1. 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 Items Population Monitoring

2. Table 26. DED values associated with individual habitat sources, 80 th percentile, by state, relative to habitat objectives, Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1999-2005. Private ManagedPublic Managed StateNatural FloodMIPMOPFederalStateTotalObjectiveDifference AR42,795,0265,473,08010,455,04344,227,89810,797,180113,748,227219,427,337-105,679,110 KY31,70230,58651,2091,476,5411,875,9643,466,0022,636,952829,050 LA4,900,2421,531,1272,648,66416,678,11811,369,47337,127,624120,913,290-83,785,666 MS8,492,5703,326,2301,813,91431,415,33014,119,41959,167,46372,637,077-13,469,614 MO2,468,185892,7991,125,3806,881,68739,925,25751,293,30818,025,01533,268,293 TN652,06385,84280,6035,098,0126,636,96012,553,48033,625,658-21,072,178 Total 59,339,78811,339,66416,174,813105,777,58684,724,253277,356,104467,265,329-189,909,225 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, 80 th percentile, by state, relative to habitat objectives, Mississippi Alluvial Valley, 1999-2005. Private ManagedPublic Managed StateNatural FloodMIPMOPFederalStateTotalObjectiveDifference AR42,795,0265,473,08010,455,04344,227,89810,797,180113,748,227219,427,337-105,679,110 15,928,12355,025,078 1:3.5 23,484,247 more DEDs on Private Managed 82,194,863 more DEDs on Public Managed

3. 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

4. AHM-based Allocation Equilibrium BPOP (LMVJV Wintering Population) Sustainable Annual Harvest Current Condition K Habitat Loss K Expanded Habitat K The effect of habitat change on yield curves

5. AHM-based Allocation 2010-2011 Adaptive Harvest Management Matrix

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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 Meeting Doubletree Hotel Portland, Oregon 10 January 2010

9. 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?

10. 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)