DOCSLIB.ORG

Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy – 2017 Revision

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy – 2017 Revision Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy – 2017 Revision i Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy – 2017 Revision JV Waterfowl Committee Members: Greg Soulliere, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Co-chair John Coluccy, Ducks Unlimited, Co-chair Mike Eichholz, Southern Illinois University Bob Gates, Ohio State University Heath Hagy, Illinois Natural History Survey (currently USFWS) Dave Luukkonen, Michigan Department of Natural Resources John Simpson, Winous Point Marsh Conservancy Jake Straub, University of Wisconsin – Stevens Point Mitch Weegman, University of Missouri Recommended citation: Soulliere, G. J., M. A. Al-Saffar, J. M. Coluccy, R. J. Gates, H. M. Hagy, J. W. Simpson, J. N. Straub, R. L. Pierce, M. W. Eichholz, and D. R. Luukkonen. 2017. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy – 2017 Revision. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bloomington, Minnesota, USA. Cover: Wood Duck, photo provided by Ducks Unlimited. ii TABLE OF CONTENTS PLAN SUMMARY ........................................................................................................... 1 Acknowledgements .......................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT ................................................................................. 4 Regional Overview ........................................................................................................ 4 Habitat Delivery and Evaluation, 2007–2014 ............................................................10 Future Habitat Delivery and Reporting ......................................................................13 Completed Monitoring and Research ........................................................................14 NAWMP Evaluation and Evolution .......................................................................... 16 Implementing the NAWMP .......................................................................................17 Integrating Waterfowl Conservation..........................................................................18 Science Collaboration ................................................................................................19 STRATEGIC HABITAT CONSERVATION .............................................................. 19 BIOLOGICAL PLANNING .......................................................................................... 20 Focal Species and Habitat Associations .................................................................... 20 NAWMP Population Abundance Goal ..................................................................... 24 Regional Breeding Population Abundance and Trends .......................................... 26 Regional Breeding Population Objectives .................................................................32 Regional Non-breeding Population Abundance ....................................................... 35 Regional Non-breeding Population Objectives .........................................................36 Goal for Waterfowl Supporters ................................................................................. 38 Trends and Objectives for Waterfowl Hunters ..........................................................39 Non-hunter Waterfowl Supporters .............................................................................40 Biological Models ........................................................................................................ 42 Life-cycle Modeling and Limiting Factors ................................................................43 Non-breeding Period – A Focus on Energetics..........................................................45 CONSERVATION DESIGN ......................................................................................... 47 Landscape Planning Units .......................................................................................... 48 BCR Functional Differences ......................................................................................48 Land Cover and Habitat Assessment ........................................................................ 51 Landscape Change .....................................................................................................52 Conservation Estate ...................................................................................................54 Habitat Quantity vs. Quality ......................................................................................56 Factors Affecting Habitat Quality ..............................................................................56 Adapting to System Change.......................................................................................58 Habitat Goal and Objectives ...................................................................................... 60 Breeding Habitat Objectives ......................................................................................61 Non-breeding Habitat Objectives ..............................................................................62 Targeting Conservation for Waterfowl and People ................................................. 67 Decision Support Tool ...............................................................................................68 CONSERVATION DELIVERY .................................................................................... 73 Habitat Restoration and Enhancement .................................................................... 74 Habitat Retention ........................................................................................................ 77 Conservation Delivery Considerations ..................................................................... 79 Business and Conservation ........................................................................................79 iii Measuring Performance ............................................................................................. 82 Net Change in Resources ...........................................................................................83 Adaptive Management ...............................................................................................83 MONITORING AND RESEARCH .............................................................................. 84 Monitoring Needs ........................................................................................................ 87 Priority Monitoring Objectives ..................................................................................88 Research Needs............................................................................................................ 88 Priority Research Objectives ......................................................................................89 COMMUNICATIONS AND OUTREACH .................................................................. 89 TIMETABLE AND COORDINATION ....................................................................... 92 LITERATURE CITED .................................................................................................. 93 APPENDICES ............................................................................................................... 106 Appendix A. Accounts for breeding waterfowl focal species ............................... 107 Wood Duck ..............................................................................................................109 Mallard .....................................................................................................................115 Blue-winged Teal .....................................................................................................121 Ring-necked Duck ...................................................................................................127 Appendix B. Non-breeding waterfowl guild accounts .......................................... 133 Emergent Wetland ...................................................................................................135 Forested Wetland .....................................................................................................139 Aquatic Bed Wetland ...............................................................................................143 Unconsolidated Wetland (open water) .....................................................................149 Appendix C. Common and scientific names of wildlife and plants ..................... 155 Appendix D. Reports and publications resulting from JV evaluation ................ 157 Appendix E. Site conservation assessment: scoping wetland restoration ........... 161 iv PLAN SUMMARY Bird habitat conservation is implemented at local scales, but addressing population-level priorities throughout the annual cycle is critical to effective conservation. In addition, social considerations are appearing in contemporary conservation plans seeking to be more relevant to society and to grow support for bird habitat initiatives. For example, wetland bird habitat restoration in locations that provide society more tangible ecological goods and services (e.g., water filtration, flood-water storage, open space for hunting and birding) could, theoretically, help recruit more conservation supporters. Managing the assembly of biological, political, and social aspects of modern-day
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2015 Canadian NAWMP Report
    September 2015 nawmp.wetlandnetwork.ca HabitatMatters 2015 Canadian NAWMP Report Mallard Pair – Early Winter Robert Bateman North American Waterfowl Management Plan —— Plan nord-américain de gestion de la sauvagine —— Plan de Manejo de Aves 2015 Canadian North American Waterfowl Management Plan Report AcuáticasHabitat MattersNorteaméricaa ContentsTable of 1 About the NAWMP 2 National Overview 2 Accomplishments 3 Expenditures and Contributions 4 Special Feature – NAWCA’s 25th Anniversary 6 Habitat Joint Ventures 7 Pacific Birds Habitat Joint Venture 12 Canadian Intermountain Joint Venture 16 Prairie Habitat Joint Venture 21 Eastern Habitat Joint Venture 26 Species Joint Ventures 27 Black Duck Joint Venture 29 Sea Duck Joint Venture 31 Arctic Goose Joint Venture 33 Partners b Habitat Matters 2015 Canadian North American Waterfowl Management Plan Report About the NAWMP Ducks congregate at a prairie pothole wetland. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP or ©Ducks Unlimited Canada/Brian Wolitski ‘the Plan’) is an international partnership to restore, conserve and protect waterfowl populations and associated habitats through management decisions based on strong biological partnership extends across North America, working at national foundations. The ultimate goal is to achieve abundant and and regional levels on a variety of waterfowl and habitat resilient waterfowl populations and sustainable landscapes. management issues. The Plan engages the community of users and supporters committed to conservation and valuing waterfowl. Since the creation of the Plan, NAWMP partners have worked to conserve and restore wetlands, associated uplands and In 1986, the Canadian and United States governments other key habitats for waterfowl across Canada, the United signed this international partnership agreement, laying the States and Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • 2018 Canadian NAWMP Report
    September 2018 nawmp.wetlandnetwork.ca HabitatMatters 2018 Canadian NAWMP Report “Autumn Colours – Wood Duck” from the 2018 Canadian Wildlife Habitat Conservation Stamp series. Artist: Pierre Girard North American Waterfowl Management Plan —— Plan nord-américain de gestion de la sauvagine —— Plan de Manejo de Aves Acuáticas Norteamérica TableContents of 1 About the NAWMP 2 National Overview 2 Accomplishments 3 Expenditures and Contributions 4 Canadian Waterfowl Habitat Benefits All North Americans 6 Habitat Joint Ventures 7 Prairie Habitat Joint Venture 12 Eastern Habitat Joint Venture 17 Pacific Birds Habitat Joint Venture 23 Canadian Intermountain Joint Venture 28 Species Joint Ventures 29 Sea Duck Joint Venture 31 Black Duck Joint Venture 33 Arctic Goose Joint Venture 36 Partners About the NAWMP Hooded Merganser duckling. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) Laura Kaye is an international partnership to restore, conserve and protect waterfowl populations and associated habitats through management decisions based on strong biological waterfowl populations. Mexico became a signatory to the foundations. The ultimate goal is to achieve abundant and NAWMP with its update in 1994. As a result, the NAWMP resilient waterfowl populations and sustainable landscapes. partnership extends across North America, working at national The NAWMP engages the community of users and supporters and regional levels on a variety of waterfowl and habitat committed to conserving and valuing waterfowl and wetlands. management issues. In 1986, the Canadian and American governments signed this Since its creation, the NAWMP’s partners have worked to international partnership agreement, laying the foundation conserve and restore wetlands, associated uplands and other for international cooperation in the recovery of declining key habitats for waterfowl across Canada, the United States and Mexico.
    [Show full text]
  • Visualizing Populations of North American Sea Ducks: Maps to Guide Research and Management Planning
    Prepared in Cooperation with the Sea Duck Joint Venture Continental Technical Team Visualizing Populations of North American Sea Ducks: Maps to Guide Research and Management Planning Open-File Report 2019–1142 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey Cover: Male long-tailed duck. (Photograph by Ryan Askren, U.S. Geological Survey, public domain.) Prepared in Cooperation with the Sea Duck Joint Venture Continental Technical Team Visualizing Populations of North American Sea Ducks: Maps to Guide Research and Management Planning By John M. Pearce, Paul L. Flint, Mary E. Whalen, Sarah A. Sonsthagen, Josh Stiller, Vijay P. Patil, Timothy Bowman, Sean Boyd, Shannon S. Badzinski, H. Grant Gilchrist, Scott G. Gilliland, Christine Lepage, Pam Loring, Dan McAuley, Nic R. McLellan, Jason Osenkowski, Eric T. Reed, Anthony J. Roberts, Myra O. Robertson, Tom Rothe, David E. Safine, Emily D. Silverman, and Kyle Spragens Open-File Report 2019–1142 U.S. Department of the Interior U.S. Geological Survey U.S. Department of the Interior David Bernhardt, Secretary U.S. Geological Survey James F. Reilly II, Director U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2019 For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, natural hazards, and the environment—visit https://www.usgs.gov/ or call 1–888–ASK–USGS (1–888–275–8747). For an overview of USGS information products, including maps, imagery, and publications, visit https:/store.usgs.gov. Any use of trade, firm, or product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi Flyway Council Policy Management of Mute Swans
    MISSISSIPPI FLYWAY COUNCIL POLICY MANAGEMENT OF MUTE SWANS Introduction This document briefly describes the history, status, selected biology, management concerns, and recommendations for the management of mute swans (Cygnus olor), a non-native, invasive species that has become established in several locations in the Mississippi Flyway (e.g., Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Ontario, and Wisconsin). Although the populations are relatively low in most Flyway states, establishing and implementing a Flyway policy is important because the birds have high reproductive potential and have negative impacts on native species and damage aquatic habitats. In recent years, the numbers have continued to increase. The policy recommendations below represent the consensus of wildlife agencies in the Mississippi Flyway with respect to management of this species. The purpose of this document is to provide direction for the cooperative management of mute swans by natural-resource agencies in the Flyway. Background Introduction and Populations - Mute swans are native to Eurasia. Although once severely reduced in numbers by market-hunting and war within their natural range, they have been domesticated for centuries and are now widely distributed throughout Europe. The Eurasian population is estimated at 1 million. Mute swans were introduced into North America during the late 1800s as decorative waterfowl and have now established feral populations in all four Flyways due to escaped and released birds. Nelson (1997) estimated a population of 18,000 mute swans in North America, with most being in the Atlantic Flyway. By 2000, Nelson estimated a total of 6,800 mute swans in the Mississippi Flyway, with feral populations occurring in 9 of 17 states or provinces.
    [Show full text]
  • Sea Duck Curriculum Revised
    Sea Ducks of Alaska Activity Guide Acknowledgments Contact Information: Project Coordinator: Marilyn Sigman, Center for Alaskan Coastal Studies Education: Written By: Sea Duck Activity Guide, Teaching Kit and Display: Elizabeth Trowbridge, Center for Alaskan Coastal Marilyn Sigman Center for Alaskan Coastal Studies Studies P.O. Box 2225 Homer, AK 99603 Illustrations by: (907) 235-6667 Bill Kitzmiller, Conrad Field and Fineline Graphics [email protected] (Alaska Wildlife Curriculum Illustrations), Elizabeth Alaska Wildlife Curricula Trowbridge Robin Dublin Wildlife Education Coordinator Reviewers: Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game Marilyn Sigman, Bree Murphy, Lisa Ellington, Tim Division of Wildlife Conservation Bowman, Tom Rothe 333 Raspberry Rd. Anchorage, AK 99518-1599 (907)267-2168 Funded By: [email protected] U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Alaska Coastal Program and Scientific/technical Information: The Alaska Department of Fish and Game, State Duck Tim Bowman Stamp Program Sea Duck Joint Venture Coordinator (Pacific) The Center for Alaskan Coastal Studies would like to thank U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service the following people for their time and commitment to sea 1011 E. Tudor Rd. duck education: Tim Bowman, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Anchorage, AK 99503 Service, Sea Duck Joint Venture Project, for providing (907) 786-3569 background technical information, photographs and [email protected] support for this activity guide and the sea duck traveling SEADUCKJV.ORG display; Tom Rothe and Dan Rosenberg of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game for technical information, Tom Rothe presentations and photographs for both the sea duck Waterfowl Coordinator traveling display and the activity guide species identifica- Alaska Dept. of Fish & Game tion cards; John DeLapp, U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Sea Duck Joint Venture Strategic Plan 2014-2018
    Sea Duck Joint Venture Strategic Plan 2014 - 2018 ___________________________________ Plan Conjoint des Canards de Mer Plan Stratégique 2014 – 2018 A North American Waterfowl Management Plan Conservation Partnership Sea Duck Joint Venture Strategic Plan 2014 - 2018 ___________________________________________ Plan Conjoint des Canards de Mer Plan Stratégique 2014 – 2018 Suggested Citation: Sea Duck Joint Venture Management Board. 2014. Sea Duck Joint Venture Strategic Plan 2014 – 2018. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service, Anchorage, Alaska, USA; Canadian Wildlife Service, Sackville, New Brunswick, Canada. Inquiries about this plan may be directed to member organizations of the Sea Duck Joint Venture or to the Coordination Offices: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska 99503 ([email protected]) Canadian Wildlife Service, 17 Waterfowl Lane, Sackville, New Brunswick E4L 1G6 ([email protected]) Copies of this plan and other joint venture documents may be obtained from these offices or downloaded from the SDJV website: http://seaduckjv.org Cover Photo: Scoters and Long-tailed Ducks, Prince William Sound, Alaska; Tim Bowman Sea Duck Joint Venture Strategic Plan 2014 – 2018 4 Executive Summary The vision of the Sea Duck Joint Venture (SDJV) is to maintain sustainable populations of North American sea ducks throughout their ranges. The SDJV promotes the conservation of North American sea ducks through partnerships by providing greater knowledge and understanding for effective management. Its goals are to 1) work with partners to generate and disseminate knowledge that will inform management decisions and sea duck conservation in North America, and 2) increase awareness of sea ducks within the conservation, industrial, and scientific communities through the development and implementation of a strategic communications plan.
    [Show full text]
  • 2020 Canadian NAWMP Report
    September 2020 nawmp.wetlandnetwork.ca HabitatMatters 2020 Canadian NAWMP Report “Come Spring – Northern Pintail” from the 2020 Canadian Wildlife Habitat Conservation Stamp series. Artist: DJ Cleland-Hura North American Waterfowl Management Plan —— Plan nord-américain de gestion de la sauvagine —— Plan de Manejo de Aves Acuáticas Norteamérica WE WANT TO HEAR FROM YOU Fill out our survey by December 31, 2020, for a chance at winning a prize. https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HabitatMatters https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/HabitatsCanadiens TableContents of 1 About the NAWMP 2 National Overview 2 Accomplishments 3 Expenditures and Contributions 4 Celebrating Ecological Restoration Successes 6 Habitat Joint Ventures 7 Pacific Birds Habitat Joint Venture 13 Canadian Intermountain Joint Venture 17 Prairie Habitat Joint Venture 22 Eastern Habitat Joint Venture 28 Species Joint Ventures 29 Black Duck Joint Venture 32 Sea Duck Joint Venture 34 Arctic Goose Joint Venture 36 Partners About the NAWMP Northern Pintails. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) Ducks Unlimited Canada is an international partnership to restore, conserve and protect waterfowl populations and associated habitats Mexico became a signatory to the NAWMP with its update through management decisions based on strong biological in 1994. As a result, the NAWMP partnership extends across foundations. The ultimate goal is to achieve abundant and North America, working at national and regional levels on a resilient waterfowl populations and sustainable landscapes. variety of waterfowl and habitat management issues. The NAWMP engages the community of users and supporters Since its creation, the NAWMP’s partners have worked to committed to conserving and valuing waterfowl and wetlands.
    [Show full text]
  • Central Flyway Databook 2020 MIGRATORY GAME BIRD HUNTING PERMITS by PROVINCE/TERRITORY of PURCHASE in CANADA
    CENTRAL FLYWAY HARVEST AND POPULATION SURVEY DATA BOOK 2020 compiled by: James A. Dubovsky CENTRAL FLYWAY REPRESENTATIVE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE DIVISION OF MIGRATORY BIRD MANAGEMENT 134 Union Blvd., Suite 540 Lakewood, CO 80228 (303) 275-2386 Suggested Citation: Dubovsky, J. A., compiler. 2020. Central Flyway harvest and population survey data book 2020. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Lakewood CO. CENTRAL FLYWAY 1948-2020 73 YEARS OF MIGRATORY BIRD CONSERVATION Important Note to Users: From 1961-2001, estimates of waterfowl harvest, waterfowl hunter participation, and waterfowl hunter success in the United States were derived from a combination of several sources: 1) sales of migratory bird conservation stamps (Duck Stamps), 2) a Mail Questionnaire Survey of individuals who purchased ducks stamps for hunting purposes, and 3) the Waterfowl Parts Collection Survey (PCS). This survey, which was based on duck stamp sales was discontinued after the 2001 hunting season. Beginning in 1999, new survey methods were implemented that obtained estimates of waterfowl harvest, hunter participation, and hunter success from: 1) States' lists of migratory bird hunters identified through the Harvest Information Program (HIP), 2) a questionnaire (HIP Survey) sent to a sample of those hunters, and 3) the Waterfowl PCS. The basic difference is that during 1961 - 2001 waterfowl hunter activity and harvest estimates were derived from a Mail Questionnaire Survey (MQS) of duck stamp purchasers, whereas from 1999 to the present those estimates were derived from HIP surveys of people identified as migratory bird hunters by the States. Both survey systems relied on the Waterfowl PCS for species composition data.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Waterfowl Population Status Survey
    U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Waterfowl Population Status, 2019 Waterfowl Population Status, 2019 August 19, 2019 In the United States the process of establishing hunting regulations for waterfowl is conducted annually. This process involves a number of scheduled meetings in which information regarding the status of waterfowl is presented to individuals within the agencies responsible for setting hunting regulations. In addition, the proposed regulations are published in the Federal Register to allow public comment. This report includes the most current breeding population and production information available for waterfowl in North America and is a result of cooperative eforts by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), various state and provincial conservation agencies, and private conservation organizations. In addition to providing current information on the status of populations, this report is intended to aid the development of waterfowl harvest regulations in the United States for the 2020–2021 hunting season. i Acknowledgments Waterfowl Population and Habitat Information: The information contained in this report is the result of the eforts of numerous individuals and organizations. Principal contributors include the Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, state wildlife conservation agencies, provincial conservation agencies from Canada, and Direcci´on General de Conservaci´on Ecol´ogica de los Recursos Naturales, Mexico. In addition, several conservation organizations, other state and federal agencies, universities, and private individuals provided information or cooperated in survey activities. Appendix A.1 provides a list of individuals responsible for the collection and compilation of data for the “Status of Ducks” section of this report.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Population Structure of Cavity-Nesting Sea Ducks Estructura Poblacional Comparada De Patos Marinos Que Anidan En Cavidades John M
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln USGS Staff -- ubP lished Research US Geological Survey 2014 Comparative population structure of cavity-nesting sea ducks Estructura poblacional comparada de patos marinos que anidan en cavidades John M. Pearce U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, U.S. Geological Survey, Alaska Science Center, [email protected] John M. Eadie University of California, Davis, California Jean-Pierre L. Savard Science and Technology Branch, Environment Canada, Quebec, Canada Thomas K. Christensen Aarhus University, Rønde, Denmark James Berdeen Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, Bemidji, Minnesota See next page for additional authors Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub Pearce, John M.; Eadie, John M.; Savard, Jean-Pierre L.; Christensen, Thomas K.; Berdeen, James; Taylor, Eric J.; Boyd, Sean; Einarsson, Arni; and Talbot, Sandra L., "Comparative population structure of cavity-nesting sea ducks Estructura poblacional comparada de patos marinos que anidan en cavidades" (2014). USGS Staff -- Published Research. 810. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/810 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the US Geological Survey at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in USGS Staff -- ubP lished Research by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Authors John M. Pearce, John M. Eadie, Jean-Pierre L. Savard, Thomas K. Christensen, James Berdeen, Eric J. Taylor, Sean Boyd, Arni Einarsson, and Sandra L. Talbot This article is available at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/usgsstaffpub/810 Volume 131, 2014, pp. 195–207 DOI: 10.1642/AUK-13-071.1 RESEARCH ARTICLE Comparative population structure of cavity-nesting sea ducks John M.
    [Show full text]
  • Upper Mississippi River & Trempealeau River Refuges
    WEST - 10 UPPER MISSISSIPPI & TREMPEALEAU RIVER WETLAND TYPES John Sullivan Floodplain forest, marsh, shrub carr ECOLOGY & SIGNIFICANCE species of sedges grow here, including tussock sedge, woolly sedge, beaked sedge, bottlebrush sedge, lake sedge, meadow This vast riverine Wetland Gem is a multi-state site sedge and nut sedge. Common shrubs on the refuges include comprising more than 246,000 acres of floodplain in • buttonbush, dogwoods, willows and alder. GRANT COUNTY Wisconsin, Minnesota, Illinois and Iowa alongside more VERNON/CRAWFORD/ than 260 miles of the Upper Mississippi River. The corridor’s Hundreds of thousands of waterfowl, songbirds, and raptors PIERCE/PEPIN/BUFFALO/ TREMPEALEAU/LA CROSSE/ TREMPEALEAU/LA complex structure of islands, braided channels, oxbows use these refuges as stopovers and migratory corridors. and sloughs includes more than 51,000 acres of floodplain Waterfowl species include trumpeter swan, tundra swan, forest and 48,000 acres of marsh. Wildlife habitat values snow goose, wood duck, American black duck, blue-winged are what this site is best known for. These refuges protect a teal, northern shoveler, canvasback, redhead, ring-necked significant portion of the Mississippi Flyway, which is used duck, greater and lesser scaup, common goldeneye, hooded during migration by 40% of waterfowl in the U.S. Other merganser and ruddy duck. Reptiles and amphibians found wildlife includes about 300 species of birds, 31 species of at the site include map turtle, painted turtle, spiny softshell reptiles and 14 species of amphibians. Humans also flock to turtle, the state threatened Blanding’s turtle, blue-spotted this natural treasure; more than 3.7 million visitors explore salamander, green frog, northern leopard frog, pickerel frog these refuges annually and enjoy recreational offerings like and the state endangered Blanchard’s cricket frog.
    [Show full text]
  • Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative
    Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative JO ST INT V OA EN C T F U L R U E G North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2002 Photo and Illustration Credits Cover and page i: American wigeon, G.D. Chambers, Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Page iii: (top) pintails, ( bottom) greater scaup, C. Jeske, U.S. Geological Survey. Page iv: U.S. Geological Survey. Page 7: mallard pair, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture. Page 8: scaup pair, B. Hinz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 9: mottled duck pair, R. Paille, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 10: lesser snow geese, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Page 12: oil-drilling access canal plug, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture; breakwater structures, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Page 13: erosion control vegetation, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries; marsh burning, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture; hydrologic structure, B. Wilson, Gulf Coast Joint Venture; beneficial use of dredge material, T. Hess, Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. Page 19: B. Hinz, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 20: American wigeon pair, R. Stewart, Sr., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Page 22: northern shovelers and blue-winged teal, U.S. Geological Survey. Page 23: male ring-necked duck, W.L. Hohman, U.S. Geological Survey. Page 24: male American wigeon, C. Jeske, U.S. Geological Survey. Page 25: blue-winged teal males, W.L. Hohman, U.S. Geological Survey. Gulf Coast Joint Venture: Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative JO ST INT V OA EN C T F U L R U E G North American Waterfowl Management Plan This is one of six reports that address initiative plans for the entire North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Gulf Coast Joint Venture: the Chenier Plain Initiative, the Laguna Madre (Texas) Initiative, the Texas Mid-Coast Initiative, the Coastal Mississippi Wetlands Initiative, the Mobile Bay Initiative, and the Mississippi River Coastal Wetlands Initiative (southeast Louisiana).
    [Show full text]