environmental Research Letters. 10. 10.1088/1748-

9326/10/4/044003.

Leu, M., and C. W. Thompson. 2002. The potential importance of migratory stopover sites as flightfeather molt staging areas: a review for Neotropical migrants. Biological Conservation 

106:45–56.

Li, Y., R. Miao, and M. Khanna. 2020. Neonicotinoids and decline in bird biodiversity in the United 

States. Nature Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-020-0582-x

Longcore, T., C. Rich , P. Mineau, B. MacDonald, D. G. Bert, L. M. Sullivan, E. Mutrie, S. A. 

Gauthreaux, Jr., M. L. Avery, R. L. Crawford, A. M. Manville II, E. R. Travis, and D. Drake.. 
87

2012. An estimate of mortality at communication towers in the United States and Canada. 

PLOS ONE 7:e34025.

Longcore, T., C. Rich, P. Mineau, B. MacDonald, D. G. Bert, L. M. Sullivan, E. Mutrie, S. A. 

Gauthreaux, Jr., M. L. Avery, R. L. Crawford, A. M. Manville II, E. R. Travis, and D. Drake. 

2013. Avian mortality at communication towers in North America: which species, how many, 

and where? Biological Conservation 158:410–19.

Loss, S. R., G. J. Niemi, and R. B. Blair. 2012. Invasions of non-native earthworms related to 

population declines of ground-nesting songbirds across a regional extent in northern 

hardwood forests of North America. Landscape Ecology 27:683–696. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10980-012-9717-4

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2013a. Estimates of bird collision mortality at wind facilities in 

the contiguous United States. Biological Conservation 168:201–209.

Loss S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2013b. The impact of free-ranging domestic cats on wildlife of 

the United States. Nature Communications 4:1396. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms2380

Loss, S. R., T. Will, S. S. Loss, and P. P. Marra. 2014a. Bird–building collisions in the United States: 

Estimates of annual mortality and species vulnerability. Condor, 116(1):8–23.

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2014b. Refining estimates of bird collision and electrocution 

mortality at power lines in the United States. PLoS One 9(7).

Loss, S. R., T. Will, and P. P. Marra. 2015. Direct mortality of birds from anthropogenic causes. 

Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 46:99–120.

Lovich, J. E., and J.R. Ennen. 2011. Wildlife Conservation and Solar Energy Development in the 

Desert Southwest, United States. BioScience 61 (12):982–992.

MacDade, L. S., P. G. Rodewald, and K. A. Hatch. 2011. Contribution of emergent aquatic insects to 

refueling in spring migrant landbirds. Auk 128:127–137.

Maresh-Nelson, S. B., J. J. Coon, C. J. Duchardt, J. R. Miller, D. M. Debinski, and W. H. Schacht. 

2018. Contrasting impacts of invasive plants and human-altered landscape context on nest 

survival and brood parasitism of a grassland bird. Landscape Ecology 33:1799–1813.

Marra, P. P., and R. T. Holmes. 2001. Consequences of dominance-mediated habitat segregation in a 

migrant passerine bird during the non-breeding period. Auk 118:92–104.

Marra, P. P., E. B. Cohen, S. R. Loss, J. E. Rutter, and C. M. Tonra. 2015. A call for full annual cycle 

research in animal ecology. Biology Letters 11:20150552.

Martin, P. A., D. L. Johnson, D. J. Forsyth, and B. D. Hill. 2000. Effects of two grasshopper control 

insecticides on food resources and reproductive success of two species of grassland 

songbirds. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 19:2987–2996.

Matteson, S., K. Kreitinger, G. Bartelt, G. Butcher, D. Sample, and T. Will. 2009. Partners in Flight 

Bird Conservation Plan for The Boreal Hardwood Transition (Bird Conservation Region 12 

— U.S. Portion). Version 1.0. Partners in Flight Science Committee, Falls Church, Virginia, 

USA.

Matthews, S. N., and P. G. Rodewald. 2010. Urban forest patches and stopover duration of migratory 

Swainson’s Thrushes. Condor 112:96–104.

McLaughlin, A., and P. Mineau. 1995. The impact of agricultural practices on biodiversity. Agric 

Ecosyst Environ 55:201–212.

Mclaughlin, M. E., W. M. Janousek, J. P. Mccarty, and L. L. Wolfenbarger. 2014. Effects of 

urbanization on site occupancy and density of grassland birds in tallgrass prairie fragments. 

Journal of Field Ornithology 85(3):258–273.

Meehan, T. D., A. H. Hurlbert, and C. Gratton. 2010. Bird communities in future bioenergy 

landscapes of the Upper Midwest. Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences, 107(43):18533-18538.

Meehan, T. D., G. S. LeBaron, K. Dale, N. L. Michel, G. M Verutes, and G.M. Langham. 2018. 

Abundance trends of birds wintering in the USA and Canada, from Audubon Christmas Bird 

Counts, 1966-2017, version 2.1. National Audubon Society, New York, New York, USA.
88

Mehlman, D. W., S. E. Mabey, D. N. Ewert, C. Duncan, B. Abel, D. Cimprich, R. Sutter, and M. 

Woodrey. 2005. Conserving stopover sites for forest-dwelling migratory landbirds. Auk 

122:1281–1290.

Merkle, J. A., N. J. Anderson, D. L. Baxley, M. Chopp, L. C. Gigliotti, J. A. Gude, T. M. Harms, H.

E. Johnson, E. H. Merrill, M. S. Mitchell, T. W. Mong, J. Nelson, A. S. Norton, M. J. Sheriff, 

E. Tomasik, and K. R. VanBeek. 2019, A collaborative approach to bridging the gap between 

wildlife managers and researchers. Journal of Wildlife Management 83:1644–1651.

Mills, A. M., B. G. Thurber, S. A. Mackenzie, and P. D. Taylor. 2011. Passerines use nocturnal 

flights for landscape-scale movements during migration stopover. Condor 113:597–607.

Mineau P. 2004. Birds and pesticides: Are pesticide regulatory decisions consistent with the 

protection afforded migratory bird species under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act? The William 

and Mary Environ Law Policy Review 28(2):313–338. 

Mineau, P., and M. Whiteside. 2006. The lethal risk to birds from insecticide use in the U.S. – A 

spatial and temporal analysis. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 25(5):1214–1222.

Mineau, P., and M. Whiteside. 2013. Pesticide acute toxicity is a better correlate of U.S. grassland 

bird declines than agricultural intensification. PLoS ONE 8(2): e57457. 

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057457

Moore, F. R., P. Kerlinger, and T. R. Simons. 1990. Stopover on a Gulf Coast barrier island by spring 

trans-gulf migrants. Wilson Bulletin 102:487–500.

Moore, F. R., and T. R. Simons. 1992. Habitat suitability and stopover ecology of Neotropical 

landbird migrants. in Ecology and Conservation of Neotropical Migrant Landbirds (eds. J. M. 

Hagan III and D. W. Johnston), Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 345-

355.

Morefield, P. E., S. D. LeDuc, C. M. Clark, and R. Iovanna. 2016. Grasslands, wetlands, and 

agriculture: the fate of land expiring from the Conservation Reserve Program in the 

Midwestern United States. Environmental Research Letters 11 (2016) 094005.

Morrison, M. L. 1986. Bird Populations as Indicators of Environmental Change in Current 

Ornithology, R. F. Johnston, Ed. (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1986; 

http://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-4615-6784-4_10), pp. 429–451.

Murphy, M. T. 2003. Avian population trends within the evolving agricultural landscape of eastern 

and central United States. Auk 120:20–34.

NRCS and WHMI [Natural Resources Conservation Service and Wildlife Habitat Management 

Institute]. 2005. Greater prairie-chicken (Tympanuchus cupido), Fish and Wildlife Habitat 

Management Leaflet Number 27.

NABCI [North American Bird Conservation Initiative]. 2000. The North American Bird 

Conservation Initiative in the United States: A vision of American bird conservation. North 

American Bird Conservation Initiative Website. http://www.nabcius.org/aboutnabci/NABCIfndtn.pdf.

Nagy, L. R., and R. T. Holmes. 2005. Food limits annual fecundity of a migratory songbird: An 

experimental study. Ecology 86(3):675–681.

NCED [National Conservation Easement Database]. 2020. Conservation easements. 

https://www.conservationeasement.us/

Nations, C., and C. Gordon. 2017. Assessment of Nocturnal Bird Migration Activity from Weather 

Radar Data for the Proposed Icebreaker Wind Energy Facility, Lake Erie, Ohio. Lake Erie 

Energy Development Corporation, Cleveland, OH, USA.

NAWMP [North American Waterfowl Management Plan]. 2012. People conserving waterfowl and 

wetlands. Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Medio 

Amiente y Recursos Naturales. 

NAWMP [North American Waterfowl Management Plan]. 2018. Connecting people, waterfowl, and 

wetlands. Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Secretaria de Medio 

Amiente y Recursos Naturales. 
89

NEAT [National Ecological Assessment Team]. 2006. Strategic habitat conservation. Final report of 

the NEAT. U.S. Geological Survey and U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife 

Service.

Newton, I. 2004. Population limitation in migrants. Ibis 146:197-226.

Nelson, M. D., and G. A. Reams. 2017. Is the Area of US Forests Increasing or Decreasing? Forestry 

Source 22(5):16–17, 21.

Nelson, M. D., K. H. Riitters, J. W. Coulston, G. M. Domke, E. J. Greenfield, L. L. Langner, D. J. 

Nowak, C. B. O'Dea, S. N. Oswalt, M. C. Reeves, and D. N. Wear. 2020. Defining the United 

States land base: a technical document supporting the USDA Forest Service 2020 RPA 

assessment. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-191. Madison, WI: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest 

Service, Northern Research Station. 70 p. https://doi.org/10.2737/NRS-GTR-191.

Niemi, G. J., R. W. Howe, B. R. Sturtevant, L. R. Parker, A. R. Grinde, N. P. Danz, M. D. Nelson, E.

J. Zlonis, N. G. Walton, E. E. Gnass Geise, and S. M. Lietz. 2016. Analysis of long-term 

forest bird monitoring data from national forests of the western Great Lakes Region. U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station NRS-159, Newtown 

Square, PA. 322pp.

Oswalt, S. N., B. W. Smith, P. D. Miles, and S. A. Pugh. 2019. Forest Resources of the United States,

2017: a technical document supporting the Forest Service 2020 RPAAssessment. Gen. Tech.

Rep. WO-97. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington

Office. 223pp. https://doi.org/10.2737/WO-GTR-97.

Panjabi, A. O., W. E. Easton, P. J. Blancher, A. E. Shaw, B. A. Andres, C. J. Beardmore, A. F.

Camfield, D. W. Demarest, R. Dettmers, R. H. Keller, K. V. Rosenberg, T. Will, and M. A.

Gahbauer. 2020. Avian Conservation Assessment Database Handbook, Version 2020.

Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 8.1. pif.birdconservancy.org/acad.handbook.pdf.

Partners in Flight. 2020a. Avian Conservation Assessment Database, version 2020. 

http://pif.birdconservancy.org/ACAD.

Partners in Flight. 2020b. Population Estimates Database, version 3.1. 

http://pif.birdconservancy.org/PopEstimates.

Petit, D. R. 2000. Habitat use by landbirds along Nearctic-Neotropical migration routes: implications 

for conservation of stopover habitats. Studies in Avian Biology 20:15-33.

Piaskowski, V., and G. Albanese. 2001. Resource sampling of arthropods in all vegetation strata and 

correlation with arthropods identified in fecal samples of insectivorous warblers at a spring

migration stopover site. Abstract. American Ornithologists’ Union meeting, Seattle, WA.

Pidgeon, A. M., V. C. Radeloff, C. H. Flather, C. A. Lepczyk, M. K. Clayton, T. J. Hawbaker, and R. 

B. Hammer. 2007. Associations of forest bird species richness with housing and landscape 

patterns across the USA. Ecological Applications 17:1989–2010.

Pollock, J., K. Glennemeir, and D. Stotz. 2004. Migrant bird habitat study. Final report. Urban 

Conservation Treaty for Migratory Birds partnership. 

www.bcnbirds.org/greenpapers_files/migranthabitatstudy.pdf

Potter, B. A., G. J. Soulliere, D. N. Ewert, M. G. Knutson, W. E. Thogmartin, J. S. Castrale, and M. J. 

Roell. 2007. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Landbird 

Habitat Conservation Strategy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, MN. 124pp.

Pyle, P., J. F. Saracco, and D. F. DeSante. 2018. Evidence of widespread movements from breeding 

to molting grounds by North American landbirds. The Auk: Ornithological Advances 

135:506–520.

Radeloff, V. C., R. B. Hammer, and S. I. Stewart. 2005. Rural and suburban sprawl in the U.S. 

Midwest from 1940 to 2000 and its relation to forest fragmentation. Conservation 

Biology 19:793–805.

Ranjan, P., S. P. Church, K. Floress and L. S. Prokopy. 2019. Synthesizing conservation motivations 

and barriers: What have we learned from qualitative studies of farmers’ behaviors in the 
90

United States? Society & Natural Resources 32(11):1171-1199, DOI: 

10.1080/08941920.2019.1648710

Reimer, A. P., and L. S. Prokopy. 2013. Farmer participation in U.S. Farm Bill conservation 

programs. Environmental Management 53:318–332.

Renfrew, R. B., D. Kim, N. Perlut, J. Smith, J. W. Fox, and P. P. Marra. 2013. Phenological matching 

across hemispheres in a long-distance migratory bird. Diversity and Distributions19:1008–

1019.

Renfrew, R. B., K. A. Peters, J. R. Herkert, K. R. VanBeek, and T. Will. 2019. A full life cycle 

conservation plan for Bobolink (Dolichonyx oryzivorus). U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

Reudink, M. W., P. P. Marra, T. K. Kyser, P. T. Boag, K. M. Langin, and L. Ratcliffe. 2009. Nonbreeding season events influence sexual selection in a long-distance migratory bird. 

Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 276:1619–1626.

Ribic, C. A., R. R. Koford, J. R. Herkert, D. H. Johnson, J. D. Niemuth, D. E. Naugle, K. K. Bakker, 

D. W. Sample, and R. B. Renfrew. 2009. Area sensitivity in North American grassland birds: 

patterns and processes. Auk 126:233–244. 

Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. 

Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, D. Inigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. Martell, A. Panjabi, 

D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. Rustay, S. Wendt, and T. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight 

North American landbird conservation plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. 84pp.

Robinson, S. K., and D. S. Wilcove. 1994. Forest fragmentation in the temperate zone and its effects 

on migratory songbirds. Bird Conservation International 4:233–249.

Robinson, S. K. 1996. Threats to breeding neotropical migratory birds in the Midwest. Pages 1-21 in 

F. R. Thompson, III, editor. Management of Midwestern landscapes for the conservation of 

neotropical migratory birds. U.S. Forest Service General Technical Report NC-187. North 

Central Forest Experimental Station, St. Paul, Minnesota, USA.

Rockwell, S. M., J. M. Wunderle, T. S. Sillett, C. I. Bocetti, D. N. Ewert, D. Currie, J. D. White, and 

P. P. Marra. 2017. Seasonal survival estimation for a long-distance migratory bird and the 

influence of winter precipitation. Oecologia 183:715–726.

Rosenberg, K. V., and P. J. Blancher. 2005. Setting numerical population objectives for priority 

landbird species. Pages 57-67 in Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the 

Americas: proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference (C. J. Ralph 

and T. D. Rich, Eds.). U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, General Technical 

Report PSW-GTR-191.

Rosenberg, K. V., J. A. Kennedy, R. Dettmers, R. P. Ford, D. Reynolds, J. D. Alexander, C. J. 

Beardmore, P. J. Blancher, R. E. Bogart, G. S. Butcher, A. F. Camfield, A. Couturier, D. W. 

Demarest, W. E. Easton, J. J. Giocomo, R. H. Keller, A. E. Mini, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. 

Pashley, T. D. Rich, J. M. Ruth, H. Stabins, J. Stanton, and T. Will. 2016. Partners in Flight 

Landbird Conservation Plan: 2016 Revision for Canada and Continental United States. 

Partners in Flight Science Committee. https://www.partnersinflight.org/resources/the-plan/

Rosenberg, K. V., A. M. Dokter, P. J. Blancher, J. R. Sauer, A. C. Smith, P. A. Smith, J. C. Stanton, 

A. Panjabi, L. Helft, M. Parr, and P. P. Marra. 2019. Decline of the North American avifauna. 

Science 366(6461):120–124.

Roth, A. M., R. W. Rohrbaugh, T. Will, S. Barker Swarthout, and D. A. Buehler, editors. 2019. 

Golden-winged Warbler Status Review and Conservation Plan. 2nd Edition. www.gwwa.org.

Ruiz-Gutierrez, V., W. L. Kendall, J. F. Saracco, and G. C. White. 2016. Wintering strategies of 

migratory birds: A novel approach for estimating seasonal movement patterns of residents 

and transients. Journal of Applied Ecology 53:1035–1045.

Rushing, C. S., T. B. Ryder, and P. P. Marra. 2016. Quantifying drivers of population dynamics for a 

migratory bird throughout the annual cycle. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological 

Sciences 283:20152846.
91

Ruth, J. M. 2015. Status Assessment and Conservation Plan for the Grasshopper Sparrow 

(Ammodramus savannarum). Version 1.0 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakewood, 

Colorado. 109pp.

Sample, D. W., and M. J. Mossman. 1997. Managing habitat for grassland birds: a guide for 

Wisconsin. Wisconsin Dept. of Natural Resources. Madison WI. 154pp.

Sánchez-Bayoa, F., and K. A. G. Wyckhuys. 2019. Worldwide decline of the entomofauna: A review 

of its drivers. Biological Conservation 232:8–27.

Schulte, L. A., A. M. Pidgeon, and D. J. Mladenoff. 2005. One hundred fifty years of change in forest 

bird breeding habitat: estimates of species distributions. Conservation Biology 19:1944-1956.

Sekercioglu, C. H., G. C. Daily, and P. R. Ehrlich. 2004. Ecosystem consequences of bird declines. 

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 101:18042–18047.

Shaffer, J. A., and D. A. Buhl. 2016, Effects of wind‐energy facilities on breeding grassland bird 

distributions. Conservation Biology 30:59–71.

Shaffer, J. A., and J. P. DeLong. 2019. The effects of management practices on grassland birds—An 

introduction to North American grasslands and the practices used to manage grasslands and 

grassland birds, Chap. A of D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, J. A. Shaffer, and J. P. DeLong, eds., 

The effects of management practices on grassland birds: U.S. Geological Survey Professional 

Paper 1842, 63 p.

Sherry, T. W., S. Wilson, S. Hunter, and R. T. Holmes. 2015. Impacts of nest predators and weather 

on reproductive success and population limitation in a long‐distance migratory songbird. 

Journal of Avian Biology 46:559–569.

Sillett, T. S., and R. T. Holmes. 2002. Variation in survivorship of a migratory songbird throughout

its annual cycle. Journal of Animal Ecology 71:296–308.

Skagen, S. K., and A. A. Y. Adams. 2012. Weather effects on avian breeding performance and 

implications of climate change. Ecological Applications, 22:1131–1145.

Smallwood, K. S., and C. Thelander. 2008. Bird mortality in the Altamont Pass wind resource area, 

California. Journal of Wildlife Management 72:215–223.

Smallwood, K. S., D. A. Bell, and S. Standish. 2020. Dogs Detect Larger Wind Energy Effects on 

Bats and Birds. Journal of Wildlife Management 84(5):852–864. doi:10.1002/jwmg.21863.

Snep, R. P., J. L. Kooijmans, R. G. Kwak, R. P. Foppen, H. Parsons, M. Awasthy, H. L. K. 

Sierdsema, J. M. Marzluff, E. Fernandez-Juricic, J. de Laet, and Y. M. van Heezik. 2016. 

Urban bird conservation: presenting stakeholder-specific arguments for the development of 

bird-friendly cities. Urban Ecosystems 19(4):1535–1550.

Sohl, T. L., K. L., Sayler, M. A. Bouchard, R. R. Reker, A. M. Freisz, S. L. Bennett, B. M. Sleeter, R. 

R. Sleeter, T. Wilson, C. Soulard, M. Knuppe, and T. Van Hofwegen. 2018. Conterminous 

United States Land Cover Projections - 1992 to 2100: U.S. Geological Survey data 

release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P95AK9HP.

Sohl, T., R. Reker, M. Bouchard, K. Sayler, J. Dornbierer, S. Wika, R. Quenzer and A. Friesz. 2016. 

Modeled historical land use and land cover for the conterminous United States, Journal of 

Land Use Science 11(4):476-499, DOI: 10.1080/1747423X.2016.1147619

Soulliere, G. J., and M. A. Al-Saffar. 2017. Targeting conservation for waterfowl and people in the 

Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture Region. Upper Mississippi River and 

Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Technical Report No. 2017-1, Bloomington, Minnesota, 

USA.

Soulliere, G. J., M. A. Al-Saffar, J. M. Coluccy, R. J. Gates, H. M. Hagy, J. W. Simpson, J. N. Straub, 

R. L. Pierce, M. W. Eichholz, and D. R. Luukkonen. 2017. Upper Mississippi River and 

Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy – 2017 Revision. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota, USA.

Soulliere, G. J., M. A. Al-Saffar, R. L. Pierce, M. J. Monfils, L. R. Wires, B. W. Loges, B. T. 

Shirkey, N. S. Miller, R. D. Schultheis, F. A. Nelson, A. M. Sidie-Slettedahl, C. M. Tonra, 

and D. J. Holm. 2018. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture 
92

Waterbird Habitat Conservation Strategy – 2018 Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Bloomington, Minnesota, USA. 

Soulliere, G. J., M. A. Al-Saffar, K. R. VanBeek, K. E. Koch, and C. M. Tonra. 2019. Stakeholder 

interviews to inform revision of the Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture Landbird 

Habitat Conservation Strategy. Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture Technical 

Report No. 2019-1, Bloomington, Minnesota, USA.

Spiller, K. J., and R. Dettmers. 2019. Evidence for multiple drivers of aerial insectivore declines in 

North America. Condor 121(2):1–13.

Stanton, J. C., B. X. Semmens, P. C. McKann, T. Will, and W. E. Thogmartin. 2016. Customizable 

risk metrics for identifying and monitoring conservation-priority species. Ecological 

Indicators 61:683–692. 

Stanton, R. L., C. A. Morrissey, and R. G. Clark. 2018. Analysis of trends and agricultural drivers of 

farmland bird declines in North America: A review. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment

254:244–254.

Stepanian, P. M., S. E. Entrekin, C. E. Wainright, D. Mirkovic,, J. L. Tank, and J. F. Kelly. 2020. 

Declines in an abundant aquatic insect, the burrowing mayfly, across major North American 

waterways. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 117:2987–2992.

Steven, R., C. Morrison, and J. G. Castley. 2017. Exploring attitudes and understanding of global 

conservation practice among birders and avitourists for enhanced conservation of birds. Bird 

Conservation International 27(2):224–236.

Stutchbury, B. J., R. Siddiqui, K. Applegate, G. T. Hvenegaard, P. Mammenga, N. Mickle, M. 

Pearman, J. D. Ray, A. Savage, T. Shaheen, and K. C. Fraser. 2016. Ecological causes and 

consequences of intratropical migration in temperate-breeding migratory birds. The American 

Naturalist 188:S28–S40.

Sullivan, B. L., C. L. Wood, M. J. Iliff, R. E. Bonney, D. Fink, and S. Kelling. 2009. eBird: A citizenbased bird observation network in the biological sciences. Biological Conservation

142(10):2282–2292.

Swanston, C. W., M. K. Janowiak, L. A. Brandt, P. R. Butler, S. D. Handler, P. D. Shannon, A. D. 

Lewis, K. Hall, R. T. Fahey, L. Scott, A. Kerber, J. W. Miesbauer, and L. Darling. 2016. 

Forest adaptation resources: Climate change tools and approaches for land managers, 2nd 

edition. Ge. Tech. Rep. NRS-GTR-87-2. Newtown Square, PA. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. 161 p. www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/52760 

SWCS [Soil and Water Conservation Society]. 2003. Conservation implications of climate change: 

soil erosion and runoff from cropland. Soil and Water Conservation Society, Ankeny, Iowa, 

USA.

Taylor, P. D., S. A. Mackenzie, B. G. Thurber, A. M. Calvert, A. M. Mills, L. P. McGuire, and C. G. 

Guglielmo. 2011. Landscape movements of migratory birds and bats reveal an expanded 

scale of stopover. PLoS ONE 6(11): e27054. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0027054.

Thatcher, B. S., D. G. Krementz, and M. S. Woodrey. 2006. Henslow's sparrow winter‐survival 

estimates and response to prescribed burning. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:198–206.

The Center for Climate and Security. 2019. A Climate Security Plan for America, Washington, DC: 

The Climate and Security Advisory Group, Chaired by the Center for Climate and Security in 

partnership with George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs.

Thogmartin, W. E., and J. J. Rohweder. 2009. Conservation opportunity assessment for rare birds in 

the Midwestern United States: a private lands imperative. Pages 419–425 in Rich, T. D., C. 

Arizmendi, D. Demarest and C. Thompson [eds.]. Tundra to Tropics: Connecting Birds, 

Habitats and People. Proceedings of the 4th International Partners in Flight Conference, 13-

16 February 2008. McAllen, TX. 

Thogmartin, W. E., S. M. Crimmins, and J. Pearce. 2014. Prioritizing bird conservation actions in the 

Prairie Hardwood Transition of the Midwestern United States. Biological Conservation 76: 

212–223. 
93

Tonra, C. M., and M. W. Reudink. 2018. Expanding the traditional definition of molt-migration. Auk: 

Ornithological Advances 135:1123–1132.

Tonra, C. M., J. R. Wright, and S. N. Matthews. 2019. Remote estimation of overwintering home 

ranges in an elusive, nocturnal migratory bird. Ecology and Evolution 9:12586–12599.

USACE [U.S. Army Corps of Engineers]. 2012. Upper Mississippi River Systemic Forest 

Stewardship Plan, Executive Summary. 8pp.

USCB [U.S. Census Bureau]. 2010. Population Change for Counties in the United States and for 

Municipios in Puerto Rico: 2000 to 2010. www.census.gov/2010census

USFWS [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service]. 2014. Selecting surrogate species for Strategic Habitat 

Conservation in the Upper Midwest Great Lakes geography. Bloomington, MN. Writing 

Team: N. Powers, M. Brouder, S. Blomquist, B. Potter, J. Dingledine, C. Deloria, G. 

Soulliere, T. Kerr, and K. Steiger‐Meister.

USFWS [U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service]. 2020. Summary of listed species listed populations and 

recovery plans. Environmental Conservation Online System. 

https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp0/reports/box-score-report (accessed 27 February 2020). 

USGCRP [U.S. Global Change Research Program]. 2017. Climate Science Special Report: Fourth 

National Climate Assessment, Volume I, editors Wuebbles, D. J., D. W. Fahey, K. A. 

Hibbard, D. J. Dokken, B. C. Stewart, and T. K. Maycock. U.S. Global Change Research 

Program, Washington, DC, USA, 470 pp, doi: 10.7930/J0J964J6.

USGS [U.S. Geological Survey]. 2018. Gap Analysis Project (GAP), 2018, Protected Areas Database 

of the United States (PAD-US): U.S. Geological Survey data release, 

https://doi.org/10.5066/P955KPLE.

Vitek J., D. A. Cristol, and M. Leu. 2017. Songbird community varies with deer use in a fragmented 

landscape. Landscape and Urban Planning 161:1-9. 

DOI: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.01.003. Accessed 19 April 2020.

Vodehnal, W. L., and J. B. Haufler, Compilers. 2007. A grassland conservation plan for prairie 

grouse. North American Grouse Partnership. Fruita, CO.

Walk, J. W., E. L. Kershner, T. J. Benson, and R. E. Warner. 2010. Nesting success of grassland birds 

in small patches in an agricultural landscape. Auk 127:328–334.

Warnock, N. 2010. Stopping vs. staging: The difference between a hop and a jump. Journal of Avian 

Biology 41:621–626.

Wickham, J., S. V. Stehman, L. Gass, J. A. Dewitz, D. G. Sorenson, B. J. Granneman, R. V. Poss, 

and L. A. Baer, 2017. Thematic accuracy assessment of the 2011 National Land Cover 

Database (NLCD). Remote Sensing of Environment 191(Supplement C): 328–341. 

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.12.026.

Will, T., J. C. Stanton, K. V. Rosenberg, A. O. Panjabi, A. F. Camfield, A. E. Shaw, W. E. 

Thogmartin, and P. J. Blancher. 2020. Handbook to the Partners in Flight Population 

Estimates Database, Version 3.1. PIF Technical Series No 7.1. 

pif.birdconservancy.org/popest.handbook.pdf.

Wilsey, C., B. Bateman, L. Taylor, J. X. Wu, G. LeBaron, R. Shepherd, C. Koseff, S. Friedman, and 

R. Stone. 2019a. Survival by Degrees: 389 Bird Species on the Brink. National Audubon 

Society: New York.

Wilsey, C. B., J. Grand, J. Wu, N. Michel, J. Grogan-Brown, and B. Trusty. 2019b. North American 

Grasslands. National Audubon Society, New York, New York, USA.

Wilsey, C, L. Taylor, B. Bateman, C. Jensen, N. Michel, R. Panjabi, G. Langham. 2019c. Climate 

policy action needed to reduce vulnerability of conservation‐reliant grassland birds in North 

America. Conservation Science and Practice 21.

Wilson, S., S. L. LaDeau, A. P. Tøttrup, and P. P. Marra. 2011. Range‐wide effects of breeding‐and 

nonbreeding‐season climate on the abundance of a Neotropical migrant songbird. Ecology 

92:789–1798.
94

Woodrey, M. S. 2000. Age-dependent aspects of stopover biology of passerine migrants. Studies in 

Avian Biology 20:43–52.

Worland, J. 2020a. Shell’s crude awakening: Can the oil-and-gas industry survive the climate-change 

fallout? In TIME magazine (27 January 2020), Bryant Park, New York, NY USA.

Worland, J. 2020b. The world of finance groggily awakens to climate change. In TIME magazine (10 

February 2020), New York, NY USA.

Winder, V. L., A. J. Gregory, L. B. McNew, and B. K. Sandercock. 2015. Responses of male Greater 

Prairie-Chickens to wind energy development. Condor 117(2):284–296.

Winter, M., D. H. Johnson, and J. Faaborg. 2000. Evidence for edge effects on multiple levels in 

tallgrass prairie. Condor 102(2):256–266.

Wood, E. M., A. M. Pidgeon, F. Liu, and D. J. Mladenoff. 2012. Birds see the trees inside the forest: 

the potential impacts of changes in forest composition on songbirds during spring migration. 

Forest Ecology and Management 280:176–186.

Wright, J. R., C. M. Tonra, and L. L. Powell. 2018a. Prealternate molt-migration in Rusty Blackbirds 

and its implications for stopover biology. Condor: Ornithological Applications 120:507–516.

Wright, J. R., L. L. Powell, and C. M. Tonra. 2018b. Automated telemetry reveals staging behavior in 

a declining migratory passerine. The Auk: Ornithological Advances 135:461–476.

Yang, L., J. Suming, P. Danielson, C. Homer, L. Gass, S. M. Bender, A. Case, C. Costello, J. Dewitz, 

J. Fry, M. Funk, B. Granneman, G. C. Liknes, M. Rigge, and G. Xian. 2018. A new 

generation of United States National Land Cover Database; requirements, research priorities, 

design, and implementation strategies. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote 

Sensing 146:108–123.

Zacharias, M. A., and J. C. Roff. 2001. Use of focal species in marine conservation and management: 

a review and critique. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 11:59–76.

Zanette, L., M. Clinchy, and J. N. Smith. 2006. Combined food and predator effects on songbird nest 

survival and annual reproductive success: results from a bi-factorial experiment. Oecologia 

147:632–640.

Zink, R. M., and J. Eckles. 2010. Twin Cities bird–building collisions: A status update on ‘‘Project 

Birdsafe.’’ The Loon 82(1):34–37.

Zuckerberg, B., A. M. Woods, and W. F. Porter. 2009. Poleward shifts in breeding bird distributions 

in New York state. Global Change Biology 15:1866–1883.
95

APPENDICES

Appendix A. Common and scientific names of birds included in the Upper Mississippi / 

Great Lakes Joint Venture Landbird Habitat Conservation Strategy – 2020 Revision. List 

arranged in taxonomic order. 

Appendix B. Class descriptions from 2016 National Land Cover Database (NLCD; Yang et 

al. 2018) used for conservation planning in the Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint 

Venture region.

Appendix C. Descriptions of Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the Upper Mississippi / 

Great Lakes Joint Venture region, including primary land-cover and social characteristics.

Appendix D. Focal species habitat accounts with population distribution and abundance, 

factors limiting population growth, and habitat recommendations in the Upper Mississippi / 

Great Lakes Joint Venture (JV) region.

Appendix E. Breeding focal species abundance estimates, trends, and goals for Bird 

Conservation Regions (BCRs) within the Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture (JV) 

boundary. Abundance goals were established using PIF frameworks for Watch List species 

in categories Yellow D – reverse decline, Yellow R – prevent decline, and Common Birds in 

Steep Decline – stabilize population for each BCR area within the JV region. 

Appendix F. Integration of biological and social objectives provides a means to increase the 

relevance of bird habitat conservation to people. Spatial data layers representing each 

objective are be weighted for importance (objective prioritization) and combined to produce 

a decision support tool (DST). The DST identifies highest priority areas of the JV region to 

target conservation actions that best achieve the integrated objectives. 

Appendix G. Check list of community-based (Bird City) conservation actions especially 

relevant to urban and developed landscapes and drawn from several Bird City Programs. 

Typical actions to enhance conservation are grouped into categories and best practices. 

Depending on state-program requirements, a specified number of best practices (usually 2-3) 

must be completed within each category before a community can be certified as a Bird City. 

Bird Cities are also required to adopt an official municipal resolution and hold a celebration 

recognizing World Migratory Bird Day.
96

Appendix A. Common and scientific names of birds included in the Upper Mississippi / 

Great Lakes Joint Venture Landbird Habitat Conservation Strategy – 2020 Revision. 

List arranged in taxonomic order.

 Common name Scientific name Common name Scientific name

Wood duck Aix sponsa Veery Catharus fuscescens

Blue-winged Teal Spatula discors Wood Thrush Hylocichla mustelina

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos American Robin Turdus migratorius

Northern Bobwhite Colinus virginianus Brown Thrasher Toxostoma rufum 

Wild Turkey Meleagris gallopavo European Starling Sturnus vulgaris

Ruffed Grouse Bonasa umbellus House Sparrow Passer domesticus

Sharp-tailed Grouse Tympanuchus phasianellus Evening Grosbeak Coccothraustes vespertinus 

Greater Prairie-Chicken Tympanuchus cupido House Finch Haemorhous mexicanus

Ring-necked Pheasant Phasianus colchicus Pine Siskin Spinus pinus 

Rock Pigeon Columba livia Grasshopper Sparrow Ammodramus savannarum 

Yellow-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus americanus Lark Sparrow Chondestes grammacus

Black-billed Cuckoo Coccyzus erythropthalmus Chipping Sparrow Spizella passerina

Common Nighthawk Chordeiles minor Field Sparrow Spizella pusilla 

Chuck-will's-widow Antrostomus carolinensis American Tree Sparrow Spizelloides arborea

Eastern Whip-poor-will Antrostomus vociferus Vesper Sparrow Pooecetes gramineus 

Chimney Swift Chaetura pelagica LeConte's Sparrow Ammospiza leconteii 

American Woodcock Scolopax minor Nelson's Sparrow Ammospiza nelsoni

Upland Sandpiper Bartramia longicauda Henslow’s Sparrow Centronyx henslowii 

Northern Harrier Circus hudsonius Savannah Sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis

Cooper's Hawk Accipiter cooperii Eastern Towhee Pipilo erythrophthalmus 

Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bobolink Dolichonyx oryzivorus 

Broad-winged Hawk Buteo platypterus Eastern Meadowlark Sturnella magna

Snowy Owl Bubo scandiacus Western Meadowlark Sturnella neglecta

Long-eared Owl Asio otus Red-winged Blackbird Agelaius phoeniceus 

Short-eared Owl Asio flammeus Brown-headed Cowbird Molothrus ater 

Northern Saw-whet Owl Aegolius acadicus Rusty Blackbird Euphagus carolinus

Red-headed Woodpecker Melanerpes erythrocephalus Brewer's Blackbird Euphagus cyanocephalus 

Red-bellied Woodpecker Melanerpes carolinus Common Grackle Quiscalus quiscula 

Yellow-bellied Sapsucker Sphyrapicus varius Ovenbird Seiurus aurocapilla 

Black-backed Woodpecker Picoides arcticus Worm-eating Warbler Helmitheros vermivora

Downy Woodpecker Dryobates pubescens Louisiana Waterthrush Parkesia motacilla

Hairy Woodpecker Dryobates villosus Golden-winged Warbler Vermivora chrysoptera

Northern Flicker Colaptes auratus Blue-winged Warbler Vermivora cyanoptera

American Kestrel Falco sparverius Black-and-white Warbler Mniotilta varia 

Merlin Falco columbarius Prothonotary Warbler Protonotaria citrea

Peregrine Falcon Falco peregrinus Nashville Warbler Leiothlypis ruficapilla 

Great Crested Flycatcher Myiarchus crinitus Connecticut Warbler Oporornis agilis

Eastern Kingbird Tyrannus tyrannus Mourning Warbler Geothlypis philadelphia 

Olive-sided Flycatcher Contopus cooperi Kentucky Warbler Geothlypis formosus

Willow Flycatcher Empidonax traillii Kirtland’s Warbler Setophaga kirtlandii

Least Flycatcher Empidonax minimus Cape May Warbler Setophaga tigrina

Loggerhead Shrike Lanius ludovicianus Cerulean Warbler Setophaga cerulea

Bell’s Vireo Vireo bellii Bay-breasted Warbler Setophaga castanea

Blue Jay Cyanocitta cristata Blackburnian Warbler Setophaga fusca 

American Crow Corvus brachyrhynchos Chestnut-sided Warbler Setophaga pensylvanica 

Horned Lark Eremophila alpestris Blackpoll Warbler Setophaga striata 

Bank Swallow Riparia riparia Black-throated Blue Warbler Setophaga caerulescens

Tree Swallow Tachycineta bicolor Prairie Warbler Setophaga discolor 

Black-capped Chickadee Poecile atricapillus Canada Warbler Cardellina canadensis

White-breasted Nuthatch Sitta carolinensis Scarlet Tanager Piranga olivacea 

Sedge Wren Cistothorus platensis Dickcissel Spiza americana

Marsh Wren Cistothorus palustris 
97

Appendix B. Class descriptions from 2016 National Land Cover Database (NLCD; 

Yang et al. 2018) used for conservation planning in the Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes 

Joint Venture region.

Water

11 – Open Water - areas of open water, generally with less than 25% cover of vegetation or soil.

Developed

21 – Developed, Open Space - areas with a mixture of some constructed materials, but mostly 

vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. Impervious surfaces account for less than 20% of total cover. 

These areas most commonly include large-lot single-family housing units, parks, golf courses, and 

vegetation planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes.

22 – Developed, Low Intensity - areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. 

Impervious surfaces account for 20% to 49% percent of total cover. These areas most commonly 

include single-family housing units.

23 – Developed, Medium Intensity - areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. 

Impervious surfaces account for 50% to 79% of the total cover. These areas most commonly include 

single-family housing units.

24 – Developed, High Intensity - highly developed areas where people reside or work in high 

numbers. Examples include apartment complexes, row houses and commercial/industrial. Impervious 

surfaces account for 80% to 100% of the total cover.

Barren

31 – Barren Land (Rock/Sand/Clay) - areas of bedrock, desert pavement, scarps, talus, slides, 

volcanic material, glacial debris, sand dunes, strip mines, gravel pits and other accumulations of 

earthen material. Generally, vegetation accounts for less than 15% of total cover.

Forest

41 – Deciduous Forest - areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater than 

20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75% of the tree species shed foliage simultaneously in 

response to seasonal change.

42 – Evergreen Forest - areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater than 

20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75% of the tree species maintain their leaves all year. 

Canopy is never without green foliage.

43 – Mixed Forest - areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 meters tall, and greater than 

20% of total vegetation cover. Neither deciduous nor evergreen species are greater than 75% of total 

tree cover.

Shrubland

52 – Shrub/Scrub - areas dominated by shrubs; less than 5 meters tall with shrub canopy typically 

greater than 20% of total vegetation. This class includes true shrubs, young trees in an early 

successional stage or trees stunted from environmental conditions.

Herbaceous

71 – Grassland/Herbaceous - areas dominated by graminoid or herbaceous vegetation, generally 

greater than 80% of total vegetation. These areas are not subject to intensive management such as 

tilling, but can be utilized for grazing.
98

Planted/Cultivated

81 – Pasture/Hay - areas of grasses, legumes, or grass-legume mixtures planted for livestock grazing 

or the production of seed or hay crops, typically on a perennial cycle. Pasture/hay vegetation accounts 

for greater than 20% of total vegetation.

82 – Cultivated Crops - areas used for the production of annual crops, such as corn, soybeans, 

vegetables, tobacco, and cotton, and also perennial woody crops such as orchards and vineyards. Crop 

vegetation accounts for greater than 20% of total vegetation. This class also includes all land being 

actively tilled.

Wetlands

90 – Woody Wetlands - areas where forest or shrubland vegetation accounts for greater than 20% of 

vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered with water.

95 – Emergent Herbaceous Wetlands - Areas where perennial herbaceous vegetation accounts for 

greater than 80% of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically saturated with or covered 

with water.
99

Appendix C. Descriptions of Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) in the Upper 

Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture region, including primary land-cover and 

social characteristics.

Bird Conservation Regions (Figure C-1) are

geographic designations that have similar 

land-cover types, bird communities, and 

resource conservation issues (NABCI 

2000). They are the fundamental biological 

units through which the North American 

Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) 

promotes planning and delivery of largescale bird conservation. BCRs provide a 

consistent spatial framework for evaluation, 

planning, and in some instances 

implementation. By employing expanses 

of land ecologically meaningful to bird 

populations, conservation efforts can be 

tailored to better support groups of species 

throughout their range. We use BCRs as 

primary planning units in this Strategy, and 

provide characteristics and functional 

differences among these areas to improve 

conservation decisions. We also review recent landscape change (2001 to 2016) based on the 

National Land Cover Database (see Appendix B for detailed NLCD class descriptions). 

Landbird habitat objectives were subdivided into State × BCR polygons to quantify habitat 

delivery targets within smaller domains (see Habitat Delivery section).

Boreal Hardwood Transition (BCR 12).—The northern-most area of the JV region is 

characterized by immense forests, nutrient-poor soils and limited agriculture, an extensive 

Great lakes coastline, plus an abundance of inland lakes, forested and herbaceous wetlands, 

and river systems. Bird habitats in this portion of the JV region are least influenced by 

human activity, although past and ongoing forest harvest operations have largely replaced 

natural disturbance as a means to setback plant-community succession. Woody cover 

dominates (69%) the landscape, with upland forests representing 43% of BCR 12 land cover, 

forested wetlands 17%, and upland and 

wetland scrub-shrub coverage another 9% 

(Table C-1). Area of shrub/scrub and 

woody wetland have recently expanded, 

whereas upland forest and emergent 

wetland declined. This BCR is important 

during the breeding period for several 

forest birds of high conservation concern; 

nearly all Kirtland’s Warblers breed in this 

sub-region as do the majority of Goldenwinged Warblers. The BCR is also well 

Figure C-1. Boundaries of the Upper Mississippi 

River and Great Lakes Joint Venture region (bolded 

black line) and associated Bird Conservation 

Regions (BCRs, color discerned).
100

recognized at the continental scale for its coastal migration corridors and stopover sites. 

Human density is low compared to other BCRs in the JV region (Table C-1), however 

recreational activity increases substantially during summer, especially in areas with 

waterfront cottages.

Prairie Hardwood Transition (BCR 23).—Deciduous forest, savanna, and prairie once 

dominated this sub-region, but cropland (43%) and developed land (9%) now account of 

much of the land cover (Table C-1). Grassland, wet meadow, and other herbaceous plant 

communities occurring pre-European settlement were especially vulnerable to conversion, 

and now account for about 5% of land cover (1% grassland, 4% herbaceous wetland). Hay 

and pasture now cover about 10% of the landscape, but this cover type has declined in recent 

years while development and cropland has increased. Upland and wetland forest still cover 

about 26% of the BCR, and most of the forested area is deciduous upland (16%). Prairies 

were most common in the west and southcentral portions of the BCR, with beech-maple 

forests widespread in the north and east. Oak savannas were scattered across the sub-region 

and especially common in the transition zone leading to the western prairie. There are still 

remnant populations of Greater Prairie-Chicken in grasslands of west and central BCR 23. 

Cerulean and Golden-winged Warblers are 

species of high conservation concern 

occurring in the more forested north and 

east portions of the sub-region, whereas 

Golden-winged Warblers and Henslow’s 

Sparrows use areas in the BCR of shrubscrub and grassland. Tens of thousands of 

pothole wetlands and shallow lakes occur 

across the BCR, resulting from glaciation. 

Current human density and population 

growth are high relative to other BCRs in 

the JV region (Table C-1).

Eastern Tallgrass Prairie (BCR 22).—Covering the southern half of the JV region, this BCR 

once contained the most extensive tall-grass prairie of the Great Plains, growing on the most 

nutrient-rich soils in North America. Deciduous forest dominated eastern sections, which 

transitioned into a broad and dynamic oak-dominated savannas and then vast prairie in 

central and west portions of the region. The modern landscape (Table C-1) is largely 

cultivated cropland (54%) and developed 

areas (7%), with cropland continuing to 

expand in recent years. However, the BCR 

also contains interspersed forests (12%), 

hay and pasture (15%), and herbaceous 

grassland (6%). Most of the herbaceous 

grassland in the JV region occurs in Kansas 

and Nebraska, accounting for 56% and 

10% of BCR 22 grasslands, respectively. 

Portions of the BCR remain especially 

important to grassland birds, including 
101

Eastern Meadowlark, Bobolink, Greater Prairie-Chicken, and Henslow’s Sparrow, as well the 

Red-headed Woodpecker in savannas and other semi-open woodlands. Human densities are 

high in urban areas but low elsewhere; population growth is highest here compared to other 

BCRs of the JV region (Table C-1).

Central Hardwoods (BCR 24).—Only a small area of BCR 24 (southern Indiana) overlaps 

the JV region (Figure C-1). Once dominated by upland and wetland deciduous forests, BCR 

24 within the JV region still includes substantial forest coverage (50%) mixed with cultivated 

cropland (33%) and hay/pasture lands (13%) (Table C-1). The area of hay/pasture and 

deciduous forest declined in recent years, 

whereas the area of cropland, 

development, and herbaceous grassland 

increased. However, herbaceous grassland 

accounts for only 1% of the land cover in 

BCR 24 within the JV region, and the subregion is more important to forestbreeding birds such as Cerulean Warbler 

and Wood Thrush. The human density is 

relatively low outside of urban centers, but 

population growth in this portion of the JV 

region has been relatively high (Table C-1).

Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain (BCR 13).—The area of BCR 13 within the JV 

region (northeast Ohio) is relatively small. Deciduous forest and areas of mixed-coniferous 

forests originally dominated the sub-region. Now, only 31% of the area is upland forest and 

3% is forested wetland (Table C-1). About 21% of the BCR area within the JV boundary is 

cultivated cropland and 20% is 

hay/pasture, however, cropland has been

increasing while hay/pasture and 

herbaceous grassland have been declining. 

Herbaceous grassland represents <1% of 

land cover, and the sub-region is more 

important to forest birds including Wood 

Thrush. This portion of the JV region has 

the highest human population density 

(average 2.1 / ha), but population growth 

has slowed in recent years (Table C-1).
102

Total

22a 23 12 13 24

Total area (ha) 51,762,267 25,827,603 20,583,051 2,174,150 3,547,207 103,894,278

Primary cover typesa

Cultivated cropland 27,997,135 11,015,071 695,871 451,012 1,162,318 41,321,407

Herbaceous/grassland, Hay/pasture 10,852,211 2,615,250 1,032,126 435,569 504,781 15,439,938

Herbaceous/grassland 2,952,016 243,102 482,266 15,570 33,597 3,726,551

Upland forest (all types) 6,480,077 5,233,795 8,874,425 684,831 1,674,169 22,947,296

Deciduous upland forest 5,459,420 4,265,585 5,001,585 595,414 1,460,899 16,782,903

Conifer upland forest 50,931 273,241 1,249,820 7,162 23,229 1,604,383

Mixed upland forest 969,725 694,969 2,623,019 82,255 190,041 4,560,010

 Upland scrub/shrub (all types) 59,693 78,558 495,675 7,617 6,933 648,476

Forested wetland (all types) 650,296 1,395,804 3,458,722 62,625 91,844 5,659,290

Deciduous and Broad-leaved 650,192 1,265,022 1,160,136 62,611 91,695 3,229,656

Conifer and Needle-leaved 40 58,783 1,524,366 13 4 1,583,206

Other forested wetland 64 71,998 774,220 0 145 846,428

 Scrub/shrub wetland 46,982 470,278 1,308,471 21,087 6,057 1,852,875

Deciduous and Broad-leaved 46,978 467,926 1,121,547 21,087 6,057 1,663,595

Conifer and Needle-leaved 4 2,352 186,924 0 0 189,279

 Herbaceous wetland (total) 330,186 1,068,909 696,059 12,046 13,829 2,121,029

 Open water (inland and coastal)b 978,367 1,258,300 2,272,244 94,602 98,747 4,702,260

Inland waters (AB and UB) 931,936 923,343 1,370,106 48,547 98,747 3,372,679

Coastal zone waters (Great Lakes) 46,431 334,957 902,138 46,055 0 1,329,581

 Hydric soilsc 2,908,099 3,544,223 3,688,886 181,386 77,068 10,399,662

Prospective wetland (wet cropland) 2,216,066 1,879,639 72,631 33,526 51,676 4,253,538

Other related measures

 Great Lakes coastline (km) 171 1,884 5,826 191 0 8,072

Number of inland lakes (≥ 0.5 ha)d 22,689 20,657 23,552 1,703 2,728 71,329

Inland lake coverage (ha)d 170,200 441,109 497,900 25,476 16,313 1,150,998

Perennial river length (km)d 141,639 72,201 63,191 9,042 13,052 299,125

Developed land (ha; ≤49% impervious) 3,786,207 2,201,171 706,370 394,355 255,287 7,343,389

Developed land (ha; >49% impervious) 863,399 582,743 56,645 87,374 36,111 1,626,272

Number of people (residents), 2010e 31,743,779 20,560,074 1,875,258 4,584,002 1,482,640 60,245,753

Human density (people/ha)e 0.613 0.796 0.091 2.108 0.418 0.580

Number of people (residents), 2000e 28,937,401 19,262,360 1,851,778 4,655,292 1,404,258 56,111,089

Population growth (%, 2000 to 2010)e 9.7 6.7 1.3 -1.5 5.6 7.4

d Number and area (ha) of inland lakes (includes ponds, reservoirs) and river (km) length calculated using National Hydrologic Data Plus v2. 

e Number of residents, human population density, and population growth based on data from U.S. Census Bureau, 2000 and 2010.

Table C-1. Area estimates of land cover (ha; 1 ha = 2.5 acreas) and social characteristics important to landbird conservation 

planning in Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) located in the Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture region. Estimates for 

BCRs 22 and 23 encompass the entire BCR, including portions outside the JV boundary (i.e., 8% of BCR 22, 9% of 23 outside JV 

reigon); estimates for BCRs 12, 13, and 24 apply only to those areas within the JV boundary.

BCR BCR (JV region only)

a Area cover-type measures are from the 2016 National Land Cover Database (NLCD), and wetland and open-water cover types based on most 

recent National Wetland Inventory (NWI) or calculated. 

b Open water includes all inland lakes and rivers with unconsolidated bottom (UB), plus open aquatic bed wetlands (AB), plus Great Lakes 

coastal waters (coastal zone ≤ 1 km from shore). c Area with soils categorized poorly drained and very poorly drained by Natural Resource Conservation Service - Soil Survey Geographic 

Database. "Prospective wetland" (drained sites considered most restorable to wetland) was the intersection of hydric soils and cultivated 
103

Appendix D. Planning focal species habitat accounts with population distribution and 

abundance, factors limiting population growth, and habitat recommendations in the 

Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture (JV) region.

Forest / Savanna / Barrens

 Breeding Eastern Whip-poor-will

Red-headed Woodpecker

Wood Thrush 

Golden-winged Warbler

Kirtland’s Warbler

Cerulean Warbler 

Canada Warbler

 Migration Rusty Blackbird

Blackpoll Warbler

Grasslands 

 Breeding Henslow's Sparrow

Bobolink

Eastern Meadowlark

 Overwinter Short-eared Owl

American Tree Sparrow

Urban

 Breeding Chimney Swift

Primary information sources:

Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Birds of the World at https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/home.

(See Literature Cited for full species-specific Birds of the World citations, plus citations for

new research used in species accounts)

Partners in Flight. 2020a. Avian Conservation Assessment Database, version 2020 at

http://pif.birdconservancy.org/ACAD

Partners in Flight. 2020b. Population Estimates Database, version 3.1 at

http://pif.birdconservancy.org/PopEstimates

North American Breeding Bird Survey, Patuxent Wildlife ResearchCenter at

https://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/
104

Eastern Whip-poor-will

(Antrostomus vociferus) 

Breeding habitat 

 Upland deciduous or mixed forests with 

open understories, limited ground cover, 

and proximate to open areas for foraging. 

 Barrens, pine plantations, and savannas.

 Lays eggs directly on layer of leaf litter.

 Minimum forest patch size is unknown; 

evidence suggests species does not occupy 

small, isolated woodlots. Long distances 

between large forest patches may limit occupancy of agricultural landscapes.

 Limited by conversion of forest to agriculture, loss of forest openings to closed canopies with dense 

underbrush/forest succession, and loss of insect food source from pesticide application and 

industrial pollution, and collisions with vehicles while foraging along roadways.

Migration and wintering habitat (from Korpach et al. 2019, Tonra et al. 2019) 

Tracking data reveal birds from JV region overwinter from Texas to Costa Rica, with most in 

southern Mexico. Some individuals use multiple winter home ranges, relocating in early February, 

and forest cover is often more contiguous than characteristic breeding habitat. Species migrates 

overland and does not cross open water of the Gulf of Mexico.

Population status

 U.S./Canada = 1.8 million, and steady decline in abundance. About 15% of BPOP occurs in JV 

region, with highest abundance in Boreal Hardwood Transition (BCR 12; 6%), followed by the 

Eastern Tallgrass Prairie (BCR 22; 4%).

 More at: https://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/cgibin/atlasa15.pl?04171&1&15&csrfmiddlewaretoken=3YKakk7LxT2ki6NSpl4mstudYCqdW02C

Habitat recommendations

In dry deciduous or mixed forests, maintain openings of adequate size for foraging, but near 

continuous forest cover with little understory for breeding; habitat conservation should avoid roads 

with night traffic. Promote clear-cuts interspersed with mature forests, variable density thinning, 

early thinning, and other partial-cutting practices. 

Additional species and habitat management information 

https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/whip-p1/cur/conservation

 Population trend U.S. BCR 12 BCR 22
105

Red-headed Woodpecker

(Melanerpes erythrocephalus)

Breeding habitat 

 Most common in savannas and prairieforest transition areas; also found in 

semi open bottomland hardwood forests. 

 Nest cavities in dead trees and dead 

limbs of living trees.

 Occur in open forest stands typically 

>1.5 ha (4 acres).

 Considered limited by loss of savannalike areas, fire suppression, removal of 

dead trees and dead tree branches in suburban areas, clear-cutting, agricultural intensification and 

“cleaner farming” practices (e.g., removal of hedgerows and odd woody corners of fields).

Migration and wintering habitat

 Often non-migratory, but will shift distribution to locations with abundant food.

 Mature forested bottomlands and forest patches with mast-producing trees. 

 May be limited in winter by loss of bottomland forest; will abandon areas with mast failure.

 Annual cycle distribution: https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/rehwoo/cur/distribution

Population status 

 U.S./Canada = 1.8 million, downward trend slowing. About 25% of BPOP occurs in JV region, 

with highest abundance in the Eastern Tallgrass Prairie (BCR 22; 20%), Prairie Hardwood 

Transition (BCR 23; 3%), and the JV portion of the Central Hardwoods (BCR 24; 1%). 

 More at: https://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/cgibin/atlasa15.pl?04060&1&15&csrfmiddlewaretoken=3YKakk7LxT2ki6NSpl4mstudYCqdW02C

Habitat recommendations

Maintain and restore savanna and mixed grassland/open-forest communities in uplands, especially 

with oak (Quercus spp.) and American beech (Fagus grandifolia); support periodic prescribed fire 

(but avoid snags); retain mast-producing trees, grouped snags, and live trees with dead limbs. 

Conserve floodplain forests and promote a diversity of mast-producing trees for nonbreeding period. 

Seek complementary game species management, especially for Wild Turkey and Northern Bobwhite.

Additional species and habitat management information 

https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/rehwoo/cur/conservation

Population trend U.S. BCR 22 BCR 23
106

Wood Thrush

(Hylocichla mustelina)

Breeding habitat 

 Mature upland, mesic deciduous and 

mixed forests, typically >100 ha (250 

acres) in size with canopy height >15 m 

(50 feet); found in 1-ha sized woodlots 

though considered far less suitable.

 Nests are about 2 m (7 feet) from the 

ground in the crotch of trees or on a 

horizontal branch under leaf cover.

 Likely limited by nest predation, 

window collisions, reduced contiguous forest cover and edge effectsthat can increase Brownheaded Cowbird parasitism in some areas.

Migration and wintering habitat

Occurs in mature forests and forest edges with fruiting plants and trees during migration; less 

fragmented woodland areas appear to be most important during winter. Birds breeding in the JV 

region (Indiana) cross the Gulf of Mexico and overwinter primarily in southern Mexico (Stanley et al. 

2015). Loses recorded due to severe storms over the Gulf and tower collisions during migration. 

Population status

 U.S./Canada = 12 million, overall declining. About 9% of BPOP occurs in JV region with highest 

abundance in the Prairie Hardwood Transition (BCR 23; 3%) and Eastern Tallgrass Prairie (BCR 

22; 3%), followed by the Boreal Hardwood Transition (BCR 12; 2%).

 More at: https://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/cgibin/atlasa15.pl?07550&1&15&csrfmiddlewaretoken=3YKakk7LxT2ki6NSpl4mstudYCqdW02C

Habitat recommendations

Protection and management focused on large upland forest blocks, with well-developed canopy and 

limited edge (i.e., few roads, artificial corridors). Optimal stand conditions include: canopy cover 

≥80%, sub-canopy height 3-6 m (10-20 feet), basal area 20-30 m2/ha (90-130 feet2/acre), and semiopen or open forest floor with thick leaf layer. Retain fruit-bearing trees and shrubs.

Additional species and habitat management information 

https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/woothr/cur/conservation

 Population trend U.S. BCR 23 BCR 22 BCR 12
107

Golden-winged Warbler

(Vermivora chrysoptera)

Breeding habitat 

 Most common in shrubby, young forest 

growth, especially aspen (Populus spp.) 

and alder (Alnus spp.) wetlands, with 

herbaceous openings. Sites often wet, 

and with widely spaced over-story trees 

as individuals or groups resulting in 10-

30% canopy cover. Properly managed 

(brushy/patchy) utility corridors used.

 Nests built on the ground along the 

shaded edge of a forest opening.

 Minimum patch size 2-6 ha (5-15 acres), with 30-70% shrubs and saplings.

 Probably limited by reduced area of disturbance resulting in loss of young forest and mixed open 

conditions, collisions with towers, and competition and hybridization with Blue-winged Warbler.

Migration and wintering habitat

Found along mature forest edges during migration. Winters in semi-open forest areas, found in both 

upland and lowland sites. Birds from the JV region primarily overwinter in Honduras, Nicaragua, 

and Costa Rica (Kramer et al. 2018).

Population status 

 U.S./Canada = 390,000, with downward trend slowing in recent years. About 80% of BPOP occurs 

in JV region, with highest abundance in the Boreal Hardwood Transition (BCR 12; 73%) followed 

by the Prairie Hardwood Transition (BCR 23; 8%).

 More at: https://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/cgibin/atlasa15.pl?06420&1&15&csrfmiddlewaretoken=3YKakk7LxT2ki6NSpl4mstudYCqdW02C

Habitat recommendations 

 Encourage disturbance via timber sales and prescribed fire, but retain herbaceous patches and 

widely spaced over-story trees throughout patch. Complementary game species management 

would include habitat provision for Woodcock and Ruffed Grouse. 

 More at: http://gwwa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/GWWA-GLRegionalGuide_190711.pdf

Additional species and habitat management information 

https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/gowwar/cur/conservation

Population trend U.S. BCR 12 BCR 23
108

Kirtland’s Warbler

(Setophaga kirtlandii)

Breeding habitat 

 Large stands of seedling and sapling jack 

pine (Pinus banksiana) forests on sandy 

soils, often mixed with young oaks 

(Quercus spp.), aspen (Populus spp.), 

and cherries (Prunus sp.).

 Nests built on the ground under grass 

and other low vegetation.

 Prefers larger patches, typically >80 ha

(200 acres), with highest quality habitats located in jack pine complexes dominated by early 

succession trees 2-6 m (6-20 feet) tall abundant scattered openings.

 Conservation-reliant due to fire suppression, but species has responded positively to management of 

suitable breeding habitat, as well as continued disturbance of nonbreeding habitat. Brown-headed 

Cowbird nest parasitism may have been a factor limiting population growth, but this species has 

become less abundant recently, reducing the need for cowbird management within its core range.

Migration and wintering habitat

Typically found in low shrub/scrub areas dominated by woody plants <6 m (20 feet) tall; winters 

primarily in the central Bahamas. Spring migration primarily from Florida and southern Georgia 

north through western Lake Erie basin; fall migration further southeast to Appalachians and 

Carolinas. During migration found most often in early-to-mid successional woody cover.

Population status

US/Canada = 4,800, with increasing abundance trend in recent decades. Nearly 100% of BPOP 

occurs in JV region, with highest abundance in the Boreal Hardwood Transition (BCR 12; 99%), 

followed by the Prairie Hardwood Transition (BCR 23; 1%).

Habitat recommendations

Harvest and regenerate large stands 

of jack pine; reforestation usually 

requires prescribed burns or 

mechanical scarification. When tree 

planting is required, stocking 

density should be >3,600 seedlings / 

ha (>1,400/acre) and roughly 2 m 

spacing. Small openings in 

regeneration, totaling about 25% of 

stand area, improves site quality for 

species. 

Additional species and habitat management information 

https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/kirwar/cur/conservation
109

Cerulean Warbler

(Setophaga cerulea)

Breeding habitat 

 Most common in large tracts of upland 

or lowland/bottomland forest with large 

deciduous trees in mature to oldergrowth forest with multiple understory 

layers and openings in the canopy.

 Nests often placed on horizontal tree 

limb in upper canopy, concealed by 

leaves or tree limbs.

 Thought to be area-sensitive, but 

minimum patch size can be as low as 20-30 ha (50-70 acres; Ohio). 

 Considered limited by loss and fragmentation of mature deciduous forests; shorter-rotation periods 

between harvests and increased even-aged management may also contribute to breeding habitat 

loss. Brown-headed Cowbird parasitism may also limit populations.

Migration and wintering habitat

In migration, often found in forest canopies, near canopy gaps, edges, and semi-open areas. Winters 

mostly at mid-elevations on east slope of Andes, South America.

Population status

 U.S./Canada = 530,000, with downward trend steady but slowing in recent years. About 12% of 

BPOP occurs in the JV region, with highest abundance in the JV portion of the Central Hardwoods 

(BCR24; 6%) and the Prairie Hardwood Transition (BCR 23; 4%).

 More at: https://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/cgibin/atlasa15.pl?04060&1&15&csrfmiddlewaretoken=3YKakk7LxT2ki6NSpl4mstudYCqdW02C

Habitat recommendations

Forest management can emphasize saw-timber products through the use of long rotations with 

intermediate treatments, uneven-aged management that produces large diameters and relatively closed 

canopies from dominant trees, or even-aged management (e.g., shelter-wood) with relatively high 

residual basal area (>10 m2/ha; >45 feet2/acre) and long rotations. Protect large tracts of forest 

whenever possible.

Additional species and habitat management information 

https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/cerwar/cur/conservation

 Population trend U.S. BCR 24 BCR 23
110

Canada Warbler

(Cardellina canadensis) 

Breeding habitat 

 Wet mixed coniferous-deciduous forests 

often with white cedar (Thuja 

occidentalis), red maple (Acer rubrum), 

and eastern hemlock (Tsuga 

canadensis), plus spruce (Picea spp.) 

and tamarack (Larix laricina) bogs, 

with a well-developed understory, often 

near open water. These habitats 

typically include a moss layer.

 Species also occurs in young mixed 

forest or gaps resulting from disturbance, such as downed trees from wind-throw.

 Typically nests on the ground, well-concealed under vegetative cover, or in tree stumps, upturned 

root masses, or sphagnum hummocks.

 Considered limited by collisions with towers, other tall structures, and houses, plus reduction of 

forest understory (especially from deer browse), and practices that severely reduce canopy cover. 

Migration and wintering habitat

Uses brush and young forest, edges of lowlands or parks, wet woody thickets, swamps, and willow 

stands. Winters in forests at mid-elevations in northern Andes of South America.

Population status

 U.S./Canada = 2.6 million, with downward trend slowing in recent years. About 11% of BPOP 

occurs in JV region, with nearly all breeding in the Boreal Hardwood Transition (BCR 12; 11%).

 More at: https://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/cgibin/atlasa15.pl?06860&1&15&csrfmiddlewaretoken=3YKakk7LxT2ki6NSpl4mstudYCqdW02C

Habitat recommendations

Forest management practices that increase understory vegetation density, especially near open water, 

and retain canopy trees. Maintain or create mixed-wooded stands with 50-70% canopy cover, a dense 

understory (height of 0-1.5 m; 0-5 feet) and mid-story (2-10 m; 6-30 ft.), and an uneven forest floor. 

Often occurs in understory during migration.

Additional species and habitat management information 

https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/canwar/cur/conservation

Population trend U.S. BCR 12

 
111

Rusty Blackbird (nonbreeding)

(Euphagus carolinus)

Migration and wintering habitat (Largely from Wright 2017, Wright et al. 2018, 2020)

 Foraging flocks during migration use areas with less grass cover and more wet leaf litter, shallow 

water, shrubs, row-crop stubble fields, mixed habitat complexes, and near edges.

 Roosting habitat at Ohio stopover locations was primarily Phragmites and Typha marshes, where

this species was found mixing in large congregations with other blackbirds.

 At the patch scale, birds prefer dogwood-willow (Cornus-Salix spp.) swamp, low-lying forest areas, 

and locations with greater habitat complexity for foraging.

 Migrates nocturnally, and majority of birds cross open water, including the Great Lakes. 

 Nonbreeding habitat limitations include degradation of wet wooded areas (e.g., large-scale clearcutting that opens areas to invasive species), tower collisions, and potentially mercury toxicity.

Population status

U.S./Canada = 6.8 million, with downward trend slowing. 

More at: https://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/cgibin/atlasa15.pl?05090&1&15&csrfmiddlewaretoken=3YKakk7LxT2ki6NSpl4mstudYCqdW02C

Habitat recommendations

Conservation of complex plant communities in wet woodlands and brush, and herbaceous marsh. 

Additional species and habitat management information 

https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/rusbla/cur/conservation

Some breeding in JV region, but area most important 

during migration; small number of individuals remain 

in southern portions of region throughout winter.

Breeding population trend Canada U.S.
112

Blackpoll Warbler (nonbreeding)

(Setophaga striata) 

Migration and wintering habitat

 Species uses a variety of stopover habitats, including mature deciduous and evergreen forests and 

scrubby areas; appears to favor spruces (Picea spp.) and tamarack (Larix laricina).

 Migrates through much of eastern North America, with routes as long as 20,000 km (12,000 miles), 

beginning in Alaska and ending at wintering locations in northern South America.

 Mortality during migration has been high at some artificial structures, including towers and windenergy facilities.

 More at: https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/bkpwar/cur/habitat

Population status

 U.S./Canada = 60 million, with downward trend continuing in recent years.

 More at: https://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/cgibin/atlasa15.pl?06610&1&15&csrfmiddlewaretoken=3YKakk7LxT2ki6NSpl4mstudYCqdW02C

Habitat recommendations

Species appears to be a habitat generalist when occupying the JV region during the migration period, 

using a wide range of forested or shrub/scrub habitats. It may not require much plant community 

(habitat) manipulation, but opportunities exist for urban-bird conservation, such as reducing 

collisions. Little known about specific habitat features that may be limiting population growth. 

Additional species and habitat management information 

https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/bkpwar/cur/conservation

Breeding population trend Canada U.S.

JV region most important during the 

migration period.
113

Henslow’s Sparrow

(Ammodramus henslowii)

Breeding habitat requirements

 Dense stands of herbaceous grasslands 

>30 cm (1.5 feet) tall, >30 ha (75 acres) 

in size, with well-developed litter layer 

and standing dead vegetation and 

minimal woody cover. 

 Recently burned grasslands seldom used 

but species often occupies grasslands 1 

year post-fire with densities increasing 

second year. 

 Densities may reach >30 pairs/km2 (>80/mile2) in high quality habitat. Densities measured in strip 

mines (Indiana) were 16 individuals/km2 and in large prairie fragments densities of 22-28 

males/km2 have been recorded. 

 Populations most limited by lack of large native herbaceous grasslands with little woody cover; 

intense use of agricultural pesticides around grasslands may also influence recruitment.

Migration and wintering habitat

Grassy areas similar to breeding habitat but also will use open pines with grassy understories.

Population status 

 U.S./Canada = 410,000, recently increasing in BCRs 22 and 24. About 73% of BPOP occurs in JV 

region, with highest abundance in the Eastern Tallgrass Prairie (BCR 22; 51%), Central Hardwoods 

(BCR 24; 12%), and Prairie Hardwood Transition (BCR 23; 9%).

 More at: https://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/cgibin/atlasa15.pl?05470&1&15&csrfmiddlewaretoken=3YKakk7LxT2ki6NSpl4mstudYCqdW02C

Habitat recommendations

Promote large blocks of native-species grassland >1 km2 and prescribed burning, with fires 3-4 years 

apart, as the preferred management approach. 

Additional species and habitat management information

https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/henspa/cur/conservation#mngt

https://partnersinflight.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Henslows-Sparrow-Focal-Species-Plan.pdf 

Population trend U.S. BCR 22 BCR 24
114

Bobolink 

(Dolichonyx oryzivorus) 

Breeding habitat 

 Prairie and hay fields comprised of mixed

grasses and forbs, grass-sedge meadows,

and other open habitats in low-lying areas.

Occupied sites nearly always in landscapes 

with limited nearby forest cover.

 Population densities typically greater in 

patchy fields with high litter cover and hay 

fields having high grass-to-legume ratios. 

These characteristics often occur in older (>8 years since last plowing and reseeding) hayfields and 

sites with more warm-season grasses. 

 Species limited by grassland loss; in hay fields, vulnerable to mowing due to direct mortality of 

young or due to weather following removal of protective cover.

Migration and wintering habitat

 Grassland and open-lands with herbaceous cover; species often moves along major waterways, 

taking advantage of wild rice and other seed sources. 

 Birds use multiple wintering sites, first in Venezuela, then moving to either Bolivia and remaining, 

or continuing on to Paraguay (Renfrew et al. 2013). 

Population status 

 U.S./Canada = 10 million, downward trend stabilizing. About 18% of BPOP occurs in JV region, 

with similar abundances (6% each) in the Eastern Tallgrass Prairie (BCR 22), Prairie Hardwood

Transition (BCR 23), and the JV portion of the Boreal Hardwood Transition (BCR 12).

 More at: https://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/cgibin/atlasa15.pl?04940&1&15&csrfmiddlewaretoken=3YKakk7LxT2ki6NSpl4mstudYCqdW02C

Habitat recommendations

Retain and restore grasslands free from mowing in open (un-forested) landscapes; for working lands, 

promote delayed mowing (after 1 August) and sustainable ranching / pastures (see links below). 

Additional species and habitat management information

https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/boboli/cur/conservation#mngt

https://partnersinflight.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/07/A-Full-Life-Cycle-Conservation-Plan-forBobolink.pdf 

 Population trend U.S. BCR 22 BCR 23
115

Eastern Meadowlark

(Sturnella magna)

Breeding habitat requirements 

 Most common in open (un-forested) 

landscapes of native grasslands, pastures,

savannas, and tall-grass prairie.

 Also uses hay and alfalfa fields, weedy 

borders of croplands, roadsides, 

orchards, golf courses, reclaimed strip 

mines, airports, shrubby overgrown 

fields, or other large open areas. 

 Species shows preference for grass with 

a well-developed litter layer and nests in dense vegetation on the ground in a shallow depression. 

 Territories are relatively large, ranging from 1-6 ha (3-15 acres) in high quality habitat. 

 Loss and degradation of suitable habitat due to intensive agriculture (elimination of grassy corners, 

use of stronger pesticides) appears to limit species. Early mowing and haying of fields can kill 

young and adults on nests.

Migration and wintering habitat requirements 

Similar to open-country breeding habitat, but including more cropland, feedlots, and also marshes.

Population status 

 U.S./Canada = 24 million, still relatively abundant but persistent downward trend. About 29% of 

BPOP occurs in JV region, with highest abundances in the Eastern Tallgrass Prairie (BCR 22; 24%) 

and the Prairie Hardwood Transition (BCR 23; 3%). 

 More at: https://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/cgibin/atlasa15.pl?04940&1&15&csrfmiddlewaretoken=3YKakk7LxT2ki6NSpl4mstudYCqdW02C

Habitat recommendations

Retain and restore large open complexes of land dominated by grass; delay mowing of hay fields, 

road right-of-ways, and other open spaces until after first broods are fledged (after 1 July; 1 August if 

possible). Species may be expanding north with changing climate, potentially creating habitat 

development opportunities in open but non-traditional landscapes. Complementary management in 

southwest JV region include practices that benefit Greater Prairie-Chicken and Northern Bobwhite. 

Additional species and habitat management information

https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/easmea/cur/conservation#mngt

 Population trend U.S. BCR 22 BCR 23
116

Short-eared Owl ((nonbreeding)

(Asio flammeus)

Wintering habitat 

 Species uses JV region primarily during 

winter, requiring large blocks of habitat 

(>100 ha; 250 acres), typically with 

relatively short grasses (i.e., shorter than 

found in idle fields). 

 Species hunts low to the ground during 

the day and night. Studies have 

documented an apparent preference for 

grasslands with vegetation less than 30 

cm (1 foot) in height (Missouri). 

 Most commonly found in native grassland, pasture, and savanna, but also use complexes with fields 

of hay and alfalfa, weedy borders of croplands, tall-grass prairie, roadsides, orchards, golf courses, 

reclaimed strip mines, airports, shrubby overgrown fields, or other open areas. 

 Wintering range may also include woodlots (they occasionally roost in trees), stubble feeds, fresh 

marshes, weedy fields, dumps, gravel pits, rock quarries, and shrub thickets. Species may shift 

wintering sites due to changes in local prey abundance, provided suitable habitat is available (they 

may even remain in region during breeding period in a given wintering area if food is plentiful).

 Loss and degradation of suitable habitat often related to intensive agriculture practices.

Population status

U.S./Canada = 660,000, breeding primarily in the Arctic Tundra, and wintering primarily in the U.S. 

Scientists have documented a 65% population decline between 1970 and 2014. 

Habitat recommendations

Promote creating and retaining open landscapes with core areas of grassland/herbaceous and pasture/ 

hay >100 ha (>250 acres) in size. Enrollment of private lands into CRP (and/or WRP) can help 

provide long-term openness and adequate plant structure to provide food and cover. Late summer or 

early fall burning resulting patches of short grasses in open complexes can enhance wintering habitat. 

Complementary species management in region include practices that benefit Greater Prairie-Chicken. 

Additional species and habitat management information

https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/sheowl/cur/conservation

Breeding population trend Canada U.S.

JV region important to species 

primarily during wintering period.
117

American Tree Sparrow (nonbreeding)

(Spizella arborea)

Migration and wintering habitat

 Common winter visitor throughout the 

JV region, settling into weedy fields, 

marshes, open groves of trees, open 

forests, gardens, and even backyards 

with feeding stations, which are similar 

habitats used during migration. 

 Land use practices such as agricultural 

intensification and succession of old 

fields into brush and forest, have 

resulted in loss of open habitats favored 

by this species in winter.

 Species abundance may be limited by a 

loss of suitable wintering areas.

Population status

U.S./Canada = 22 million, breeding primarily in the Arctic tundra, and wintering in the northern U.S. 

and Canada. Species breeding abundance and trends not generated from the BBS, but scientists have 

documented a 53% population decline between 1970 and 2014.

Habitat recommendations

Promote grasslands, including weedy fields, grassy hedgerows, and other herbaceous stands with 

scattered shrubs and saplings, and reduce agricultural intensification. Establishment of native 

plantings around homes may provide forage such as seeds, berries, catkins, and insect eggs and 

larvae. Seek complementary game species management, especially for Ring-necked Pheasant and 

Northern Bobwhite.

Additional species and habitat management information

https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/amtspa/cur/conservation

Species readily uses herbaceous and 

woody plant communities. JV region 

important primarily during wintering 

period. 
118

Chimney Swift 

(Chaetura pelagica)

Breeding habitat requirements 

 Largest concentrations occur in urban and 

suburban areas, where older homes and 

buildings have open (accessible) chimneys 

constructed of brick or stone. 

 In remote areas, species typically uses 

hollow trees, tree cavities, or cave walls 

for nest and roost sites. 

 Fewer chimneys, unsuitable chimney 

construction materials and more caps, and a transition away from wood for home heating has likely 

negatively influenced species distribution and abundance. Loss of old-growth forest and associated 

nest and roost sites can also result in local population declines.

 May be limited during breeding period by mortality associated with chimney fires and cleaning. 

Prolonged periods of cool wet weather can depress insect abundance and survival of adults and

their young; increasingly toxic pesticides and lower overall insect abundance also assumed.

Migration and wintering habitat requirements 

 Chimneys in urban areas, old-growth forest, and sometimes caves are used during migration and 

winter; large flocks often roost in accessible chimneys. 

 Mortality due to collisions with towers has been recorded, but declines in insect populations is 

likely more detrimental to this aerial insectivore.

Population status 

 U.S./Canada = 9 million, with continuous downward trend. About 21% of BPOP occurs in JV 

region, with highest abundances in the Eastern Tallgrass Prairie (BCR 22; 13%) and the Prairie 

Hardwood Transition (BCR 23; 4%). 

 More at: https://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/cgibin/atlasa15.pl?04230&1&15&csrfmiddlewaretoken=3YKakk7LxT2ki6NSpl4mstudYCqdW02C

Habitat recommendations

Retain suitable nesting and roosting sites, particularly old-growth forest with hollow trees. Avoid 

chimney cleaning during breeding period, and seek alternatives to extensive insecticide use. 

Additional species and habitat management information

https://birdsoftheworld.org/bow/species/boboli/cur/conservation#mngt

 Population trend U.S. BCR 22 BCR 23
119

Cornell Lab of Ornithology Birds of the World citations and other references for JV 

focal species accounts – Appendix D (only)

Avery, M. L. 2020. Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus carolinus), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. 

Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. 

https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.rusbla.01

Bocetti, C. I., D. M. Donner, and H. F. Mayfield. 2020. Kirtland's Warbler (Setophaga kirtlandii), 

version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, 

USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.kirwar.01

Buehler, D. A., P. B. Hamel, and T. Boves. 2020. Cerulean Warbler (Setophaga cerulea), version 1.0. 

In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. 

https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.cerwar.01

Cink, C. L., P. Pyle, and M. A. Patten. 2020. Eastern Whip-poor-will (Antrostomus vociferus), 

version 1.0. In Birds of the World (P. G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, 

NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.whip-p1.01

Confer, J. L., P. Hartman, and A. Roth. 2020. Golden-winged Warbler (Vermivora chrysoptera), 

version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, 

USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.gowwar.01

DeLuca, W., R. Holberton, P. D. Hunt, and B. C. Eliason. 2020. Blackpoll Warbler (Setophaga 

striata), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, 

Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.bkpwar.01

Evans, M., E. Gow, R. R. Roth, M. S. Johnson, and T. J. Underwood. 2020. Wood Thrush 

(Hylocichla mustelina), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.woothr.01

Frei, B., K. G. Smith, J. H. Withgott, P. G. Rodewald, P. Pyle, and M. A. Patten. 2020. Red-headed 

Woodpecker (Melanerpes erythrocephalus), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (P. G. Rodewald, 

Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.rehwoo.01

Herkert, J. R., P. D. Vickery, and D. E. Kroodsma. 2020. Henslow's Sparrow (Centronyx henslowii), 

version 1.0. In Birds of the World (P. G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, 

NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.henspa.01

Jaster, L. A., W. E. Jensen, and W. E. Lanyon. 2020. Eastern Meadowlark (Sturnella magna), version 

1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA.

https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.easmea.01

Korpach, A. M., A. Mills, C. Heidenreich, C. M. Davy, and K. C. Fraser. 2019. Blinded by the light? 

Circadian partitioning of migratory flights in a nightjar species. Journal of Ornithology 160:835–

840.

Kramer, G. R., D. E. Andersen, D. A Buehler, P. B. Wood, S. M. Peterson, J. A. Lehman, K. R. 

Aldinger, L. P. Bulluck, S. Harding, J. A. Jones, and J. P. Loegering. 2018. Population trends in 

Vermivora warblers are linked to strong migratory connectivity. Proceedings of the National 

Academy of Sciences 115(14): E3192–E3200.
120

Naugler, C. T., P. Pyle, and M. A. Patten. 2020. American Tree Sparrow (Spizelloides arborea), 

version 1.0. In Birds of the World (P. G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, 

NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.amtspa.01

Reitsma, L. R., M. T. Hallworth, M. McMahon, and C. J. Conway. 2020. Canada Warbler 

(Cardellina canadensis), version 2.0. In Birds of the World (P. G. Rodewald and B. K. Keeney, 

Editors). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.canwar.02

Renfrew, R., A. M. Strong, N. G. Perlut, S. G. Martin, and T. A. Gavin. 2020. Bobolink (Dolichonyx 

oryzivorus), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (P. G. Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of 

Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.boboli.01

Stanley, C. Q., E. A. McKinnon, K. C. Fraser, M. P. Macpherson, G. Casbourn, L. Friesen, P. P. 

Marra, C. Studds, T. B. Ryder, N. E. Diggs, and B. J. Stutchbury. 2015. Connectivity of wood 

thrush breeding, wintering, and migration sites based on range‐wide tracking. Conservation 

Biology 29:164–174.

Steeves, T. K., S. B. Kearney-McGee, M. A. Rubega, C. L. Cink, and C. T. Collins. 2020. Chimney 

Swift (Chaetura pelagica), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (A. F. Poole, Editor). Cornell Lab 

of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.chiswi.01

Tonra, C. M., J. R. Wright, and S. N. Matthews. 2019. Remote estimation of overwintering home 

ranges in an elusive, migratory nocturnal bird. Ecological Evolution 9:12586–12599. 

https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5723

Wiggins, D. A., D. W. Holt, and S. M. Leasure. 2020. Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus), version 1.0. 

In Birds of the World (S. M. Billerman, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. 

https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.sheowl.01

Wright, J. R. 2017. Migration Ecology of a Declining Songbird, the Rusty Blackbird (Euphagus 

carolinus). M.S. Thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus OH.

Wright, J. R., L. L. Powell, and C. M. Tonra. 2018. Automated telemetry reveals staging behavior in 

a declining migratory passerine. Auk: Ornithological Advances 135:461–476.

Wright, J. R., L. L. Powell, S. N. Matthews, C. M. Tonra. 2020. Rusty Blackbirds select areas of 

greater habitat complexity during stopover. Condor: Ornithological Applications: duaa040.
121

Appendix E. Breeding focal species BCR abundance estimates, trends, and goals

within the UpperMississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture (JV) boundary. Abundance

goals established using PIF frameworks for Watch List species in categories Yellow R –

prevent decline, Yellow D – reverse decline, and Common Birds in Steep Decline –

stabilize population.

Breeding Focal Species

Eastern Whip-poor-will

Red-headed Woodpecker

Wood Thrush

Cerulean Warbler

Canada Warbler

Bobolink

Eastern Meadowlark

Henslow's Sparrow

Chimney Swift

Tables and Figures

Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) include 12

(Boreal Hardwood Transition, JV portion only),

13 (Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain, JV

portion only), 22 (Eastern Tallgrass Prairie), 23

(Prairie Hardwood Transition), and 24 (Central

Hardwoods, JV portion only).

Tables 

 Initial population size based on mean abundance 

estimate for 2006 – 2015, and BBS population

trend is from the same period.

 Goals for annual trend estimates provided for 

Year 10 (interim) and Year 30. 

 Projected population Year 30 – serves as 

population abundance objective over time with 

effective conservation actions.

 Business as usual Year 30 – projects population 

abundance using current trend, without new effective conservation actions.

 Difference = Estimated population loss over 30 years with and without effective conservation 

(Population Objective Year 30 – Projected Population with Business as Usual scenario). 

Figures

 Solid trend lines are based on projected annual populations out to 30 years with conservation 

goal achievement (i.e., serving as moving population objectives)

 Dashed lines are projected population estimates out to 30 years based on current (2006–2015)

trends without effective conservation actions.

Boundaries of Joint Venture region (bolded 

black line) and associated Bird Conservation 

Regions (color discerned).

Note: Kirtland’s Warbler (Watch List – Yellow R) and Goldenwinged Warbler (Watch List – Red) conservation plans offer 

abundance objectives separate from the 2016 PIF Plan, and these JV 

focal species were not included in the analysis below.

Kirtland’s Warbler: Breeding Range Conservation Plan (2015) goal 

is to sustain a population throughout its known breeding range 

>1,000 breeding pairs. Current estimate in JV region = 4,800 

individuals.

Golden-Winged Warbler: Status Review and Conservation Plan 

(Roth et al. 2019) population goal for the Great Lakes Region = 

441,000 individuals by 2020 and 588,000 by 2050. Current estimate 

in JV region = 313,000.
122

Continental Concern Group PIF Population Goals

10 years 30 years

"R" Yellow Watch List 

(prevent decline)

Maintain at least a stable 

population (+ 3% change)

Maintain at least a stable longterm population (+3% change)

"D" Yellow Watch List

(reverse decline) 

Slow rate of decline by 

60 - 75%

Increase current population by 

5 – 15%

Common Bird in Steep 

Decline

Slow rate of decline by 

45 - 60%

Achieve stable population at 

10 – 25% below current level

Eastern Whip-poor-will 

PIF Watch List Yellow D (reverse 

decline) 

Year 10: Reduce downward trends 

in all BCRs by 75%

Year 30: Achieve positive annual 

trends in all BCRs and achieve the 

goal of +5% total change in 

population after 30 years

BCR

Initial 

population 

size 

BBS trend 

(2006-

2015) 

Annual 

trend goal 

Year 10 

Annual 

trend goal 

Year 30 

Projected 

population 

Year 30 

(objective) 

Business 

as usual 

Year 30 

Difference 

12 113,100 -1.85 -0.46 1.85 117,710 64,928 52,782 

22 74,700 -3.05 -0.76 3.05 79,643 29,919 49,724 

23 13,500 -2.07 -0.52 2.07 14,114 7,255 6,859 

24 15,600 -2.56 -0.64 2.56 16,472 7,237 9,235 

Forest / Savanna Breeding Focal Species
123

Red-headed Woodpecker 

PIF Watch List Yellow D 

(reverse decline) 

Year 10: Maintain positive trends 

in BCRs 13 and 24 and reduce 

downward trend in BCRs 12, 22, 

and 23 by 75%

Year 30: Achieve positive annual 

trends in all BCRs and achieve the 

goal of +5% total change in 

population after 30 years

Wood Thrush 

PIF Watch List Yellow D 

(reverse decline) 

Year 10: Maintain positive trend in 

BCR 22 and reduce downward 

trends in BCRs 12, 13, 23, and 24 

by 75%

Year 30: Achieve positive annual 

trends in all BCRs and achieve the 

goal of +5% total change in 

population after 30 years

BCR

Initial 

population 

size 

BBS trend 

(2006-

2015) 

Annual 

trend goal 

Year 10 

Annual 

trend goal 

Year 30 

Projected 

population 

Year 30 

(objective) 

Business 

as usual 

Year 30 

Difference 

12 3,900 -0.29 -0.07 0.25 3,910 3,575 335

13 6,700 2.06 2.06 2.06 12,352 12,430 N/A 

22 358,000 -2.58 -0.64 2.26 365,748 165,097 200,651 

23 52,200 -2.50 -0.62 2.19 53,299 24,658 28,641 

24 21,600 1.36 1.36 1.36 32,393 32,482 N/A

BCR

Initial 

population 

size 

BBS trend 

(2006-

2015) 

Annual 

trend 

goal Year 

10 

Annual 

trend goal 

Year 30 

Projected 

population 

Year 30 

(objective) 

Business 

as usual 

Year 30 

Difference 

12 261,100 -1.71 -0.43 0.85 247,852 156,320 91,532 

13 75,300 -1.15 -0.29 0.57 72,721 53,329 19,392 

22 367,200 0.75 0.75 0.75 459,467 459,853 N/A

23 302,400 -0.96 -0.24 0.48 293,744 226,728 67.016

24 253,800 -0.32 -0.08 0.16 251,368 230,568 20,800
124

Cerulean Warbler 

PIF Watch List Yellow D

(reverse decline)

Year 10: Reduce downward trends 

in BCRs 13, 22, 23, and 24 by 75%; 

assume current positive trend in 

BCR 12 is not sustainable

Year 30: Achieve positive annual 

trends in all BCRs and achieve the 

goal of +5% total change in 

population after 30 years

Canada Warbler 

PIF Watch List Yellow D 

(reverse decline) 

Year 10: Reduce downward trend 

in BCR 23 by 60%; assume positive 

trend in BCR 12 is not sustainable

Year 30: Achieve annual trend 

population stability (0% annual 

trend) and +4% total population 

change

BCR

Initial 

population 

size 

BBS trend 

(2006-

2015) 

Annual 

trend goal 

Year 10 

Annual 

trend goal 

Year 30 

Projected 

population 

Year 30 

(objective) 

Business 

as usual 

Year 30 

Difference 

12 2,000 7.35 1.84 1.84 4,389 18,141 N/A 

13 4,700 -2.10 -0.52 1.97 4,850 2,503 2,347 

22 2,100 -7.14 -1.78 1.79 1,390 247 1,143 

23 19,500 -1.12 -0.28 1.05 19,840 13,935 5,905 

24 33,400 -1.49 -0.37 1.40 34,168 21,361 12,807 

BCR

Initial 

population 

size 

BBS trend 

(2006-

2015) 

Annual 

trend goal 

Year 10 

Annual 

trend goal 

Year 30 

Projected 

population 

Year 30 

(objective) 

Business 

as usual 

Year 30 

Difference 

12 291,200 0.41 0.16 0.00 303,995 329,314 N/A

23 2,600 -3.25 -1.30 0.00 1,843 981 862
125

Henslow’s Sparrow

PIF Watch List Yellow R 

(prevent decline) 

Year 10: Reduce trends in all BCRs 

by 50% assuming the steep positive 

trend in BCR 22 is not sustainable

Year 30: Achieve annual trend 

population stability (0% annual 

trend) and long term population 

stability

Note: Projected large populations in BCRs 22 and 24 with Business as usual Year 30 scenario reflect a continuation of 

current (unrealistic) upward trends in these BCRs for a 30 period.

Bobolink 

PIF Watch List Yellow D 

(reverse decline) 

Year 10: Reduce downward trends 

in all BCRs by 75%

Year 30: Achieve positive annual 

trends in all BCRs and achieve the 

goal of +5% total change in 

population after 30 years

BCR

Initial 

population 

size 

BBS trend 

(2006-

2015) 

Annual 

trend goal 

Year 10 

Annual 

trend goal 

Year 30 

Projected 

population 

Year 30 

(objective) 

Business 

as usual 

Year 30 

Difference 

12 1,800 -3.20 -1.60 0.00 1,222 689 533 

22 208,700 5.51 2.75 0.00 400,103 1,089,962 N/A

23 38,400 -6.35 -3.17 0.00 17,664 5,715 11,949 

24 47,700 4.06 2.03 0.00 77,205 161,246 N/A 

BCR

Initial 

population 

size 

BBS trend 

(2006-

2015) 

Annual 

trend goal 

Year 10 

Annual 

trend goal 

Year 30 

Projected 

population 

Year 30 

(objective) 

Business 

as usual 

Year 30 

Difference 

12 637,100 -1.73 -0.43 1.73 661,418 379,148 282,270 

13 17,400 -1.95 -0.49 1.95 18,147 9,694 8,453 

22 561,400 -4.09 -1.02 4.09 610,503 164,586 445,917

23 576,800 -2.53 -0.63 2.53 608,677 270,020 338,657 

24 1,200 -2.78 -0.69 2.78 1,273 521 752 

Grassland Breeding Focal Species
126

Eastern Meadowlark 

PIF Watch List - Common bird in 

steep decline

Year 10: Reduce downward trends 

in all BCRs by 60%

Year 30: Achieve annual trend 

population stability (0% annual 

trend) and lose no more than 25% 

of the original population size

Chimney Swift 

PIF Watch List Yellow D 

(reverse decline) 

Year 10: Reduce downward trends in 

all BCRs by 75%

Year 30: Achieve positive annual 

trends in all BCRs and achieve the goal 

of +5% total change in population after 

30 years

BCR

Initial 

population 

size 

BBS trend 

(2006-

2015) 

Annual 

trend goal 

Year 10 

Annual 

trend goal 

Year 30 

Projected 

population 

Year 30 

(objective) 

Business 

as usual 

Year 30 

Difference 

12 199,300 -2.46 -0.98 0.00 153,660 95,279 58,321 

13 84,000 -4.48 -1.79 0.00 52,170 21,907 30,263 

22 5,769,200 -2.35 -0.94 0.00 4,500,426 2,850,611 1,649,815 

23 677,400 -2.54 -1.02 0.00 517,846 316,164 201,682 

24 25,400 -3.06 -1.22 0.00 18,370 10,143 8,227

BCR

Initial 

population 

size 

BBS trend 

(2006-

2015) 

Annual 

trend goal 

Year 10 

Annual 

trend goal 

Year 30 

Projected 

population 

Year 30 

(objective) 

Business 

as usual 

Year 30 

Difference 

12 79,900 -2.43 -0.61 2.43 84,147 38,198 45,949

13 120,500 -0.50 -0.13 0.50 121,848 103,676 18,172

22 1,164,200 -3.33 -0.83 3.33 1,247,993 421,482 826,511

23 355,800 -1.27 -0.32 1.27 365,824 242,482 123,342

24 156,600 -2.73 -0.68 2.73 165,915 68,259 97,656

Urban Breeding Focal Species
127

Appendix F. Integration of biological and social objectives provides a means to increase 

the relevance of bird habitat conservation to people. Spatial data layers representing 

each objective are weighted for importance (objective prioritization) and combined to 

produce a decision support tool (DST). The DST identifies highest priority areas of the

JV region to target conservation actions that best achieve the integrated objectives.

Below are example DSTs for grassland birds (A) and forest birds (B) with the following 

sample objectives and weights: Habitat density and distribution (60%; A–grasslands/openlands and B–forest cover; Figures 12A and 17A in Strategy), Impaired landscapes (20%; 

combined cropland and developed land density and distribution), Bird watching opportunity 

(10%; based on eBird data; Figure 10A in Strategy but forest and grassland birds analyzed 

separately here), and Outdoor recreation opportunity (10%; potential high-use areas based on 

human population density; Figure 10B in Strategy). This methodology (see Soulliere and AlSaffar 2017) was used in other JV bird-group strategies; objectives and weights can be 

adjusted with input from stakeholders, resulting in a reprioritized map to target conservation. 

A
128

B
129

Appendix G. Check list of community-based (Bird City) conservation actions especially 

relevant to urban and developed landscapes and drawn from several Bird City 

Programs. Typical actions to enhance conservation are grouped into categories and 

best practices. Depending on state-program requirements, a specified number of best 

practices (usually 2-3) must be completed within each category before a community can 

be certified as a Bird City. Bird Cities are also required to adopt an official municipal 

resolution and hold a celebration recognizing World Migratory Bird Day.

Category I: Educate and Engage Communities in Birding and Conservation

☐ Best Practice #1: Increase awareness of birds in your community

☐ (1) Create a map and/or information about birding locations in your area and make it 

available to community members and tourist outlets in print and/or online.

☐ (2) Develop a birding checklist for your area and make it available to community members

and tourist outlets in print and/or online.

☐ (3) Install and maintain a birding kiosk and/or signage that identifies birding locations in 

your area.

☐ (4) Share regular social media posts about birds and birding.

☐ (5) Promote Important Bird Areas (IBAs), birding hotspots, birding trails and phenomena 

(ex. Raptor, waterfowl or songbird migration, Chimney Swift roosts in your area).

☐ (6) Install or promote local nest cameras (but take care if/when disclosing nest locations to 

avoid disturbance).

☐ Other - provide details of other actions for consideration to meet this best practice.

☐ Best Practice #2: Involve residents in conservation and stewardship projects

☐ (1) Create and maintain and/or encourage bird feeding stations at parks, nature centers, 

schools and tourism / lodging sites. 

☐ (2) Illustrate how your community has a program that involves schools, garden clubs, or 

other organizations in bird conservation activities.

☐ (3) Develop a program to involve community members in hands-on land and stewardship 

projects. (GS #18.8)

☐ (4) Research Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in your community and encourage stewardship 

activities within them (ex. Bird and/or habitat monitoring, restoration, advocacy).

☐ (5) Support the creation of a stewardship group for important birding resources in your 

community - an Important Bird Area (IBA), Bird Sanctuary, Birding Trail or similar.

☐ Other - provide details of other actions for consideration to meet this best practice.

☐ Best Practice #3: Educate and engage youth audiences

☐ (1) Promote the creation of a youth birding club / support their activities.

☐ (2) Demonstrate that schools in your community participate in Flying WILD, helping ensure 

that the nation’s students are knowledgeable about the conservation needs of migratory and 

other birds. 

☐ (3) Sponsor or facilitate training for educators in Flying WILD curriculum.
130

☐ (4) Provide bird related programs for children, youth and families.

☐ Other - Demonstrate actions that meet this best practice in an attached narrative.

☐ Best Practice #4: Promote community science monitoring and research

☐ (1) Demonstrate that your community is represented in at least one bird monitoring program 

such as the Christmas Bird Count, Great Backyard Bird Count, or Chimney Swift Sit.

☐ (2) Attach a summary of bird monitoring results and/or other data obtained from researchers 

or local volunteers at sites within the municipality. 

☐ (3) Create an eBird account for your community, designate your local birding areas as 

hotspots and encourage park visitors, volunteers and staff to submit sightings.

☐ (4) Encourage bird monitoring (ex. In conjunction with regular park programming or in 

cooperation with local birding groups) and submit sightings to eBird.

☐ (5) Encourage / support nest box and feeder monitoring through Nestwatch, FeederWatch or 

equivalent.

☐ (6) Facilitate citizen participation in water quality monitoring (ex. WHEP - Wetland Health 

Evaluation Project).

☐ Other - provide details of other actions for consideration to meet this best practice.

☐ Best Practice #5: Ensure access to nature 

☐ (1) Work to get traditionally underserved communities visiting / birding in your parks.

☐ (2) Offer multilingual programs and/or materials on birds and birding.

☐ (3) Develop one or more accessible nature / birding trails.

☐ (4) Identify and remedy gaps within your community's system of parks, off-road trails and 

open spaces. (GS #18.1)

☐ (5) Plan and budget for a network of parks, green spaces, water features and trails in all new 

development areas. (GS #18.2)

☐ (6) Measure your community's park score (http://parkscore.tpl.org/methodology.php) and 

make a plan to increase your score.

☐ Other - provide details of other actions for consideration to meet this best practice.

Category II: Protect, Restore and Enhance Bird Habitat

☐ Best Practice #6: Practice conservation planning

☐ (1) Certify your community as a Green Step City (http://greenstep.pca.state.mn.us/index.cfm).

☐ (2) Develop/fund a conservation easement program, such as a purchase of development 

rights program, in collaboration with a land trust (GS#10.5) or otherwise protect existing 

bird habitat through ordinances, easements, fee title acquisition and other methods.

☐ (3) Include ecological provisions in the community's comprehensive planning process that 

explicitly aim to minimize open space fragmentation and/or establish a growth area with 

expansion criteria (GS BP#6.4). 
131

☐ (4) Demonstrate that the local Chamber of Commerce (or a similar group) takes an active 

role in the planning process for protecting and enlarging favorable bird habitat.

☐ (5) Conduct a Natural Resource Inventory or Assessment (NRI or NRA); incorporate 

protection of priority natural systems or resources through the subdivision or development 

process. (GS BP#10.1)

☐ (6) Document that current community planning seeks to provide additional bird habitat.

☐ Other - provide details of other actions for consideration to meet this best practice.

☐ Best Practice #7: Create and protect habitat

☐ (1) Attach ordinance or other evidence that existing bird habitat has legal protection. 

☐ (2) Increase the amount of bird habitat in the community by enlarging existing habitat, 

acquiring new and/or restoring parcels - creating connections wherever possible.

☐ (3) Ensure that local rules do not restrict brush piles that provide essential cover for birds.

☐ (4) Provide information to property owners on how to create and enhance backyard habitat 

for birds and/or participate in bird-friendly habitat certification programs (ex. National 

Wildlife Federation, Audubon Native Plants for Native Birds - spring 2016).

☐ (5) Assess your acreage of manicured greenspace (mowed grass) and document conversion 

of some of that area to low maintenance turf or native landscaping. (similar to GS #18.5)

☐ (6) Restore habitat in power line and pipeline rights-of-way. 

☐ (7) Certify at least one golf course in the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program. (GS 

BP#18.6)

☐ Other - provide details of other actions for consideration to meet this best practice.

☐ Best Practice #8: Promote use of native and beneficial plant species

☐ (1) Develop and disseminate recommendations on preferred plantings for birds.

☐ (2) Create demonstration areas with signage to promote bird-friendly plantings.

☐ (3) Participate in existing "pollinator friendly" programs and / or develop a program to 

provide pollinator habitat.

☐ (4) Adopt local landscaping/nuisance ordinances that promote, rather than create barriers 

for, native vegetation including taller grasses and forbs which provide important food and 

cover for birds. (GS BP#16.5c)

☐ (5) Increase the number and proportion of locally sourced native plants used in city projects 

and encourage similar standards for new development.

☐ Other - provide details of other actions for consideration to meet this best practice.

☐ Best Practice #9: Control invasive and detrimental species

☐ (1) Show how the community offers the public information on control and removal of 

invasive plant species (ex. buckthorn, garlic mustard and purple loosestrife).

☐ (2) Actively manage species that are having a detrimental impact on habitat or wildlife (ex. 

Cats, White-tailed Deer, etc.).
132

☐ (3) Actively manage invasive plant species (ex. buckthorn, garlic mustard and purple 

loosestrife).

☐ (4) Educate communities about management of invasive plant species on private property 

(ex. Conduct a workshop and/or involve people in invasive species removal projects).

☐ Other - provide details of other actions for consideration to meet this best practice.

☐ Best Practice #10: Create and protect nesting opportunities

☐ (1) Develop a policy to avoid trimming of trees and shrubs on city lands from early May 

until mid-July to allow tree and shrub nesting species to complete nesting. Encourage this 

practice on private lands as well.

☐ (2) Develop a policy to delay mowing of road ditches, storm-water retention ponding basins 

and other grasslands until August 1st to allow ground-nesting species to complete nesting.

☐ (3) Develop a risk tree management policy that allows, whenever possible, dead trees to 

remain standing as a nesting and foraging resource for birds.

☐ (4) Encourage the use of nest boxes / structures including not only creation, siting, and 

installation but also maintenance and monitoring. Keep records of structures and usage. 

☐ Other - provide details for consideration to meet this best practice.

☐ Best Practice #11: Ensure best management of urban forests

☐ (1) Certify your community as a Tree City USA. (GS#16.1)

☐ (2) Work with city or contract foresters to manage intact plots of land with a diversity of 

overstory and understory trees and shrubs including native and beneficial species.

☐ (3) Develop a list of recommended tree and shrub species, at least 1/3 of which are native 

and beneficial to birds.

☐ (4) Work with local growers / suppliers to increase / ensure local supply of native trees / 

shrubs / plants.

☐ (5) Build community capacity to protect existing trees/to plant resilient species by certifying 

at least one or more local staff/volunteers as MN Certified Tree Inspectors from the MN 

Dept. of Natural Resources. (GS BP#16.6)

☐ Other - provide details of other actions for consideration to meet this best practice.

☐ Best Practice #12: Ensure clean water in natural waterways

☐ (1) Maintain set-backs and buffers of at least 50 feet from wetlands, rivers and lakes.

☐ (2) Encourage and support the creation of rain-gardens on private and public land. 

☐ (3) Host / sponsor training on planting for clean water (ex. http://www.bluethumb.org/).

☐ (4) Allow high and low water oscillation to best mimic the natural system.

☐ (5) Adopt low-impact design standards that infiltrate or retain all 2 inch, 24-hour storm

water events on site. (GS #18.4)

☐ (6) Use sources of non-potable water, or surface/rain water for irrigation. (GS #18.5c)

☐ (7) Support a multi-party community conversation around improving local water quality. 

(GS BP#19.2)
133

☐ (8) Create/assist a Lake Improvement District. (GS BP#19.7)

☐ (9) Adopt goals to revegetate shoreland and create a local program or outreach effort to help 

property owners with revegetation. (GS BP#19.5)

☐ Other - provide details of other actions for consideration to meet this best practice.

Category III: Reduce Threats to Birds

☐ Best Practice #13: Reduce collisions with windows

☐ (1) Demonstrate that your community provides property owners with information on how to 

protect birds from window-strikes.

☐ (2) Adopt bird-friendly design practices for all new municipal owned and operated 

buildings.

☐ (3) Assess all current municipal owned and operated buildings for bird collision problems.

☐ (4) Develop an action plan for fixing existing collision problems at municipal buildings.

☐ (5) Implement action plan for fixing existing collision problems at municipal buildings.

☐ (6) Develop comprehensive guidelines or requirements for addressing bird-safety in the 

design of both municipal and private buildings in the community. 

☐ Other - provide details of other actions for consideration to meet this best practice.

☐ Best Practice #14: Reduce collisions with other man-made structures

☐ (1) Follow federal guidelines for siting and operations of wind power facilities (will provide 

links for each guideline) to study and reduce impacts on birds and other wildlife.

☐ (2) Follow federal guidelines for siting and operations of powerlines (will provide links for 

each guideline) to study and reduce impacts on birds and other wildlife.

☐ (3) Follow federal guidelines for siting and operations of communication towers(will 

provide links for each guideline) to study and reduce impacts on birds and other wildlife.

☐ (4) Document how new bridge projects were planned to consider their potential impacts on 

birds.

☐ (5) Where vehicle collisions with birds occur, reduce speeds, post signage and/or modify 

corridor to reduce threat.

☐ Other - provide details of other actions for consideration to meet this best practice.

☐ Best Practice #15: Reduce light pollution

☐ (1) Adhere to Lights Out operations according to Audubon's Lights Out program; sign each 

municipal building on; encourage participation community-wide.

☐ (2) Inventory all municipal lighting (building, facility, street) for Dark Sky compliance.

☐ (3) Develop a plan for Dark Sky compliance including a timeline and priority actions.

☐ (4) Implement plan to replace inefficient fixtures (exterior building, street, parking lot/ramp 

and traffic lighting) with Dark-Sky compliant, energy efficient, automatic dimming lighting 

technologies. (GS#4.6, 4.7 and 4.8)
134

☐ (5) Require energy efficient, Dark-Sky compliant new or replacement outdoor lighting 

fixtures on city-owned/private buildings and facilities. (GS#4.1)

☐ Other - provide details of other actions for consideration to meet this best practice.

☐ Best Practice #16: Reduce predation by free-roaming cats

☐ (1) Develop an educational program to control free-roaming cats and/or actively publicize 

the "Cats Indoors!" program about the danger of free-roaming cats and the benefits of 

keeping cats indoors.

☐ (2) Provide "Cats Indoors" educational materials in print with every spay / neuter (at city, 

veterinary offices, local NGO and private facilities).

☐ (3) Require owners of every cat adopted from local facilities (city or NGO) to sign a pledge 

to keep cats indoors.

☐ (4) Prohibit Trap-Neuter-Release programs.

☐ (5) Prohibit free-roaming cats in your community (ex. Cat leash law).

☐ Other - provide details of other actions for consideration to meet this best practice.

☐ Best Practice #17: Reduce the threat of pesticides and other toxins

☐ (1) Demonstrate that the city's pesticide management program reduces the use of toxins, 

takes advantage of the least toxic choice(s) and that you are following manufacturers 

guidelines in application.

☐ (2) Adopt U.S. FWS Pollinator Guidelines (will provide links) or similar pollinator-friendly 

ordinance / policy.

☐ (3) Encourage and promote the use of non-lead tackle and ammunition. Work with local 

sportsman's clubs to include related education in hunter education / gun safety.

☐ (4) Reduce toxins in the environment by coordinating cleanup of lead ammunition on gun 

ranges and lead tackle at fishing areas. (Pick up fishing line while you're at it to reduce this 

entanglement and ingestion risk). 

☐ (5) Prohibit the use of lead ammunition and tackle on municipal land.

☐ Other - provide details of other actions for consideration to meet this best practice.

☐ Best Practice #18: Reduce climate impacts

☐ (1) Develop a climate action plan as part of comprehensive plans or in a separate policy 

document to reduce energy use and carbon emissions. (GS#6.5)

☐ (2) Ensure residents have the option of purchasing green energy.

☐ (3) Demonstrate a decrease in energy use and carbon emissions through operational or 

building design changes.

☐ Other - provide details of other actions for consideration to meet this best practice.