• Traditionally relied on MWI

• Random transect aerial survey– Reinecke et al. (1990)– Pearse et al. (2005)– State agencies continuing

work• MDWFP (2005-present)• MDC (2007-present)*• AGFC (2009-present)• LDWF (2011?)

• Mallard Migration Network

Wappapello Action ItemsPopulation Monitoring

Table 26. DED values associated with individual habitat sources, 80th percentile, by state, relative to habitat objectives, Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1999-2005.

Private Managed Public Managed

State

Natural Flood MIP MOP Federal State Total Objective Difference

AR 42,795,0265,473,08

010,455,0

4344,227,89

810,797,1

80113,748,2

27219,427,3

37

-105,679,1

10

KY 31,702 30,586 51,209 1,476,5411,875,96

4 3,466,002 2,636,952 829,050

LA 4,900,2421,531,12

72,648,66

416,678,11

811,369,4

7337,127,62

4120,913,2

90

-83,785,66

6

MS 8,492,5703,326,23

01,813,91

431,415,33

014,119,4

1959,167,46

372,637,07

7

-13,469,61

4

MO 2,468,185 892,7991,125,38

0 6,881,68739,925,2

5751,293,30

818,025,01

533,268,29

3

TN 652,063 85,842 80,603 5,098,0126,636,96

012,553,48

033,625,65

8

-21,072,17

8

Total 59,339,788

11,339,664

16,174,813

105,777,586

84,724,253

277,356,104

467,265,329

-189,909,2

25

Allocation• Alternatives

– Allocation proportional to current ratio of public lands to private lands after accounting for natural flood

Table 26. DED values associated with individual habitat sources, 80th percentile, by state, relative to habitat objectives, Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1999-2005.

Private Managed Public Managed

State

Natural Flood MIP MOP Federal State Total Objective Difference

AR 42,795,0265,473,08

010,455,0

4344,227,89

810,797,1

80113,748,2

27219,427,3

37

-105,679,1

10

15,928,123 55,025,078

1:3.523,484,247 more DEDs on Private Managed

82,194,863 more DEDs on Public Managed

Allocation• Alternatives

– Allocation proportional to current ratio of public lands to private lands after accounting for natural flood

– Allocation to private lands proportional to difference between liberal and moderate and restrictive season population size (centroid)

in AHM for midcontinent mallards

AHM-based Allocation

Equilibrium BPOP (LMVJV Wintering Population)

Su

sta

ina

ble

An

nua

l Har

vest

Current Condition

K

Habitat Loss

K

Expanded Habitat

K

The effect of habitat change on yield curves

AHM-based Allocation2010-2011 Adaptive Harvest Management

Matrix

BPOP 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0

≤4.5 C C C C C C C C C C

4.75-5.75 R R R R R R R R R R

6.00 R R R R R R R R M M

6.25 R R R R R R M M M L

6.50 R R R R M M M L L L

6.75 R R R M L L L L L L

7.00 R M M M L L L L L L

7.25 M L L L L L L L L L

7.50 L L L L L L L L L L

≥7.75 L L L L L L L L L L

CANADIAN MAY PONDS

• Water Management Unit Update• Current data from 2006-7• An update will be pursued late summer-early fall

• Moist-soil Management Database• LMVJV (Wilson)• USFWS (Crossett)• MDC (Nelson)• UT-K (Gray)

• Questions• Is a database useful? If so, how? • Why aren’t current databases adequate or being

used?• Can we bring independent efforts together?• What value do we get from coordination?

Moist-soil Database Development

• Scoping meeting held at Cache River NWR in May, 2010• Programmers from USGS-NWRC and MDC• Managers from MS, AR, MO, USFWS

• Database objectives• Historical record to preserve continuity of knowledge• Adaptive management tool to increase resource efficiency• Improved means of accomplishment tracking

• Management activities, acres affected, dollars spent • Greater biological accountability (habitat and bird response)

• Tool to help integrate across taxa and spatial scales

• Modular spatial database with plug-ins to address:

• Site Description• Management Tracking System• DED Calculator• Bird Monitoring Data Repository

Moist-soil Database Development

The Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture

John Tirpak, Ph.D.Science Coordinator

Gulf Coastal Plains and Ozarks Landscape Conservation Cooperative

North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee MeetingDoubletree Hotel Portland, Oregon

10 January 2010

What We Need from the PC• Clear guidance on the philosophy of waterfowl

conservation– Temporal aspects of objectives

• What are “reasonable” conservation safeguards to support long-term sustainability in the face of short-term environmental stochasticity?

• What defines “sustainable” habitats?– How do we account Managed-out-of-program reliability

– Role of private vs. public & “natural” vs. managed habitats?

• How much do we want to rely on private duck clubs?– How “concentrated” do we want ducks?

• Role of sanctuary?

– Spatial distribution of waterfowl• How do we deal with shifting waterfowl populations?

– Climate change, habitat, or both

• Should we care?

Plan Committee Recommendations

– Focus on enabling and supporting programs to enhance partnerships with private landowners and other sectors as well

– Ensure full integration of the full complement of private lands programs into integrated bird planning efforts

– Elevate focus on assumption-driven research relevant to habitat use and food abundance

– Increase linkages amongst researchers and managers for more efficient and effective coordination of research efforts

– Increase efforts to better assess the reliability, state change, potential for sanctuary, habitat quality in private lands

– Increase efforts to link JV assessments of appropriate waterfowl habitat distribution among multiple sectors to continental objectives both individually and collectively (multiple wintering regions combined)