i 

Upper Mississippi River and 

Great Lakes Region Joint Venture 

Waterfowl Habitat 

Conservation 

Strategy

 December 2007
Waterfowl Strategy Committee Members: 

John Coluccy, Ducks Unlimited, Co-chair 

Greg Soulliere, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Co-chair 

Pat Brown, Michigan Natural Features Inventory

Mike Eichholz, Southern Illinois University 

Bob Gates, Ohio State University 

Ron Gatti, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

Dave Luukkonen, Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

Charlotte Roy, Southern Illinois University and Minnesota 

 Department of Natural Resources 

Cover: Canvasback photo by Eugene Hester. 

i 
Table of Contents

Plan Summary................................................................................................................... 2 

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

Background and Context ................................................................................................. 3 

Population and Habitat Trends..................................................................................... 10 

Biological Foundation..................................................................................................... 15 

Planning Framework.................................................................................................. 16 

Limiting Factors.......................................................................................................... 17 

Population Status and Goals...................................................................................... 20 

Breeding Goals......................................................................................................... 20 

Migration and Wintering Goals................................................................................ 23 

Focal Species............................................................................................................ 26 

Biological Models........................................................................................................ 27 

Great Lakes Mallard Models.................................................................................... 29 

Habitat Goal and Objectives.......................................................................................... 30 

Calculated Non-breeding Objectives......................................................................... 31 

Maintenance and Protection...................................................................................... 34 

Restoration and Enhancement .................................................................................. 37 

Monitoring and Research............................................................................................... 40 

Monitoring Needs and Responsibilities..................................................................... 43 

Monitoring Objectives .............................................................................................. 45 

Research Needs............................................................................................................ 45 

Research Objectives.............................................................................................. 46 

Measuring Performance................................................................................................. 47 

Net Change in Resources............................................................................................ 48 

Vital Rates as a Measure ............................................................................................ 48 

Adaptive Management.................................................................................................... 49 

NSST Continental Integration................................................................................... 50 

Timetable and Coordination.......................................................................................... 51 

Literature Cited .............................................................................................................. 51 

Appendix A. Breeding Waterfowl Species Accounts.................................................. 59 

Wood Duck .................................................................................................................. 60 

American Black Duck................................................................................................. 64 

Mallard......................................................................................................................... 68 

Blue-winged Teal......................................................................................................... 72 

Appendix B. Migration and Wintering Waterfowl Guild Accounts......................... 76 

Appendix C. Common and Scientific Names of Waterfowl....................................... 96 

Appendix D. Mid-winter Inventory Summary............................................................ 97 

Appendix E. Potential Threats Common to Waterfowl ........................................... 104 

Appendix F. Interpolating Population Estimates ..................................................... 105 

Appendix G. Estimated Duration of Stay (use days) for Waterfowl....................... 116 

Recommended citation: Soulliere, G. J., B. A. Potter, J. M. Coluccy, R. C. Gatti., C. L. Roy, D. R. 

Luukkonen, P. W. Brown, and M. W. Eichholz. 2007. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region 

Joint Venture Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, 

Minnesota, USA. 

ii 
iii 
Plan Summary 

 Wildlife habitat conservation is typically implemented at local scales, but avian 

ecologists have recognized the need to integrate continental migratory bird priorities into 

local habitat recommendations. In this strategy we attempt to “step-down” continental 

waterfowl conservation priorities to the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint 

Venture (JV) region and to smaller scales within the region. We estimated what, where, 

when, and how much habitat is needed to sustain or increase populations of waterfowl 

species to target levels. Regional objectives also are “rolled up” in a manner that 

addresses the JV’s contribution to continental waterfowl conservation. The strategy goal 

is to “establish efficient habitat conservation to maintain or increase carrying capacity 

for populations of priority waterfowl species consistent with continental and JV 

regional goals.” 

Population estimates for many waterfowl species are uncertain and currently 

being refined. Therefore, population estimates and objectives used in this strategy will be 

periodically adjusted. Nonetheless, science-based recommendations were developed to 

help managers efficiently and effectively increase landscape carrying capacity through 

waterfowl habitat protection, restoration, and enhancement. In addition, this document 

was developed to complement JV habitat conservation strategies for waterbirds, 

shorebirds, and landbirds; habitat objectives for the four groups were integrated in an allbird JV implementation plan. 

 In order to scientifically link population and habitat objectives for this diverse 

bird group, several “JV focal species” were selected for waterfowl breeding habitat 

planning and monitoring. Each JV focal species represents a primary cover type and 

waterfowl guild, an assemblage of species that share similar life requisites. We assumed 

habitat actions designed for JV focal species would accommodate populations of other 

breeding waterfowl dependent on designated cover types. Likewise, foraging guilds that 

correspond to different cover types were selected for habitat planning during the nonbreeding period. Migration and wintering habitat objectives for the JV region were 

developed by employing an energy-based carrying capacity model using continental 

estimates of spring population size, harvest and winter distribution. A primary 

assumption of this strategy is that habitat carrying capacity established to accommodate 

spring migrating and winter populations also will suffice during fall migration. 

 Regional waterfowl population and habitat trends, in concert with population 

estimates and an assessment of habitat factors limiting populations, provide a biological 

planning foundation for conservation decision making. Planning steps included 

characterizing and assessing the landscape for JV focal species, modeling population 

response, identifying conservation opportunities, and developing an initial landscape 

design with capacity expected to sustain current waterfowl populations and eliminate 

population deficits. Much of the technical information, including habitat models and 

decision support maps, appears in breeding focal species and non-breeding guild accounts 

(Appendix A and B). Sections regarding monitoring and research needs, measuring 

performance, adaptive management, and program coordination also are provided. 

1 
The JV planning approach emphasizes populations and habitats, but we recognize 

the importance of the human element (i.e., people as the third sphere of wildlife 

management) and conservation partners were integral in establishing objectives during 

the plan development process. By stating explicit population and habitat objectives in the 

strategy we hope to move conservation emphasis beyond local scales, and to orient 

results from habitat area “outputs” to bird population-change and stakeholder-satisfaction 

“outcomes.” The process used for developing habitat objectives will improve decision 

making over the long-term by moving toward an adaptive system. Objectives in this 

strategy are a starting point destined for refinement. 

Our intent in this JV Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy is to establish 

explicit regional goals for waterfowl habitat conservation and identify and use available 

survey data and advancing technological tools to efficiently achieve those goals. Lack of 

population and ecological information for many species was a significant planning 

challenge. However, we establish a scientific process for habitat objective-setting and 

identify assumptions and research needs to improve subsequent iterations of the strategy. 

Although this plan was written with a 15-year time horizon, it is a “living document” that 

will be refined as knowledge of regional waterfowl conservation improves and new 

spatial data becomes available. 

Acknowledgements: Paul Padding provided county-level waterfowl harvest data and 

Jerry Serie, Ken Gamble, Kammie Kruse, and Bob Trost (all U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service) provided Mid-winter Inventory (MWI) data for the Atlantic, Mississippi, 

Central, and Pacific Flyways, respectively. Dave Fronczak (USFWS) compiled and 

assisted with analysis of MWI data. Spring aerial waterfowl survey data were provided 

by Jeff Lawrence and Steve Cordts (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources), Dave 

Luukkonen (Michigan Department of Natural Resources), and Ron Gatti (Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources). Extensive and valuable review comments on early 

drafts of the strategy were provided by Josh Stafford (Illinois Natural History Survey); 

David Brakhage (Ducks Unlimited); Guy Zenner (Iowa Department of Natural 

Resources); Frank Nelson, David Graber, Andy Raedeke, Norb Giessman, and Mike 

Roell (all Missouri Department of Conservation); Bill Vander Zouwen (Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources); Jeff Lawrence (Minnesota Department of Natural 

Resources); John Curnutt (U.S. Forest Service); Norm Seymour (St. Francis Xavier 

University, Antigonish, Nova Scotia); Suzanne Cardinal (Ohio Bird Conservation 

Initiative); Steve Barry (Ohio Department of Natural Resources); Kevin Kenow (U.S. 

Geological Survey); and Jorge Coppen, Jeff Keifer, Barb Pardo, and Paul Richert (all 

USFWS). 

2 
Background and Context

The Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture (JV) is one of 

many regional bird-habitat partnerships established to achieve goals set forth in the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP; USFWS 1998). These self-directed 

partnerships include agencies, organizations, corporations, tribes, and individuals that 

have formally accepted the responsibility of implementing national or international bird 

conservation plans within a specific geographic area or for a specific taxonomic group. 

There are currently three species JVs and >20 regional habitat JVs that cover North 

America. 

The JV region is located in the heart of the Mississippi Flyway, and encompasses 

all or portions of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, 

Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin (Figure 1). The area contains unique and important 

waterfowl habitats, including the nation’s only inland coastal area – the Great Lakes and 

shorelines. The JV region also is defined by floodplains and interior wetlands associated 

with four of the country’s major river systems: the lower Missouri, upper and central 

Mississippi, Illinois, and Ohio rivers. On the eastern edge of the JV region, where the St. 

Clair River empties into Lake St. Clair, lays an expansive wetland complex shared by 

Canada and the United States. Nine primary islands and associated shallow bays and 

marshes form the St. Clair Flats, the only major river delta in the Great Lakes and the 

world’s largest freshwater delta. 

Landscape cover types vary from heavily forested in the north and east to 

predominantly agriculture in the west and south. Thousands of glacial lakes, herbaceous 

and forested wetlands, and beaver ponds in the upper portion of the JV region transition 

into an environment with few natural basins and primarily river floodplain wetlands in 

the south. Wetland conditions (i.e., concentrations of dissolved nutrients and oxygen) 

change from generally oligotrophic in the far north to mesotrophic and eutrophic in the 

central and southern reaches of the region. Lower breeding and staging waterfowl 

concentrations are typical of the northern third of the JV region, whereas the central 

prairie-hardwood transition zone can have relatively high waterfowl densities during the 

breeding and non-breeding seasons. Wetlands in the southern portion of the region have 

few breeding ducks, but waterfowl concentrations during migration and wintering periods 

can be very high. 

The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI 2000) has identified 

landscape differences important for bird-conservation planning by sub-dividing the 

continent into Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs). These relatively homogenous units 

are characterized by similar bird communities, habitats, and resource management issues. 

The JV region is largely covered by BCR 22 (Eastern Tallgrass Prairie), 23 (Prairie 

Hardwood Transition), and the U.S. portion of 12 (35%, Boreal Hardwood Transition). 

Portions of BCR 24 (19%, Central Hardwoods), 13 (11%, Lower Great Lakes / St. 

Lawrence Plain), and 28 (7%, Appalachian Mountains) also fall within the JV boundary 

(Figure 1). 

3 
Figure 1. Boundaries of the Upper 

Mississippi River and Great Lakes 

Joint Venture region (blue line) 

and associated Bird Conservation 

Regions. 

The JV region 

contains recognized areas of 

continental significance in 

the North American 

Waterfowl Management Plan 

(NAWMP 2004), particularly 

for migrating ducks, geese, 

and Tundra Swans (see 

Appendix C for scientific 

names). These areas include 

the lower Great Lakes and 

connecting waters (Saginaw 

Bay, Lake Erie, and Lake St. 

Clair) and the Illinois and central Mississippi Rivers. A high proportion of ducks 

breeding in central Canada, and most of the continental Tundra Swan population, stage in 

the JV region as they move between breeding and wintering areas (Bellrose 1980). One 

of the most heavily used duck migration pathways in North America covers the western 

third of the JV region. A corridor from the mid-continent Prairie and Parkland, and 

crossing Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri accommodates >10 million ducks during 

a migration cycle (Bellrose 1980). 

On the east side of the JV region, nearly every species of North American 

waterfowl can be found at some time during the year. Waterfowl make extensive use of 

Great Lakes coastal waters and wetlands, with estimates of migrating birds historically 

reaching three million (Great Lakes Basin Commission 1975). The highest 

concentrations during migration have occurred on Lake St. Clair, southwestern Lake Erie, 

and the Detroit River (Dennis and Chandler 1974, Prince et al. 1992). Coastal wetlands 

and inland marshes of Ohio have supported an estimated 500,000 waterfowl during fall 

migration (Bookhout et al. 1989). 

 At least 25 duck species, three swan and one brant species, two races of Snow 

Geese, plus Ross’s Geese, Cackling Geese, and six populations of Canada Geese depend 

on the JV region to varying degrees (Table 1). Common Eider, Greater Snow Geese, and 

Atlantic Brant rarely occur in large numbers within the JV boundary, but remaining 

species are considered common in most years. From a continental perspective, BCRs 12, 

13, 22, and 23 have high relative importance for waterfowl conservation, especially for 

migrating birds (Table 1). Two species with especially small continental populations but 

high public interest, the American Black Duck and Canvasback, use each of the six BCRs 

in the JV region. 

4 
Table 1. Continental importance of Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) associated with the Upper 

Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture region in providing breeding (B) and non-breeding (N) 

waterfowl habitat, largely from the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP 2004)a

. 

Bird Conservation Regionb

Species (population) 12 13 22 23 24 28 

Greater Snow Goose N

Lesser Snow Goose (Mid-continent) N

Ross’s Goose n 

Atlantic Brant n 

Cackling Goose (Tallgrass Prairie) N N n n 

Canada Goose (Atlantic) N N N 

Canada Goose (Southern James Bay) N N n N N 

Canada Goose (Mississippi Valley) n N N N 

Canada Goose (Eastern Prairie) N n 

Canada Goose (Western Prairie/Great Plains) N 

Canada Goose (Mississippi Flyway Giant) B, N N B, N B, N B, N 

Mute Swan (Feral) B, N B, N b, N B, N n 

Trumpeter Swan (Interior) B n B, N 

Tundra Swan (Eastern) N N N 

Wood Duck b b B, N B, n B, n b, n 

Gadwall n b, n b, n n n 

American Wigeon b, n b n n n 

American Black Duck B, n b, N N b, N N N 

Mallard b, n b, n b, N B, N N n 

Blue-winged Teal b b b, N B, N n 

Northern Shoveler n b, n n 

Northern Pintail n N n 

Green-winged Teal b b, n n b, n 

Canvasback n b, N N N n n 

Redhead n b, n n b, N 

Ring-necked Duck B, N b, n N b, N n 

Greater Scaup N N n N n 

Lesser Scaup b, N N N N n 

Common Eider n 

Surf Scoter N N 

White-winged Scoter N N 

Black Scoter N N 

Long-tailed Duck n N n 

Bufflehead b, N b, n n n n n 

Common Goldeneye B, N b, N N N N n 

Hooded Merganser B B N N N 

Common Merganser b N N 

Red-breasted Merganser b, N 

Ruddy Duck B, n N N B, N n a

Geographic importance of a BCR to a species was determined using relative abundance and distribution 

estimates based on continental breeding and harvest survey data and expert opinion regarding threats to 

habitat and distribution of un-surveyed / non-hunted populations (NAWMP 2004:63-83). Only portions of 

BCR 12 (35%), 24 (19%), 13 (11%), and 28 (7%) occur in the JV region and ratings for some species may 

not accurately reflect importance for the JV portion of these BCRs. 

b

Seasonal occurrence and relative abundance categories for BCR importance: B/b represent breeding 

season and N/n represent non-breeding season including migration and or wintering. B, N = high 

5 
 

concentrations, region has “high” importance to the species relative to other regions. B, N = common or 

locally abundant, region has “moderate” or “moderately high” importance to species. b, n = uncommon to 

fairly common, region is within species range but species occurs in low abundance relative to other 

regions, and region considered to be “low” or “moderately low” importance to species. Blank = species 

does not occur in region or has only unpredictable, irregular occurrence. 

Principal migrant diving ducks include Canvasback, Redhead, Lesser and Greater 

Scaup, and Ring-necked Duck, whereas primary migrant dabbling ducks include Mallard, 

Green-winged Teal, Blue-winged Teal, and American Wigeon, and the Wood Duck – a 

perching duck species. All of these ducks have relatively wide distribution in the region 

during migration. Sea ducks, including Bufflehead, Common Goldeneye and three 

species of mergansers are common on the Great Lakes and connecting waters. Longtailed Duck and the scoters also are found in coastal areas of the JV region. In addition, 

western Lake Erie historically accounted for one of the largest fall and winter 

concentration areas for American Black Duck in the interior of North America (Bellrose 

1980), although numbers have significantly declined in recent years. 

Of the Interior Canada geese occurring in the region (Table 1), use by the Eastern 

Prairie, Mississippi Valley, and Southern James Bay Populations is extensive during 

migration and wintering. Spring estimates for these three populations have totaled about 

one million in recent years (USFWS 2007a). Moreover, most of the 1.6 million Giant 

Canada Geese found in the Mississippi Flyway during spring surveys occur in the JV 

region, and they continue to use the region during non-breeding periods in most years. 

Migrating Lesser Snow Geese stage in high concentrations on the west side of the region, 

especially along the Missouri River corridor. Eastern population Tundra Swans nest in 

the Arctic and spend about one half of their life cycle in migration between breeding and 

wintering areas. For birds moving through the JV region, fully one-third of their 

migration staging occurs in the lower Great Lakes region (Petrie and Wilcox 2003). 

Unfortunately, precise information about the number of migration stopover locations and 

the duration of stay is currently unavailable for other waterfowl species using the region. 

The spring migration period for waterfowl in key areas of the lower Great Lakes 

occurs from late February to early May, but concentrations of most species peak during 

March and early April (Prince et al. 1992, Anderson et al. 2002, Olson 2003). Fall 

migration extends over a three-to-four month period with different species peaking in 

abundance at various times. Migrant Blue-winged Teal are the first to concentrate in 

Great Lakes coastal marshes around late August (Campbell 1968, Kelley 1978, Anderson 

et al. 2002) and subsequently move south from the region by late September. They are 

followed by movements of Wood Duck, Northern Pintail, American Wigeon, and in 

some years early arriving Scaup (Soulliere and Luukkonen 2001). By early to mid 

October, Mallard, American Black Duck, and Green-winged Teal are using the Great 

Lakes region in moderate abundance. Lesser and Greater Scaup, Redhead, Canvasback, 

Tundra Swan and Interior Canada Geese typically peak in abundance during late October 

and early November, with Common Goldeneye signaling the end of the fall migration in 

the Great Lakes region by early December (Anderson et al. 2002). 

6 
Spring waterfowl inventories of Great Lakes coastal areas have not been 

systematic. Distribution of staging migrants in spring may be more dispersed and in a 

wider variety of habitats compared to fall (T. Yerkes, Ducks Unlimited, personal 

communication). Fall population survey and harvest data can provide a comparison of 

species abundance over time as well as an indication of relative value of stopover sites to 

priority species during this season. Fall and winter waterfowl inventories reveal the 

historical importance of the Great Lakes region to American Black Duck and 

Canvasback. For example, 48,400 and 63,400 Black Ducks were observed using western 

Lake Erie marshes during December 1986 and 1988, respectively, an estimated 65% of 

the Black Ducks counted in the Mississippi Flyway during the Mid-winter Inventory 

(Bookhout et al. 1989). During the 25-year period of 1974–1999, the coastal waters from 

Lake St. Clair to western Lake Erie accounted for 30–65% of all Mississippi Flyway 

Canvasbacks found during the annual November Canvasback Survey (Soulliere et al. 

2000). Nearly 80,000 (1999) Canvasbacks have been recorded during this survey on 

Lake St. Clair alone. 

The Mississippi River corridor within the JV region consists of floodplain 

wetlands and deepwater habitats in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa, Illinois, and Missouri, 

which provide important migration habitat for waterfowl (Korschgen 1989). Among the 

most valuable areas historically for diving ducks are Navigation Pools 5, 7, 8, 9, 13 and 

19 (Keokuk) on the Mississippi, and much of the Illinois River (Korschgen 1989, Havera 

1999). Peak numbers of diving ducks during fall from 1948–1996 in the central 

Mississippi and Illinois River regions ranged between 64,000–700,000 birds (Havera 

1999). Mississippi River Pools 7–9 have accounted for as much as 75% (415,000 in 

1999) of the canvasbacks counted during the early November Canvasback survey (J. 

Lawrence, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, unpublished data). 

The mid-section of the JV region also hosts significant numbers of dabbling ducks 

during fall migration including Mallard, Northern Pintail, Black Duck, Blue-winged and 

Green-winged Teal, American Wigeon, Gadwall, Northern Shoveler, and Wood Duck. 

Peak numbers of dabbling ducks inventoried during fall from 1948–1996 in the central 

Mississippi and Illinois River valleys ranged between 500,000–2 million birds (Havera 

1999). Peak numbers of waterfowl counted during spring for the period 1956–1996 in 

these regions approached 1 million birds including nearly 300,000 Mallards and over 

200,000 Lesser Scaup (Havera 1999). 

The JV region also has substantial breeding populations of several waterfowl 

species. Primary breeding ducks include the Mallard, Wood Duck, and Blue-winged 

Teal. Recent population estimates for total breeding ducks in the northern portion of the 

region approached two million (USFWS 2007a). A majority of the duck harvest in 

several JV states originates from populations breeding in the Great Lakes region. For 

example, 54–80% of the mallard harvest in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio originates 

from this area (Zuwerink 2001). Likewise, >60% of the wood duck harvest in 

Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, and Missouri originates from within state 

breeding sources (Bellrose and Holm 1994). 

7 
Population estimates for Giant Canada Geese in JV states totaled 1.1 million in 

2007 (Mississippi Flyway Council Giant Canada Goose Committee, unpublished data). 

Resident geese within the region account for the majority of the Canada goose harvest: 

Iowa = 92%, Minnesota = 93%, Indiana = 89%, Ohio = 87%, Michigan = 76%, Missouri 

= 81%, Illinois = 57%, and Wisconsin = 62% (2002–2004 harvest derivations; U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, unpublished data). In addition, breeding populations of Trumpeter 

Swans have been reestablished on wetlands in four northern states of the JV region and 

now number >4,000 (J. Johnson, Michigan State University, unpublished data). 

 

The JV region is an important wintering area for a number of waterfowl species. 

The upper Mississippi River watershed, including the Mississippi, Missouri, Ohio and 

Illinois rivers, winters as much as 20% of the continental Mallard and Black Duck 

populations and 5–10% of the continental Ring-necked Duck population (Bellrose 1980, 

Reid et al. 1989). Coastal marsh and deeper water habitats associated with the Great 

Lakes provide significant wintering habitat for Greater and Lesser Scaup, Long-tailed 

Duck, Bufflehead, Common Goldeneye, and Common and Red-breasted Mergansers 

(Bellrose 1980, Bookhout et al. 1989). Furthermore, the proportion of Canvasbacks, 

Scaup, and Mallards counted in the region during the coordinated MWI has increased 

substantially in recent years (Appendix D). 

Three populations of Interior Canada Geese winter in the region. The Mississippi 

Valley Population, which formally wintered in southern Illinois, now largely winters in 

central and northern Illinois and occasionally in southern Wisconsin (277,000 in 2002 

and 2003, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, unpublished data). Canada 

Geese associated with the Southern James Bay Population, formally known as the 

Tennessee Valley Population due to their wintering location, now rarely travel south of 

Ohio (Bellrose 1980, Abraham and Warr 2003). Likewise, Eastern Prairie Population 

Canada Geese wintered largely on the Swan Lake National Wildlife Refuge in Missouri, 

but their winter distribution has become increasingly scattered and more northerly. 

Relatively stable weather patterns in the JV region likely contribute to less 

dynamic and generally less productive wetlands than those found in the mid-continent 

prairie. However, these weather patterns result in more reliable wetlands that can provide 

resources for an increased proportion of waterfowl during prairie droughts. Wetland 

systems in the north half of the JV region, where breeding waterfowl are most common, 

receive a buffering influence from the Great Lakes and abundant inland lakes. In 

contrast, a majority of waterfowl habitats in southern portions of the region are 

components of river systems dependent on flow regimes and are more susceptible to 

weather variation and flow manipulation. 

The consequence of a large and rapidly expanding human population and 

intensively used landscapes has been long-term loss of wetlands important to waterfowl 

through disturbance, degradation, and destruction (see Appendix E for extensive list of 

threats to regional waterfowl). Agriculture continues to be one of the most significant 

negative influences on wetland area in much of the region. In southern Michigan, for 

example, agriculture-related drainage and field expansion accounted for 61% of a total 

8 
17,000 ha of wetland loss between 1980 and 2000 (Ducks Unlimited 2005). Most 

alterations to river systems and water use patterns in the southern portion of the JV region 

occurred before 1990, but current demand and growing water use continue to concern 

waterfowl conservationists as human population and development increase. For example, 

increasing demands for Missouri River water has resulted in lower flows into the western 

JV region and negative impacts to riparian wetlands in Iowa and Missouri (G. Zenner, 

Iowa Department of Natural Resources, personal communication). 

Although stable forest area and increasing tree age classes have been generally 

positive for cavity-nesting ducks (Soulliere 1990a), grasslands important to groundnesting waterfowl remain only as remnants of what once existed. Over 99% of 

Wisconsin’s original grasslands have been converted for agricultural use (Addis et al. 

1995) and the availability of surrogate grasslands (pastures, grass hay, and small grains) 

for duck nesting has decreased as row-crop agriculture has intensified (Sample and 

Mossman 1997). 

Cropland area has largely stabilized across the region in recent years, but human 

development, especially housing, has grown in importance as a threat to native plant 

communities (Brown et al. 2005). The number of housing units in the Midwest grew by 

146% between 1940 and 2000 (Radeloff et al. 2005), with the greatest growth occurring 

during the 1970s (Hammer et al. 2004). Areas in the region where future growth is 

projected to be greatest include the northern suburbs of Detroit-Ann Arbor, northern 

Wisconsin, the Lower Peninsula of Michigan along the northeast Lake Michigan coast, 

and central Minnesota (Hammer et al. 2004). 

The NAWMP (2004) is predicated on the premise that cumulative effects of many 

targeted local-scale management actions will ultimately benefit continental waterfowl 

populations through improvements in recruitment and survival. A primary NAWMP 

objective is to provide sufficient habitat to maintain continental waterfowl populations at 

goal levels during periods characterized by “average environmental conditions.” This JV 

Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy is the partnership-based regional action plan for 

habitat conservation founded on the NAWMP. Habitat objectives were generated based 

on available information regarding life history requirements for selected focal waterfowl 

species, and these objectives are directly linked to regional population objectives. 

Whereas breeding habitat objectives are based on the needs of historic regional breeding 

populations, migration and wintering objectives were “stepped down” from the NAWMP 

(2004). 

Our intent in this plan was to establish explicit regional population and habitat 

goals and also to assemble and use the extensive survey data and advancing technological 

tools available to increase planning effectiveness. We relied heavily upon science in our 

planning process for setting objectives and identified assumptions that require testing to 

improve subsequent iterations of the plan. Although this document was written with 

goals expressed over a 15-year time horizon, the plan is dynamic and will be refined as 

knowledge of regional waterfowl conservation improves and new spatial data can be 

incorporated. 

9 
Population and Habitat Trends 

 Of the waterfowl species that are relatively abundant in the JV region, the 

NAWMP (2004) identifies nine ducks and one Canada Goose population as being high or 

moderately-high in continental priority based on population trend and harvest importance 

(Table 2). The following discussion regarding population and habitat trends will 

emphasize these species. Tundra Swan and Wood Duck also are included because the JV 

region is critical to their populations and these species were emphasized in JV 

conservation planning. 

Table 2. Waterfowl species ranked “high” or “moderately-high” in continental priority in the North 

American Waterfowl Management Plan (2004) and occurring in the Upper Mississippi River and Great 

Lakes Joint Venture (JV) region. Season of occurrence is identified for species common or locally 

abundant in ≥1 Bird Conservation Region within the JV boundary according to regional experts; 

continental population trend (1970–2003; NAWMP 2004) also is indicated.

Season of occurrence 

Species Migration Breeding Wintering 

Population trend 

Interior Canada Goose, 

 Southern James Bay Population 9 9 No trend 

Tundra Swana 9 Increasing 

Wood Ducka 9 9 Increasing 

American Wigeon 9 No trend 

American Black Duck 9 9 9 Decreasing 

Mallard 9 9 9 No trend 

Blue-winged Teal 9 9 No trend 

Northern Pintail 9 Decreasing 

Canvasback 9 9 No trend 

Redhead 9 9 No trend 

Lesser Scaup 9 9 Decreasing 

Common Goldeneye 9 9 No trend a

Not considered high continental priority in the NAWMP (2004) but selected as JV focal species for 

conservation planning and monitoring. 

Breeding waterfowl populations receive limited survey coverage beyond the 

traditional mid-continent Prairie and Parkland (USFWS 2007a), thus alternative 

population indices must be used to help identify regional trends on which to base 

management decisions. The often remote and aquatic landscapes used by waterfowl 

make the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) an inadequate sampling 

technique for the waterfowl group as a whole. However, most species that commonly 

nest in the JV region are recorded on BBS routes, providing a useful population index 

over time. Adequate BBS sample locations were available in the region to establish 

relatively precise (trends significantly different from zero) long-term population trends 

for five breeding species (Table 3). These data indicate Mallard, Wood Duck, and 

Canada Goose populations increased significantly (P ≤ 0.05) over the last 40 years. In 

contrast, Blue-winged Teal and Redhead populations declined over the long-term, and 

during recent years the Mallard population also has declined. 

10 
Table 3. Long-term (1966–2006) and short-term (1997–2006) population trend estimates (annual % 

change) for waterfowl species that breed within USFWS Region 3a

 and are recorded during the North 

American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS, Sauer et al. 2006).

 1966–2006 1997–2006 

Species Trend P-valueb nc Trend P-value n 

Canada Goose (resident population) 11.36 0.00 406 6.87 0.01 326 

Wood Duck 2.61 0.00 376 1.70 0.48 217 

American Black Duck 1.53 0.48 15 nad na 3 

Mallard 1.17 0.02 476 -3.64 0.00 340 

Blue-winged Teal -4.21 0.00 136 -4.30 0.12 54 

Redhead -13.56 0.04 9 na na 2 

Ring-necked Duck 5.48 0.38 26 3.29 0.58 10 

Common Goldeneye -10.31 0.63 5 na na na a

USFWS Region 3 includes Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin. 

b

P-values represent confidence in trend direction with values closer to zero reflecting a greater degree of 

confidence in the trend; for example, values <0.05 reflect >95% confidence in trend direction. c

n = number of BBS routes used for regional trend average. 

d

na = inadequate survey data to generate a trend estimate. 

Estimates of some breeding waterfowl populations are available from the annual 

Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey (WBPHS) conducted across northern 

states in the JV region. Agencies in three JV states have generated population estimates 

for breeding Mallards, Blue-winged Teal, and Wood Ducks (Figure 2), as well as total 

ducks and Giant Canada Geese. Population trends, distribution, and abundance based on 

aerial surveys across the northern half of the region closely reflect BBS findings. Indeed, 

Mallard and Wood Duck population estimates have gradually increased, whereas Bluewinged Teal population estimates have been more erratic and have generally declined. 

However, Wood Duck population estimates from the WBPHS are considerably less 

precise than for Mallards or Blue-winged Teal. 

American Black Duck populations have declined substantially on the western side 

of their traditional breeding range (Brook et al. 2005). They currently occur in such low 

abundance within the JV region that population estimates are based on expert opinion. 

Black Ducks are still reported annually in Michigan, where they are more common in the 

northern portion of the state. A special Black Duck survey conducted in 1991–1993 

provides Minnesota’s only abundance and distribution information for this species; very 

few were found and only in the northeast corner of the state. 

Landscape trends positively influencing one species may have adverse effects on 

another, as reflected in the divergent population trends of Wood Duck and Blue-winged 

Teal (Figure 3). Reforestation and succession during the last several decades are believed 

to be important influences in Wood Duck population recovery (Soulliere 1990a), but 

could be having a negative effect on Blue-wing Teal in the eastern portion of their range, 

including the JV region (R. Gatti, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, personal 

communication). The Mallard has expanded east and south based on BBS data, 

reflecting its apparent adaptability; urban/suburban populations seem especially robust. 

Black Duck populations have declined even though vast areas of northern marsh and 

forested-wetland complexes, and generally abundant Beaver (Castor canadensis) 

populations, appear to be providing a stable breeding habitat base. 

11 
12 

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

Blue-winged Teal

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

1968

1971

1974

1977

1980

1983

1986

1989

1992

1995

1998

2001

20042007

Wood Duc

k

MN

Figure 2. Mallard, Blue-winged Teal, and Wood Duck population estimates for Minnesota, Wisconsin, and 

Michigan based on the Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey. Survey effort and associated 

population estimates for Minnesota include only 40% of the state, and much of the survey area is outside the 

Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture region. Blue-winged Teal estimates for some years 

were excluded for Wisconsin (1981, 2004 and 2005) and Minnesota (1976 and 2002) due to survey 

abnormalities / late spring migration; data points for these years were generated using population estimates 

from surrounding years. 

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

Mallar

d

WI MI
Figure 3. Population trends of A) Wood Duck and B) Blue-winged Teal are moving in opposite 

directions in the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes region based on Breeding Bird Survey data, 

1966–2003 (Sauer et al. 2004). Areas of increasing populations are represented in blue and decreasing 

populations in red. 

A) B)

Although not a NAWMP priority, Giant Canada Geese are one of the most 

common waterfowl species breeding in the JV region. Because of their versatility in 

nesting and brood-rearing sites, habitat is not considered to be limiting. Likewise, 

Trumpeter Swans use a variety of open water wetlands, including large Beaver ponds, for 

reproduction. Populations of this species continue to grow across the northern half of the 

JV region and also are not considered limited by habitat. 

Waterfowl abundance in the region during fall migration and winter depends on 

continental and local breeding population size, breeding habitat quality and subsequent 

recruitment, and migration behavior. General “migration corridors” have been identified 

across the region (Bellrose 1980), with dabbling ducks and geese largely moving north 

and south. Many of the diving ducks and Tundra Swans also move diagonally (west and 

east) during their north-south migration. Thus breeding habitat conditions from Ontario 

to Alaska can influence flights of migrating ducks and Tundra Swans in the JV region, 

whereas spring weather and habitat conditions on the Hudson Bay coast largely govern 

abundance of Interior Canada Geese. However, fall and winter weather (e.g., snow and 

ice conditions) can greatly influence waterfowl abundance in the JV region on an annual 

basis. 

 

Availability of high-energy food resources, coupled with warmer weather and the 

adaptability of some species, appears to be resulting in increased numbers of waterfowl 

spending at least a portion of the winter in the JV region. Based on MWI, the region now 

accounts for ≥10% of Mallard (15%), Canvasback (20%), Common Goldeneye (25%), 

and Merganser (25%) wintering populations. Black Ducks are an exception to the trend, 

as this species has declined significantly in western and central portions of its wintering 

range while remaining stable or increasing in the northeastern U.S. and southern Canada 

(Link et al. 2006). The JV region now accounts for about 5% of Black Ducks recorded 

during the MWI, down from 15% in the 1970s. 

13 
Use of abundant agricultural fields, particularly those containing waste grain and 

winter wheat, has benefited migrating and wintering Canada Geese, Mallards, Tundra 

Swans, and Trumpeter Swans. However, loss and degradation of healthy wetlands have 

likely reduced regional carrying capacity for other species of migrating waterfowl, 

especially diving ducks. Migration stop-over sites along the Illinois River, Detroit River, 

Lake Erie, and portions of the Mississippi River once supported much greater use than is 

currently recorded (Martz et al. 1976, Bellrose et al. 1979, Bookhout et al. 1989, 

Korschgen 1989, Havera 1999); declines in use by Lesser Scaup and Canvasback are 

most dramatic. Historic wetland composition and waterfowl energetic carrying capacity 

were recently evaluated for the Illinois River Valley (Stafford et al. 2007). Surprisingly, 

total food energy available to waterfowl was not significantly different over three time 

periods dating back to 1939. However, significant degradation and loss of quality 

permanent marsh and deep water wetlands (i.e., diving duck habitat) was documented, 

and declines in food energy from this community type was largely offset by increases in 

non-persistent emergent vegetation wetlands (i.e., moist soil plant communities). 

In general, declines in diving duck use of regional wetlands are attributed to 

decreases of important foods (e.g., Wild celery (Vallisneria americana) and Fingernail 

Clams; Sphaeriidae) that coincided with a variety of factors, including increased 

pollution, sedimentation, and exotic plant invasions as well as altered hydrology. An 

estimated 72% decline in wild celery tubers in the lower Detroit River between 1950 and 

1985 resulted in potential loss of 147,000 feeding days for Canvasbacks and 241,000 

days for Redheads (Schloesser and Manny 1990). In addition to habitat loss and 

degradation, disturbance by recreational boaters in the lower Great Lakes (Martz et al. 

1976, Knapton et al. 2000) and Upper Mississippi River may displace diving ducks from 

preferred feeding and resting areas. More recently, invasion of lakes and large rivers by 

the exotic Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has had unclear impacts on waterfowl. 

High infestations by these filter feeders typically results in increased water clarity and 

resurgence of submerged aquatic plants, in addition to a new invertebrate food resource. 

However, mineral and contaminant concentrations in Zebra Mussels can be high (Custer 

and Custer 2000, Petrie et al. 2007), and they have been associated with the loss of native 

mussel species. 

Whereas the large rivers and inland lakes of the JV region provide critical 

waterfowl migration habitat, the Great Lakes coastal zone also is very important. Its vast 

natural communities are relatively intact in the northern part of the region but 

increasingly influenced by development in the south. Seasonal and longer-term 

fluctuating water levels in the Great Lakes (Figure 4) result in dynamic waterbird habitat 

values over time. Changes in water levels encourage shifts in plant communities (Albert 

2003) through lateral displacement (lakeward and landward shifts in plant community 

location) and horizontal zonation (varied composition / height of adjacent plant stands), 

especially vital to dabbling ducks. 

14 
172.5

173.5

174.5

175.5

176.5

177.5

178.5

1918

1923

1928

1933

1938

1943

1948

1953

1958

1963

1968

1973

1978

1983

1988

1993

1998

2003

Year

Water level (m) 

176.1

176.4

176.7

Jan

Mar

May

Jul

Sep

Nov

Figure 4. Lake Michigan-Huron yearly average water level from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (2004), 

1918–2003. Inset displays change in average monthly water level, 1918–2003. 

Although the area and rate of wetland loss has slowed within the region in recent 

years, agricultural conversion and urban and rural development continue to reduce the 

amount of emergent herbaceous wetland (Ducks Unlimited 2005, Dahl 2006) potentially 

available to waterfowl. Other less direct human-induced changes to the environment 

degrade or at least alter waterfowl habitat. These factors include wetland acidification, 

spread of exotic plant species, wetland type conversion, climate change, and other threats 

(Appendix E). A warming climate may be causing the observed northward range 

expansion of wintering waterfowl. In addition, declining Great Lakes water levels also 

are partly attributed to warmer winters (greater evaporation on increasingly ice-free 

lakes); declining water levels have resulted in significant recolonization and expansion of 

coastal marsh since the mid-1990s. Finally, wetland and grassland restoration and 

impoundment or pond creation (Dahl 2006) are examples of human influences providing 

additional waterfowl habitat in some areas. 

Biological Foundation

Assembling the biological foundation or underpinnings for conservation planning 

included identification of waterfowl habitat needs and factors believed to limit 

populations. These factors were then translated and quantified into landscape attributes 

used in biological models describing expected species-habitat relationships. Population 

goals and “deficits” (population goal – current population = population deficit) were 

determined and JV focal species were selected for planning emphasis and habitat model 

development. Implicit in this approach are simplifying assumptions regarding 

relationships between species abundance, vital rates, and underlying habitat carrying 

capacity. For example, we have not attempted to address factors such as sport harvest 

15 
that may keep waterfowl abundance below habitat carrying capacity yet still in a 

productive state relative to objectives for population harvest yields (Anderson et al. 

2007). We also recognize limitations of using abundance to set habitat objectives, but 

have adopted our approach in the absence of models predicting response of vital rates to 

bird density under varying habitat conditions. 

The quantity of habitat required by most species of waterfowl varies with the 

quality of the habitat, and habitat needs change throughout the year. Density estimates 

exist for some species, which can provide an indicator of the number of individuals a 

particular cover type is known to support during different seasons. Using density 

estimates, published data, and expert opinion of key site attributes required by each 

species, biological models can be developed to generate habitat objectives predicted to 

achieve population targets. Models using biological and spatial data to generate explicit 

habitat objectives (i.e., what, where, when, and how much habitat is required) are 

described in JV focal species and guild accounts (Appendices A and B). 

Planning Framework 

The purpose of this JV Waterfowl Habitat Strategy is to provide an action plan for 

habitat conservation based on science and partnership. The plan is founded on the 

NAWMP, but with boundaries, habitat conditions, conservation needs, and partner goals 

characteristic of the JV region. Habitat objectives were linked to JV population goals 

based on current understanding of population-habitat relationships of waterfowl that 

breed, migrate, and or winter in the region. However, recommendations provided are 

based on imperfect knowledge that we expect will improve as waterfowl conservation 

activities are implemented and evaluated. 

 

 Designing landscapes to meet regional bird habitat conservation objectives is a 

new science which has been described in a “five element process” (Will et al. 2005). 

Once conservation partners have collectively identified priority birds and agreed on 

population goals, remaining steps in the planning process included: 1) landscape 

characterization and assessment, 2) bird population response modeling, 3) conservation 

opportunities assessment, 4) optimal landscape design, and 5) monitoring and evaluation. 

Although available information was incomplete and imperfect, these elements were used 

to develop waterfowl habitat objectives and, more importantly, to initiate a process for 

adaptive planning. Population status and goals were identified for several species 

commonly breeding in the JV region or occurring during migration and or winter (nonbreeding). The five element process was applied primarily to a group of JV breeding 

focal species and non-breeding guilds, but each represented a different community type 

important to waterfowl during breeding and non-breeding periods. 

 Habitat objectives must be biologically-based, spatially explicit, and landscapeoriented to most effectively support and sustain bird populations at goal levels. 

Conservation partners work together to assess habitat conditions and ownership patterns, 

evaluate current species distributions and bird-habitat relationships, and determine where 

on the landscape habitat conservation effort can most efficiently be delivered to support 

16 
explicitly-stated population objectives. Objectives must be explicitly stated for 

performance measurement and to develop a foundation for adaptive management. 

 

 Although identifying landscape trends important in influencing waterfowl 

populations was part of this planning process, our ability to quantify waterfowl habitat 

was limited by the digital spatial datasets currently available at the regional level (i.e., 

National Land Cover Data – NLCD and National Wetland Inventory – NWI). Moreover, 

availability of some critical cover type data (e.g., NWI) was inconsistent across the JV 

region and outdated (20–30 years-old). 

Limiting Factors 

A key assumption in waterfowl habitat conservation is that factors limiting 

populations during specific life cycle events can be impacted through habitat 

conservation programs. Identification of limiting factors and understanding ecological 

relationships are essential when developing habitat goals, objectives, and conservation 

strategies. Unfortunately, factors influencing population growth for most waterfowl 

species occurring in the JV region are uncertain. Some information has recently been 

made available on the relative sensitivity of breeding mallard populations (Hoekman et 

al. 2006, Coluccy et al. 2008) to changes in vital rates, while additional research currently 

underway will help inform conservation decisions about other species during the 

breeding and non-breeding seasons. 

Information from comparatively long-lived waterfowl species such as geese and 

swans suggests that adult survival has the greatest impact on population dynamics 

relative to other vital rates (Brault et al. 1994, Rockwell et al. 1997, Schmutz et al. 1997, 

Coluccy et al. 2004). For most geese, hunting is the primary cause of mortality (Raveling 

and Lumsden 1977, Krohn and Bizeau 1980) and harvest management is the primary tool 

for managing goose populations within the JV area (see Mississippi Flyway Council 

Canada Goose plans). Mallard population dynamics in the region appears to be most 

sensitive to changes in habitat associated with duckling survival, followed by nest 

success, renesting rate, and breeding incidence (Coluccy et al. 2008). 

Breeding waterfowl may be excluded or in a state of population decline in areas 

lacking specific landscape attributes. Breeding Blue-wing Teal, for example, are 

distributed in Wisconsin according to the abundance and distribution of wetlands and 

grasslands suitable for reproduction and the correlation is stronger with wetlands than 

grasslands (R. Gatti, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, personal 

communication). This species may be sensitive to the presence of forest cover and 

declining where open (un-forested) landscapes are dwindling. Mallards appear to be 

limited by wetlands, particularly brood habitat (Coluccy et al. 2008). Mallard duckling 

survival in the Great Lakes Region was positively related to proportion of wetland area 

vegetated and negatively related to proportion of forest cover within 500 m of ducking 

locations, suggesting conservation efforts to improve duckling survival should be focused 

on vegetated wetlands in lightly-forested areas (Simpson et al. 2007). Relationships 

between nest success and landscape (upland and wetland) covariates in the Great Lakes 

17 
region also indicate Mallard nest survival is strongly negatively influenced by the 

proportion of cropland within the nesting area (J. Davis, Ducks Unlimited, unpublished 

data). 

Wood Ducks are common across the JV region and depend on mature trees and 

wetlands, especially forested wetlands, during reproduction. Hardwood forest expansion 

and maturation across the eastern U.S. have positively influenced Wood Duck 

populations, and the practice of providing artificial nest sites for this species is no longer 

an effective habitat management technique at the landscape scale (Soulliere 1986, 

1990b). Hardwood forest area in the JV region is relatively stable and average tree age 

and sizes (diameter) continue to increase, resulting in increasing natural cavity densities 

(Figure 5). Relatively versatile in use of various wetland and deciduous forest types 

(Bellrose and Holm 1994), Wood Ducks may be limited by something other than nesting 

habitat. Availability of invertebrate rich wetlands for brood rearing has been suggested 

as a potential limiting factor but this hypothesis has not been tested. 

y = 2E-54e0.0625x

R

2

 = 0.4752

0 5 1 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Year

Cavities / ha

0

Figure 5. Density of tree cavities considered suitable for Wood Duck nest sites based on 11 published 

research projects conducted across the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes region, 1952–1999. 

Studies and locations (state) include: Dries and Hendrickson 1952 – IA, Hartowicz 1963 – MO, Bellrose et 

al. 1964, Weier 1966 – MO, Nagel 1969 – MN, Boyer 1974 – MI, Gilmer et al. 1978 – MN, Soulliere 1988 

– WI, Robb 1986 – IN, Yetter et al. 1995 – IL, and Zwicker 1999 – IL. 

Black Ducks do not appear limited by breeding habitat in the JV region. Their 

range consists of northern forested wetlands and beaver ponds which are largely stable, 

and Black Ducks successfully reproduce on sites with relatively low productivity 

(Seymour and Jackson 1996). Mallard introgressive hybridization into the Black Duck 

gene pool, probably as a result of mixed pairing, may be an important factor in the 

western range population decline (N. Seymour, St. Francis Xavier University, personal 

communication). Habitat conservation directed at protecting landscapes that currently 

support breeding Black Ducks (albeit at low densities) may be more appropriate than 

intensive efforts to increase recruitment at local scales (Petrie et al. 2000). 

Habitat condition and availability during the non-breeding season can influence 

survival and subsequent reproductive success (Heitmeyer and Fredrickson 1981, 

Kaminski and Gluesing 1987, Raveling and Heitmeyer 1989, Barboza and Jorde 2002). 

The abundance and accessibility of quality foods and adequate energy are considered key 

18 
factors limiting waterfowl during migration and winter (Miller 1986, Conroy et al. 1989, 

Reinecke et al. 1989), particularly duck species that depend on wetlands and open-water 

sites. Conversely, species adapted to feed on waste grain in agricultural settings do not 

appear to be food limited during fall in the JV region, however future changes in 

agricultural practices may alter this assumption. 

 

Waterfowl food resources produced in portions of the JV region are abundant 

during fall for several dabbling and diving ducks (Korschgen et al. 1988, Steckel 2003, 

K. Kenow, U.S. Geological Survey, unpublished data) and Canada Geese (Gates et al. 

2001). Conversely, water quality and submerged plant and invertebrate communities 

have become increasingly degraded in other areas (Stafford et al. 2007), limiting fall 

nutritional resources for species relying solely on within-wetland foods. Although we 

lack information regarding consistent availability of quality foods due to location and 

disturbance, waterfowl demonstrate some flexibility when food supply is interrupted 

(Barboza and Jorde 2002). For purposes of conservation prioritization in this plan, the 

energetic carrying capacity of the landscape during fall is assumed to be adequate. We 

recognize, however, the issue of fall food availability for obligate wetland foragers 

deserves investigation. 

Winter and spring food requirements necessary to optimize reproduction are not 

well understood. Forage and non-agricultural foods appear to be essential sources of 

protein and other nutrients during spring migration for Canada Geese (Gates et al. 2001) 

and dabbling ducks (Raveling and Heitmeyer 1989) including Mallard, Blue-winged 

Teal, and Wood Duck. Whereas waste grain is a critical food resource for some 

waterfowl, there are nutritional drawbacks (Dubovsky and Kaminski 1994), and 

conservation of natural food resources is essential. 

Late winter and spring nutrition and survival may limit some species, particularly 

Black Ducks, Lesser Scaup, and Canvasback, which rely little on agricultural landscapes. 

However, there remains a paucity of information regarding the abundance and 

availability of spring waterfowl foods in the JV region. Studies within the region 

comparing availability of spring vs. fall waterfowl foods suggests fall foods exceed the 

needs of waterfowl but spring foods were likely inadequate (Steckel 2003) and or 

availability could be effectively increased via management (Greer 2004). Based on 

current evidence, spring nutrition may have greater potential to limit duck populations 

and should be a conservation emphasis. In some areas, however, other factors such as 

habitat disturbance, quality, and juxtaposition add considerations beyond gross energy. 

Habitat quality should be measured not only by the density of birds using a site, 

but also the level of productivity and survival of those birds (Van Horne 1983). Altered 

behavior, forage availability, and susceptibility to predation can affect local reproductive 

success and subsequent population size. Likewise, land use can influence wetland quality 

and values to breeding, migrating, and wintering waterfowl. For example, agricultural 

practices affect the turbidity, prey base, and vegetation characteristics of adjacent 

wetlands, all of which influence the wetland’s quality and ability to support waterfowl. 

19 
Population Status and Goals 

Population estimates and goals are essential for determining population deficits 

and generating model-based habitat objectives. Breeding waterfowl population goals for 

the JV region were not “stepped down” from NAWMP (2004) goals. JV regional 

populations were relatively low during the 1970s (i.e., the NAWMP target period for 

ducks). Therefore, goals were determined using more recent spring survey data 

combined with input from state wildlife management agencies. Conversely, migration 

and wintering goals were stepped down from the continental plan (NAWMP 2004) using 

proportioning techniques to estimate the JV regional share of continental waterfowl use 

(and habitat needs) during these seasons. 

Quantifying breeding and non-breeding population goals and describing how best 

to achieve these targets via habitat conservation are central components of this strategy. 

However, planners must recognize establishing science-based habitat goals and 

objectives is a relatively new process. Refinement in methodology is expected as 

improved population and habitat data become available. Moreover, there are many 

population influences outside the control of JV partners, thus population goals are best 

viewed as guidelines for quantifying and targeting habitat conservation. 

Breeding Goals 

In order to develop breeding population goals for species in the JV region, current 

population estimates and trends had to be determined. Estimates for breeding Mallards 

and total ducks are readily available for Wisconsin, Michigan, and much of Minnesota 

(USFWS 2007a). Mallards account for approximately half the ducks breeding in the JV 

region, and populations generally have increased during recent decades (Figure 6). 

Additional population data based on the WBPHS, including estimates for Blue-winged 

Teal, Wood Duck, and Giant Canada Goose also are available for Wisconsin (Van Horn 

et al. 2007), Michigan (Michigan Department of Natural Resources, unpublished data), 

and much of Minnesota (Cordts 2007). 

In recent years, JV Mallard populations have declined, and the current (2003–

2007 average) population estimate for the primary breeding area of the JV region is about 

20% lower than the 10-year average whereas the total duck population estimate for the 

same period is 15% lower (Figure 6). Blue-winged Teal are below 1970s peak 

population levels. Wood Duck populations also appear to be stable or declining over the 

JV region in recent years (Figure 2), but this species is difficult to accurately inventory. 

Black Duck populations were likely much higher in the region before the WBPHS, but 

actual estimates are unavailable. Breeding Black Ducks historically outnumbered 

Mallards in Michigan (Pirnie 1935) but not in Wisconsin (Jahn and Hunt 1964). 

20 
Mallards 

0

500

1000

1500

Thousands 

Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan

Total ducks 

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

19681970197219741976197819801982198419861988199019921994199619982000200220042006

Year

Thousands 

Figure 6. Mallard and total duck population estimates for primary breeding states in the Upper Mississippi 

River and Great Lakes region based on the Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey (WBPHS; 

USFWS 2007a). The survey did not begin in Wisconsin until 1973 and Michigan until 1993; pre-survey 

estimates for these states (WI 1968–1972 and MI 1968–1991) were extrapolated from Minnesota data using 

the proportional distribution of mallards and total ducks during 1992–2007, when all three states completed 

the survey. 

Provisional breeding population goals were set for species that are relatively 

abundant in the JV region with the intent of refining them as more information becomes 

available. For planning purposes, current populations were determined with estimated 

average abundance during the last five years (2003–2007). We used an interpolation and 

regression technique comparing WBPHS and BBS data to generate population estimates 

for JV areas outside the three primary breeding states, which conduct the WBPHS, and 

for un-surveyed portions of Minnesota (Appendix F). Because current populations of 

most breeding species are about 20% below peaks in recent decades and because current 

monitoring techniques are unlikely to detect population change <20%, we used a goal of 

20% increase for breeding species (Table 4). 

Population goals are intended to be met under “average environmental 

conditions,” thus maintaining current populations will require habitat conservation efforts 

that consider periodic drought and wet cycles. State agencies that monitor environmental 

conditions and have identified relationships with breeding waterfowl abundance may 

wish to further refine state-level population goals. For example, the state of Michigan 

established a breeding mallard goal of “420,000 with average Great Lakes water levels” 

(D. Luukkonen, Michigan Department of Natural Resources, personal communication).

21 
Table 4. Population estimates, goals, and deficits by Bird Conservation Region (BCR)a

 for waterfowl 

commonly breeding in the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture (JV) region. The JV 

region largely consists of BCRs 22, 23, and the U.S. portion of 12 (35% of BCR 12). Portions of BCR 24 

(19%), 13 (11%), and 28 (7%) also are within the JV boundary; waterfowl estimates for these BCRs are not 

included when the area accounts for <1% of the JV regional population.

Speciesb and BCR 

Current 

populationc Population goald Population deficite

Deficit recovery 

distribution (%) 

Wood Duck 

 BCR 12 165,000 198,000 33,000 27 

 BCR 23 215,500 258,600 43,100 35 

 BCR 22 197,600 237,120 39,520 32 

 BCR 13 4,800 5,760 960 1 

 BCR 24 24,500 29,400 4,900 4 

 BCR 28 4,900 5,880 980 1 

 Total 612,300 734,760 122,460 100 

American Black Duck 

 BCR 12 6,000 7,200 1,200 86 

 BCR 23 1,000 1,200 200 14 

 Total 7,000 8,400 1,400 100 

Mallard 

 BCR 12 328,900 394,680 65,780 31 

 BCR 23 485,100 582,120 97,020 45 

 BCR 22 215,300 258,360 43,060 20 

 BCR 13 21,700 26,040 4,340 2 

 BCR 24 12,700 15,240 2,540 1 

 BCR 28 8,700 10,440 1,740 1 

 Total 1,072,400 1,286,880 214,480 100 

Blue-winged Teal 

 BCR 12 51,600 61,920 10,320 16 

 BCR 23 242,800 291,360 48,560 75 

 BCR 22 31,300 37,560 6,260 10 

 Total 325,700 390,840 65,140 100 a

Bird Conservation Regions: BCR 12 = Boreal Hardwood Transition, BCR 23 = Prairie Hardwood 

Transition, BCR 22 = Eastern Tallgrass Prairie, BCR 13 = Lower Great Lakes / St. Lawrence Plain, 

BCR 24 = Central Hardwoods, and BCR 28 = Appalachian Mountains. 

b

Several common breeding species are not included. Canada Goose, Trumpeter Swan, and Mute Swan 

are common in some BCRs, but they are not considered habitat limited or their management is dictated 

through a separate population plan (e.g., Mississippi Flyway Council plan). Poorly represented with the 

Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey (WBPHS), the Ring-necked Duck also is common 

in northern areas of the JV region; a special survey in BCR 12 of Minnesota revealed an estimated 

18,000 breeding Ring-necked Ducks (Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, unpublished data).

c

Current populations = 2003–2007 mean estimate. BCR 12 and 23 estimates were based on average 

densities determined from the WBPHS (Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota), multiplied by the area in 

the BCR. BCR 13, 22, 24 and 28 estimates were based on North American Breeding Bird Survey 

relative abundance adjusted to density estimates from the WBPHS (see Appendix F for methods). 

d

Population goals call for a 20% increase, reflecting population peaks in recent decades. e

Population deficit = population goal – current population. 

22 
Migration and Wintering Goals 

Ten NAWMP priority species stage in the JV region during migration and seven 

of these also winter in the region (Table 2). In order to link regional migration and 

wintering habitat goals to continental population goals we used multiple sources of 

survey data. We began with NAWMP continental spring population estimates based on 

averages for the period 1994–2003 (NAWMP 2004:22–32), referred to in this strategy as 

the “current continental estimate” for migration and winter habitat planning. Waterfowl 

abundance for most species was relatively high during this period. Using a continental 

(vs. only mid-continent / “traditional survey area”) goal was logical considering 

waterfowl distribution and primary migration corridors. 

The number of each species to be accommodated during migration was calculated 

using the proportion of U.S. harvest (average for 1980–1999) occurring in the JV region 

(Table 5). For example, 22% (based on harvest) of the 13 million North American 

Mallards (average 1994–2003 continental breeding population, NAWMP 2004) is 

predicted to be accommodated in the JV region during migration, thus a migration goal 

for this species was established at 2.89 million birds (13,000,000 x 0.222 = 2,886,000). 

This approach assumes fall and spring migration patterns are similar, which is inaccurate 

for some species. It also assumes distribution of harvest roughly reflects distribution of 

birds during migration; however, harvest distribution can be influenced by regulations 

(MFCTS 1998). 

 Winter population goals were determined in a similar manner, except that data 

from the MWI was substituted for harvest data (Table 5). Again using Mallards as an 

example, the 13 million NAWMP continental spring estimate was multiplied by the 

average proportion wintering (14% for 1996–2005) in the JV region based on the MWI, 

resulting in a wintering population goal of 1.82 million (13,000,000 x 0.14 = 1,820,000). 

We acknowledge the MWI provides only a crude estimate of wintering duck abundance 

and distribution. Weaknesses in both harvest and MWI apportioning approaches must be 

addressed in future iterations of the strategy. 

Following recruitment, fall populations are larger then spring populations, 

however spring migration habitat was assumed to be more limiting then fall, thus the 

“population bottleneck” for migration habitat planning. Waterfowl needs during fall 

were assumed to be accommodated if spring and winter requirements identified in this 

strategy are fulfilled. However, conditions outside the JV region influence the 

distribution and abundance of migrating waterfowl during individual years. Therefore, 

carrying capacity (vs. bird counts) will be a more appropriate measure of goal 

achievement for migration/wintering habitat. 

 Current continental breeding waterfowl populations are relatively high with the 

exception of Lesser Scaup, American Black Duck, and Northern Pintail. These species 

have declined and population deficits can be established for them (Table 6). In addition 

to maintaining current carrying capacity, migration/wintering habitat restoration 

objectives will be developed in an effort to increase carrying capacity (i.e., eliminate the 

23 
deficit) for JV non-breeding populations currently below NAWMP goals. Migration and 

wintering goals were apportioned across the JV region using harvest and MWI data. 

Table 5. Migration and wintering population estimates for waterfowl species common in the Upper 

Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture (JV) region. Migration estimates were generated from 

1980–1999 JV regional harvest proportionsa

 multiplied by continental population estimates (NAWMP 

2004), except for swans which were based on expert opinion. Winter estimates were generated from 1996–

2005 JV regional Mid-winter Inventory proportions multiplied by the continental population. Numbers are 

shown in thousands.

Harvest Mid-winter Inventory Population estimate 

Region Regionb JV 

Speciesc U.S. Total % U.S. Total % Continental Migration Winter

Light Goose (Snow and Ross’) 962.8 75.9 7.9 3,535.9 458.8 13.0 4,664.2 368.5 606.3

Canada Goose 1,366.6 372.3 27.2 3,835.0 1,106.2 28.8 6,000.0 1,632.0 1,728.0

Mute Swan No harvest 23.6 6.4 27.0 20.0 10.6 5.4

Trumpeter Swan No harvest 4.2 0.3 8.2 23.6 2.4 1.9

Tundra Swan No harvest 179.9 1.4 0.8 186.3 40.0 1.5

Wood Duck 1,071.5 295.7 27.6 32.3 0.8 2.5 4,600.0 1,269.6 116.4

Gadwall 792.8 75.3 9.5 2,018.2 8.5 0.4 3,900.0 370.5 16.4

American Wigeon 563.8 67.7 12.0 1,119.1 2.7 0.2 3,100.0 372.0 7.6

American Black Duck 183.3 30.4 16.6 261.7 20.1 7.7 910.0 151.1 69.9

Mallard 3,666.1 813.9 22.2 5,440.7 772.7 14.2 13,000.0 2,886.0 1,846.4

Blue-winged Teal 677.2 125.3 18.5 157.3 0.2 0.1 7,500.0 1,387.5 10.2

Northern Shoveler 338.6 22.7 6.7 762.2 3.6 0.5 3,800.0 254.6 17.7

Northern Pintail 503.9 31.7 6.3 2,367.1 20.5 0.9 3,600.0 226.8 31.2

Green-winged Teal 1,213.4 151.7 12.5 1,839.8 2.0 0.1 3,900.0 487.5 4.2

Canvasback 53.1 11.9 22.4 298.9 52.5 17.6 740.0 165.8 130.0

Redhead 117.0 27.8 23.8 445.1 29.2 6.6 1,200.0 285.6 78.6

Ring-necked Duck 399.9 128.8 32.2 514.0 11.8 2.3 2,000.0 644.0 46.0

Greater Scaup 46.4 12.3 26.5 162.5 6.2 3.8 800.0 212.0 30.5

Lesser Scaup 297.9 88.2 29.6 920.7 35.1 3.8 4,400.0 1,302.4 167.7

Surf Scoter 14.9 1.0 7.0 39.2 0.0 0.0 600.0 42.0 0.1

White-winged Scoter 13.4 1.4 10.7 39.2 0.0 0.0 600.0 64.2 0.1

Black Scoter 7.2 1.0 13.3 26.1 0.0 0.0 400.0 53.2 0.0

Long-tailed Duck 14.0 0.9 6.7 8.0 0.6 7.3 1,000.0 67.0 73.0

Bufflehead 125.9 40.5 32.2 162.5 11.3 6.9 1,400.0 450.8 96.9

Common Goldeneye 60.2 21.2 35.2 117.9 30.6 25.9 1,345.0 473.4 348.9

Hooded Merganser 58.7 22.8 38.9 58.3 11.5 19.8 350.0 136.2 69.2

Common Merganser 12.3 3.4 27.7 166.9 33.0 19.8 1,000.0 277.0 197.7

Red-breasted Merganser 16.2 3.1 19.3 39.7 7.9 19.8 250.0 48.3 49.4

Ruddy Duck 35.6 6.9 19.5 187.9 0.5 0.3 1,102.0 214.9 3.0

 Total 12,612.6 2,433.9 19.3 24,763.9 2,634.4 10.6 72,391.1 13,895.7 5,754.5

a

Region total based on average 1980–1999 harvest (NSST 2000) in Bird Conservation Regions 12, 22, and 

23, plus partial harvest based on land area in BCRs 13 (25%), 24 (20%), and 28 (7%). U.S. total harvest 

was the sum of average 1980–1999 harvest for all BCRs except those in Alaska and Hawaii. 

b

Region Mid-winter Inventory total based on states within USFWS Region 3 (Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin). 

c

Species with combined Mid-winter Inventory total counts were separated based on estimated percentage of 

continental population within combinations: Greater Scaup = 15%, Lesser Scaup = 85%; Surf Scoter = 

37.5%, White-winged Scoter = 37.5%, and Black Scoter = 25%; Common Goldeneye = 85% and Barrow’s 

Goldeneye (not included above) = 15%; Hooded Merganser = 22%, Common Merganser = 63%, and Redbreasted Merganser = 15%. 

24 
Table 6. Change in estimated continental population size for waterfowl species migrating and wintering in 

the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture region.a

 Current populations (1994-2003) and 

deficits were determined to generate total migration/wintering conservation needs for “maintenance and 

protection” (to accommodate current populations) and “restoration and enhancement” (to restore carrying 

capacity for population deficits).

Species 1970–1979 1994–2003 Deficit Restoration target (%) 

Lesser Snow Goose 2,742,000 2,490,800 0 

Ross’s Goose 400,000 619,00 0 

Cackling Goose (TGP) 292,600 421,900 0 

Canada Goose 1,675,000 2,180,300 0 

Mute Swan na 20,000 0 

Trumpeter Swan 1,462 2,430 0 

Tundra Swan 82,000 103,400 0 

Wood Duck 3,000,000 4,600,000 0 

Gadwall 2,000,000 3,900,000 0 

American Wigeon 3,500,000 3,100,000 400,000 13 

American Black Duck 1,400,000 910,000 490,000 54 

Mallard 11,000,000 13,000,000 0 

Blue-winged Teal 5,800,000b 7,240,000 0 

Northern Shoveler 2,000,000 3,800,000 0 

Northern Pintail 7,000,000 3,600,000 3,400,000 94 

Green-winged Teal 3,000,000 3,900,000 0 

Canvasback 600,000 740,000 0 

Redhead 900,000 1,200,000 0 

Ring-necked Duck 1,000,000 2,000,000 0 

Greater Scaup 1,200,000c 800,000 400,000 50 

Lesser Scaup 6,800,000c 4,400,000 2,400,000 55 

Surf Scoter 800,000d 600,000 200,000 33 

White-winged Scoter 700,000d 600,000 100,000 17 

Black Scoter 500,000d 400,000 100,000 25 

Long-tailed Duck 2,700,000 1,000,000 1,700,000 170 

Bufflehead 1,000,000 1,400,000 0 

Common Goldeneye 1,275,000e 1,345,000 0 

Hooded Merganser 330,000f 350,000 0 

Common Merganser 945,000f 1,000,000 0 

Red-breasted Merganser 225,000f 250,000 0 

Ruddy Duck 700,000 1,102,000 0 a

The 1970s estimates are from the NAWMP (1998) and 1994–2003 estimates are from the 2004 

NAWMP update, except for swans and geese. Trumpeter and Tundra Swan and goose population 

estimates are from time periods 1995–1998 and 2001–2003. A Mute Swan population estimate was 

not available (na) in the 1998 NAWMP. Canada Goose population estimates (and goals) from the 

NAWMP (2001–2003 average) for primary populations using the JV region total 2,180,300 (goal = 

1,675,000): Southern James Bay = 95,200 (100,000), Mississippi Valley = 325,200 (375,000), Eastern 

Prairie = 220,300 (220,000), and Mississippi Flyway Giants = 1,539,600 (1,000,000). These 

populations are managed via Mississippi Flyway Council harvest strategies. 

b

The 1970s Blue-winged and Cinnamon Teal total population estimate multiplied by 0.97 for an 

estimate of Blue-winged Teal based on proportional estimate for 1994–2003. 

c

Total 1970s Scaup (Lesser and Greater) population estimate multiplied by 0.15 for an estimate of 

Greater Scaup and 0.85 for an estimate of Lesser Scaup based on proportional estimate for 1994–2003. 

d

Total 1970s Scoter (Surf, White-winged, and Black) population estimate multiplied by 0.40 for an 

estimate of Surf Scoter, 0.35 for an estimate of White-winged Scoter, and 0.25 for an estimate of Black 

Scoter based on proportional estimates for 1994–2003. 

e

Total 1970s Goldeneye (Common and Barrow's) population estimate multiplied by 0.85 for Common 

Goldeneye based on proportional estimate for 1994–2003; Barrow’s not presented. 

25 
f

Total 1970s Merganser (Hooded, Common, and Red-breasted) population estimate multiplied by 0.22 

for an estimate of Hooded Merganser, 0.63 for an estimate of Common Merganser, and 0.15 for an 

estimate of Red-breasted Merganser based on proportional estimate for 1994–2003. 

Focal Species 

Due to the large number of waterfowl species occurring in the JV region, a 

smaller subset of “JV focal species” was chosen for emphasis in this conservation 

strategy. Four species were selected for habitat planning and population monitoring 

during the breeding season, and seven species were selected for population monitoring 

during non-breeding periods (Table 7). Habitat objectives for migration and wintering 

birds were based on energy requirements for all waterfowl using the region, but species 

were grouped into assemblages or guilds with similar feeding habitat requirements (Root 

1967) to develop migration and wintering habitat objectives. 

Table7. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture region waterfowl focal species selected for 

habitat planning and monitoring. 

Breeding habitat Non-breeding habitat 

Wood Duck Tundra Swan 

American Black Duck Wood Duck 

Mallard American Black Duck 

Blue-winged Teal Mallard 

Blue-winged Teal 

Canvasback 

Lesser Scaup 

The use of focal species is a conservation assessment “shortcut,” reducing the 

number of models required for developing habitat objectives for a full suite of species. In 

effect, a single JV focal species was selected to represent a general cover type used by 

multiple species of waterfowl for breeding. Likewise, monitoring results based on 

breeding and migrating/wintering JV focal species are assumed to reflect the suite of 

species they represent. However, the assumption that other species will respond similarly 

to habitat protection, restoration, and management must be evaluated. 

The criteria for selecting breeding JV focal species included 1) stable or declining 

population, 2) high importance of the JV region to the continental population, 3) 

representative of a primary cover type (e.g., Mallard and hemi-marsh), 4) some 

understanding of factors limiting the population, and 5) potential to monitor populations. 

Non-breeding season focal species were selected based on 1) regional importance 

(significance of JV region to species), 2) representative of a primary cover type, 3) ability 

to identify and manage for a habitat-limiting factor, 4) potential for monitoring, and or 5) 

migration chronology. Using species guilds allowed calculation of energy requirements 

for all migrating and wintering waterfowl in primary cover types used by these species. 

The Mallard was selected as a key breeding focal species because of its relative 

abundance, wide distribution and availability of ecological information, including 

recently completed research on Great Lakes Mallards. In addition, the Mallard is 

26 
unmatched in recreational importance and regional stakeholder interest. Populations of 

Blue-winged Teal, American Black Duck, and Wood Duck depend on the JV region to 

varying degrees. Characteristics of nesting and brood-rearing habitat are largely unique 

for these three species. Breeding Mallards, on the other hand, are more general in their 

needs and may be accommodated by breeding habitat for other waterfowl. Because 

breeding Black Duck distribution in the JV region is becoming increasingly limited, the 

Ring-necked Duck was identified as a potentially viable substitute if limiting factor(s) 

and adequate monitoring can be established. The Ring-necked Duck has a similar range 

in the JV region, inhabits northern wetlands, and is more abundant than the Black Duck. 

Ring-necked Ducks appear to be declining within the primary breeding range of the JV 

region (C. Roy, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, unpublished data) despite 

increases in populations elsewhere in their range. 

Mallard, Black Duck, Blue-wing Teal, and Wood Duck have different habitat 

requirements and varied diets during migration and winter. Because of their importance 

and distribution during migration staging, they also were the logical dabbling duck focal 

species for non-breeding habitat planning. Diets and nutritional needs of diving ducks 

also are diverse, and food resources may be a critical factor limiting this group. 

Canvasback (largely herbivores) and Lesser Scaup (largely carnivores) were selected as 

non-breeding season diving duck focal species because of their extremes in diet 

preference. 

The JV region provides vital stopover locations for migrating Tundra Swans, also 

selected as a JV focal species for the non-breeding period. Their primary use of 

submerged aquatic vegetation in deep water marsh and their growing reliance on corn 

stubble and winter wheat fields sets them apart from other focal species. Finally, several 

populations of Canada Geese depend on the JV region (NAWMP 2004), but they do not 

appear to be habitat limited during breeding (Giants) or migration (Southern James Bay, 

Mississippi Valley Population, and Eastern Prairie Population). These birds are managed 

via harvest strategies developed by the Mississippi Flyway Council in population-specific 

management plans. However, conservation efforts targeted at JV focal species will 

provide habitat values for Canada Geese occurring in the region. 

Biological Models 

Biological models that combine digital spatial data of land cover and population 

surveys can be used to target conservation as well as translate population objectives into 

habitat objectives. However, waterfowl behavior and habitat requirements change with 

the seasons and birds may use different areas for courtship, nesting, brood rearing, postbreeding molt, migration staging, and wintering. Moreover, availability of suitable 

wetlands will vary seasonally and among years depending on past and current wetland 

water budgets. Thus, habitat models for waterfowl vary among species as well as within 

spatial and temporal scales. 

Preliminary spatially-explicit habitat models have been developed for breeding JV 

focal species (Appendix A) and non-breeding guilds (Appendix B) to guide regional 

27 
waterfowl planning. Limited population information and lack of high resolution digital 

cover-type data hampered development of more rigorous models. Much of our waterfowl 

knowledge is based on dabbling ducks, particularly the Mallard. We assumed other 

upland-nesting ducks would respond similarly to environmental and ecological 

conditions that impact Mallard vital rates unless additional information was available. 

Likewise, length of stay for most species during migration and winter is largely 

unknown, thus use-day and non-breeding habitat objectives were based on several 

assumptions. Use day estimates were generated using predicted numbers of each species 

occurring in the region multiplied by their estimated duration of stay during non-breeding 

periods (Appendix G). We attempted to enhance assumption validity with available 

literature and survey data. 

Waterfowl habitat has been characterized at the nest site, wetland, 

wetland/grassland complex, upland, and landscape levels. Considering the resolution of 

available spatial data for the region, waterfowl may best be categorized for planning by 

guilds and their preference for various wetland and open-water communities during the 

breeding and non-breeding seasons. Although some species have more specific habitat 

requirements than others, a general landscape design can be formulated to accommodate 

waterfowl groups. Using the information available, we divided waterfowl into general 

community or cover types most used during the breeding and migration/winter seasons 

(Table 8). More specific characteristics of quality habitat and preferred landscapes have 

been described in breeding focal species and non-breeding guild accounts (Appendix A 

and B). 

Table 8. General wetland communitya preferences for breeding and non-breeding waterfowl occurring in 

the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture (JV) region. Names in bold are JV focal 

species emphasized in planning and monitoring; some focal species occur in multiple community 

categories but only the most commonly used cover type was identified. 

Wet meadow with 

open water 

Wet mudflat / moistsoil plants 

Shallow semipermanent marsh, 

hemi-marsh Deep water marsh 

Marsh with 

associated shrub / 

forest Extensive open water 

Breeding season 

Blue-winged Teal Mallard Black Duck Wood Duck

Northern Shoveler Canada Goose Mute Swan Common Goldeneye 

Gadwall Trumpeter Swan Hooded Merganser 

Green-winged Teal Redhead 

Ring-necked Duck 

Migration and wintering season

Blue-winged Teal Black Duck Tundra Swan Canvasback 

Northern Shoveler Mallard Snow/Ross’ Goose Lesser Scaup 

Northern Pintail Wood Duck Canada Goose Redhead 

Green-winged Teal Gadwall Mute Swan Greater Scaup 

American Wigeon Trumpeter Swan White-winged Scoter 

Ring-necked Duck Black Scoter 

Hooded Merganser Long-tailed Duck 

Ruddy Duck Bufflehead 

Common Goldeneye 

Common Merganser 

Red-breasted Merganser 

a

Wet meadow with open water = seasonal wetlands with herbaceous vegetation mixed with pockets of 

semi-permanent shallow open water. Wet mudflat / moist-soil plants = non-forested wetland with dynamic 

hydrology and areas of exposed mudflat; summer growth of annual seed-producing plants (moist-soil 

species) is typically flooded in fall and spring. Shallow semi-permanent marsh, hemi-marsh = marsh <1 m 

28 
deep with herbaceous cover and persistent standing water most years; typically a mosaic of emergent 

vegetation and open water. Deep water marsh = open water 0.5–1.5 m deep mixed with areas and borders 

of emergent vegetation; submergent vegetation common in openings. Marsh with associated shrub/forest = 

mixed emergent marsh and open water with nearby shrub or forest; typically marsh and woody cover is 

<0.1 km apart; often a riparian system. Extensive open water = open water areas of the Great Lakes, large 

rivers, and inland lakes with water depth 1–9 m.

Great Lakes Mallard Models 

Great Lakes Mallard Models have been recently developed for female Mallard 

populations in the northern portion of the JV region and southern Ontario (Hoekman et 

al. 2006, Coluccy et al. 2008). These models identified vital rates with high potential to 

influence population growth (λ).” They also provided insight into how variation in 

specific vital rates may contribute to variation in λ. Model results derived from study 

areas in Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin suggest vital rates associated with the 

breeding season accounted for 63% of variation in λ while survival of females outside the 

breeding season accounted for 37% of the variation. Vital rates explaining the greatest 

amount of total variation during the breeding season were duckling survival (28%) and 

nest success (17%), followed by renesting intensity (9%) and breeding incidence (5%). 

In contrast, models developed for Mallards in agricultural areas of southern Ontario 

suggested that population growth was most sensitive to changes in nest survival, followed 

by non-breeding survival, adult breeding survival, and duckling survival (Hoekman et al. 

2006). 

Although some results of these two Great Lakes Mallard studies conflict, habitat 

work aimed at the breeding season should result in the greatest gains in λ and ultimately 

the size of the Mallard breeding population. More specifically, conservation efforts that 

improve duckling survival should receive primary emphasis and those that improve nest 

success should generally receive secondary emphasis. In areas with expansive crop 

coverage and abundant wetlands suitable for brood rearing, this order may be reversed. 

Furthermore, there is a need to better understand factors that influence non-breeding 

season survival considering it collectively accounts for significant variation in λ. 

Studies estimating and interpreting contribution of vital rates to Mallard 

population growth (i.e., sensitivities) have assumed no co-variation among vital rates and 

that population growth is density independent. However, Mallard nest success and 

duckling survival may covary (e.g., Pearse and Lester 2007) and there is evidence 

supporting density dependent recruitment in mid-continent and eastern Mallards 

(USFWS 2007b). Further, estimates of “process” variation have been generated over 

relatively short (i.e., <5 years) time frames; if Mallard vital rates vary with respect to 

environmental conditions over longer periods (e.g., regional wetland hydrologic 

conditions), then short-term studies may miss dynamics important in understanding 

population response to habitat conservation efforts. Although much is known about 

Mallard population dynamics, efficiency of future habitat conservation efforts may be 

improved with additional long-term study. 

29 
Relationships between duckling survival rates and landscape features in the Great 

Lakes region suggest Mallard duckling survival is positively related to the proportion of 

wetland area classified as vegetated and negatively related to the proportion of forest 

cover within brood rearing areas (Simpson et al. 2007). Conservation efforts aimed at 

increasing Mallard duckling survival should focus on restoring and maintaining wetlands 

with mosaics of emergent vegetation and open water in sparsely forested areas. 

Parameter estimates from duckling survival and nest success models have been 

incorporated within a Great Lakes Mallard Model using a Geographic Information 

System (Ducks Unlimited Great Lakes/Atlantic Regional Office, unpublished data). The 

model was developed to 1) prioritize areas within the region for protection, and 2) 

develop landscape-specific restoration and management prescriptions. This model can 

also be used to predict current Mallard λ based on existing landscape condition, to 

identify population “source” (λ > 1) and “sink” (λ < 1) areas, and to recommend habitat 

treatments to increase λ (see http://glaro.ducks.org/HEN/glhen.htm). Although the model 

is based on a single species, it can be expanded to include other breeding areas and 

species within the JV region once reliable input data are available. 

Habitat Goal and Objectives 

The goal of this strategy is to “establish efficient habitat conservation to 

maintain or increase carrying capacity for priority waterfowl species consistent with 

continental and JV regional population objectives.” Habitat objectives are linked to 

desired populations for breeding JV focal species and non-breeding guilds (Appendix A 

and B). This approach was necessary to target limited partner resources in strategy 

development, and to generate measurable objectives, thus setting the stage for 

performance measurement, evaluation, and adaptive management. Habitat objectives 

generated for JV focal species and migration guilds are assumed to reflect and 

accommodate the needs of all waterfowl commonly using the region. However, 

continued refinement of this strategy is planned with periodic adjustment of habitat 

objectives as new biological and environmental information is integrated into our modelbased decision process. 

JV partners will employ an array of habitat conservation tools, including 

protection, restoration, and enhancement in working to achieve strategy goals. An 

increasing emphasis in selecting from various management options is the duration of 

benefits. Limited availability of funding has forced JV partners to take a more businesslike approach to conservation, evaluating cost relative to the expected long-term return on 

investment. A primary interest in this planning effort is to identify target areas and 

landscape prescriptions that provide high long-term benefit for waterfowl populations at 

relatively low cost. Actual land values and other economic factors will be incorporated 

into future iterations of the strategy to help increase benefit/cost recommendations. 

“Maintenance and protection” (e.g., acquisition and conservation easement) 

includes actions that seek to maintain existing habitat features and sustainable 

ecosystems, although plant and wildlife communities may be dynamic over time. 

30 
“Restoration and enhancement” includes actions that return habitat features that have 

been lost or degraded, and occasionally creating new waterfowl habitats that serve as 

ecological equivalents to lost habitat. “Intensive management” is a type of enhancement 

but generally requires annual efforts to reach a desired habitat condition (i.e., the system 

is not self-sustaining, such as a flooded moist-soil management unit). These actions 

improve habitat conditions for waterfowl beyond what would occur in the absence of 

management and are most often suited to areas of the JV region where remaining natural 

waterfowl habitat is limited. 

Habitat protection objectives reflect the needs of current breeding and nonbreeding populations, whereas restoration and enhancement objectives were generated 

based on population deficits (Table 4 and 6). Breeding habitat targets were established 

using models with perceived limiting factors (Appendix A), the missing landscape 

features preventing population growth. Migration and wintering habitat objectives were 

developed using a bioenergetics model (Appendix B) based on the assumption food 

energy (i.e., lipids, carbohydrates, and protein) is the primary factor limiting waterfowl 

populations during the non-breeding period. Objectives for both breeding and nonbreeding are provided at the JV regional, BCR, State, and State×BCR area (polygon) 

scales. Breeding habitat objectives were based on current population estimates for these 

units. Non-breeding objectives (Appendix B)are stepped-down from continental 

population estimates via area proportioning using two approaches: 1) Habitat objectives 

calculated for populations using each BCR for migration-staging were subdivided by 

state area into State×BCR polygons, and 2) wintering habitat objectives, which were 

calculated for each state, were subdivided by BCR into State×BCR polygons. 

Calculated Non-breeding Objectives 

The model used to calculate non-breeding habitat objectives consisted of three 

components: a regional population goal for each species, energy demand per individual, 

and energy supply per unit area. 

Non-breeding population goal. Desired regional populations of species commonly using 

individual cover types during migration and winter were converted to use-day goals for 

these groups (Appendix B). We assumed food availability in fall was not a limitation, 

and non-breeding use day estimates were calculated for spring and winter only. The 

cover type of greatest importance, based on a need for nearly 390 million waterfowl use 

days, was shallow marsh (Table 9), followed by extensive open water (297 million). 

Moist-soil plant (91 million) and deep marsh (45 million) were also important to ducks 

and swans. Canada Goose use is substantial during the non-breeding season, with an 

estimated 392 million use days (Giants = 270 million, Interiors = 122 million). However, 

migrating and wintering geese largely use agricultural landscapes to feed and deep marsh 

and open water to roost. Geese were not considered habitat limited and we assumed they 

will be accommodated by habitat provided for other species. 

31 
Table 9. Spring migration and winter use-day goals (current needs + deficit needs) for species commonly 

occurring in the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture (JV) region. Numbers are based on 

continental population estimates (average for 1994–2003, NAWMP 2004) and estimates of the duration of 

stay in the JV region during each season (Appendix G).

 Use days 

Guild/foraging habitat Species Spring Winter Total 

Wet mudflat / moist soil plants 

Blue-winged Teal 41,625,029 0 41,625,029 

Northern Shoveler 7,633,091 0 7,633,091 

Northern Pintail 19,686,675 0 19,686,675 

Green-winged Teal 21,939,032 0 21,939,032 

 Total 90,883,827 0 90,883,827 

Shallow semi-permanent marsh 

Wood Duck 38,083,080 10,476,180 48,559,260 

Gadwall 11,137,685 0 11,137,685 

American Wigeon 12,658,056 0 12,658,056 

American Black Duck 10,455,602 9,585,437 20,041,039 

Mallard 129,691,043 167,383,620 297,074,663 

 Total 202,025,466 187,445,237 389,470,703 

Deep water marsh 

Mute Swan 954,000 484,200 1,438,200 

Trumpeter Swan 216,000 175,410 391,410 

Tundra Swan 1,000,000 0 1,000,000 

Ring-necked Duck 19,336,412 4,221,450 23,557,862 

Hooded Merganser 6,125,873 6,150,870 12,276,743 

Ruddy Duck 6,437,548 274,050 6,711,598 

 Total 34,069,833 11,305,980 45,375,813 

Extensive open water 

Canvasback 7,443,585 11,702,970 19,146,555 

Redhead 12,849,990 7,121,070 19,971,060 

Greater Scaup 14,301,019 3,996,135 18,297,154 

Lesser Scaup 60,578,203 23,400,009 83,978,212 

White-winged Scoter 3,374,657 12,004 3,386,661 

Black Scoter 3,001,785 7,875 3,009,660 

Long-tailed Duck 8,193,905 16,597,629 24,791,534 

Bufflehead 20,298,053 8,673,210 28,971,263 

Common Goldeneye 21,296,386 37,316,160 58,612,546 

Common Merganser 12,453,643 17,614,080 30,067,723 

Red-breasted Merganser 2,174,109 4,193,820 6,367,929 

 Total 165,965,335 130,634,962 296,600,297 

All cover types Total 495,458,161 329,398,150 824,856,311 

Non-breeding daily energy requirements (DER) / individual. Energy requirements of 

waterfowl staging during migration and wintering in the JV region were estimated (Table 

10) using body mass and an allometric equation to calculate resting metabolic rate (RMR, 

Miller and Eadie 2006). Male birds are slightly heavier than females, so male weights 

were used in the calculation. Winter energy needs were assumed to be similar to those 

for migration staging and non-breeding period DER was calculated by multiplying RMR 

by a factor of three (Prince 1979). 

32 
Table 10. Body mass, estimated resting metabolic rate (RMR), and daily energy requirement (DER) for 

waterfowl commonly occurring in the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes region during migration 

and winter. 

Species Body mass (kg)a RMR (kJ/day)b DER (kJ)c

Mute Swan 11.36 2,549 7,646 

Trumpeter Swan 12.68 2,765 8,294 

Tundra Swan 7.26 1,831 5,492 

Wood Duck 0.68 317 952 

Gadwall 0.97 413 1,238 

American Widgeon 0.82 364 1,093 

American Black Duck 1.25 498 1,493 

Mallard 1.25 498 1,493 

Blue-winged Teal 0.46 238 713 

Northern Shoveler 0.68 317 952 

Northern Pintail 1.03 431 1,294 

Green-winged Teal 0.32 182 545 

Canvasback 1.25 499 1,496 

Redhead 1.11 455 1,366 

Ring-necked Duck 0.74 338 1,013 

Greater Scaup 1.05 439 1,316 

Lesser Scaup 0.83 366 1,099 

Surf Scoter 1.00 422 1,266 

White-winged Scoter 1.59 594 1,783 

Black Scoter 1.14 463 1,390 

Long-tailed Duck 0.95 407 1,222 

Bufflehead 0.48 245 735 

Common Goldeneye 1.08 445 1,336 

Hooded Merganser 0.73 334 1,003 

Common Merganser 1.65 611 1,834 

Red-breasted Merganser 0.71 327 981 

Ruddy Duck 0.54 269 808 a

Body mass (kg) based on adult males (Bellrose 1980). 

b

RMR = 422*W0.74 where W is body mass in kg (Miller and Eadie 2006). One kiloJoule (kJ) = 0.24 

kilocalories (kcal) or 4.18 kJ / kcal. 

c

DER = RMR*3 (Prince 1979). 

Energy available per unit area (kJ/ha). Estimates of plant tubers, submerged aquatic 

plants, moist soil plant seeds, aquatic invertebrates, and waste grain availability during 

migration are not well documented for the JV region, especially during spring migration. 

Information for the few studies providing food values in various wetland types were 

pooled to generate estimates of accessible energy (Table 11). An estimated 12 kJ/g was 

used for an average true metabolizable energy (TME) of available foods (Miller 1987, 

Kaminski et al. 2003). 

33 
Table 11. Estimates of energy (kJ/ha) available in general community types used by waterfowl for 

migration-staging and wintering in the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes region. Dates of energy 

sampling were variable for each source and may not reflect available energy in winter and spring. Bold 

numbers are average energy values for community types x 0.5, assuming 50% of available food is 

accessible (declining food density results in reduced foraging efficiency and site use)a

. 

Source 

Wet mudflat / 

moist soil 

plants 

Shallow semipermanent 

marsh, hemi 

marsh 

Deep-water 

marsh 

Marsh with 

associated 

shrub/ forest 

Extensive 

open water 

4,393,200 5,020,800 Kenow et al. (unpublished) 1,004,160 3,012,480 5,020,800 4,644,240 104,600 

Heitmeyer (1989) 14,091,712 

Reinecke and Kaminski (unpublished) 7,531,200 1,016,712 

Steckel (2003) 4,008,272 928,848 

Korschgen et al. (1988) 449,361 4,493,616 

Bowyer et al. (2005) 9,916,080 

Stafford et al. (2007) 9,865,872 

 Average 7,258,642 1,970,664 2,735,081 2,830,476 3,206,339 

 Total energy available 3,629,321 985,332 1,367,540 1,415,238 1,603,169 a

Multiple numbers/study reflect >1 (but similar) wetland type sampled. True metabolizable energy (kJ) 

was calculated by multiplying food weight (g) by 12.55 (for kJ/g). Values for waste-grain fields were also 

provided by Reinecke and Kaminski (753,120 kJ/ha for soybeans and 1,691,172 kJ/ha for corn). 

Maintenance and Protection

 Waterfowl habitat maintenance (protection of values) objectives were identified 

by state and BCR based on habitat requirements of current populations using the JV 

region. Wet meadow and shallow semi-permanent marsh have the greatest area 

requirements for breeding and recommended conservation is focused in the northern 

State×BCR polygons (Table 12). Shallow marsh and extensive open water (with high 

enough quality for preferred aquatic plants and invertebrates) account for the greatest 

area conservation needs for non-breeding waterfowl, and these efforts are required 

predominantly in the middle and southern portions of the JV region. Breeding and nonbreeding objectives for shallow marsh may be achieved at the same locations when 

wetlands provide values during multiple seasons. Habitat protection can most effectively 

be targeted using maps generated from models that predict current distribution of birds 

and habitat across the region (Figure 5). More specific habitat requirements and locations 

to target habitat protection are found in species and guild accounts (Appendix A and B). 

 A portion of the habitat area required to accommodate current waterfowl 

populations is already protected through ownership by government agencies or nongovernment conservation organizations. In the future, a digital GIS layer of all 

conservation lands with perpetual protection in the JV region will be developed. Armed 

with this information, we can overlay ownership patterns with priority bird conservation 

lands, determine the actual proportion currently protected, and develop a prioritized 

strategy for acquisition and conservation easements. Likewise, parcels adjacent to 

existing conservation lands may be weighted for higher protection priority in an effort to 

expand wildlife habitat complexes. Managers must strive to maintain habitat quality 

through various management techniques when there is adequate return on investment; 

approaches to maintenance and protection will vary by area. 

34 
Table 12. Waterfowl habitat maintenance and protection objectives (ha) by state and Bird Conservation 

Regions (BCR) to meet carrying capacity for breeding (B) and migration/wintering (N) season population 

goals in the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture (JV) region. Distribution of protection 

effort based on JV focal species BCR population estimates (B), harvest distribution and Mid-winter 

Inventory Data (N), and habitat models (see Appendix A and B). Objectives are presented in hectares (1 ha 

= 2.47 acres). A) 

Wet 

meadow 

with open 

water 

Wet mudflat 

/ moist soil 

plants 

Shallow semipermanent marsh, 

hemi-marsh 

Marsh with 

associated 

shrub/forest 

Deep water 

marsh 

Extensive 

open water a State BCR 

Season B N B N N B N 

Iowa 22 17,498 1,752 18,945 38,328 1,213 10,808 5,679 

23 235 238 1,401 4,563 580 424 1,505 

Total 17,733 1,990 20,347 42,891 1,793 11,233 7,184 

Illinois 22 6,296 2,007 27,983 75,204 2,684 11,319 23,021 

23 84 111 1,505 2,891 305 332 1,148 

24 343 99 1,247 10,717 318 2,334 2,980 

Total 6,723 2,218 30,735 88,811 3,307 13,985 27,150 

Indiana 22 3,255 726 21,331 15,809 542 5,324 2,211 

23 1,575 434 10,180 7,891 1,063 2,665 2,666 

24 176 185 4,893 11,320 264 3,708 856 

Total 5,005 1,345 36,403 35,020 1,870 11,697 5,732 

Kansas 22 / Total 1,940 1,071 2,543 35,443 1,913 4,295 4,917 

Michigan 12 4,371 570 60,424 19,917 6,004 15,760 27,184 

22 0 67 2,326 1,267 137 588 817 

23 3,671 1,937 77,056 32,387 5,972 12,939 20,566 

Total 8,042 2,575 139,806 53,571 12,113 29,287 48,567 

Minnesota 12 39,215 538 78,542 16,884 4,259 18,186 13,418 

22 3,691 126 5,475 2,180 122 1,786 371 

23 114,956 859 43,700 13,750 2,201 14,608 5,239 

Total 157,862 1,523 127,717 32,814 6,582 34,579 19,028 

Missouri 22 / Total 205 1,344 3,422 79,980 2,288 6,816 6,524 

Nebraska 22 / Total 5,361 360 3,286 59,320 870 3,465 3,215 

Ohio 13 4 239 10,841 13,324 2,079 1,198 10,221 

22 0 850 20,735 25,194 1,222 4,590 10,384 

24 0 0 209 457 24 87 282 

28 0 31 4,326 11,146 477 1,224 5,212 

Total 4 1,121 36,111 50,121 3,802 7,099 26,099 

Wisconsin 12 20,822 302 25,486 10,733 2,283 7,297 14,108 

22 859 24 1,622 458 20 410 281 

23 182,569 3,212 108,723 54,082 8,008 22,911 33,479 

Total 204,250 3,538 135,831 65,273 10,312 30,619 47,867 

All States 12 64,408 1,410 164,452 47,534 12,546 41,243 54,709 

13 4 239 10,841 13,324 2,079 1,198 10,221 

22 39,104 8,329 107,667 333,195 11,011 49,402 57,422 

23 303,090 6,793 242,566 115,574 18,132 53,879 64,606 

24 519 284 6,349 22,494 607 6,129 4,118 

28 0 31 4,326 11,146 477 1,224 5,212 

 Total 407,125 17,086 536,200 543,267 44,851 153,075 196,289 

a

Habitat objectives are for only JV portions of Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska. 

35 
Figure 5. Areas of greatest importance to protect for A) breeding and B) non-breeding waterfowl in the 

Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture region. Protection value for breeding waterfowl 

was based on combined habitat suitability scores and abundances of JV focal species (Mallard, Bluewinged Teal, American Black Duck, and Wood Duck). Protection value for non-breeding waterfowl (all 

common species) was based on county level harvest distribution and emergent wetland and open water 

availability. 

36 
Restoration and Enhancement

 Restoration and enhancement objectives for each community type were based on 

regional waterfowl population deficits (Table 4 and 6) and associated habitat models. We 

assumed the most effective means to increase a population was to restore the missing 

habitat required to accommodate the number of individuals represented by the deficit. 

Generally this is measured in quantity or quality of a wetland type or wetland-upland 

complex. Restoration implies working in human-altered areas (e.g., agricultural fields), 

frequently converting an annual cover type to a perennial native-plant wetland or upland 

community which is optimal for the target bird species. Management is generally more 

economical when cover suited for the site is restored (i.e., consider pre-settlement 

vegetation, current surrounding cover, and critical/irreversible adjustments to landscape 

hydrology). Likewise, enhancement work must consider landscape capabilities. Properly 

located enhancement efforts that set back succession, suppress invasive plants, and 

provide a missing element to an otherwise suitable landscape typically results in the 

greatest return on investment. Landscape scale upland restoration and enhancement may 

be keys in restoring water quality and food resources to degraded river and wetland 

systems in the central and southern portions of the JV region. 

 Similar to protection emphasis, shallow semi-permanent marsh and wet meadow 

with open water were the communities with greatest restoration need, followed by marsh 

with associated shrub/forest (Table 13). Breeding and non-breeding objectives for 

shallow semi-permanent marsh may be achieved at the same locations when wetlands 

provide values during multiple seasons. The extensive open water objective should focus 

on restoration of water quality and food resources traditionally and potentially important 

for diving ducks, increasing regional carrying capacity to goal levels for this group. 

General locations to target habitat actions have been identified across the region (Figure 

6). Specific habitat requirements for priority birds can be found in JV focal species and 

guild accounts (Appendix A and B). 

37 
38 

Table 13. Waterfowl habitat restoration/enhancement objectives (ha) by state and Bird Conservation 

Regions (BCR) to meet carrying capacity goal for breeding (B) and migration/wintering (N) populations in 

the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture (JV) region. Distribution of protection effort 

based on JV focal species BCR population deficits (B), harvest distribution and Mid-winter Inventory Data 

(N), and habitat models (see Appendix A and B). Objectives are presented in hectares (1 ha = 2.47 acres).

Statea BCR 

Wet 

meadow 

with open 

water 

Wet 

mudflat / 

moist soil 

plants 

Shallow semipermanent marsh, 

hemi-marsh 

Deep 

water 

marsh 

Marsh with 

associated 

shrub/forest 

Extensive 

open water

Season B N B N N B N 

Iowa 22 3,500 365 3,789 400 0 2,162 1,158 

23 47 41 280 85 0 85 314 

Total 3,547 407 4,069 485 0 2,247 1,471 

Illinois 22 1,259 419 5,597 860 0 2,264 1,399 

23 17 19 301 51 0 66 148 

24 69 20 249 272 0 467 93 

Total 1,345 458 6,147 1,182 0 2,797 1,640 

Indiana 22 651 152 4,266 374 0 1,065 484 

23 315 75 2,036 217 0 533 571 

24 35 38 979 558 0 742 157 

Total 1,001 264 7,281 1,149 0 2,339 1,213 

Kansas 22 / Total 388 223 509 254 0 859 789 

Michigan 12 874 149 12,085 1,053 0 3,152 3,508 

22 0 14 465 38 0 118 69 

23 734 336 15,411 1,010 0 2,588 2,889 

Total 1,608 498 27,961 2,101 0 5,857 6,466 

Minnesota 12 7,843 140 15,708 547 0 3,637 2,803 

22 738 26 1,095 29 0 357 81 

23 22,991 149 8,740 306 0 2,922 1,120 

Total 31,572 315 25,543 882 0 6,916 4,003 

Missouri 22 / Total 41 280 684 340 0 1,363 953 

Nebraska 22 / Total 1,072 75 657 114 0 693 254 

Ohio 13 1 54 2,168 1,316 0 240 2,849 

22 0 177 4,147 1,700 0 918 1,806 

24 0 0 42 52 0 17 44 

28 0 7 865 1,025 0 245 818 

Total 1 239 7,222 4,092 0 1,420 5,516 

Wisconsin 12 4,164 79 5,097 373 0 1,459 5,015 

22 172 5 324 8 0 82 125 

23 36,514 556 21,745 1,286 0 4,582 11,453 

Total 40,850 640 27,166 1,666 0 6,124 16,594 

All States 12 12,882 367 32,890 1,973 0 8,249 11,326 

13 1 54 2,168 1,316 0 240 2,849 

22 7,821 1,738 21,533 4,114 0 9,880 7,118 

23 60,618 1,177 48,513 2,955 0 10,776 16,496 

24 104 58 1,270 882 0 1,226 294 

28 0 7 865 1,025 0 245 818 

 Total 81,425 3,401 107,240 12,266 0 30,615 38,901 

a

Habitat objectives are for only JV portions of Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska.
A) 

B) 

Figure 6. Potential habitat restoration and enhancement locations for A) breeding and B) non-breeding 

waterfowl in the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture region. Value for breeding 

waterfowl was based on current duck abundance and distribution and hydric soil availability (>50% hydric; 

STATSGO 1991) in existing agricultural, grassland, and emergent wetland cover types (NLCD 2001). 

Value for non-breeding waterfowl was based on county level harvest distribution and hydric soil 

availability in existing agricultural, grassland, and emergent wetland cover types. 

39 
 Uplands surrounding restoration sites and existing wetlands also should be taken 

into consideration because many waterfowl species rely on uplands for nesting and 

foraging. Furthermore, uplands with native plant communities retain or improve water 

quality and create suitable landscape structure for many species of birds. Because habitat 

enhancement for one species may result in loss of site value for other species, habitat 

treatments must consider additional species potentially using a site. For example, sites 

valuable to King Rails (Rallus elegans) should not be altered for the benefit of Mallards. 

Species of concern from other bird groups can be found in JV bird-group strategies. 

 Potential for greatest net increase in waterfowl habitat exists in the agriculturally 

dominated portion of the JV region where the majority of wetlands have been drained and 

river systems degraded. “Wildlife-friendly” agriculture programs included in the U.S. 

Farm Bill can significantly impact waterfowl in the region by preserving and restoring 

wetlands and adjoining upland cover. Effective waterfowl conservation will require 

collaboration with those implementing Federal agriculture programs. Waterfowl habitat 

protection and restoration maps (Figures 5 and 6) should be used to help target Farm Bill 

conservation efforts. County-level and site-specific planning will be enhanced with an 

understanding of area soil characteristics, particularly the location and extent of hydric 

soils (potential wetland restoration sites). These data are available for the entire JV 

region through the U.S. Department of Agriculture at www.soils.usda.gov/survey. 

Although the rate of wetland loss has slowed significantly in recent years, losses 

still occur in the JV region (Ducks Unlimited 2005), particularly in areas dominated by 

agriculture and human development. These proposed waterfowl habitat restoration and 

enhancement objectives are “net area” estimates. In other words, any loss of existing 

waterfowl habitat during the plan period must be added to plan restoration objectives. 

Likewise, degradation of existing waterfowl habitat must be considered in the habitat 

accounting process. 

Monitoring and Research 

Research and monitoring efforts in bird conservation are often linked or closely 

related. In this strategy monitoring is designed and implemented to measure progress 

toward meeting population goals and habitat objectives (i.e., performance measurement). 

Alternatively, research is designed to answer specific questions that arise from 

uncertainties or assumptions inherent in conservation planning and implementation. 

Explicit monitoring and research objectives identified here were considered highest 

priority for strategy achievement and to build knowledge for the next plan iteration. 

Monitoring waterfowl populations and habitat is required to determine resource 

status and trends, assess health of habitats, and evaluate whether management 

prescriptions are affecting targeted species. Surveys that provide measures of 

environmental or other landscape features believed to affect bird population status offer 

an opportunity to test hypotheses about factors limiting populations. Even more useful 

are surveys that are closely integrated with explicit management decisions, where 

biological prediction and testing are used to learn about the effects of conservation 

40 
practices. Abundance surveys, as well as monitoring programs used to estimate vital 

rates (e.g., survival and production surveys), can be used to assess habitat quality. When 

coordinated with monitoring of natural and management-induced habitat changes, these 

surveys can provide important insights into the mechanisms underlying changes in bird 

demographics. 

 Of the four primary bird groups emphasized in JV planning, waterfowl have been 

the most thoroughly inventoried at large spatial scales. Data from five coordinated 

continental surveys of populations and habitat, and two regional and state-level surveys 

were used to develop this strategy. 

Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey (WBPHS). This assessment is the 

primary tool used to measure spring waterfowl abundance and habitat conditions within 

the most important breeding range of most duck species (USFWS 2007a). It is a 

cooperative effort between the USFWS, Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), and several 

provincial and state agencies. Conducted since 1955 in the mid-continent Prairie and 

Parklands, the survey expanded east to Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan in 1968, 

Figure 7. Location of aerial spring breeding waterfowl survey transects which are 400-m wide and vary 

in length. Dots in Wisconsin and Minnesota represent center points for transects 48-km and 8–58 km 

long, respectively. Michigan survey routes cross the whole state and dots represent 29-km long 

segments within each transect. Northeast Minnesota was only surveyed during 1991–1993 as part of a 

special American Black Duck assessment, and northwest Michigan was omitted from the survey after 

1994 due to dangerous survey conditions in this area (mountainous region combined with high winds 

near Lake Superior)

41 
1973, and 1992, respectively (Figure 7). The Michigan and Wisconsin surveys provide 

statewide population estimates for common breeding species, whereas the Minnesota 

survey currently includes only 40% of the state where duck densities are highest. The 

WBPHS counts waterfowl and wetlands from fixed-wing aircraft on standardized 

transects, in April and May. Visibility correction factors are estimated using ground 

counts or helicopter observations for a subset of survey segments and used to adjust aerial 

counts for visibility bias by species. Wetland quantity and quality are estimated annually 

in the WBPHS as a measure of breeding habitat condition in the mid-continent. 

Wetlands also are counted in the Great Lakes states, but the value of “pond counts” to 

measure habitat conditions is complicated in this more heterogeneous landscape. 

North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS). The BBS has been conducted each year 

since 1966, primarily in June, following the completion of spring migration. The BBS is 

a roadside survey conducted by wildlife professionals and volunteer birders. There are 

631 routes within the JV region; routes are 40 km in length with 50 stops 0.8 km apart. 

The BBS survey may not adequately represent aquatic birds. However, the BBS and 

WBPHS reveal very similar population trends for waterfowl species common to the JV 

region. 

Coordinated Canvasback Survey. State wildlife agencies in the eastern U.S. and 

professionals in the province of Ontario have participated in this survey since 1974. It is 

a survey of major Canvasback staging areas conducted approximately 5 November each 

year, prior to arrival of most birds on wintering areas. The survey provides information 

that can be compared to breeding population estimates and mid-winter inventories to help 

establish Canvasback population status. The survey includes aerial and ground counts of 

all traditional fall staging areas in the JV region. However, the survey lacks a 

standardized sampling design and may miss concentrations of birds staging at nontraditional sites. 

Mid-winter Inventory (MWI). State agency and USFWS personnel have conducted the 

MWI in some fashion since 1933, usually the first week in January. This survey provides 

an index of waterfowl abundance and distribution at wintering areas based on estimates 

of waterfowl made from air and ground counts. Each JV state participates in the MWI. 

Because it lacks a formal sampling design and annual coverage is inconsistent, scientists 

have criticized the survey but continue conducting it for fear of loosing a long-term data 

set with valuable information. The MWI of Snow and Ross’ Geese is used to evaluate 

and inform the Light-goose Conservation Order, and several states also use this protocol 

for intrastate decision-making on harvest management issues. 

Harvest and Band Recovery Analysis. Annual harvest surveys are completed by the 

USFWS and by some individual states. The Federal harvest data can provide a crude 

estimate of waterfowl distribution and abundance at the state and county level during fall, 

assuming hunter harvest roughly reflects fall duck abundance. In addition, these harvest 

data can be used to help determine the timing of fall migration for waterfowl species 

moving through the JV region. Many states in the region participate in annual waterfowl 

banding prior to or after the hunting season. Leg-band recovery data can be used to 

estimate survival and harvest rates for selected waterfowl species. Moreover, band42 
recovery analysis can be used to identify fall concentration areas and migration corridors. 

Because of the way harvest/survival rates are estimated and considering annual shifts in 

migration patterns by some species, multiple years of data are typically pooled to provide 

a better reflection of distribution and abundance. 

State Non-breeding Population Surveys. Several states have conducted population 

surveys during the migration period, especially during fall. The longest duration survey 

in the JV region has been conducted by the Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS) in 

cooperation with the Illinois Department of Natural Resources. Initially completed by 

car and boat in 1938, and then by air beginning in 1948, INHS survey crews inventory 

waterfowl staging in the fall along the Illinois and middle Mississippi Rivers multiple 

times each year. Periodic spring inventories of this region also have been completed. 

The purpose of these aerial inventories was not to acquire complete counts but to estimate 

the number of each species, with the goal of providing an index of temporal changes 

within and among years and document the distribution of species throughout the 

monitored areas (Havera 1999). Population surveys of migrant waterfowl in specific 

areas of Michigan, Ohio, Iowa, and Missouri also have been conducted in recent decades; 

this information can be used to examine abundance and distribution as well as timing of 

migration through the JV region. 

Regional Habitat Surveys. Less emphasis has been placed on direct monitoring of 

waterfowl habitat in the JV region. Since completion of the 1998 JV Implementation 

Plan, JV Board members have provided an annual report of major partner habitat 

accomplishments in each state. Reporting has been segmented into wetland and upland 

categories and grouped by protection, restoration, and enhancement. The area influenced 

by JV partners since 1998 totals over 300,000 ha. Although partners have reported 

accomplishments that contribute toward their stated focus area objectives (USFWS 

1998), the measure remains coarse with general category definitions (“wetland” and 

“upland”) and no rating of habitat quality. In addition, JV partners and staff recognize 

the need to determine concomitant habitat loss in order to monitor “net change” in 

waterfowl habitat over time. 

Monitoring Needs and Responsibilities 

The 2004 NAWMP calls for increased waterfowl monitoring and assessment 

capabilities. Whereas broad-scale monitoring programs have been in place many years 

for some species, basic abundance estimates are inadequate to establish population 

objectives for half the species recognized by the national plan. In the JV region, breeding 

duck surveys and density estimates are completed only in Michigan, Wisconsin, and 40% 

of Minnesota. For some species we lack information to address fundamental biological 

questions. Implementation of standardized, region-wide population surveys coupled with 

updated and refined spatial data (e.g., revised National Wetland Inventory and National 

Land Cover Data) will provide opportunities to develop geo-referenced resource 

databases that can serve as the foundation for improved conservation planning tools in 

the future.

43 
Six general monitoring needs were identified in the NAWMP Implementation 

Framework (NAWMP 2004:92–102). Each has relevance to the JV because of its 

importance in improving the effectiveness of regional and continental waterfowl 

conservation decisions. 

Abundance. Expand, enhance, or revise survey(s) that provide the primary means of 

tracking changes in waterfowl abundance to enable assessment of status and the 

development of refined population objectives. 

Vital Rates and Harvest Rates. Enhance efforts and improve methods to monitor 

recruitment, survival, and harvest rates to better understand mechanisms causing changes 

in abundance. 

Coordinated Environmental Monitoring. Expand and integrate environmental 

monitoring with surveys that estimate abundance and vital rates to test hypotheses 

regarding factors limiting population growth, test assumptions underlying habitat 

conservation objectives, and evaluate conservation actions. 

Cross-scale Integration. Integrate and coordinate bird and environmental monitoring at 

continental, regional, and local scales so that patterns of change in bird demographics or 

habitat at one scale are informative of ecological processes responsible for patterns at 

other scales. 

Data Management and Accessibility. Improve data management and retrieval protocols 

to provide conservation planners and researchers with rapid access to spatially-referenced 

data on waterfowl demographics and habitat. 

New Technologies. Implement new and emerging technologies to supplement traditional 

monitoring databases and improve opportunities to learn about waterfowl responses to 

environmental variation at multiple scales. 

Suggested approaches for meeting North American waterfowl monitoring needs 

have been described in the NAWMP (2004). Joint Ventures, the NAWMP Science 

Support Team (NSST), and the primary Federal agencies responsible for migratory bird 

conservation must lead this effort. It is the responsibility of JVs to work with the NSST 

in development of a continental monitoring strategy to support waterfowl habitat 

conservation. JVs also must specify hypotheses regarding the primary environmental 

factors affecting waterfowl distribution and abundance and, in cooperation with the 

NSST, describe regional and local-scale monitoring protocols required to evaluate 

alternative hypotheses. Results will be used to refine habitat conservation objectives and 

strategies. Furthermore, JVs should develop partnerships to fund regional monitoring 

priorities and direct governmental appropriators in Canada, Mexico, and the United 

States to continue funding migratory bird monitoring initiatives coordinated by Federal 

agencies. 

44 
Monitoring Objectives

 Although suggested monitoring needs and responsibilities may appear daunting, 

waterfowl conservationists have some of the most extensive wildlife monitoring data 

available. Several monitoring needs can be met by expansion and refinement of existing 

survey initiatives, in addition to improved accessibility of these data for conservation 

planning. JV science partners must lead in establishing and improving regional 

monitoring strategies that complement and support continental efforts for waterfowl 

habitat conservation. Therefore, monitoring objectives listed below must be completed in 

a collaborative manner by JV staff, JV Technical Committee, NSST, State and Federal 

agencies, non-government organizations, and associated conservation groups that make 

up the JV partnership. Although target completion dates vary, greater efficiency may be 

achieved if monitoring objectives are developed concurrently. 

By 2010, a monitoring protocol will be developed to track spatial and temporal patterns 

in distribution, abundance, and habitat for populations of priority breeding waterfowl 

species. These largely include JV focal species, however the Ring-necked Duck also is a 

priority as it may replace the Black Duck as the breeding focal species representing deep 

water marsh. 

Specifically, the protocol will include tracking: 

1. Habitat characteristics that influence breeding waterfowl such as wetland 

abundance, landscape composition, and quality (examples of quality concerns are 

climate change, invasive species, human disturbance, and contaminants). 

2. Vital rates most important to population sustainability. 

3. Population size (CV 20%) and progress toward plan population objectives. 

By 2012, a monitoring protocol will be developed to track populations of priority 

migrating and wintering waterfowl species (JV focal species). 

Specifically, the protocol will inventory: 

1. Primary and secondary use areas. 

2. Landscape characteristics that influence habitat quality. 

3. Body condition related to nutrition and habitat quality. 

4. Survival and harvest rates to better understand mechanisms causing changes in 

abundance. 

5. Population size (abundance and spatial requirements), timing, and duration of stay 

(use days). 

Research Needs 

Wildlife management often requires professionals to make important decisions 

with incomplete knowledge, and this involves making assumptions. There were many 

assumptions associated with development of population and habitat objectives, especially 

when developing biological models to help quantify habitat objectives for JV focal 

species. Decision model parameters and associated assumptions are stated explicitly 

45 
(Appendix A and B) so they may be tested and adjusted when new information becomes 

available. 

Critical life requisites limiting bird populations are not well understood. 

However, waterfowl scientists generally perceive that nutrition most influences physical 

condition, which influences reproduction and survival via predation on hens, nests, and 

broods. Annual recruitment to the fall flight is therefore the product of nutritionallybased reproduction and survival. Waterfowl habitat conservation has traditionally called 

for maintaining, restoring, or improving the abundance and quality of wetlands and 

associated uplands to augment the available habitat base. The dynamic nature of 

migratory waterfowl and differences in species’ settling patterns (Johnson and Grier 

1988) suggest there is value in continuing habitat conservation efforts even if unoccupied 

habitat exists during a given year. Thus, we assumed priority waterfowl species were 

limited by some aspect of habitat and that landscapes are the appropriate scale for 

conservation planning. 

 

A priority for this strategy was development of spatially-explicit habitat models to 

guide regional waterfowl conservation (Appendix A and B). We used the best available 

information to identify locations most suitable for breeding and non-breeding waterfowl 

and to help target conservation delivery. Knowledge gaps hampered development of 

more rigorous models, but completion of proposed monitoring and research initiatives 

will result in an expanded species database for development of superior spatial planning 

tools. Several specific research objectives also were identified during strategy 

development to improve planning efficiency and effectiveness. They are listed below in 

priority order and should emphasize JV focal species. 

Research Objectives 

By 2010, research will be underway to develop and refine models that predict how 

populations of priority breeding waterfowl species (JV focal species) respond to habitat 

change. 

Specifically, research should address: 

1. Identifying factors limiting breeding season vital rates (e.g., nest success, 

duckling survival, etc.). 

2. Understanding how vital rates influence population growth (via sensitivity 

analyses). 

3. Predicting distribution and abundance of priority waterfowl populations in 

response to habitat conservation alternatives. 

By 2012, research will be developed to inform bioenergetics models and to evaluate 

habitat carrying capacity for populations of priority migrating and wintering waterfowl 

(JV focal species). Research also must determine the effects of lower quantity/quality 

habitat on survival or future production. 

46 
Specifically, research should address: 

1. Retrospective analyses of carry capacity (e.g., water quality, food availability, 

invasive species, wetland system functions and processes). 

2. Prospective analyses that forecast expected carrying capacity in the face of 

changing habitat conditions (e.g., climate change, wet vs. dry years, with/without 

habitat programs, continued habitat loss, agricultural practices, etc.). 

3. Relational analysis of habitat conditions and bird survival. 

By 2012, research will be developed to understand migration corridors, movement 

chronology, and human disturbance for migrating and wintering waterfowl to better 

predict habitat needs and target conservation areas. 

Specifically, research should address:

1. Optimum spatial arrangement of wetland types within and between migrating and 

wintering habitat, including a) inter-wetland distances, and b) juxtaposition with 

upland cover types such as cropland, urban areas, other human developments, and 

permanent natural cover. 

2. An understanding of how potential human-induced limiting factors (e.g., 

disturbance, water quality, pollutants, contaminants, and sedimentation) can be 

most effectively and efficiently mitigated. 

Measuring Performance 

Measures of presence/absence, density, long-term population change and 

demographics are required to assess performance of JV conservation actions. However, 

the number of waterfowl occupying the region in any given year is not solely dependent 

on habitat availability and condition within the region. For example, multiple years of 

poor breeding habitat in the mid-continent prairie can result in fewer waterfowl staging 

and wintering in the region even when habitat availability and condition may be above 

average. Likewise, during years with poor wintering conditions south of the region, 

fewer ducks may return to breed here or their reproductive potential may be depressed. 

Thus, regional waterfowl population goals are best viewed as guidelines for defining 

habitat objectives, and they may be an inappropriate short-term performance metric. 

The JV has supported several research projects to increase knowledge of 

waterfowl biology and ecology in the region; and we remain committed to improving 

understanding of management and environmental influences on regional waterfowl 

demographics. Activities of JV partners implementing this strategy are expected to 

increase resources and landscape carrying capacity for waterfowl and, in turn, directly 

and indirectly impact specific vital rates. Thus JV performance should be measured by 

the net change in resources available for waterfowl within the region and impact those 

changes have on vital rates. However, uncontrollable environmental factors must be 

considered and accounted for when measuring performance. 

47 
Net Change in Resources 

Resources for waterfowl within the JV region will be maintained by protecting 

existing quality habitat and increased by restoring and enhancing habitat as prescribed. 

Habitat conservation will be tracked by JV partners and JV staff, providing the estimated 

area (by cover type) and general location of protected and restored habitat. Concurrent 

habitat loss also must be estimated to determine net habitat change, and this measure is 

one of the greatest challenges facing JVs. Remote sensing technology typically provides 

the best means for landscape analysis. However, remotely identifying the quantity of 

waterfowl habitat in a given year will continue to be a challenge due to 1) its dynamic 

nature, 2) the ability of remote sensors to accurately depict various wetland types, 3) cost, 

and 4) the infrequency of updates to key regional spatial data such as NWI and NLCD 

(10–30 years between updates). Model-based analysis of habitat gains and losses may be 

necessary to estimate landscape change beyond that reported by JV partners. 

An increase in resource availability due to habitat enhancement will be even more 

difficult to document and will require estimates of average productivity before and after 

enhancement of wetlands and associated upland cover. Alternatively, a study is currently 

under way to determine average productivity of wetlands during spring migration across 

the region (T. Yerkes, Ducks Unlimited; M. Eichholz, Southern Illinois University; and 

R. Gates, Ohio State University, personal communication). In addition, a project 

comparing historical and contemporary wetland conditions in the Illinois River Valley 

(Stafford et al. 2007) provides a useful approach to evaluate change in habitat quality 

over time. Future research using similar techniques can provide an estimate of change in 

habitat quality following substantial implementation activities. 

Measuring performance for breeding waterfowl might include a comparison of 

bird demographics between areas of variable JV conservation intensity. JV partners will 

identify “high partner influence” vs. “low effort/no influence” (control) areas, and 

population survey data can be used to evaluate bird response. Portions of the JV region 

without spring aerial surveys may find BBS trend data useful as a coarse measure of 

population change for some species in high vs. low influence areas. 

Vital Rates as a Measure 

The impact of JV activities on breeding waterfowl populations also may be 

measured using vital rates, including nest success, brood survival, and recruitment. A 

recently completed study by JV partners addressing vital rates of breeding Mallards (J. 

Coluccy, Ducks Unlimited, unpublished data) provides baseline data for future 

comparison. Likewise, a study measuring vital rates of Blue-winged Teal in Wisconsin 

will be completed during 2006–2009 (R. Gatti, Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources, personal communication). These two data sets can be used as a baseline to 

determine if implementation activities are increasing vital rates of ground-nesting ducks 

within the JV region. Correlations between habitat and vital rates, or vital rates over 

time, while informative, will require additional assessment as they may not be “cause and 

effect” relationships. Positive correlations may suggest initial support for JV 

48 
management, but more specific analysis will be required to compare vital rates in selected 

areas before and after management implementation. 

When developing this strategy we assumed nutrient acquisition is the key factor 

limiting waterfowl outside the breeding season. Nutrients acquired during spring 

migration are used both for survival during migration and production on the breeding 

grounds. If this assumption is correct, then comparisons between nutrient reserve 

dynamics of migratory waterfowl before and after JV implementation activities should 

indirectly test whether partners are having the desired impact (i.e., higher nutrient 

reserves reflect greater reproductive success and survival). Obviously many 

environmental factors (e.g., reserves acquired outside the JV, temperatures during winter 

and migration, wind speed and wind direction during migration, wetland conditions 

during winter and spring migration, etc.) will need to be accounted for in such an 

assessment. A study by JV partners being conducted during 2006–2008 (M. Eichholz, 

Southern Illinois University, personal communication) will provide baseline data for 

comparison to future analysis of nutrient reserve dynamics. 

Adaptive Management 

 Adaptive management implies different things to different people, often 

depending on their background and the conservation arena which they work within (i.e., 

research, management, administration). The NAWMP (2004) uses “adaptive 

management” in a broad and inclusive sense to mean the use of cyclic planning, 

implementation, and evaluation to improve management performance. Adaptive 

Resource Management (ARM) provides an explicit framework that ensures monitoring 

data are relevant and useful in making management decisions. Moreover, it can (and 

should) provide a means to improve future decision-making through an iterative cycle of 

biological prediction and testing. In other words, JV partners must manage in the face of 

uncertainty – with the goal of reducing it. ARM provides a system of management 

actions and evaluations that refine goals, objectives, and strategies as we learn how birds 

respond to those actions. 

 Although adaptive management does not need to be complex, it does require 

discipline. Critical preconditions for successful ARM include stakeholder consensus 

regarding objectives and a commitment to manage adaptively. ARM can increase JV 

effectiveness and efficiency by improving capacity in all three iterative steps: planning, 

implementation, and evaluation. Planning, at all levels, is based on a set of assumptions 

often embodied in implicit or explicit models like those used in the waterfowl species and 

guild accounts (Appendix A and B). These models predict how waterfowl should 

respond to habitat changes and management actions. For example, implementation of 

prescribed breeding habitat objectives should eliminate breeding population deficits, 

which can subsequently be determined through monitoring. 

 Reliable monitoring is necessary to detect population change, thus adaptive 

management may be difficult for some aspects of waterfowl conservation. Nonetheless, 

we incorporate this element into the strategy’s biological foundation and expect 

49 
completion of research and monitoring objectives will result in valuable new data to 

parameterize model values and decision tools. The challenges are many for sciencebased waterfowl conservation, but application of ARM concepts will be a priority in the 

implementation and refinement of this strategy. 

NSST Continental Integration 

The NAWMP Science Support Team (NSST) was established to help strengthen 

the biological foundation of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and 

facilitate continuous improvement of NAWMP conservation programs. Three primary 

goals set by the NSST include: 

1) To foster continuous improvement in the effectiveness of NAWMP actions through the 

establishment of iterative cycles of planning, implementing and evaluating conservation 

programs at both the continental and Joint Venture levels. 

 The key conceptual shift for the 2004 NAWMP is to view planning, 

implementation, and evaluation as integral components of management. Accomplishing 

this objective will require adoption of adaptive management at both the JV region and 

continental levels. At the JV level, partners must establish management cycles that 

assess the costs and benefits of various conservation techniques, test key planning 

assumptions, and monitor progress toward attaining JV goals. The JV Technical 

Committee will lead these efforts supported by advice and coordination from the NSST. 

2) To conduct large-scale studies of landscape variation and waterfowl demography. 

 Relatively little assessment has been accomplished by NAWMP partners at scales 

larger than JV focus areas or individual JV regions. Expanding evaluation to larger 

scales will be an important step in strengthening the biological foundation of the 

NAWMP, and this has been identified as a high priority for the NSST. Coordination of 

JV monitoring and assessment activities, both within and among countries, will be 

necessary to ensure a coherent, consistent approach to biological planning and evaluation, 

and essential for analysis of waterfowl/habitat relationships at large spatial scales. Such 

coordination will have the added benefit of facilitating idea sharing, experience, and 

perhaps resources among JVs involved. 

3) To report annually to the NAWMP Committee and partners on the status of the 

biological foundations of the Plan, evaluating results and implications for future 

conservation activities. 

 An important annual task of the NSST will be to report to the Plan Committee and 

other NAWMP partners on the biological effectiveness of NAWMP activities. These 

reviews will draw on both reports of progress by JVs and original and commissioned 

research by the NSST. Other special analyses may be undertaken from time to time on 

behalf of the NAWMP Committee. Conversely, the NSST will serve to elaborate and 

reinforce any biological guidance from the NAWMP Committee to JVs. 

50 
Timetable and Coordination 

This Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy is part of a broad all-bird JV plan 

scheduled to be implemented between 2007 and 2022. Although the general all-bird plan 

has a 15-year time horizon, the four technical bird-group conservation strategies 

(waterfowl, shorebirds, waterbirds, and landbirds) will be updated more frequently as part 

of the plan-implement-evaluate cycle of adaptive management. Waterfowl habitat 

objectives are stated explicitly by State and BCR units (Table 12 and 13) to provide JV 

partners guidance in waterfowl management decisions. Strategy objectives, particularly 

for non-breeding habitat, are directly linked to the NAWMP, which will be revised in 

next few years. Moreover, several monitoring and research objectives identified when 

developing this JV plan have a completion target of 2012. Thus, changes in the NAWMP 

plus knowledge gained through JV management actions and evaluation will dictate the 

intervals for refinement of this waterfowl habitat strategy. 

Strategy development and refinement will continue to be the responsibility of the 

JV Technical Committee. Plan approval and implementation remain the responsibility of 

the JV Management Board and their associated conservation agency/organizations and 

local partners. Information sharing, outreach, and tracking of accomplishments will be 

coordinated through the JV Central Office (Minneapolis, MN) whereas GIS spatial data, 

habitat model development, and collaboration with the research community will be the 

responsibility of the JV Science Office (East Lansing, MI). JV partners have a proven 

record of achievement following the 1998 JV Implementation Plan. Using the habitat 

objectives, decision-support tools, and research and monitoring recommendations 

provided in this strategy, partners will continue to increase conservation efficiency and 

effectiveness for waterfowl as well as other bird groups. 

Literature Cited 

Abraham, K., and E. Warr (editors). 2003. A management plan for the Southern James 

Bay Population of Canada Geese. Mississippi Flyway Council Technical Section. 

Addis, J., R. Eckstein, A. Forbes, D. Gebken, R. Henderson, J. Kotar, B. Les, P. 

Matthiae, W. McCown, S. Miller, B. Moss, D. Sample, M. Staggs, and K. Visser. 

1995. Wisconsin’s biodiversity as a management issue: a report to Department of 

Natural Resources managers. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 

Madison, Wisconsin, USA. 

Albert, D. A. 2003. Between land and lake: Michigan’s Great Lakes coastal wetlands. 

Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Michigan State University, East Lansing, 

Michigan. Extension Bulletin E-2902. 

Anderson, M., E. Durbin, T. Kemp, S. Lauer, and E. Tramer. 2002. Birds of the Toledo 

area. Ohio Biological Survey, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 

Anderson, M. G., D. Caswell, J. M. Eadie, J. T. Herbert, M. Huang, D. D. Humburg, F. 

A. Johnson, M. D. Koneff, S. E. Mott, T. D. Nudds, E. T. Reed, J. K. Ringelman, 

M. C. Runge, and B. C. Wilson. 2007. Report from the Joint Task Group for 

clarifying North American Waterfowl Management Plan objectives and their use 

51 
in harvest management. Available online: 

www.acjv.org/documents/Final_Report_of_the_Joint_Task_Group.pdf. 

Barboza, P. S., and D. G. Jorde. 2002. Intermittent fasting during winter and spring 

affects body composition and reproduction of a migratory duck. Journal of 

Comparative Physiology B 172:419–434. 

Bellrose, F. C. 1980. Ducks, geese and swans of North America. Stackpole Books, 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. 

Bellrose, F. C., and D. J. Holm. 1994. Ecology and management of the Wood Duck. 

Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, USA. 

Bellrose, F. C., F. L. Paveglio, Jr., and D. W. Steffeck. 1979. Waterfowl populations and 

the changing environment of the Illinois River Valley. Illinois Natural History 

Survey Bulletin 32:1–54. 

Bellrose, F. C., K. L. Johnson, and T. U. Meyers. 1964. Relative value of natural cavities 

and nesting houses for Wood Ducks. Journal of Wildlife Management 28:661–

676. 

 Bookhout, T. A., K. E. Bednarik, and R. W. Kroll. 1989. The Great Lakes marshes. 

Pages 131–156 in L. M. Smith, R. L. Pederson, and R. M. Kaminski, editors. 

Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. 

Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, Texas, USA. 

Bowyer, M. W., J. D. Stafford, A. P. Yetter, C. S. Hine, M. M. Horath, and S. P. Havera. 

2005. Moist-soil plant seed production for waterfowl at Chautauqua National 

Wildlife Refuge, Illinois. American Midland Naturalist 154:331–341. 

Boyer, R. L. 1974. A survey of Wood Duck nest sites and brood rearing habitat on the 

Shiawassee National Wildlife Refuge. M.S. Thesis, Central Michigan University, 

Mount Pleasant, Michigan, USA. 

Brault S., S. Boyd, F. Cooke, and K. Takekawa. 1994. Population models as tools for 

research cooperation and management: the Wrangel Island Snow Geese. 

Transactions of 59th North American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, 

21 March 1994:79–90. 

Brook, R. K. Ross, K. Abraham, and C. Davis. 2005. Black Duck and Mallard population 

and productivity trends in the western portion of their range. Preliminary report 

for Black Duck Joint Venture Technical Committee. 

Brown, D. G., K. M. Johnson, T. R. Loveland, and D. M. Theobald. 2005. Rural land-use 

trends in the conterminous United States, 1950–2000. Ecological Applications 

15:1851-1863. 

Campbell, L. 1968. Birds of the Toledo area. Toledo Blade Company, Toledo, Ohio, 

USA. 

Coluccy, J. M., D. A. Graber, and R. D. Drobney. 2004. Population modeling for giant 

Canada Geese and implications for management. Pages 181–186 in T. J. Moser, 

R. D. Lien, K. C. VerCauteren, K. F. Abraham, D. E. Andersen, J. G. Bruggink, J. 

M. Coluccy, D. A. Graber, J. O. Leafloor, D. R. Luukkonen, and R. E. Trost, 

editors. Proceedings of the 2003 International Canada Goose Symposium. 

Coluccy, J. M., T. Yerkes, R. Simpson, J. W. Simpson, L. Armstrong, and J. Davis. 2008. 

Population dynamics of breeding mallards in the Great Lakes states. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. In Press. 

52 
Conroy, M. J., G. R. Costanzo, and D. B. Stotts. 1989. Winter survival of female 

American Black Ducks on Atlantic Coast. Journal of Wildlife Management 

53:99–109. 

Cordts, S. 2007. Waterfowl breeding population survey for Minnesota. Minnesota 

Department of Natural Resources, Bemidji, Minnesota, USA. 

Custer, C. M., and T. W. Custer. 2000. Organochlorine and trace element contamination 

in wintering and migrating diving ducks in the southern Great Lakes, United 

States, since zebra mussel invasion. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 

19:2821–2829. 

Dahl, T. E. 2006. Status and trends of wetlands in the conterminous United States 1998 to 

2004. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 

USA. 

Dennis, D. G., and R. E. Chandler. 1974. Waterfowl use of the Ontario shorelines of the 

southern Great Lakes during migration. Pages 58–65 in Canadian Wildlife 

Service waterfowl studies in eastern Canada, 1969–73 (H. Boyd, editor). 

Canadian Wildlife Service Report Series No. 29. 

Dries, R. E., and G. O. Hendrickson. 1952. Wood Duck production from nest-boxes and 

natural cavities on the Lake Odessa area, Iowa, in 1951. Iowa Bird Life 22:18–22. 

Ducks Unlimited. 2005. Updating the National Wetland Inventory (NWI) for Southern 

Lower Peninsula of Michigan. Final report submitted to U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service. DU Great Lakes / Atlantic Regional Office, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 

Dubovsky, J. A., and R. M. Kaminski. 1994. Potential reproductive consequences of 

winter-diet restriction in Mallards. Journal of Wildlife Management 58:780–786. 

Gates, R. J., Caithamer D. F., Moritz W. E., and T. C. Tacha. 2001. Bioenergetics and 

nutrition of Mississippi Valley Population Canada Geese during winter and 

migration. Wildlife Monograph 146. 

Gilmer, D. S., I. J. Ball, L. M. Cowardin, J. E. Mathisen, and J. H. Riechmann. 1978. 

Natural cavities used by Wood Ducks in north central Minnesota. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 42:288–298. 

Great Lakes Basin Commission. 1975. Great Lakes Basin framework study. Appendix 

17, Wildlife. U.S. Department Interior, Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife. 

Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA. 

Greer, A. K. 2004. Influence of fall vs. spring flooding on the availability of seed 

resources to spring migrating waterfowl. M.S. Thesis. Southern Illinois 

University, Carbondale, Illinois, USA. 

Hammer, R. B., S. I. Stewart, R. L. Winkler, V. C. Radeloff, and P. R. Voss. 2004. 

Characterizing dynamic spatial and temporal residential density patterns from 

1940–1990 across the North Central United States. Landscape and Urban 

Planning 69:183–199. 

Hartowicz, E. 1963. Nesting of the Wood Duck (Aix sponsa) in southeast Missouri. M.A. 

Thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA. 

Havera, S. P. 1999. Waterfowl of Illinois: status and management. Illinois Natural 

History Survey Special Publication 21. 

Heitmeyer, M. E. 1989. Agricultural/wildlife enhancement in California: The Central 

Valley Habitat Joint Venture. Transactions of the North American Wildlife and 

Natural Resources Conference 54:391–402. 

53 
Heitmeyer, M. E., and L. H. Fredrickson. 1981. Do wetland conditions in the Mississippi 

Delta hardwoods influence Mallard recruitment? Transactions of the North 

American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference 46:44–57. 

Hoekman, S. T., T. S. Gabor, M. J. Petrie, R. Maher, H. R. Murkin, and M. S. Lindberg. 

2006. Population dynamics of Mallards breeding in agricultural environments in 

eastern Canada. Journal of Wildlife Management 70:121–128. 

Jahn, L. R., and R. A. Hunt. 1964. Duck and coot ecology and management in Wisconsin. 

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Technical Bulletin 33. 

Johnson, D. H. and J. W. Grier. 1988. Determinants of breeding distributions of ducks. 

Wildlife Monograph 100. 

Kaminski, R. M., J. B. Davis, H. W. Essig, P. D. Gerard, and K. J. Reinecke. 2003. True 

metabolizable energy for Wood Ducks from acorns compared to other waterfowl 

foods. Journal of Wildlife Management 67:542–550. 

Kaminski, R. M., and E. A. Gluesing. 1987. Density- and habitat-related recruitment in 

Mallards. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:141–148. 

Knapton, R. W., S. A. Petrie, and G. Herring. 2000. Human disturbance of diving ducks 

on Long Point Bay, Lake Erie. Wildlife Society Bulletin 28:923–930. 

Kelley, A. H. 1978. Birds of southeastern Michigan and southwestern Ontario. 

Cranbrook Institute of Science, Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, USA. 

Korschgen, C. E. 1989. Riverine and deepwater habitats for diving ducks. Pages 157–180 

in L. M. Smith, R. L. Pederson, and R. M. Kaminski, editors. Habitat 

management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. Texas 

Tech University Press, Lubbock, Texas, USA. 

Korschgen, C. E., L. S. George, and W. L. Green. 1988. Feeding ecology of canvasbacks 

staging on Pool 7 of the Upper Mississippi River. Pages 237–249 In Waterfowl in 

winter (M. Weller, editor). University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, 

Minnesota, USA. 

Krohn, W. B., and E. G. Bizeau. 1980. The Rocky Mountain population of western 

Canada Goose: its distribution, habitats and management. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service Special Scientific Report Wildlife 229. 

Link, W. A., J. R. Sauer, and D. K. Niven. 2006. A hierarchical model for regional 

analysis of population change using Christmas bird count data, with application to 

the American Black Duck. The Condor 108:13–24. 

Martz, G. F., J. Aldrich, and D. Ostyn. 1976. History and future of canvasback 

populations in Michigan’s Great Lakes habitat during fall migration and early 

winter. Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Lansing, Wildlife Division 

Report 2759. 

Miller, M. R. 1986. Northern pintail body condition during wet and dry winters in the 

Sacramento Valley, California. Journal of Wildlife Management 50:189–198. 

Miller, M. R. 1987. Fall and winter foods of Northern Pintails in the Sacramento Valley, 

California. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:405-414. 

Miller, M. R., and J. Eadie. 2006. The allometric relationship between resting metabolic 

rate and body mass in wild waterfowl (Anatidae) and an application to estimation 

of winter habitat requirements. Condor 108:166–177. 

MFCTS. 1998. Mississippi Flyway Council Technical Section winter meeting minutes. 

Biloxi, Mississippi, USA. 

54 
Nagel, R. E. 1969. Predation on eggs in simulated nests and tree cavity abundance in 

Wood Duck nesting habitat. M.S. Thesis, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, 

USA. 

NABCI. 2000. North American Bird Conservation Initiative: Bird Conservation Region 

Descriptions. Map and supplement. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of 

Bird Habitat Conservation, Arlington, Virginia, USA. 

NAWMP. 1998. Expanding the vision: 1998 update, North American waterfowl 

management plan. U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and 

Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. 

NAWMP. 2004. North American waterfowl management plan: strengthening the 

biological foundation (Implementation Framework). U.S. Department of Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service, and Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. 

NLCD. 2001. National Land Cover Data. Available online: http://www.mrlc.gov

NSST. 2000. Distribution of the waterfowl harvest in the conterminous 48 United States, 

1980–1999. North American Waterfowl Management Plan Science Support Team 

(NSST). Draft. 

Olson, T. M. 2003. Variation in use of managed wetlands by waterfowl, wading birds, 

and shorebirds in Ohio. M.S. Thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 

USA. 

Pearse, A. T., and V. G. Lester. 2007. Correlation between nest and duckling survival of 

mallards breeding in Saskatchewan. Journal of Wildlife Management 71:1612–

1616. 

Petrie, M. J., R. D. Drobney, and D. T. Sears. 2000. Mallard and Black Duck breeding 

parameters in New Brunswick: a test of the reproductive rate hypothesis. Journal 

of Wildlife Management 64:832–838. 

Petrie, S. A., and K. L. Wilcox. 2003. Migration chronology of Eastern-Population 

Tundra Swans. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:861–870. 

Petrie, S. A., S. S. Badzinski, and K. G. Drouillard. 2007. Contaminants in Lesser and 

Greater Scaup staging on the lower Great Lakes. Archives of Environmental 

Contamination and Toxicology 52:580–589. 

Pirnie, M. D. 1935. Michigan waterfowl management. Franklin DeKleine Co., Lansing, 

Michigan, USA. 

Prince, H. H. 1979. Bioenergetics of postbreeding dabbling ducks. Pages 103–117 in

Waterfowl and wetlands – an integrated review. (T. A. Bookhout, editor). La 

Crosse, Printing Co. Inc. La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA. 

Prince, H. H., P. I. Padding, and R. W. Knapton. 1992. Waterfowl use of the Laurentian 

Great Lakes. Journal of Great Lakes Research 188:673–699. 

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. 

Raveling, D. G., and M. E. Heitmeyer. 1989. Relationships of population size and 

recruitment of Pintails to habitat conditions and harvest. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 53:1088–1103. 

Raveling, D. G., and H. G. Lumsden. 1977. Nesting ecology of Canada Geese in the 

Hudson Bay lowlands of Ontario: evolution and population regulation. Ontario 

Ministry of Natural Resources Fish and Wildlife Research Report 98. 

55 
Reid, F. A., J. R. Kelley, Jr., T. S. Taylor, and L. H. Fredrickson. 1989. Upper 

Mississippi Valley wetlands-refuges and moist-soil impoundments. Pages 181–

202 in L. M. Smith, R. L. Pederson, and R. M. Kaminski, editors. Habitat 

management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North America. Texas 

Tech University Press, Lubbock, Texas, USA. 

Reinecke, K. J., R. M. Kaminski, D. J. Moorehead, J. D. Hodges, and J. R. Nassar. 1989. 

Mississippi Alluvial Valley. Pages 203–247 in L. M. Smith, R. L. Pederson, and 

R. M. Kaminski, eds. Habitat management for wintering and migrating waterfowl 

in North America. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock, Texas, USA. 

Robb, J. R. 1986. The importance of nesting cavities and brood habitat to Wood Duck 

production. M.S. Thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, USA. 

Rockwell, R. F., E. G. Coock, and S. Brault. 1997. Dynamics of the mid-continent 

population of Lesser Snow Geese - projected impacts of reductions in survival 

and fertility on population growth rates. Pages 73–100 in B. D. J. Batt, editor. 

Arctic ecosystems in peril: report of the Arctic Goose Habitat Working Group. 

Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Washington, D.C., USA. 

Root, R. B. 1967. The niche exploitation pattern of the blue-gray gnatcatcher. Ecological 

Monographs 37:317–350. 

Sample, D. W., and M. J. Mossman. 1997. Managing habitat for grassland birds: a guide 

for Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Publication SS-925-

97. 

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2004. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, 

results and analysis 1966–2003. Version 2004.1. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland, USA. 

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2006. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, 

results and analysis 1966–2005. Version 2006.1. U.S. Geological Survey, 

Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland, USA. 

Schloesser, D. W., and B. A. Manny. 1990. Decline of wild celery buds in the lower 

Detroit River, 1950–85. Journal of Wildlife Management 54:72–76. 

Schmutz, J. A., R. F. Rockwell, and M. R. Petersen. 1997. Relative effects of survival 

and reproduction on the population dynamics of Emperor Geese. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 61:191–201. 

Seymour, N. R., and W. Jackson. 1996. Habitat-related variation in movements and 

fledging success of American black duck broods in northeastern Nova Scotia. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:1158–1164. 

Simpson, J. W., T. Yerkes, T. D. Nudds, and B. D. Smith. 2007. Effects of habitat on 

Mallard duckling survival in the Great Lakes Region. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 71:1885–1891. 

Soulliere, G. J. 1986. Cost and significance of a Wood Duck nest house program in 

Wisconsin: an evaluation. Wildlife Society Bulletin 14:391–395. 

Soulliere, G. J. 1988. Density of suitable Wood Duck nest cavities in a northern 

hardwood forest. Journal of Wildlife Management 52:82–86. 

Soulliere, G. J. 1990a. Review of Wood Duck nest-cavity characteristics. Pages 153–162 

in L. H. Fredrickson, G. V. Burger, S. P. Havera, D. A. Graber, R. E. Kirby, and 

56 
T. S. Taylor, editors. Proceedings of the 1988 North American Wood Duck 

Symposium, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. 

Soulliere, G. J. 1990b. Regional and site-specific trends in Wood Duck use of nest boxes. 

Pages 235–244 in L. H. Fredrickson, G. V. Burger, S. P. Havera, D. A. Graber, R. 

E. Kirby, and T. S. Taylor, editors. Proceedings of the 1988 North American 

Wood Duck Symposium, St. Louis, Missouri, USA. 

Soulliere, G. J., T. E. Maples, and E. N. Kafcas. 2000. Twenty-five years of Canvasback 

inventory in Michigan, 1974–1999. Michigan Department of Natural Resources 

Wildlife Division Report 3322, Lansing, USA. 

Soulliere, G. J., and D. R. Luukkonen. 2001. Michigan waterfowl habitat and hunting 

season report, 2000–01. Michigan Department of Natural Resources Wildlife 

Division Report 3341, Lansing, USA. 

Stafford, J. D., M. M. Horath, A. P. Yetter, R. V. Smith, and C. S. Hine. 2007. Historical 

and contemporary characteristics of Illinois River Valley wetlands: A geospatial 

database for conservation planning and evaluation. Illinois Natural History Survey 

Technical Report 2007 (51). 

STATSGO. 1991. State soils geographic (STATSGO) data base. U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Miscellaneous Publication 

Number 1492. 

Steckel, J. D. 2003. Food availability and waterfowl use on mid-migration habitats in 

central and northern Ohio. M.S. Thesis, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, 

USA. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2004. Great Lakes water levels. Available online: 

http://www.lre.usace.army.mil/greatlakes/hh/greatlakeswaterlevels

USFWS. 1998. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture of the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, 1998 Implementation Plan. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota, USA. 

USFWS. 2007a. Waterfowl population status, 2007. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Department of Interior, Washington, D.C., USA. 

USFWS. 2007b. Adaptive Harvest Management: 2007 Hunting Season. U.S. Dept. 

Interior,Washington, D.C. Available online: 

http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/mgmt/AHM/AHM-intro.htm

Van Horne, B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. Journal of 

Wildlife Management 47:893–901. 

Van Horn, K., K. Benton, and R. Gatti. 2007. Waterfowl breeding population survey for 

Wisconsin, 1973–2007. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. Madison, 

Wisconsin, USA. 

Weier, R. W. 1966. A survey of Wood Duck nest sites on Mingo National Wildlife 

Refuge in Southeast Missouri. M.A. Thesis, University of Missouri, Columbia, 

Missouri, USA. 

Will, T. C, J. M. Ruth, K. V. Rosenberg, D. Krueper, D. Hahn, J. Fitzgerald, R. Dettmers, 

and C. J. Beardmore. 2005. The five elements process: designing optimal 

landscapes to meet bird conservation objectives. Partners in Flight Technical 

Series No. 1. Partners in Flight website: 

http://www.partnersinflight.org/pubs/ts/01-FiveElements.pdf. 

57 
Yetter, A. P., S. P. Havera, and C. S. Hine. 1995. Illinois Natural History Survey Wood 

Duck investigations. Final Report to Illinois Department of Natural Resources. 

W-118-R-1-2-3. 

Zuwerink, D. A. 2001. Changes in the derivation of Mallard harvests from the northern 

U.S. and Canada, 1966–98. M.S. Thesis, The Ohio State University, Columbus, 

Ohio, USA. 

Zwicker, E. H. 1999. Availability and use of tree cavities by Wood Ducks nesting in 

southern Illinois. M.S. Thesis, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois, 

USA. 

58 
Appendix A. Breeding waterfowl species accounts with population and cover type 

information used for habitat planning in the Upper Mississippi River and Great 

Lakes Joint Venture (JV) region. JV focal species were used to develop habitat 

conservation objectives and represent primary cover types. Population goals and 

estimates are measured in individual birds. The equation below can be used to 

calculate annual population change required to reach population goals over specific 

time periods. 

Species common name (account primary author) Last revised 

Wood Duck (Greg Soulliere and Charlotte Roy) August 2007 

American Black Duck (Dave Luukkonen) May 2006 

Mallard (John Coluccy) August 2007 

Blue-winged Teal (Greg Soulliere) August 2007 

Calculating Population Growth 

t FP = CP (1 + r)

r = 

t

√FP/CP – 1 

 FP = Future population (goal) 

 CP = Current population 

 r = rate of increase (growth / year) 

 t = time periods (years)

59 
Wood Duck (Aix sponsa) 

Species Account for Habitat Planning 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Joint Venture breeding population goal and deficit 

based on regional surveys (2003–2007) 

Breeding population goal 734,760

Population estimate 612,300

Deficit 122,460

Breeding habitat requirements 

Community types: Woody, shrub-scrub, and 

herbaceous wetland basins and rivers associated with 

mature hardwood forest. Species nests in tree cavities 

near rivers, streams, swamps, beaver ponds, and 

marshes. Wetlands used for brood rearing quite 

variable, but typically have some overhead cover. 

Species range map: Cornell Lab of Ornithology Timing: Nesting begins by late March in the south 

portion of the JV region and by late April in the north. First broods occur 45 days later, 

and age at fledging is 56–70 days. Species readily re-nests after nest loss, and some nests 

hatch as late as early August. 

Area / distance: Nests in mature hardwood trees and is non-territorial. With tree 

diameter (dbh) >25 cm, nest sites are <1 km from wetlands >0.5 ha is size and possessing 

suitable brood-rearing cover. Some nest sites have been recorded >2 km from wetlands. 

Limiting factors: Assumed to be forested wetlands, shrub-scrub wetlands, and emergent 

marsh wetlands that maintain adequate water through the brood-rearing period. 

Population monitoring 

Current survey effort: N.A. Breeding Bird Survey (BBS); Spring Waterfowl Population 

and Habitat Survey (WBPHS) conducted in Wisconsin, Michigan, and portions of 

Minnesota; Mid-winter Waterfowl Inventory; annual harvest surveys; and leg-band 

recovery analysis. 

Recommended monitoring: Current methods for monitoring Wood Duck populations 

provide largely trend information. Expanding the WBPHS to un-surveyed areas or 

development of methods resulting in more accurate population estimates would be 

beneficial to management.

Research to assist planning 

Current and ongoing projects: A project predicting current and future availability of 

natural cavities across the JV region and nest site proximity to brood-rearing habitat 

(2006–2008, SIU). 

Research needs: Methods to better monitor annual and regional population status; factors 

affecting population growth including nest predation, duckling survival, and mortality; 

habitat requirements during non-breeding portion of annual cycle; influence of wetland 

hydrology on vital rates (e.g., brood survival); understanding the role of harvest in 

population dynamics. 

60 
Biological model results 

Objective: Maintain regional breeding carrying capacity and eliminate population deficit 

through effective and efficient habitat conservation that is considerate of other species of 

concern.

Breeding Calculation: H = d/2 * c 30,615 = 122,460/2 * 0.5

H = minimum new breeding habitat area required to eliminate deficit (ha) 

 d = regional population deficit (birds) 

 c = minimum optimal habitat required for each pair (ha) 

 

Optimal breeding habitat includes >0.5 ha hemi-marsh and or swamp (forested and 

shrub-scrub wetlands) located <1 km from mature hardwood forest (nest cover). Few 

brood wetlands exist in locations >1 km from mature forest in the JV region, thus the 

hardwood nest-cover component was assumed to be adequate and the habitat deficit is for 

wetland area only. 

Recommendations 

Habitat actions: Maintain (protect) existing habitat area and quality, and add (restore / 

enhance) 30,615 ha of quality breeding habitat (see requirements above) at sites within 

current or historic range (see distribution and landscape suitability maps for target areas). 

The estimated area of quality habitat needed to accommodate current breeding 

populations is 153,075 ha (153,075 = 612,300/2 * 0.5). Annual habitat loss must be 

determined and factored into restoration objectives (i.e., there must be an overall net 

increase in quality habitat of 30,615 ha). 

Monitoring and performance: The WBPHS and BBS can be used to determine progress 

toward meeting the population goal. Band recovery analysis also may provide a method 

of determining population status. Periodic evaluation of vital rates can be used as a 

measure of breeding habitat performance. Physical condition at migration staging areas 

provides a measure of migration habitat quality. Eliminating the population deficit 

requires a 20% increase or an average annual increase of 1% over a 15 year period.

References 

Bellrose, F. C., and D. J. Holm. 1994. Ecology and management of the Wood Duck. 

Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, USA. 

Dugger, K. M., and L. H. Fredrickson. 1992. Life history and habitat needs of the Wood 

Duck. Waterfowl Management Handbook. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish 

and Wildlife Leaflet, 13.1.6 Washington, D.C., USA. 

Hepp, G. R., and F. C. Bellrose. 1995. Wood Duck (Aix sponsa). In The Birds of North 

America, No. 169 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, 

Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C., USA. 

NAWMP. 2004. North American waterfowl management plan: strengthening the 

biological foundation (Implementation Framework). U.S. DOI, Fish and Wildlife 

Service and Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. 

NLCD. 2001. National Land Cover Data. http://www.mrlc.gov

61 
Sauer, J. R., and S. Droege. 1990. Wood Duck population trends from the North 

American Breeding Bird Survey. Pages 225–231 In L. H. Fredrickson, G. V. 

Burger, S. P. Havera, D. A. Graber, R. E. Kirby, and T. S. Taylor, eds. 

Proceedings of the 1988 North American Wood Duck Symposium, St. Louis, 

Missouri, USA. 

Breeding abundance and distribution: Based on interpolations of average density 

estimates from the aerial Spring Waterfowl Population and Habitat Survey (north states, 

1996–2005) and N.A. Breeding Bird Survey total counts (south states, 1996–2005). 

Portions of the north JV region had only limited aerial-survey coverage some years. 

62 
Landscape suitability index (LSI) for breeding: LSI scores for cover types used by 

breeding Wood Ducks, with scores closer to 100 representing greater suitability. 

Cover typesa LSI score 

Woody and emergent herbaceous wetlands >10 ha and <0.5 km from 

open water excluding the Great Lakes. 100 

Woody and emergent herbaceous wetlands 0.5–10 ha and <0.5 km from 

open water excluding the Great Lakes. 90 

Other woody wetlands >10 ha. 70 

Other woody wetlands 0.5–10 ha. 60 

Other emergent herbaceous wetlands >10 ha. 40 

Other emergent herbaceous wetlands 0.5–10 ha. 20 a Cover types based on the National Land Cover Data (2001).

Conservation design

LSI scores were adjusted to reflect current (1996–2005) breeding abundance and 

distribution. Scores were multiplied by the following importance values based on 

breeding density: 1.0 (>3 birds / km2

), 0.8 (1.5–3 / km2), 0.4 (0.5–1.5 / km2), and 0.1 

(<0.5 / km2) to calculate a Conservation Value (CV). Scores of CV were averaged within 

5 km × 5 km blocks for enhanced regional display. 

63 
American Black Duck (Anas rubripes) 

Species Account for Habitat Planning 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Joint Venture breeding population goal and deficit 

based on regional surveys (2003–2007) 

Breeding population goal 8,400

Population estimate 7,000

Deficit 1,400

Breeding habitat requirements 

Community types:

Species range map: Cornell Lab of Ornithology 

 Uses most types and sizes of 

herbaceous and wooded wetlands, especially beavercreated and modified wetlands, shallow lakes with 

emergent vegetation, bogs in boreal forests, and 

swamps. Newly created or reflooded beaver 

meadows, which are rich in invertebrates, are favored 

for brood rearing. Species will often select nutrient rich patches within less productive 

wetland complexes (mesotrophic and oligotrophic systems) where brood concentrations 

and predation rates are lower, enhancing recruitment. Post-fledging birds often use 

riverine systems. 

Timing: Egg laying occurs in late March to June but most by early May, incubation 

about 25 days, and fledging in 50–60 days. Species may re-nest after nest loss. 

Area / distance: Assume wetlands >0.5 ha are preferred. Males defend territories until 

their mates reach mid-incubation. Broods are generally well dispersed in wetland-forest 

settings, but may congregate on sites with higher food density. 

Limiting factors: There are five competing hypotheses to explain apparent declines: 

breeding habitat limitation, winter/spring habitat limitation, excessive harvest, 

competition with Mallards, and diseases and parasites. Recent model analysis did not 

identify any single factor contributing to observed population declines nor did this 

analysis indicate what management actions should be taken to stabilize or increase 

numbers. The current assumption is population growth in the JV region is not limited by 

breeding habitat, but may be limited by availability of coastal marsh and large (>10 ha) 

marsh/open water complexes with abundant food resources in winter and during spring 

migration. 

Population monitoring 

Current survey effort: Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey (WBPHS) 

conducted in Michigan, Wisconsin, and portions of Minnesota; the Mid-winter 

Waterfowl Inventory (MWI); and Christmas Bird Count (CBC). Recent analysis of MWI 

and CBC data suggests declines observed on the MWI could be a result of redistribution 

of birds north of the MWI survey area into Canada. Species appears to be wintering 

farther north in recent years, however, wintering population in JV region has generally 

declined, reflecting the long-term population decline in the western portion of the range. 

The MWI has historically been the primary survey used to monitor abundance, however 

it lacks an adequate sampling frame and visibility correction. Surveys across the 

breeding range were initiated in 1990 by the Canadian Wildlife Service using a helicopter 

64 
plot survey and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service via fixed-wing transects. Annual 

harvest surveys and banding analysis also provide population information. 

Recommended monitoring: The WBPHS does not adequately cover northern portions of 

the JV region where this species occurs. This survey must be expanded and enhanced to 

target breeding Black Ducks, at least periodically.

Research to assist planning 

Current and ongoing projects: A migration and winter ecology study using satellite 

transmitters will begin in winter 2007.

Research needs: Controversy remains regarding the effects of hunting and Mallard 

interactions on population declines of this species. An understanding of population 

influences (breeding and non-breeding seasons), migration timing and corridors, and food 

resources is needed on the west side of the species range. 

Biological model results 

Objective: Maintain regional breeding carrying capacity and eliminate population deficit 

through effective and efficient habitat conservation that is considerate of other species of 

concern.

Breeding calculation: None; suitable breeding wetlands within species range are 

abundant and relatively secure. 

Recommendations 

Habitat actions: Maintain (protect) existing breeding habitat area and quality at sites 

within current or historic range (see distribution and landscape suitability maps for target 

areas). Concentrate on improved habitat for migration-staging and wintering. 

Monitoring and performance: Eliminating the current population deficit requires a 20% 

population increase or an average annual increase of 1% over a 15 year period. Current 

breeding and winter surveys within the JV region are inadequate to accurately measure 

abundance. The WBPHS lacks precision needed to identify a 20% population change. 

References

Conroy, M. J., M. W. Miller, and J. E. Hines. 2002. Identification and synthetic modeling 

of factors affecting American Black Duck populations. Wildlife Monographs 150. 

Link W. A., J. R. Sauer, and D. K. Niven. 2006. A hierarchical model for regional 

analysis of population change using Christmas Bird Count data, with application 

to the American Black Duck. Condor 108:13–24. 

Longcore, J. R., D. G. McAuley, G. R. Hepp, and J. M. Rhymer. 2000. American Black 

Duck (Anas rubripes). In The Birds of North America, No. 481 (A. Poole and F. 

Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 

NAWMP. 2004. North American waterfowl management plan: strengthening the 

biological foundation (Implementation Framework). U.S. DOI, Fish and Wildlife 

Service and Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. 

NLCD. 2001. National Land Cover Data. http://www.mrlc.gov

Seymour, N. R., and W. Jackson. 1996. Habitat-related variation in movements and 

fledging success of American Black Duck broods in northeastern Nova Scotia. 

Canadian Journal of Zoology 74:1158–1164. 

65 
Breeding abundance and distribution: Based on interpolations of average density 

estimates from the aerial Spring Waterfowl Population and Habitat Survey (north states, 

1996–2005) and N.A. Breeding Bird Survey total counts (south states, 1996–2005). 

Portions of the north JV region had only limited aerial-survey coverage some years. 

66 
Landscape suitability index (LSI) for breeding: LSI scores for cover types used by 

breeding Black Ducks, with scores closer to 100 representing greater suitability. 

Cover typesa LSI score 

Palustrine and littoral emergent and forested and scrub-shrub 

(deciduous) wetlands >5 ha. 100 

Palustrine and littoral emergent and forested and scrub-shrub 

(deciduous) wetlands 0.5–5 ha. 

90 

All riverine wetlands 70 

Palustrine forested and scrub-shrub conifer wetland and lake/pond 

aquatic bed and unconsolidated shore >5 ha. 

50 

Palustrine forested and scrub-shrub conifer wetland and lake/pond 

aquatic bed and unconsolidated shore 0.5–5 ha. 

40 

a Cover types based on National Wetland Inventory and Wisconsin Wetland Inventory (1970s–80s) except 

Wisconsin counties of Waupaca, Outagamie, Adams, Juneau, Grant were based on National Land Cover 

Data (2001).

Lake/pond unconsolidated bottom and lake/rocky shore >5 ha. 20 

Conservation design 

LSI scores were adjusted to reflect current (1996–2005) breeding abundance and 

distribution. Scores were multiplied by the following importance values based on 

breeding density: 1.0 (>0.07 birds / km2), 0.5 (0.007–0.07 / km2), and 0.1 (<0.007 / km2) 

to calculate a Conservation Value (CV). Scores for CV were averaged within 5 km × 5 

km blocks for enhanced regional display. 

67 
Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos) 

Species Account for Habitat Planning 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Joint Venture breeding population goal and deficit 

based on regional surveys (2003–2007) 

Breeding population goal 1,286,880

Population estimate 1,072,400

Deficit 214,480

Breeding habitat requirements 

Community types:

Species range map: Cornell Lab of Ornithology 

 Nests in a wide variety of dense 

cover types and locations including grasslands, 

hayfields, marshes, bogs, river floodplains, dikes, 

roadside ditches, pastures, cropland, and shrubland. 

Seasonal to permanent marsh wetlands are most often 

used for breeding and brood rearing, although lake 

shorelines, river edges, forested wetlands, and beaver 

ponds also may be used. Wetlands with a mosaic of herbaceous emergent plants and 

open water (hemi-marshes) appear most suitable. Urban and suburban populations use 

various nest sites and food sources associated with humans.

Timing: Egg laying occurs from late March to June, most first clutches are completed by 

early May, incubation is about 28 days, and young fledge in 50–60 days. Species readily 

re-nests after nest loss. 

Area / distance: Territorial while paired, through early incubation. Pair-bonding 

wetlands are 0.1 to 8 ha in size and defended against con-specifics; brood wetlands are 

typically 0.5 to 12 ha in size (optimal hemi-marsh site is >1 ha). Nests are normally <200 

m from water although they can be >1 km. 

Limiting factors: Brood habitat appears to limit population growth in region. Preferred 

brood cover includes marshes with a mosaic of open water and emergent vegetation such 

as bulrush, arrowhead, cattail, grasses, and sedges. 

Population monitoring 

Current survey effort: N.A. Breeding Bird Survey (BBS); Waterfowl Breeding 

Population and Habitat Survey (WBPHS) conducted in Wisconsin, Michigan, and 

portions of Minnesota; Mid-winter Waterfowl Inventory; Christmas Bird Count; annual 

harvest surveys; and leg-band recovery analysis. 

Recommended monitoring: Most breeding Mallards in the JV region nest in MN, MI, 

and WI, but WBPHS should be expanded to include breeding range in Illinois, Ohio, 

Indiana, and Iowa, resulting in improved regional population estimates. 

Research to assist planning 

Current and ongoing projects: A study is being conducted across the JV region to 

examine duck use of wetland types, food availability and selection, and habitat quality 

during spring migration (2005–2008; DU, OSU, SIU); results should aid significantly in 

waterfowl habitat conservation planning. 

68 
Research needs: Develop bioenergetic models and supporting data to determine amount 

of foraging habitat required to meet JV population objectives during spring and fall 

migration periods. Update critical spatial data (i.e., National Wetland Inventory and 

National Land Cover Data) to more accurately inventory potential habitat distribution and 

abundance. 

Biological model results 

Objective: Maintain regional breeding carrying capacity and eliminate population deficit 

through effective and efficient habitat conservation that is considerate of other species of 

concern.

 H = d/2 * c 107,240 = 214,480/2 * 1 

H = minimum new breeding habitat area required to eliminate deficit (ha) 

 d = regional population deficit (birds) 

 c = minimum optimal habitat required for each pair (ha) 

Optimal habitat includes a complex of shallow semi-permanent herbaceous wetlands and 

grasslands, with >1 ha hemi-marsh wetlands in close proximity to herbaceous nest cover. 

Quality brood wetlands appear to be the most critical element (vs. nest cover) and the 

habitat area above is for hemi marsh wetland area only. 

Recommendations 

Habitat actions: Maintain (protect) existing habitat area and quality, and add (restore / 

enhance) 107,240 ha of quality breeding habitat (see requirements above) at sites within 

current or historic range (see distribution and landscape suitability maps for target areas). 

The estimated area of quality habitat needed to accommodate current breeding 

populations is 536,200 ha (536,200 = 1,072,400/2 * 1). Annual habitat loss must be 

determined and factored into restoration objectives (i.e., there must be an overall net 

increase in quality habitat of 107,240 ha). 

Monitoring and performance: WBPHS and BBS data can be used to determine progress 

towards meeting the population target, which is essentially a growing population. 

Periodic evaluation of vital rates (e.g., nest success, female and duckling survival) can be 

used as a measure of breeding habitat performance. Eliminating the current population 

deficit requires a 20% population increase or an average annual increase of 1% over a 15 

year period. 

References

Coluccy, J. M., T. Yerkes, R. Simpson, J. W. Simpson, L. Armstrong, and J. Davis. 2008. 

Population dynamics of breeding mallards in the Great Lakes states. Journal of 

Wildlife Management. In Press. 

Drilling, N., R. Titman, and F. McKinney. 2002. Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos). In The 

Birds of North America, No. 658 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 

NLCD. 2001. National Land Cover Data. http://www.mrlc.gov

69 
Yerkes, T., R. Page, R. Macleod, L. Armstrong, G. Soulliere, and R. Gatti. 2007. 

Predicted distribution and characteristics of wetlands used by Mallard pairs in five 

Great Lakes states. American Midland Naturalist 157:356–364. 

Breeding abundance and distribution: Based on interpolations of average density 

estimates from the aerial Spring Waterfowl Population and Habitat Survey (north states, 

1996–2005) and N.A. Breeding Bird Survey total counts (south states, 1996–2005). 

Portions of the north JV region had only limited aerial-survey coverage some years. 

70 
Landscape suitability index (LSI) for breeding: LSI scores for cover types used by 

breeding Mallards, with scores closer to 100 representing greater suitability. 

Cover typesa LSI score 

Emergent herbaceous wetlands >5 ha. 100 

Emergent herbaceous wetlands >0.5–5 ha. 90 

Open water <1 km from emergent herbaceous wetlands >0.5 ha. 60 

Palustrine forested and shrub-scrub (deciduous) wetlands >5 ha. 40 

a Emergent herbaceous wetlands and open water cover types based on National Land Cover Data (2001); 

palustrine forested and shrub-scrub (deciduous) wetlands based on National Wetland Inventory (1970s–

80s) except for Wisconsin, Ohio, and Kansas (Wisconsin Wetland Inventory 1970s–80s but NLCD 2001 

for woody wetlands in Waupaca, Outagamie, Adams, Juneau, and Grant counties; Ohio Wetland Inventory 

(1985) shrub/scrub wetland class used, and for Kansas NLCD 2001 woody wetlands class used).

Palustrine forested and shrub-scrub (deciduous) wetlands 0.5–5 ha. 20 

Conservation design 

LSI scores were adjusted to reflect current (1996–2005) breeding abundance and 

distribution. Scores were multiplied by the following importance values based on 

breeding density: 1.0 (>5 birds / km2), 0.8 (3–5 / km2), 0.4 (1–3 / km2), and 0.1 (<1 / km2) 

to calculate a Conservation Value (CV). Scores of CV were averaged within 5 km × 5 

km blocks for enhanced regional display. 

71 
Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors) 

Species Account for Habitat Planning 

________________________________________________________________________ 

Joint Venture breeding population goal and deficit 

based on regional surveys (2003–2007) 

Breeding goal 390,840

Breeding estimate 325,700

Deficit 65,140

Breeding habitat requirements 

Community types: Open, un-forested settings of semipermanent wetlands, ponds, linear waterways, and 

seasonal wetlands surrounded by grassland provide 

optimal breeding habitat. Species nests in grass, 

hayfields, sedge meadows, and other herbaceous cover. 

Highest pair and brood densities occur in shallow (<1 

m deep) wetlands with hemi-marsh conditions (50:50 cover-water mosaics), especially 

when complexes of several wetland basins occur in close proximity. Abundant aquatic 

insects and other invertebrates must be present to meet the high energy requirements of 

egg-laying females and ducklings. 

Timing: Nesting typically begins in late April, with 23 day incubation, and first broods 

appearing in late May and early June. Young fledge at 50–60 days, most by early 

August. Renesting after nest loss is limited. 

Area / distance: Wetlands >0.5 ha in size and >0.3 km from forest cover are believed to 

be most productive; optimal complexes of grassland/meadow and open water are >50 ha 

in size with a ratio of 4:1 nest cover to brood marsh. Most nests are found <150 m of 

marsh wetland. Although multiple hens may rear broods on an individual basin, pairs 

will defend “territorial wetlands” and prevent con-specifics from using sites during the 

pre-nesting period; wetlands >2 ha in size may contain territories of multiple pairs. This 

species readily disperses into new areas of quality breeding habitat. 

Limiting factors: Herbaceous wetland / grassland complexes in open (non-forested) 

landscapes and with adequate nest cover in close proximity to quality brood wetlands 

Water must persist through August brood rearing period. 

Population monitoring 

Current survey effort: N.A. Breeding Bird Survey; Spring Waterfowl Population and 

Habitat Survey (WBPHS) conducted in Wisconsin, Michigan, and portions of Minnesota; 

annual harvest surveys; and leg-band recovery analysis. 

Recommended monitoring: Current surveys are adequate for population monitoring; 

periodic surveys to refine visibility correction factors (VCF) needed in some areas. A 

regional survey useful in monitoring vital rates (e.g., recruitment parameters) is necessary 

to measure breeding habitat quality. 

Research to assist planning 

Current and ongoing projects: A study is being completed to determine limiting factors 

during breeding in BCR 23 (2006–2009, WDNR). Another study is being conducted 

72 
across the JV region to examine general duck use of wetland types, food availability and 

selection, and habitat quality during spring migration (2005–08; DU, OSU, SIU). Results 

of both projects should aid significantly in waterfowl habitat conservation planning. 

Research needs: Better understanding of how individual vital rates influence population 

growth, and how change in landscape features (e.g., forest encroachment and maturation) 

influence breeding habitat quality. 

Biological model results 

Objective: Maintain regional breeding carrying capacity and eliminate population deficit 

through effective and efficient habitat conservation that is considerate of other species of 

concern.

Breeding Calculation: H = d/2 * c 81,425 = 65,140/2 * 2.5

H = minimum new breeding habitat area required to eliminate deficit (ha) 

 d = regional population deficit (birds) 

 c = minimum optimal habitat required for each pair (ha) 

 

Optimal habitat includes a mix of seasonal and semi permanent herbaceous wetlands in 

an open (non-forested) meadow setting. The grassland-wetland complex should have 

about 2 ha of herbaceous cover (grass, sedge, rush) to each 0.5 ha of shallow hemi-marsh 

wetland, thus >2.5 ha habitat / pair. 

Recommendations 

Habitat actions: Maintain (protect) existing habitat area and quality, and add (restore / 

enhance) 81,425 ha of quality breeding habitat (see requirements above) at sites within 

current or historic range (see distribution and landscape suitability maps for target areas). 

The estimated area of quality habitat needed to accommodate current breeding 

populations is 407,125 ha (407,125 = 325,700/2 * 2.5). Annual habitat loss must be 

determined and factored into restoration objectives (i.e., there must be an overall net 

increase in quality habitat of 81,425 ha). 

Monitoring and performance: WBPHS and BBS data can be used to determine progress 

toward meeting the JV breeding population goal. Periodic evaluation of vital rates can be 

used as a measure of breeding habitat performance. Eliminating the current population 

deficit requires a 20% population increase or an average annual increase of 1% over a 15 

year period. 

References 

Bellrose, F. C. 1980. Ducks, geese, and swans of North American. Stackpole Books, 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. 

NAWMP. 2004. North American waterfowl management plan: strengthening the 

biological foundation (Implementation Framework). U.S. DOI, Fish and Wildlife 

Service and Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. 

NLCD. 2001. National Land Cover Data. http://www.mrlc.gov

Rowher, F. C., W. P. Johnson, and E. R. Loos. 2002. Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors). In

The Birds of North America, No. 625 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of 

North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 

73 
Breeding abundance and distribution: Based on interpolations of average density 

estimates from the aerial Spring Waterfowl Population and Habitat Survey (north states, 

1996–2005) and N.A. Breeding Bird Survey total counts (south states, 1996–2005). 

Portions of the north JV region had only limited aerial-survey coverage some years. 

74 
Landscape suitability index (LSI) for breeding: LSI scores for cover types used by 

breeding Blue-winged Teal, with scores closer to 100 representing greater suitability. 

Cover typesa LSI score 

Emergent herbaceous wetlands >10 ha <100 m from grassland or 

pasture >40 ha and >0.3 km from forest. 100 

Emergent herbaceous wetlands >2 ha <100 m from grassland or 

pasture >8 ha and >0.3 km from forest. 80 

Emergent herbaceous wetlands 0.5–2 ha <100 m from grassland or 

pasture >8 ha and >0.3 km from forest. 60 

Emergent herbaceous wetlands >2 ha <100 m from cropland and >0.3 

km from forest. 50 

Emergent herbaceous wetlands 0.5–2 ha <100 m from cropland and 

>0.3 km from forest. 40 

a Cover types based on the National Land Cover Dataset (2001).

All other emergent herbaceous wetlands >0.5 ha. 10 

Conservation design 

LSI scores were adjusted to reflect current (1996–2005) breeding abundance and 

distribution. Scores were multiplied by the following importance values based on 

breeding density: 1.0 (>5 birds / km2), 0.8 (3–5 / km2), 0.4 (1–3 / km2), and 0.1 (<1 / km2) 

to calculate a Conservation Value (CV). Scores of CV were averaged within 5 km × 5 

km blocks for enhanced regional display. 

75 
Appendix B. Spring migration and wintering (non-breeding season) waterfowl 

guild accounts with population and cover type information used to develop habitat 

conservation objectives for the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint 

Venture (JV) region. Population estimates for species using these primary cover 

types during migration and wintering are measured in individual birds and use days 

on quality foraging habitat. Deficit = JV regional goal – current estimate. 

Species/habitat guild (account primary author/compiler) Last revised 

Wet mudflat / moist soil plants (Brad Potter and Greg Soulliere) August 2007 

Shallow semi permanent marsh (Greg Soulliere and Brad Potter) August 2007 

Deep-water marsh (Brad Potter and Greg Soulliere) August 2007 

Extensive open water (Greg Soulliere and Brad Potter) August 2007 

76 
Wet Mudflat / Moist-soil Plants Waterfowl 

Guild Account for Non-breeding Period Habitat Planning 

___________________________________________________________________

Foraging habitat 

Guild uses sites that are 

typically non-forested 

wetland >

Joint Venture migration population and use day estimate and deficit 

based on NAWMP goals and regional proportioning (via harvest) 

1 ha in size 

with dynamic 

hydrology yielding 

areas of exposed 

mudflat and very 

shallow water (<25 

 Migration abundance Use days 

Guild species Estimate Deficit Estimate Deficit 

Blue-winged Teal 1,387,501 0 41,625,029 0

Northern Shoveler 254,436 0 7,633,091 0

Northern Pintail 225,506 211,976 10,147,771 9,538,904

Green-winged Teal 487,534 0 21,939,032 0

cm deep). Summer 

growth of annual seedproducing plants 

(moist-soil species) is 

common and these sites 

are preferred migration 

habitat when flooded in 

fall and spring. 

Wetlands with a mix of 

open water and 

emergent cover (about 50:50 ratio) are especially attractive to the group. Most species in 

this guild depend on seed sources and invertebrates, except Northern Shoveler which 

feeds almost exclusively on invertebrates. 

 Total 2,354,977 112,753 81,344,923 5,073,885

Joint Venture wintering population and use day estimate and deficit 

based on NAWMP goals and regional proportioning (via MWI) 

 Winter abundance Use days 

Guild species Estimate Deficit Estimate Deficit 

Blue-winged Teal 10,210 0 0 0

Northern Shoveler 17,737 0 0 0

Northern Pintail 30,801 15,401 0 0

Green-winged Teal 4,228 0 0 0

 Total 62,976 15,401 0 0

Migration timing 

Migration timing for group peaks April to May and September to November, depending 

on species and latitude. Species in this guild generally do not winter in the JV region. 

Limiting factors 

Quantity of suitable shallow water sites with preferred food resources during migration 

may limit populations in this guild. Wetlands must have adequate shallow water for this 

group. 

Objective 

Increase regional carrying capacity for this waterfowl guild to goal levels (goal = current 

population + deficit) through effective and efficient habitat conservation that is 

considerate of other species of concern. 

77 
Habitat model 

Habitat maintenance and restoration objectives were derived using an energetic-model, 

converting use-day requirements into habitat objectives; “maintenance” objectives are 

established to accommodate current populations and “restoration” objectives are 

necessary to eliminate population deficits. Use-day estimates are based on predicted 

population size during spring migration and winter, multiplied by estimated duration of 

stay during these periods. Habitat objectives are for migration and winter periods 

combined and based on an estimate of food energy available in this cover type and daily 

energy needs by species (see strategy text for energetic-model methods). 

Non-breeding period habitat calculation 

 Use days Habitat (ha) 

Guild species Estimate Deficit Maintenance Restoration 

Blue-winged Teal 41,625,029 0 8,173 0 

Northern Shoveler 7,633,091 0 2,002 0 

Northern Pintail 10,147,771 9,538,904 3,618 3,401 

Green-winged Teal 21,939,032 0 3,293 0 

 Total 81,344,923 5,073,885 17,086 3,401 

Recommendations 

Maintain/protect 17,000 ha of existing moist-soil wetland area with the carrying capacity 

and food resources to accommodate current populations in this guild. Restore or enhance 

3,400 ha of moist-soil wetland to increase carrying capacity, adequately meeting the 

nutritional needs of identified population deficits. See Tables 12 and 13 and Figures 5 

and 6 in text for recommended protection and restoration locations. 

Research to assist planning 

Information needs of greatest importance includes determining duration of stay, 

accessible food energy available in preferred cover types, and factors besides food 

potentially limiting population growth. 

References 

Bellrose, F. C. 1980. Ducks, geese, and swans of North American. Stackpole Books, 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. 

NAWMP. 2004. North American waterfowl management plan: strengthening the 

biological foundation (Implementation Framework). U.S. Department of Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service and Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. 

Rowher, F. C., W. P. Johnson, and E. R. Loos. 2002. Blue-winged Teal (Anas discors). In

The Birds of North America, No. 625 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of 

North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 

78 
Migration abundance and distribution: County-level harvest data (1995–2004 

average) was used to determine distribution during migration. Harvest period was 

September to January. 

79 
Winter abundance and distribution: The Mid-winter Inventory (MWI), conducted in 

early January each year, is an incomplete survey of wintering waterfowl but reflects 

distribution and provides a crude estimate of abundance by MWI zone. MWI average 

counts during 1995–2004 for guild species with >1% of the inventoried winter population 

occurring in the JV region were used to create maps A and B. Map A represents the 

proportion (%) of total regional count by MWI zone. Map B depicts the total count 

divided by zone area (km2) for a crude comparison of density by zone. Larger zones 

were assumed to have greater survey effort. The wet mudflat / moist soil plants guild 

includes wintering Northern Pintail; Nebraska’s MWI was incomplete and Northern 

Pintail total was assumed to be 25. 

80 
Shallow Semi-permanent Marsh Waterfowl 

Guild Account for Non-breeding Period Habitat Planning 

___________________________________________________________________

Foraging habitat 

Guild uses marsh and 

open water sites 

opportunistically during 

migration and wintering 

periods. Wetlands are 

usually >

Joint Venture migration population and use day estimate and deficit 

based on NAWMP goals and regional proportioning (via harvest) 

 Migration abundance Use days 

Guild species Estimate Deficit Estimate Deficit 

Wood Duck 1,269,436 0 38,083,080 0

Gadwall 371,256 0 11,137,685 0 0.5 ha in size 

and <1 m deep with a 

mosaic of herbaceous 

emergent and 

submergent plants 

American Wigeon 373,394 48,541 11,201,819 1,456,237

American Black Duck 150,874 81,472 6,789,352 3,666,250

Mallard 2,882,023 0 129,691,043 0

 Total 5,046,984 130,013 196,902,979 5,122,487

and persistent standing 

water; optimum 

emergent vegetation to 

open water mix around 

50:50. Wood Ducks, 

and to a lesser degree 

Mallards, also use shrubscrub and forested 

wetlands. Black Ducks 

and Wigeon more often 

use large coastal marshes. The guild feeds on seeds, invertebrates, and plant material by 

dabbling in wetland areas <0.5 m deep, except wood ducks which more commonly glean 

from the water surface or feed on mast and invertebrates in adjacent uplands. Mallards 

also commonly feed on waist grain in agricultural fields (e.g., harvested corn and wheat), 

particularly during fall and winter. These fields are often <10 km from roost sites (open 

water and emergent marsh >5 ha) but may be up to 20 km away. 

Joint Venture wintering population and use day estimate and deficit 

based on NAWMP goals and regional proportioning (via MWI) 

 Wintering abundance Use days 

Guild species Estimate Deficit Estimate Deficit 

Wood Duck 116,402 0 10,476,180 0

Gadwall 16,433 0 0 0

American Wigeon 7,596 987 0 0

American Black Duck 69,159 37,346 6,224,310 3,361,127

Mallard 1,859,818 0 167,383,620 0

 Total 2,069,408 38,333 184,084,110 3,361,127

Migration timing 

Migration timing for group peaks March to May and September to December, depending 

on species, latitude, and ice conditions. Black Duck and Mallard winter in the JV region, 

and wintering Wood Ducks are becoming more common. 

Limiting factors 

None apparent during fall migration; quality feeding and roosting habitat assumed to be 

adequate. Recent body condition information suggests availability of small (1–10 ha) 

shallow wetlands in mid-migration areas may be limiting for Mallards during spring 

migration, and healthy coastal marsh and other large >10 ha marsh/open water complexes 

with abundant food resources may be limiting for Black Ducks, particularly in winter and 

spring. Thus, quantity and quality of suitable marsh wetlands with available invertebrate 

and seed foods may limit populations in this guild particularly during spring migration. 

81 
Objective 

Increase regional carrying capacity for this waterfowl guild to goal levels (goal = current 

population + deficit) through effective and efficient habitat conservation that is 

considerate of other species of concern. 

Habitat model 

Habitat maintenance and restoration objectives were derived using an energetic-model, 

converting use-day requirements into habitat objectives; “maintenance” objectives are 

established to accommodate current populations and “restoration” objectives are 

necessary to eliminate population deficits. Use-day estimates are based on predicted 

population size during spring migration and winter, multiplied by estimated duration of 

stay during these periods. Habitat objectives are for migration and winter periods 

combined and based on an estimate of nutritional energy available in this cover type and 

daily energy needs by species (see strategy text for energetic-model methods). 

Non-breeding period habitat calculation 

 Use Days Habitat (ha) 

Guild species Estimate Deficit Maintenance Restoration 

Wood Duck 48,559,260 0 46,901 0 

Gadwall 11,137,685 0 13,991 0 

American Wigeon 11,201,819 1,456,237 12,427 1,615 

American Black Duck 13,013,662 7,027,377 19,723 10,650 

Mallard 297,074,663 0 450,226 0 

 Total 380,987,089 8,483,614 543,268 12,265 

Recommendations 

Maintain/protect 543,000 ha of existing shallow semi-permanent marsh with the carrying 

capacity and food resources to accommodate current populations in this guild. Restore or 

enhance 12,000 ha of wetland to increase carrying capacity, adequately meeting the 

nutritional needs of identified population deficits. See Tables 12 and 13 and Figures 5 

and 6 in text for recommended protection and restoration locations. 

Research to assist planning 

Information needs of greatest importance includes determining duration of stay, 

accessible food energy available in preferred cover types, and factors besides food 

potentially limiting population growth. 

References 

Bellrose, F. C. 1980. Ducks, geese, and swans of North American. Stackpole Books, 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. 

Bellrose, F. C., and D. J. Holm. 1994. Ecology and management of the Wood Duck. 

Stackpole Books, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania, USA. 

Conroy, M. J., M. W. Miller, and J. E. Hines. 2002. Identification and synthetic modeling 

of factors affecting American Black Duck populations. Wildlife Monographs 150. 

Drilling, N., R. Titman, and F. McKinney. 2002. Mallard (Anas platyrhynchos). In The 

Birds of North America, No. 658 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 

82 
Hepp, G. R., and F. C. Bellrose. 1995. Wood Duck (Aix sponsa). In The Birds of North 

America, No. 169 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, 

Philadelphia, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Longcore, J. R., D. G. McAuley, G. R. Hepp, and J. M. Rhymer. 2000. American Black 

Duck (Anas rubripes). In The Birds of North America, No. 481 (A. Poole and F. 

Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 

NAWMP. 2004. North American waterfowl management plan: strengthening the 

biological foundation (Implementation Framework). U.S. Department of Interior, 

Fish and Wildlife Service and Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. 

Migration abundance and distribution: County-level harvest data (1995–2004 

average) was used to determine distribution during migration. Harvest period was 

September to January. 

83 
Winter abundance and distribution: The Mid-winter Inventory (MWI), conducted in 

early January each year, is an incomplete survey of wintering waterfowl but reflects 

distribution and provides a crude estimate of abundance by MWI zone. MWI average 

counts during 1995–2004 for guild species with >1% of the inventoried winter population 

occurring in the JV region were used to create maps A and B. Map A represents the 

proportion (%) of total regional count by MWI zone. Map B depicts the total count 

divided by zone area (km2

) for a crude comparison of density by zone. Larger zones 

were assumed to have greater survey effort. The shallow marsh guild includes wintering 

Mallards and American Black Ducks; Nebraska’s MWI was incomplete except for 

Mallard (Black Duck total assumed to be 25). 

84 
Deep-water Marsh Waterfowl 

Guild Account for Non-breeding Period Habitat Planning 

___________________________________________________________________

Foraging habitat 

Guild uses open water 

wetlands 0.5–1.5 m deep 

and >2 ha in size, mixed 

with areas and borders 

of emergent vegetation 

and submergent 

vegetation common in 

openings. These settings 

may be large ponds, 

lakes, and riverine 

marshes. The group 

feeds largely on aquatic 

plants (swans) or on fish 

and aquatic invertebrates 

(duck species). Swans 

Joint Venture migration population and use day estimate and deficit 

based on NAWMP goals and regional proportioning (via harvest) 

 Migration abundance Use days 

Guild species Estimate Deficit Estimate Deficit

Mute Swan 10,600 0 954,000 0

Trumpeter Swan 2,400 0 216,000 0

Tundra Swan 40,000 0 1,000,000 0

Ring-necked Duck 644,547 0 19,336,412 0

Hooded Merganser 136,131 0 6,125,873 0

Ruddy Duck 214,585 0 6,437,548 0

 Total 1,048,263 0 34,069,833 0

Joint Venture wintering population and use day estimate and deficit 

based on NAWMP goals and regional proportioning (via MWI) 

 Wintering abundance Use days 

Guild species Estimate Deficit Estimate Deficit 

consume plant leaves, 

stems, and tubers, 

especially sago 

pondweed (Potamogeton 

pectinatus) and broadleaved arrowhead 

(Sagitaria latifolia). 

Tundra and Trumpeter Swans also forage extensively in agricultural fields (>16 ha in size 

and <25 km from roost wetlands) during winter and spring, but primarily in aquatic areas 

during fall migration. Non-foraging swans prefer roost areas with >95% open water and 

>1.3 km

Mute Swan 5,380 0 484,200 0

Trumpeter Swan 1,949 0 175,410 0

Tundra Swan 1,468 0 0 0

Ring-necked Duck 46,905 0 4,221,450 0

Hooded Merganser 68,343 0 6,150,870 0

Ruddy Duck 3,045 0 0 0

 Total 127,090 0 11,031,930 0

2

 in size. In addition to aquatic plants, the duck species feed on various 

invertebrates (e.g., snails, crayfish, and aquatic insects) and small fish in open water and 

near emergent marsh edges or in deep emergent marsh with low plant stem density. 

Migration timing 

Migration timing peaks March to May and October to December, depending on species, 

latitude, and ice conditions. Hooded Mergansers and the swans are relatively early 

migrants in spring and late in fall. Mute Swans typically winter in the northern portion of 

the JV region as long as areas of deep marsh remain ice free. Trumpeter Swans also are 

wintering farther north over time. 

Limiting factors 

Quantity and quality of suitable deep-water marsh areas with preferred food resources 

during migration may limit populations in this guild. Swans began shifting to agricultural 

fields in the 1960s, possibly in response to declines in aquatic vegetation at staging 

(Tundra Swan) and wintering (Trumpeter Swan) areas. 

85 
Objective 

Increase regional carrying capacity for this waterfowl guild to goal levels (goal = current 

population + deficit) through effective and efficient habitat conservation that is 

considerate of other species of concern. Mute Swans are considered an undesirable 

exotic, and many wildlife agencies practice population control on this species. 

Habitat model 

Habitat maintenance and restoration objectives were derived using an energetic-model, 

converting use-day requirements into habitat objectives; “maintenance” objectives are 

established to accommodate current populations and “restoration” objectives are 

necessary to eliminate population deficits. Use-day estimates are based on predicted 

population size during spring migration and winter, multiplied by estimated duration of 

stay during these periods. Habitat objectives are for migration and winter periods 

combined and based on an estimate of food energy available in this cover type and daily 

energy needs by species (see strategy text for energetic-model methods). 

 

Non-breeding period habitat calculation 

 Use Days Habitat (ha) 

Guild species Estimate Deficit Maintenance Restoration 

Mute Swan 1,438,200 0 8,041 0 

Trumpeter Swan 391,410 0 2,374 0 

Tundra Swan 1,000,000 0 4,016 0 

Ring-necked Duck 23,557,862 0 17,453 0 

Hooded Merganser 12,276,743 0 9,004 0 

Ruddy Duck 6,437,548 0 3,964 0 

 Total 45,101,763 0 44,852 0 

Recommendations 

Maintain/protect 45,000 ha of existing deep-water marsh with the carrying capacity and 

food resources to accommodate current populations in this guild. There are no 

population deficits or habitat restoration objectives for this group. See Table 12 and 

Figure 5 in text for recommended protection locations. 

Research to assist planning 

Information needs of greatest importance includes determining duration of stay, 

accessible food energy available in preferred cover types, and factors besides food 

potentially limiting population growth. 

References 

Bellrose, F. C. 1980. Ducks, geese, and swans of North American. Stackpole Books, 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. 

Limpert, R. J. and S. L. Earnst. 1994. Tundra Swan (Cygnus columbianus). In The Birds 

of North America, No. 89 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The 

Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ 

Union. 

86 
NAWMP. 2004. North American waterfowl management plan: strengthening the 

biological foundation (Implementation Framework). U.S. DOI, Fish and Wildlife 

Service and Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. 

Petrie, S. A., S. S. Badzinski, and K. L. Wilcox. 2002. Population trends and habitat use 

of Tundra Swans staging at Long Point, Lake Erie. Waterbirds 25 (special 

publication 1):143–149. 

Petrie, S. A., and K. L. Wilcox. 2003. Migration chronology of Eastern-Population 

Tundra Swans. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:861–870. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1987. Birds of the Upper Mississippi River 

 National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

 Unpaginated. Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Online. 

 http://www.npwrc.usgs.govupperms.htm (Version 1991). 

Migration abundance and distribution: County-level harvest data (1995–2004 

average) was used to determine distribution during migration. Harvest period was 

September to January. Also see Tundra Swan distribution and habitat suitability maps 

(below). 

87 
Winter abundance and distribution: The Mid-winter Inventory (MWI), conducted in 

early January each year, is an incomplete survey of wintering waterfowl but reflects 

distribution and provides a crude estimate of abundance by MWI zone. MWI average 

counts during 1995–2004 for guild species with >1% of the inventoried winter population 

occurring in the JV region were used to create maps A and B. Map A represents the 

proportion (%) of total regional count by MWI zone. Map B depicts the total count 

divided by zone area (km2

) for a crude comparison of density by zone. Larger zones 

were assumed to have greater survey effort. The deep-water marsh guild includes 

Trumpeter, Mute, and Tundra Swans and Ring-necked Ducks; Nebraska’s MWI was 

incomplete and Tundra Swan total was assumed to be 10 and Ring-necked Duck to be 25. 

88 
Tundra Swan migration abundance and distribution: Migration corridor and staging 

areas from Tundra Swans marked with satellite transmitters (1998–2000; Petrie and 

Wilcox 2003) and from banding data and observation (Bellrose 1980, USFWS 1987). 

89 
Landscape suitability index (LSI) for Tundra Swan migration: LSI scores closer to 

100 represent greater suitability for Tundra Swans. 

a Output options LSI score 

Great Lakes water <2 m deep, and Mississippi River and inland lakes 

>130 ha with emergent marshb 100 and within species migration corridor. 

Inland open water >2 ha with adjacent emergent marshb and located 

<25 km from potential roost areas (water bodies >130 ha) within 

species migration corridor. 

80 

Open water >2 ha without emergent marsh, within migration corridor. 60 

a

Great Lakes water depth was interpolated from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) bathymetric contour file. 

All open water >2 ha outside migration corridor but within JV region. 20 

b

The presence of emergent vegetation was assumed to reflect shallow water areas likely to contain 

submerged aquatic vegetation. 

90 
Extensive Open Water Waterfowl 

Guild Account for Non-breeding Period Habitat Planning 

___________________________________________________________________

Foraging habitat 

Guild uses open water 

of the Great Lakes, 

bays, large rivers, and 

inland lakes with water 

depth 1–9 m and >10 

ha in size. This diverse 

group feeds primarily 

on aquatic plants 

(Canvasback and 

Redhead), fish 

(mergansers), and 

invertebrates (Scaup, 

Common Goldeneye, 

Bufflehead, Scoters, 

and Long-tailed Duck) 

by diving and capturing 

prey. Diets vary by 

season and food 

availability, and 

occasionally some 

species feed without 

diving when forage is 

present on the water 

surface. Being the 

most herbivorous of the 

group, Canvasbacks 

and Redheads prefer 

winter buds, tubers, 

rhizomes, and root 

stalks of submerged 

aquatic vegetation and 

benthic invertebrates. 

When foods like wild 

celery (Vallisneria americana) and sago pondweed (Potamogeton pectinatus) are 

unavailable, diet shifts to fingernail clams (Sphaerium transversum), snails (Somatogyrus 

isogonus), and aquatic insect nymphs, particularly mayfly (Hexagenia sp.). These 

invertebrates, plus Zebra Mussel (Dreissena polymorpha), are the primary food items for 

other species in this guild except the predominately fish-eating mergansers. 

Joint Venture migration population and use day estimate and deficit 

based on NAWMP goals and regional proportioning (via harvest) 

 Migration abundance Use days 

Guild species Estimate Deficit Estimate Deficit 

Canvasback 165,413 0 7,443,585 0

Redhead 285,555 0 12,849,990 0

Greater Scaup 211,867 105,933 9,534,012 4,767,006

Lesser Scaup 1,302,757 716,516 39,082,712 21,495,491

Surf Scoter 42,000 13,860 1,890,000 623,700

White-winged Scoter 64,096 10,896 2,884,322 490,335

Black Scoter 53,365 13,341 2,401,428 600,357

Long-tailed Duck 67,440 114,647 3,034,780 5,159,126

Bufflehead 451,068 0 20,298,053 0

Common Goldeneye 473,253 0 21,296,386 0

Common Merganser 276,748 0 12,453,643 0

Red-breasted Merganser 48,314 0 2,174,109 0

 Total 3,441,876 975,193 135,343,020 33,136,015

Joint Venture winter population and use day estimate and deficit based 

on NAWMP goals and regional proportioning (via MWI) 

 Winter abundance Use days 

Guild species Estimate Deficit Estimate Deficit 

Canvasback 130,033 0 11,702,970 0

Redhead 79,123 0 7,121,070 0

Greater Scaup 29,601 14,801 2,664,090 1,332,045

Lesser Scaup 167,742 92,258 15,096,780 8,303,045

Surf Scoter 100 33 9,000 2,970

White-winged Scoter 114 17 10,260 1,744

Black Scoter 70 14 6,300 1,575

Long-tailed Duck 68,303 116,115 6,147,270 10,450,359

Bufflehead 96,369 0 8,673,210 0

Common Goldeneye 414,624 0 37,316,160 0

Common Merganser 195,712 0 17,614,080 0

Red-breasted Merganser 46,598 0 4,193,820 0

 Total 1,228,389 223,238 110,555,010 20,091,738

91 
Migration timing 

Migration timing for group peaks March to May and October to December, depending on 

species, latitude, and ice conditions. Remaining as far north as they can find extensive 

open water, the mergansers and Common Goldeneye winter in the JV region. 

Canvasback, Scaup, and Redheads are increasingly wintering in the region. 

Limiting factors 

Quantity and quality of suitable open water with preferred food resources during 

migration may limit populations in this guild. Water bodies must have adequate depth 

and high enough quality to permit submerged aquatic plant growth and/or high densities 

of aquatic invertebrates. Lesser Scaup, in particular, may be suffering from reduced 

water quality and food resources in spring. Sites also must have acceptably low levels of 

human disturbance (e.g., power-boat activity).

Objective 

Increase regional carrying capacity for this waterfowl guild to goal levels (goal = current 

population + deficit) through effective and efficient habitat conservation that is 

considerate of other species of concern. 

Habitat model 

Habitat maintenance and restoration objectives were derived using an energetic-model, 

converting use-day requirements into habitat objectives; “maintenance” objectives are 

established to accommodate current populations and “restoration” objectives are 

necessary to eliminate population deficits. Use-day estimates are based on predicted 

population size during spring migration and winter, multiplied by estimated duration of 

stay during these periods. Habitat objectives are for migration and winter periods 

combined and based on an estimate of food energy available in this cover type and daily 

energy needs by species (see strategy text for energetic-model methods). 

Non-breeding period habitat calculation 

 Use days Habitat (ha) 

Guild species Estimate Deficit Maintenance Restoration 

Canvasback 19,146,555 0 17,866 0 

Redhead 19,971,060 0 17,012 0 

Greater Scaup 12,198,102 6,099,051 10,010 5,005 

Lesser Scaup 54,179,492 29,793,720 37,150 20,433 

Surf Scoter 1,899,000 626,670 1,500 495 

White-winged Scoter 2,884,322 492,079 3,220 547 

Black Scoter 2,401,428 601,932 2,088 522 

Long-tailed Duck 9,182,050 15,609,485 6,999 11,899 

Bufflehead 28,971,263 0 13,290 0 

Common Goldeneye 58,612,546 0 48,863 0 

Common Merganser 30,067,723 0 34,395 0 

Red-breasted Merganser 6,367,929 0 3,896 0 

 Total 245,881,470 53,222,937 196,289 38,901 

92 
Recommendations 

Maintain/protect 198,000 ha of existing open water with the carrying capacity and food 

resources to accommodate current populations in this guild. Restore or enhance 39,000 

ha of wetland to increase carrying capacity, adequately meeting the nutritional needs of 

identified population deficits. See Tables 12 and 13 and Figures 5 and 6 in text for 

recommended protection and restoration locations. 

Research to assist planning 

Information needs of greatest importance includes determining duration of stay, 

accessible food energy available in preferred cover types, and factors besides food 

potentially limiting population growth.

References 

Afton, A. D., and M. G. Anderson. 2001. Declining scaup populations: A retrospective 

analysis of long-term population and harvest survey data. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 65:781–796. 

Austin, J. E., C. M. Custer, and A. D. Afton. 1998. Lesser Scaup (Aythya affinis). In The 

Birds of North America, No. 338 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North 

America, Inc., Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 

Bellrose, F. C. 1980. Ducks, geese, and swans of North American. Stackpole Books, 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA. 

Mowbray, T. B. 2002. Canvasback (Aythya valisineria). In The Birds of North America, 

No. 659 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Birds of North America, Inc., 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA. 

NAWMP. 2004. North American waterfowl management plan: strengthening the 

biological foundation (Implementation Framework). U.S. DOI, Fish and Wildlife 

Service and Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service. 

93 
Migration abundance and distribution: County-level harvest data (1995–2004 

average) was used to determine distribution during migration. Harvest period was 

September to January. 

94 
Winter abundance and distribution: The Mid-winter Inventory (MWI), conducted in 

early January each year, is an incomplete survey of wintering waterfowl but reflects 

distribution and provides a crude estimate of abundance by MWI zone. MWI average 

counts during 1995–2004 for guild species with >1% of the inventoried winter population 

occurring in the JV region were used to create maps A and B. Map A represents the 

proportion (%) of total regional count by MWI zone. Map B depicts the total count 

divided by zone area (km2

) for a crude comparison of density by zone. Larger zones 

were assumed to have greater survey effort. The open water guild includes wintering 

Lesser and Greater Scaup, Canvasback, Redhead, Common Goldeneye, Bufflehead, and 

Common and Red-breasted Merganser; Nebraska’s MWI was incomplete and species 

totals were assumed to be 25. 

95 
Appendix C. Common and scientific names of waterfowl occurring in the Upper 

Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture region. 

Species (population) common name Tribe and scientific name 

 Geese Anserini 

Snow Goose, Greater Chen caerulescens atlanticus

Snow Goose, Lesser Chen caerulescens caerulescens

Ross’s Goose Chen rossii

Atlantic Brant Branta bernicla

Cackling Goose Branta hutchinsii

Canada Goose, Giant Branta canadensis maxima

Canada Goose, Interior Branta canadensis interior

 Swans Cygnini 

Mute Swan (Feral) Cygnus olor

Trumpeter Swan (Interior) Cygnus buccinator

Tundra Swan (Eastern) Cygnus columbianus

 Perching ducks Cairinini 

Wood Duck Aix sponsa

 Dabbling ducks Anatini 

Gadwall Anas strepera 

American Wigeon Anas americana 

American Black Duck Anas rubripes 

Mallard Anas platyrhynchos 

Blue-winged Teal Anas discors 

Northern Shoveler Anas clypeata 

Northern Pintail Anas acuta 

Green-winged Teal Anas crecca 

 Diving ducks and pochards Aythyini 

Canvasback Aythya valisineria 

Redhead Aythya americana 

Ring-necked Duck Aythya collaris 

Greater Scaup Aythya marila 

Lesser Scaup Aythya affinis 

 Sea ducks Mergini 

Common Eider Somateria mollissima 

Surf Scoter Melanitta perspicillata 

White-winged Scoter Melanitta fusca 

Black Scoter Melanitta nigra 

Long-tailed Duck Clangula hyemalis 

Bufflehead Bucephala albeola 

Common Goldeneye Bucephala clangula 

Hooded Merganser Lophodytes cucullatus 

Common Merganser Mergus merganser 

Red-breasted Merganser Mergus serrator 

 Stiff-tailed ducks Oxyurini

Ruddy Duck Oxyura jamaicensis 

96 
Appendix D. Mid-winter Inventory average counts and proportional distribution 

for waterfowl species commonly wintering in the Upper Mississippi River and Great 

Lakes region (USFWS Region 3), 1971–2007. Only species with >1% of wintering 

population occurring in region were included.

97 
98 

Totals R3 Tot

MN WIa MIb IA IL IN OH MO Region 3 U.S. % Atlantic Mississ

Mallard 1971–75 16,060 8,680 10,600 90,560 307,680 22,960 46,080 249,820 752,440 7,245,407 10.4 182,072 2,8741975–80 33,660 12,060 15,400 128,080 402,580 31,500 19,340 314,460 957,080 6,610,164 14.5 245,015 3,0231981–85 25,400 18,720 10,440 58,980 157,260 21,440 20,220 198,140 510,600 5,373,491 9.5 200,151 2,0801986–90 25,996 27,763 10,496 52,180 159,028 18,543 39,102 153,481 486,588 5,092,096 9.6 167,159 2,4391991–95 17,911 27,487 17,200 17,632 119,586 19,011 60,347 278,964 558,139 4,557,397 12.2 177,305 2,1831996–00 13,975 30,188 35,243 34,131 182,210 33,795 55,262 403,849 788,654 5,962,422 13.2 155,258 2,5752001–05 31,247 37,150 27,129 55,488 143,606 18,806 52,386 390,984 756,797 4,918,891 15.4 149,581 2,1032006–07 15,654 28,594 25,695 55,845 202,662 18,990 52,505 432,111 832,054 5,087,082 16.4 110,603 1,939American Black Duck 1971–75 580 1,120 3,420 40 12,720 5,920 36,820 3,300 63,920 383,506 16.7 258,026 1251975–80 380 780 2,240 400 11,920 4,820 11,160 1,980 33,680 350,781 9.6 250,661 1001981–85 125 820 1,600 200 6,440 4,740 13,060 150 27,135 300,112 9.0 225,712 741986–90 203 1,221 1,534 109 5,803 3,911 18,711 165 31,658 309,701 10.2 222,440 871991–95 59 1,409 4,020 40 4,862 2,541 33,093 315 46,339 292,196 15.9 216,221 751996–00 8 1,336 5,000 57 2,295 2,713 13,705 752 25,866 273,438 9.5 222,934 502001–05 14 796 3,585 31 943 992 7,956 35 14,354 250,053 5.7 220,007 302006–07 74 516 2,414 280 1,224 720 5,407 492 11,125 209,447 5.3 189,362 20Northern Pintail 1971–75 0 0 5 60 60 60 120 4,840 5,145 5,065,415 0.1 92,489 5721975–80 0 0 10 35 240 20 25 2,840 3,170 5,337,116 0.1 82,211 5351981–85 10 20 0 35 145 85 75 230 600 3,060,350 0.0 53,032 7511986–90 5 16 21 16 475 13 138 368 1,052 1,946,639 0.1 43,925 4611991–95 0 2 17 3 75 187 180 1,836 2,300 1,993,093 0.1 55,030 5161996–00 0 1 4 17 1,444 262 103 11,155 12,987 2,270,190 0.6 45,268 4142001–05 1 1 102 4 837 37 131 26,955 28,068 2,464,003 1.1 44,806 5622006–07 0 2 14 10 6,019 242 53 40,667 47,005 3,191,059 1.5 79,245 688
99 

Totals R3 Tot

MN WIa MIb IA IL IN OH MO Region 3 U.S. % Atlantic Mississ

Canvasback 1971–75 0 0 6,980 70 6,280 140 360 160 13,990 219,809 6.4 103,826 401975–80 0 380 9,085 1,665 3,000 100 3,840 685 18,755 316,439 5.9 139,012 691981–85 0 590 11,040 155 7,665 55 2,360 280 22,145 312,905 7.1 127,906 821986–90 5 16 13,125 65 3,500 32 4,951 154 21,848 264,097 8.3 109,973 901991–95 1 1,247 18,295 2 1,682 8 4,481 170 25,886 263,373 9.8 95,214 1131996–00 0 78 41,701 525 1,109 25 8,826 315 52,579 294,409 17.9 94,295 1332001–05 0 28 44,987 1,133 2,375 15 3,715 193 52,447 303,424 17.3 65,766 1552006–07 4 19 51,315 22,571 15,966 41 2,946 112 92,973 307,930 30.2 43,675 193Scaup (primarily Lesser) 1971–75 0 2,680 10,660 2,100 620 300 1,160 3,580 21,100 1,299,780 1.6 522,755 6121975–80 20 2,960 685 410 540 60 2,520 4,260 11455 1,134,066 1.0 370,445 5531981–85 15 2,440 380 100 305 165 3,880 1,500 8785 986,225 0.9 365,816 4191986–90 20 1,410 415 16 1,040 136 3,498 2,390 8925.6 1,079,188 0.8 382,267 4791991–95 1 2,278 1,828 31 397 160 11,832 726 17,251 1,090,492 1.6 729,307 1541996–00 1 10,200 4,903 272 1,052 235 16,252 1,425 34,341 935,468 3.7 427,118 2472001–05 5 29,412 6,432 398 617 129 10,072 1,179 48,245 1,230,992 3.9 398,239 4322006–07 56 31,942 4,352 3,766 418 171 10,729 1,230 52,662 591,861 8.9 181,411 115Redhead 1971–75 0 20 3,860 60 0 0 105 600 4,645 410,349 1.1 112,144 181975–80 0 20 7,100 30 0 0 240 70 7,460 493,873 1.5 128,391 151981–85 5 15 6,380 50 280 35 700 170 7,635 325,679 2.3 96,574 91986–90 5 22 3,676 12 140 50 948 70 4,923 374,235 1.3 84,360 71991–95 0 17 11,672 2 0 28 74 66 11,859 443,152 2.7 89,020 171996–00 1 40 32,596 144 61 30 330 206 33,408 429,775 7.8 124,105 342001–05 0 108 24,186 362 54 7 149 63 24,930 460,492 5.4 71,065 262006–07 2 1,761 12,038 1,021 27 37 277 59 15,221 333,917 4.6 28,785 15
100 

Totals R3 Tot

MN WIa MIb IA IL IN OH MO Region 3 U.S. % Atlantic Mississ

Goldeneye 1971–75 800 2,220 6,700 140 13,280 680 980 700 25,500 118,835 21.5 43,688 261975–80 280 4,060 2,680 3,360 35,360 320 1,720 2,900 50,680 140,240 36.1 38,181 531981–85 285 4,540 4,160 30 24,560 420 740 2,020 36,755 137,490 26.7 44,091 401986–90 707 4,483 2,513 94 48,385 210 4,775 3,104 64,270 153,718 41.8 29,586 661991–95 397 5,629 1,865 336 21,421 201 5,187 2,527 37,564 122,424 30.7 22,114 381996–00 388 7,865 2,659 287 14,089 292 5,094 1,744 32,419 136,903 23.7 24,378 332001–05 697 15,259 5,868 606 14,725 148 968 1,278 39,550 140,507 28.1 22,550 412006–07 1,223 16,474 2,691 1,921 5,986 290 71 1,368 30,022 150,469 20.0 15,832 31Bufflehead 1971–75 0 40 140 10 100 280 25 480 1,075 84,884 1.3 44,847 21975–80 15 400 110 5 60 0 80 760 1,430 108,001 1.3 62,311 31981–85 15 180 30 20 105 50 90 680 1,170 102,134 1.1 53,530 31986–90 10 301 96 16 82 73 126 619 1,322 107,416 1.2 56,870 41991–95 2 335 606 9 302 96 163 574 2,086 125,410 1.7 58,822 41996–00 6 1,252 300 16 6,466 422 169 925 9,558 151,021 6.3 70,933 122001–05 2 2,883 2,538 104 6,309 186 118 803 12,943 174,005 7.4 69,775 162006–07 6 2,965 4,309 21 1,933 124 122 387 9,866 160,480 6.1 74,614 17Ring-necked Duck 1971–75 0 0 0 5 120 640 40 3,280 4,085 154,390 2.6 56,807 861975–80 0 0 0 25 240 65 160 3,900 4,390 109,715 4.0 36,963 621981–85 5 5 0 120 170 225 130 1,760 2,415 207,945 1.2 56,095 1181986–90 10 25 26 10 838 147 118 4,568 5,742 356,510 1.6 69,802 2301991–95 3 18 191 3 297 291 298 10,175 11,277 379,678 3.0 119,325 2051996–00 2 23 56 83 1,620 697 347 10,254 13,082 464,211 2.8 106,983 1912001–05 4 43 306 81 4,638 167 416 4,902 10,558 563,881 1.9 76,680 2822006–07 12 33 182 1,055 8,328 660 836 14,697 25,801 565,167 4.6 58,832 306
101 

Totals R3 Tot

MN WIa MIb IA IL IN OH MO Region 3 U.S. % Atlantic Mississ

Long-tailed Duck 1971–75 0 1,145 1,440 0 0 0 0 0 2,585 16,363 15.8 13,341 21975–80 0 3,140 240 0 0 0 0 0 3,380 20,765 16.3 17,032 31981–85 0 2,080 0 0 0 0 5 0 2,085 19,001 11.0 16,671 21986–90 59 982 0 0 0 0 5 0 1,046 16,057 6.5 14,716 11991–95 4 733 2 0 0 0 1 0 740 12,646 5.9 11,387 1996–00 0 942 0 0 0 0 0 0 942 9,038 10.4 7,420 2001–05 0 225 0 0 0 0 1 0 225 6,962 3.2 6,196 2006–07 1 5,059 0 0 0 0 1 0 5,061 13,766 36.8 7,838 5Mergansers (Common, Red-breasted, Hooded) 1971–75 5 260 1,860 160 8,880 180 2,765 6,780 20,890 160,636 13.0 38,307 321975–80 35 540 610 860 15,760 380 140 8,020 26,345 219,894 12.0 59,787 311981–85 25 900 9,505 165 9,060 405 3,060 4,960 28,080 260,167 10.8 72,659 311986–90 244 2,972 17,887 462 16,714 249 6,904 10,628 56,060 290,480 19.3 80,756 611991–95 403 2,322 13,871 405 10,357 206 15,676 14,272 57,512 281,855 20.4 89,031 611996–00 577 3,359 7,471 2,321 18,543 632 19,264 14,192 66,359 302,056 22.0 85,460 702001–05 730 3,520 7,699 1,948 9,765 343 9,013 5,395 38,414 227,807 16.9 69,741 412006–07 551 16,356 4,207 7,468 1,699 261 23,810 3,806 58,156 206,695 28.1 57,046 63Canada Geese 1971–75 29,000 19,200 18,660 2,220 240,700 9,940 24,240 174,220 518,180 2,073,919 25.0 735,373 6401975–80 34,100 26,720 27,520 3,900 341,580 16,640 22,420 223,600 696,480 2,527,779 27.6 820,243 8671981–85 68,720 100,780 45,480 14,700 201,480 15,720 32,880 147,600 627,360 2,573,505 24.4 834,379 7741986–90 153,957 302,752 77,944 30,227 355,279 13,686 63,008 120,603 1,117,456 3,264,414 34.2 761,518 1,3211991–95 154,516 456,371 84,575 54,298 375,027 14,340 78,155 84,075 1,301,358 3,829,059 34.0 657,500 1,4541996–00 121,696 164,434 113,026 85,051 203,420 17,466 70,758 108,154 884,004 3,693,048 23.9 802,439 9532001–05 97,388 173,698 58,544 158,044 178,660 26,925 115,594 192,771 1,001,625 3,990,850 25.1 994,728 1,1292006–07 110,768 167,946 65,800 190,570 123,615 13,864 93,013 118,534 884,109 3,630,715 24.4 771,218 917
102 

Totals R3 Tot

MN WIa MIb IA IL IN OH MO Region 3 U.S. % Atlantic Mississ

Tundra Swans 1971–75 0 129,466 0.0 61,400 1976–80 0 122,772 0.0 70,179 1981–85 0 155,980 0.0 85,411 1986–90 15 30 26 20 10 0 52 0 153 148,298 0.1 88,737 1991–95 1 9 558 1 0 14 155 2 738 151,951 0.5 89,938 1996–00 89 24 1,068 3 1 44 151 1 1,381 196,223 0.7 94,822 12001–05 1 118 1,057 3 21 18 555 1 1,774 181,393 1.0 94,824 12006–07 0 1,432 1,488 1,006 52 43 1,727 0 5,747 193,202 3.0 79,147 5Trumpeter Swans 1971–75 0 775 0.0 0 1976–80 0 1,246 0.0 4 1981–85 0 1,109 0.0 16 1986–90 74 0 0 5 0 0 0 9 88 1,659 5.3 0 1991–95 45 9 12 3 0 0 2 4 76 1,357 5.6 12 1996–00 163 52 41 13 10 1 5 10 294 3,812 7.7 4 2001–05 570 111 36 38 49 2 25 20 852 6,866 12.4 1 2006–07 191 425 32 129 78 6 55 104 1,019 13,737 7.4 0 1Mute Swans 1971–75 0 1,946 0.0 1,946 1976–80 0 2,469 0.0 2,467 1981–85 0 3,872 0.0 3,871 1986–90 10 27 833 5 181 0 23 15 1,095 6,990 15.7 5,890 11991–95 1 29 1,817 1 1 2 21 1 1,874 9,197 20.4 7,318 11996–00 0 59 2,590 7 24 14 37 5 2,736 10,779 25.4 8,037 22001–05 0 46 3,417 3 76 27 72 2 3,644 12,811 28.4 9,155 32006–07 0 159 6,067 0 46 114 94 3 6,482 14,101 46.0 7,607 6
103 

Totals R3 Tot

MN WIa MIb IA IL IN OH MO Region 3 U.S. % Atlantic Mississ

Unidentified Swans 1971–75 5 0 49 5 0 5 100 0 165 170 96.8 0 1976–80 15 0 10 5 20 0 50 5 105 145 72.4 0 1981–85 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 121 0.0 0 1986–90 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 454 0.0 0 1991–95 23 5 7 1 0 0 0 3 38 1,901 2.0 2 1996–00 0 0 0 0 10 0 0 15 25 5,675 0.4 783 2001–05 0 23 1,844 0 56 8 0 11 1,943 7,465 26.0 269 12006–07 0 76 704 0 98 1 0 6 884 7,329 12.1 1,458 Total Swans (Tundra, Trumpeter, Mute, and Unidentified) 1971–75 5 0 49 5 0 5 100 0 165 132,356 0.1 63,346 1976–80 15 0 10 5 20 0 50 5 105 126,632 0.1 72,650 1981–85 55 65 260 5 35 0 145 15 580 161,677 0.4 89,297 1986–90 99 57 859 30 191 0 75 24 1,335 157,401 0.8 94,627 11991–95 59 49 2,390 5 1 16 178 10 2,708 164,387 1.6 97,270 21996–00 252 135 3,699 23 45 59 193 30 4,435 216,489 2.0 103,647 42001–05 571 298 6,355 44 203 56 652 34 8,213 208,536 3.9 104,249 82006–07 191 2,091 8,291 1,123 273 164 1,876 113 14,119 228,351 6.2 88,211 14a MWI not completed in Wisconsin in 2004.b MWI not completed in Michigan in 1993.c MWI was incomplete in some states during some years, thus individual year data are not comparable and 5-year blocks were used to improve estimates of Region 3 pro

incomplete during the following years: Atlantic Flyway - New York 1996 and 1997, Connecticut and New York 2000, Florida 2001 and 2003–07, and Vermont 2007; M

Louisiana 1993, Wisconsin 1996, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Wisconsin 1997, Ohio 1998, and Mississippi 2006; and Pacific Flyway - Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, and O
Appendix E. Potential threats common to breeding, migrating, and wintering 

waterfowl in the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture region. 

Category Threats Examples 

Industrial, residential, and 

recreational development

Roads, housing, and commercial facilities 

Golf courses 

Ski areas 

Cell towers 

Wind farms 

Shoreline development 

Accelerated surface drainage 

Habitat 

conversion, 

especially 

grassland and 

wetland loss 

Conversion to agriculture 

lands 

Cropland expansion 

Plantations 

Wetland draining or filling 

Dredging and channelization Changes to hydrology, bottom contouring and 

substrate manipulation 

Incompatible natural resource 

management 

Prescribed burn patterns or frequency 

Untimely wetland/water-level manipulation 

Vegetative planting or manipulation 

Flooding/dam maintenance and removal 

Consumptive use Subsistence and sport hunting Disturbance to resting or foraging birds 

Excessive harvest rate 

Recreational disturbance Boating/fishing and jet-skis 

Intense birding or photography 

Non-consumptive 

resource use 

Commercial/Government 

disturbance 

Military training 

Heavy equipment operation 

Aircraft traffic 

Area maintenance 

Urban, municipal, and 

industrial pollution 

Solid waste 

Heavy metals 

Atmospheric deposition 

Runoff contaminants 

Siltation and sedimentation 

Pollution 

Rural and agricultural 

contaminants 

Pesticides 

Herbicides 

Nutrient runoff/inputs 

Nutrient leaching 

Siltation and sedimentation 

Invasive plants and animals 

(native and exotic) 

Introduced plants interrupting management 

Introduced competitors 

Introduced predators (cats and dogs) 

Biological 

interactions 

Disease, pathogens, and 

parasites 

West Nile virus 

Leucocytozoonosis 

Duck plague 

Lead poisoning 

Climate change Precipitation cycles, intensifying storm events 

Loss of surface water 

Grassland management Frequency of mowing 

High intensity grazing 

Modification of 

natural processes 

Fire regime Fire suppression 

Habitat fragmentation Transportation infrastructure 

Lack of species life history 

knowledge 

Lack of management or inappropriate 

management 

Information 

Social attitudes Persecution 

Ignorance 

Apathy 

121 
Appendix F. Interpolating population estimates using data from two large-scale 

surveys: the Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey and North 

American Breeding Bird Survey. 

The Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey (WBPHS) is conducted 

annually in the mid-continent Prairie and Parkland region, plus the states of Minnesota, 

Wisconsin, and Michigan within the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint 

Venture (JV) region. Aerial (fixed-wing aircraft) counts of waterfowl on transects of 

known area (length x width) are adjusted for visibility bias (Smith 1995, Soulliere and 

Chadwick 2003), thus providing a corrected density estimate of “indicated birds” by 

species. Although this survey is a useful inventory, it does not extend into large 

portions of Minnesota (Figure 1) or the remaining seven states in the JV region which 

also contain breeding waterfowl. 

Figure 1. Location of aerial spring breeding waterfowl survey transects which are 400-m wide and vary 

in length. Dots in Wisconsin and Minnesota represent center points for transects that are 48-km and 8–

58 km long, respectively. Michigan survey routes cross the whole state and dots represent 29-km long 

segments within each transect. 

The North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is distributed across the 

whole JV region (Figure 2) and conducted along roadside routes. Bird data collected 

provides an index of relative abundance over time by species, with a purpose of 

generating population trends. The BBS does not provide estimates of breeding 

waterfowl density or total population size, but can provide spatial distribution of 

relative abundance at large scales. Results from either survey can be especially useful 

for regional planning when displayed with abundance and distribution maps created by 

105 
data interpolation. This means of predicting information between survey points is often 

completed using a technique called kriging (Johnston et al. 2001). 

Figure 2. Location of 590 North American Breeding Bird Survey route centers used for interpolating 

waterfowl relative abundance in the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes region. Routes were only 

included if surveys were conducted at least once during 2002–2006 (92 additional routes exist in the 

region but were not included). 

In an effort to generate population estimates for common breeding waterfowl 

species across the whole JV region, we examined the relationship between reported 

WBPHS densities and interpolated BBS data. The objective was to determine if 

relative abundance, interpolated from BBS, could be converted into density estimates 

for the JV area not covered by the WBPHS. 

Methods 

The most recent five-year blocks of population survey data were gathered from 

the WBPHS (2003–2007) and the BBS (2002–2006). Kriging was used to predict 

relative bird abundance between BBS survey points using the count value and spatial 

106 
distribution of each point. This process resulted in a continuous surface of 2.6 km2 (1 

mi2

) grid cells containing predicted relative abundance values for analysis or display in 

a map. In addition, associated standard error (SE) maps representing potential 

confidence in the kriging process were also developed. 

The relationship between reported WBPHS densities and interpolated BBS 

values was tested using regression techniques in Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Office; 

Microsoft, Inc., Redmond, WA). A positive relationship between the relative 

abundance count and average density was identified for all common breeding species. 

However, SE analysis of interpolated BBS data revealed numerous WBPHS data points 

occurring in areas of high interpolated standard error. To help improve fit between the 

two surveys, data in the upper quartile of standard SE were omitted and a new 

regression line was fit to remaining data. Equations developed as a result of the 

regression analysis were applied to the interpolated BBS data and population estimates 

were generated by summing the values of predicted birds for all cells within each state 

and Bird Conservation Region (BCR). 

Although initial equations performed well in states with higher interpolated 

BBS count values and reported WBPHS population densities, low density areas of the 

JV region appeared to be significantly overestimated due to regression equation y 

intercepts above zero. To resolve this overestimation in areas of zero or very low BBS 

counts the regression line was fit to the data but forced to pass through zero. The 

equation for this line was then applied to the interpolated BBS values and population 

estimates were recalculated for all states and BCRs. Finally, landscapes that were 

classified as “developed” (typically urban with little water) in the 2001 National Land 

Cover Dataset were removed before estimates were totaled. 

The regression equation generated from the data-relationship following these 

adjustments appeared to underestimate populations in states with higher densities of 

birds based on the WBPHS. However, the population estimate more closely 

represented estimates from expert opinion in states with lower densities of breeding 

ducks. Therefore, the interpolation technique (intercept 0 regression equation) was 

considered acceptable to estimate populations of common breeding waterfowl in states 

and BCRs not included in the WBPHS. Conversely, the WBPHS was used to generate 

population estimates in Michigan, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, and BCR 12 and 23. 

Results 

 

Interpolated BBS abundance and distribution maps were created for the four 

species of waterfowl most commonly breeding in the JV region: Mallard, Blue-winged 

Teal, Wood Duck, and Canada Goose. Areas of the JV region with high potential error 

in abundance interpolation were fairly similar for each species (Figure 3). Large gaps 

between survey points where BBS routes were not conducted or do not exist (Figure 2) 

resulted in higher SE and reduced confidence in predicted values on abundance maps. 

Thus, population estimates in areas with greater SE are less reliable. Much of Iowa, the 

area surrounding Saginaw Bay in Michigan, and parts of Nebraska, Kansas, Minnesota, 

107 
and Missouri had consistently higher error due to limited route coverage for a given 

species. Caution is the rule when using estimates generated in high SE areas. 

Figure 3. Maps with interpolated abundance and relative count values (left) plus potential error and 

associated standard error values (right) based on average North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) 

counts during 2002–2006. Relative abundance values are not bird density; they are part of the BBS 

index process and used in this strategy with the annual Waterfowl Spring Population and Habitat Survey 

(WSPHS) to generate population estimates in areas of the JV region where the WSPHS is not conducted. 

108 
Figure 3. Continued. 

All species had positive relationships between WBPHS density and interpolated 

BBS relative abundance. However, data fit to the regression line was generally poor 

(Figure 4) and confidence in estimate accuracy is reduced with lower R2 values. 

Population estimates derived from the interpolation technique were lower in 

most instances than estimates from the WBPHS in areas where the surveys overlapped 

(Tables 1–4). Population estimates used for State x BCR areas and the calculation of 

habitat objectives were based on the WBPHS if available and the interpolation 

technique in the remainder of the JV region lacking density estimates. The process 

109 
resulted in population estimates for the entire JV region of 1,075,500 Mallards, 327,800 

Blue-winged Teal, 614,100 Wood Ducks, and 805,500 Canada Geese. 

Various approaches were used to improve the fit between WBPHS and BBS 

data including: using polynomial equations, correcting for observer bias in BBS data, 

and analyzing on a state by state basis. While the relationship between the two survey 

data sets slightly improved with most techniques, it also complicated the population 

extrapolation approach. At this time the simpler process of using linear regression was 

selected, but adjusting BBS counts for observer bias appears to be a potential means for 

improving population estimates. There is some evidence routes within open landscapes 

(high visibility) have relatively higher counts compared to those in more forested 

landscapes. Considerable time will be needed to evaluate and then complete 

adjustments to the population estimation technique. 

Wood Duck

y = 1.8379x

R

2

 = 0.081

0

5

10

15

20

25

01234

Average BBS relative abundance

Average survey density

 Mallard

y = 0.8687x

R

2

 = 0.1503

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25

Average survey density 

Blue-winged Teal

y = 3.3044x

R

2

 = 0.1544

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

012345

Canada Goose

y = 0.1431x

R

2

 = -0.2949

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0 50 100 150

Average BBS relative abundance

Figure 4. Relationship between values from interpolated average BBS relative abundance (2002–2006) 

and average densities from WBPHS (2003–2007). The solid regression line best represents the 

relationship (fit) between the two data sets whereas the dashed line represents the best fit with the yintercept passing through 0; the equation and R2

 values represent the line through 0. 

110 
Table 1. Mallard population estimates in the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture 

region based on the Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey and the North American 

Breeding Bird Survey.

Estimation method 

WBPHSb

State/BCR 

area (km

Density a 2 State BCR ) Estimate usedd (birds/km2 Interpolationc ) Estimate 

Iowa 22 107,870 37,890 37,890 

23 7,244 2,802 2,802 

Total 115,114 40,692 40,692 

Illinois 22 123,604 55,965 55,965 

23 3,388 3,010 3,010 

24 18,449 2,494 2,494 

Total 145,441 61,469 61,469 

Indiana 22 44,726 42,660 42,660 

23 13,170 20,360 20,360 

24 35,472 9,785 9,785 

Total 93,368 72,805 72,805 

Kansas 22 / Total 65,954 5,085 5,085 

Michigan 12 87,568 1.38 120,844 31,088 120,844 

22 4,144 4,652 4,652 

23 58,820 2.62 154,108 62,586 154,108 

Total 216,486 98,325 279,604 

Minnesota 12 82,674 1.90 157,080 90,308 157,080 

22 7,751 10,950 10,950 

23 26,089 3.35 87,398 64,385 87,398 

Total 116,515 165,643 255,428 

Missouri 22 / Total 82,792 6,843 6,843 

Nebraska 22 / Total 22,149 6,571 6,571 

Ohio 13 21,757 21,682 21,682 

22 52,338 41,469 41,469 

24 1,810 418 418 

28 30,504 8,651 8,651 

Total 106,409 72,221 72,221 

Wisconsin 12 46,337 1.10 50,971 40,670 50,971 

22 1,491 3,244 3,244 

23 97,507 2.23 217,441 154,451 217,441 

Total 145,335 198,365 271,656 

All States 12 216,579 162,065 328,895 

13 21,757 21,682 21,682 

22 512,821 215,330 215,329 

23 206,217 307,593 485,119 

24 55,731 12,698 12,697 

28 30,504 8,651 8,651 

 Total 1,043,608 728,019 1,072,373 a

Population totals are for only JV portions of Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska.

b

Spring population estimates based on average densities determined from the WBPHS (2003–2007) in 

each state and BCR multiplied by the area within the State and BCR boundary. In Michigan, BCR 12 

densities are from “northern forested” survey segments (north portion of state) and BCR 23 densities 

are from “farm-urban” survey segments (south portion). c

Estimates generated from the relationship between average N.A. Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) counts 

(2002–2006) and average bird densities determined with the WBPHS (2003–2007). Interpolation 

(kriging) applied to BBS counts were adjusted to reflect densities across the JV region; the 

relationship equation developed with data from the two surveys was fit with the y-intercept set to 0. 

d

Population estimate used for Joint Venture habitat planning. WBPHS estimates were used when 

present. 

111 
Table 2. Blue-winged Teal population estimates in the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint 

Venture region based on the Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey and the North 

American Breeding Bird Survey.

Estimation method 

WBPHSb

State/BCR 

area (km

Density a 2 State BCR ) Estimate usedd (birds/km2 Interpolationc ) Estimate 

Iowa 22 107,870 14,018 14,018 

23 7,244 188 188 

Total 115,114 14,206 14,206 

Illinois 22 123,604 5,044 5,044 

23 3,388 67 67 

24 18,449 275 275 

Total 145,441 5,386 5,386 

Indiana 22 44,726 2,608 2,608 

23 13,170 1,262 1,262 

24 35,472 141 141 

Total 93,368 4,010 4,010 

Kansas 22 / Total 65,954 1,554 1,554 

Michigan 12 87,568 0.04 3,502 3,694 3,502 

22 4,144 0 0 

23 58,820 0.05 2,941 4,118 2,941 

Total 216,486 7,812 6,443 

Minnesota 12 82,674 0.38 31,416 29,793 31,416 

22 7,751 2,957 2,957 

23 26,089 3.53 92,094 31,104 92,094 

Total 116,515 63,854 126,467 

Missouri 22 / Total 82,792 164 164 

Nebraska 22 / Total 22,149 4,295 4,295 

Ohio 13 21,757 3 3 

22 52,338 0 0 

24 1,810 0 0 

28 30,504 0 0 

Total 106,409 3 3 

Wisconsin 12 46,337 0.36 16,681 8,466 16,681 

22 1,491 688 688 

23 97,507 1.50 146,260 31,625 146,260 

Total 145,335 40,779 163,629 

All States 12 216,579 41,952 51,599 

13 21,757 3 3 

22 512,821 31,327 31,327 

23 206,217 68,365 242,812 

24 55,731 416 416 

28 30,504 0 0 

 Total 1,043,608 142,063 326,157 a

Population totals are for only JV portions of Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska.

b

Spring population estimates based on average densities determined from the WBPHS (2003–2007) in 

each state and BCR multiplied by the area within the State and BCR boundary. In Michigan, BCR 12 

densities are from “northern forested” survey segments (north portion of state) and BCR 23 densities 

are from “farm-urban” survey segments (south portion). c

Estimates generated from the relationship between average N.A. Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) counts 

(2002–2006) and average bird densities determined with the WBPHS (2003–2007). Interpolation 

(kriging) applied to BBS counts were adjusted to reflect densities across the JV region; the 

relationship equation developed with data from the two surveys was fit with the y-intercept set to 0. 

d

Population estimate used for Joint Venture habitat planning. WBPHS estimates were used when 

present. 

112 
Table 3. Wood Duck population estimates in the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint 

Venture region based on the Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey and the North 

American Breeding Bird Survey.

Estimation method 

WBPHSb

State/BCR 

area (km

Density a 2 State BCR ) Estimate usedd (birds/km2 Interpolationc ) Estimate 

Iowa 22 107,870 43,239 43,239 

23 7,244 1,698 1,698 

Total 115,114 44,937 44,937 

Illinois 22 123,604 45,282 45,282 

23 3,388 1,327 1,327 

24 18,449 9,337 9,337 

Total 145,441 55,946 55,946 

Indiana 22 44,726 21,297 21,297 

23 13,170 10,663 10,663 

24 35,472 14,835 14,835 

Total 93,368 46,795 46,795 

Kansas 22 / Total 65,954 17,183 17,183 

Michigan 12 87,568 0.72 63,049 15,445 63,049 

22 4,144 2,354 2,354 

23 58,820 0.88 51,762 44,501 51,762 

Total 216,486 62,300 117,165 

Minnesota 12 82,674 0.88 72,753 57,376 72,753 

22 7,751 7,144 7,144 

23 26,089 2.24 58,439 41,472 58,439 

Total 116,515 105,992 138,336 

Missouri 22 / Total 82,792 27,268 27,268 

Nebraska 22 / Total 22,149 13,863 13,863 

Ohio 13 21,757 4,793 4,793 

22 52,338 18,361 18,361 

24 1,810 349 349 

28 30,504 4,896 4,896 

Total 106,409 28,399 28,399 

Wisconsin 12 46,337 0.63 29,192 18,293 29,192 

22 1,491 1,642 1,642 

23 97,507 0.94 91,657 60,906 91,657 

Total 145,335 80,841 122,491 

All States 12 216,579 91,114 164,994 

13 21,757 4,793 4,793 

22 512,821 197,633 197,633 

23 206,217 160,567 215,546 

24 55,731 24,521 24,521 

28 30,504 4,896 4,896 

 Total 1,043,608 483,524 612,383 a

Population totals are for only JV portions of Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska.

b

Spring population estimates based on average densities determined from the WBPHS (2003–2007) in 

each state and BCR multiplied by the area within the State and BCR boundary. In Michigan, BCR 12 

densities are from “northern forested” survey segments (north portion of state) and BCR 23 densities 

are from “farm-urban” survey segments (south portion). c

Estimates generated from the relationship between average N.A. Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) counts 

(2002–2006) and average bird densities determined with the WBPHS (2003–2007). Interpolation 

(kriging) applied to BBS counts were adjusted to reflect densities across the JV region; the 

relationship equation developed with data from the two surveys was fit with the y-intercept set to 0. 

d

Population estimate used for Joint Venture habitat planning. WBPHS estimates were used when 

present. 

113 
Table 4. Canada Goose population estimates in the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint 

Venture region based on the Waterfowl Breeding Population and Habitat Survey and the North 

American Breeding Bird Survey.

Estimation method 

WBPHSb

State/BCR 

area (km

Density a 2 State BCR ) Estimate usedd (birds/km2 Interpolationc ) Estimate 

Iowa 22 107,870 74,394 74,394 

23 7,244 3,502 3,502 

Total 115,114 77,896 77,896 

Illinois 22 123,604 56,898 56,898 

23 3,388 1,588 1,588 

24 18,449 3,945 3,945 

Total 145,441 62,431 62,431 

Indiana 22 44,726 29,815 29,815 

23 13,170 8,669 8,669 

24 35,472 9,500 9,500 

Total 93,368 47,984 47,984 

Kansas 22 / Total 65,954 13,951 13,951 

Michigan 12 87,568 0.65 56,919 22,945 56,919 

22 4,144 2.56 10,608 2,938 10,608 

23 58,820 2.21 129,992 32,712 129,992 

Total 216,486 58,594 197,519 

Minnesota 12 82,674 0.65 53,738 103,266 53,738 

22 7,751 4,324 4,324 

23 26,089 3.12 81,398 56,143 81,398 

Total 116,515 163,732 139,460 

Missouri 22 / Total 82,792 33,994 33,994 

Nebraska 22 / Total 22,149 8,332 8,332 

Ohio 13 21,757 14,491 14,491 

22 52,338 29,356 29,356 

24 1,810 297 297 

28 30,504 6,574 6,574 

Total 106,409 50,719 50,719 

Wisconsin 12 46,337 0.39 18,071 19,935 18,071 

22 1,491 2,099 2,099 

23 97,507 1.57 153,086 93,913 153,086 

Total 145,335 115,946 173,256 

All States 12 216,579 146,145 128,728 

13 21,757 14,491 14,491 

22 512,821 256,100 263,770 

23 206,217 196,526 378,235 

24 55,731 13,742 13,742 

28 30,504 6,574 6,574 

 Total 1,043,608 633,579 805,541 a

Population totals are for only JV portions of Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska.

b

Spring population estimates based on average densities determined from the WBPHS (2003–2007) in 

each state and BCR multiplied by the area within the State and BCR boundary. In Michigan, BCR 12 

densities are from “northern forested” survey segments (north portion of state) and BCR 23 and BCR 

22 densities are from “farm-urban” survey segments (south portion). 

c

Estimates generated from the relationship between average N.A. Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) counts 

(2002–2006) and average bird densities determined with the WBPHS (2003–2007). Interpolation 

(kriging) applied to BBS counts were adjusted to reflect densities across the JV region; the 

relationship equation developed with data from the two surveys was fit with the y-intercept set to 0. 

d

Population estimate used for Joint Venture habitat planning. WBPHS estimates were used when 

present. 

114 
Literature Cited (Appendix F only)

Johnston, K., J. M. Ver Hoef, K. Krivoruchko, and N. Lucas. 2001. Using ArcGIS 

Geostatistical Analyst. ESRI tutorial. 

http://training.esri.com/acb2000/showdetl.cfm?DID=6&Product_ID=808. 

NLCD. 2001. National Land Cover Data. http://www.mrlc.gov

 Smith, G. W. 1995. A critical review of the aerial and ground surveys of breeding 

waterfowl in North America. Biological Science Report 5, U.S. Department of 

Interior, Washington D.C. USA. 

Soulliere, G. J., and S. B. Chadwick. 2003. Using helicopter sampling to estimate 

visibility bias on the Michigan spring waterfowl survey. Michigan Department 

of Natural Resources, Wildlife Division Report 3408. 

115 
a Appendix G. Estimated duration of stay (use-days ) for waterfowl occurring in 

the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture (JV) region during 

the non-breeding season. 

Migration 

Group and species Spring Fall Winterb Source 

 Geese 

Snow Goose, Greater Race 45 17 90 Maisonneuve and Bedard 1992 (F) 

Snow Goose, Lesser Race 45 15 90 

Cackling Goose 45 15 90 

Canada Goose, Giant 90 90 90 

Canada goose, Interior 55 60 75 Tacha et al. 1991 (S, F, W) 

 Swans 

Mute Swan (Feral) 90 90 90 

Trumpeter Swan (Interior) 90 90 90 

Tundra Swan (Eastern) 25 22 0 Petrie and Wilcox 2003 (S, F, W) 

 Dabbling and perching ducks 

Gadwall 30 15 0 

American Wigeon 30 15 0 

American Black Duck 45 15 90 

Mallard 45 28 90 Bellrose and Crompton 1970 (F) 

Blue-winged Teal 30 15 0 

Northern Shoveler 30 15 0 

Northern Pintail 45 15 90 

Green-winged Teal 45 15 0 

Wood Duck 30 15 90 

Diving and stiff-tailed ducks 

Canvasback 45 15 90 

Redhead 45 15 90 

Ring-necked Duck 30 15 90 

Greater Scaup 45 15 90 

Lesser Scaup 30 15 90 

Ruddy Duck 30 15 90 

Sea ducks 

Common Eider 45 15 90 

Surf Scoter 45 15 90 

White-winged Scoter 45 15 90 

Black Scoter 45 15 90 

Long-tailed Duck 45 15 90 

Bufflehead 45 15 90 

Common Goldeneye 45 15 90 

Hooded Merganser 45 15 90 

Common Merganser 45 15 90 

Red-breasted Merganser 45 15 90 a

Unless documentation suggested a different duration of stay, a default estimate of days was used: spring 

early migrants = 45; spring late migrants = 30; fall migrants = 15; winter and residents = 90. 

b

Only species recorded during the Mid-winter Inventory (MWI) in recent years were included (i.e., on 

average >1% of the individuals for that species were observed in FWS Region 3 during continental 

MWI, 1994–2003). 

116 
Literature Cited (Appendix G only) 

Bellrose, F. C., and R. D. Crompton. 1970. Migration behavior of Mallards and Black 

Ducks as determined from banding. Illinois Natural History Bulletin 30:167–

234. 

Maisonneuve, C., and J. Bedard. 1992. Chronology of autumn migration by Greater 

Snow Geese. Journal of Wildlife Management 56:55–62. 

Petrie, S. A., and K. L. Wilcox. 2003. Migration chronology of Eastern-Population 

tundra swans. Canadian Journal of Zoology 81:861–870. 

Tacha, T. C., A. Wolf, W. D. Klimstra, and K. F. Abraham. 1991. Migration patterns of 

the Mississippi Valley Population of Canada Geese. Journal of Wildlife 

Management 55:94–102. 

117