Habitat Management in an Integrated Framework

John Eadie, UC Davis

Mike Anderson, IWWR, Ducks Unlimited Canada

Jim Ringelman, Ducks Unlimited Inc

Coherence - what do we mean?

Coherent Objectives

Coherent Models

Coherent Monitoring

Coherent Management Actions

Habitat

NAWMP

Harvest

Flyways

Sustain waterfowl populations

Sustain ecosystemprocesses

Sustain hunterparticipation

Coherent Habitat Objectives

Within Regions

Among Regions

Continental

Local

I. Local Objectives How would you manage if your objective

were to:

1. Manage only to increase waterfowl populations

2. Manage only to maximize ecosystem processes, biodiversity, ecological services

3. Manage only to maximize hunter opportunity & participation

Within Regions

Among Regions

Continental

Local

Within Regions

Among Regions

Continental

Local

Management PopulationsEcosystem Processes

Hunting Opportunity

Food Production Food plots

Moist-soil

Native

Sanctuary

Dispersion of food & sanctuary

Riparian

Access to hunters / public

I. Local ObjectivesWithin Regions

Among Regions

Continental

Local

More Less Either

Conflicting local objectives“When you drive around and see most of the high quality habitat in closed areas, it’s hard not to question the intent of some of area managers.”

“The biggest problem with our system is that waterfowl and hunting are not always a high priority, and unfortunately, it’s easy to see how politics, personal opinions and philosophies affect habitat quality”

Within Regions

Among Regions

Continental

Local

II. Regional Objectives Enhanced habitat quantity & quality may

lead to:

increased dispersion of birds

re-distribution of birds

”shortstopping”

Reduced hunter success and increased frustration

Within Regions

Among Regions

Continental

Local

Within Regions

Among Regions

Continental

Local

Shortstopping

No evidence for changes in harvest distributions of mallards

Late 1990s were years of exceptionally high harvest in the lower MF

Shifts northward since 2000 reflect a return to harvest distributions similar to those of the early 1980s

Green & Krementz (2008)

Within Regions

Among Regions

Continental

Local

Conflicting objectives within regions Efforts to improve habitat within regions

may have unintended consequences that conflict with other objectives

… or may be perceived as such

How do we manage the human dimension element?

Within Regions

Among Regions

Continental

Local

Allocation of MBCF funds

Biological basis

Hoekman’s et al’s (2002) analysis: ~ 90% of variance in MCM population growth () due to variance in vital rates on the breeding grounds

A simple proposal:Allocate 90% of fundsto breeding grounds

Within Regions

Among Regions

Continental

Local

Within Regions

Among Regions

Continental

Local

43%19%

14%

9% 5%

2% Clutch size2% Clutch size

7%

NestingNestingsuccesssuccessHenHen

Breeding survivalBreeding survival

DucklingDucklingsurvivalsurvival

Hen non-breedingHen non-breedingsurvivalsurvival

Re-nestingRe-nestingintensityintensity

Statistical “noise”Statistical “noise”

III. Objectives Among Regions

Simplistic biological model on role of key factors limiting population growth (and only MC mallards)

Other objectives are important: Supporting partnerships Providing hunting areas Ensuring that non-breeding

habitat does not become limiting

Within Regions

Among Regions

Continental

Local

43%19%

14%

9% 5%

2% Clutch size2% Clutch size7%

NestingNestingsuccesssuccess

HenHenBreeding survivalBreeding survival

DucklingDucklingsurvivalsurvival

Hen non-breedingHen non-breedingsurvivalsurvival

Re-nestingRe-nestingintensityintensity

Statistical “noise”Statistical “noise”

III. Objectives Among Regions

Conflicting objectives among regions Difficult decisions on how to allocate limited

resources among regions

Need explicit objectives (populations, harvest and human dimensions)

Biological models are only part of the equation

Within Regions

Among Regions

Continental

Local

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Sus

tain

able

Ann

ual H

arve

st

0

1.4

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

NAWMP Goal8.8 M

MSH5.9 M

Equilibrium Population Size

IV. Continental ObjectivesWithin Regions

Among Regions

Continental

Local

Within Regions

Among Regions

Continental

Local

Conflicting continentalobjectives NAWMP goals in current AHM constrain

harvest opportunity (when below Plan goal, utility goes down)

Harvest policy can influence ability to achieve NAWMP goals (under current AHM model weights, MCM BPOP would ≈ 7.5 M)

NAWMP goals were never intended to be met by reduced harvest, but by increased habitat

Within Regions

Among Regions

Continental

Local

Equilibrium BPOP

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

Yield curve with NAWMP goal at MSH pointYield curve with NAWMP goal at MSH point

What level of increase?

• Represents a very substantial increase in habitat (at least for mallards under average ponds)

K=17.6M

0 4 8 12 16 20

Equilibrium BPOP

Su

sta

ine

d A

nn

ua

l H

arv

es

t

NA goal 8.8M

Current

Desired

K=11.4M

Within Regions

Among Regions

Continental

Local

Tradeoffs What tradeoffs are necessary?

How willing are we to make those tradeoffs (accepting less of one to achieve more of another)?

Within Regions

Among Regions

Continental

Local

Coherence - what do we mean?

Coherent Objectives

Coherent Models

Coherent Monitoring

Coherent Management Actions

NAWMP Continental Assessment

Challenged JVs to do 3 things:

1. Develop biologically-based planning models

2. Track net habitat changes (losses, not just gains)

3. Measure success in term of biological response (vital rates, populations) not just acres and dollars

Biological models & planning tools?

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

Nu

mb

er o

f JV

s (N

= 1

8)

4

Limited

9

Moderate

5

Great

Habitat goals based on stepped-down continental population objectives?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Nu

mb

er o

f JV

s (N

= 1

8)

10

No

2

Partly

6

Yes

Landscape attributes that affect key vital rates?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Nu

mb

er o

f JV

s (N

= 1

8)

11

5

2

Limited Moderate Great

Ability to track acres delivered?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Nu

mb

er o

f JV

s (N

= 1

8)

5

3

10

Limited Moderate Great

Ability to track net changes (losses and gains)?

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Nu

mb

er o

f JV

s (N

= 1

8)

12

2

4

Limited Moderate Great

Ability to track waterfowl abundance or distribution in response to habitat efforts

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Nu

mb

er o

f JV

s (N

= 1

8) 11

34

Limited Moderate Great

How do we affect continental K? How do we scale down from continental

goals to tangible actions at the regional and local level?

How do we ensure that local efforts influence key vital rates and population processes (i.e. link ∆ habitat –› ∆ population)

How do we monitor the success of these efforts?

Can we get there?

Key issues:

Linking habitat not only to vital rates, but also to continental population dynamics

Linking breeding with non-breeding (migration and wintering)

Can we get there?

Efforts underway:

Pintail Action Group

Black Duck JV

Waterfowl Migration Structured Decision-Making Workshop

Winter Joint Venture Workshop

Linking Waterfowl Survival and Wintering Habitat Conditions

B1

B2

W1

W2

Links to vital rates (non-breeding)

Body ConditionHabitat Quality(Food kg/acre) S

urvival

-

+ +

Foraging TimeRequired

Surplus Energy

-+

-

-

+

+

Non-foraging Time -

-

Movement

Recru

itmen

t

PopulationDensity

+

-

+/-

+

Pairing Success

Timing of Breeding

Breeding Propensity++

-

-+

++

- - -

Predation

Harvest

Disease

Starvation--

+

+

+

-

Body ConditionHabitat Quality(Food kg/acre)

+

+

Su

rvival-

Movement

Recru

itmen

t

PopulationDensity

-

-+/-

+

+

Equilibrium BPOP

Su

sta

ina

ble

An

nua

l Har

vest

KK K

Using BPOP to monitor NAWMP success

Current Condition

Habitat Loss

Expanded Habitat

Equilibrium BPOP

Su

sta

ina

ble

An

nua

l Har

vest

Current ConditionK

Habitat LossK

Expanded HabitatK

Using BPOP to monitor NAWMP success

Objectives

PlanningModels

Monitoring &Evaluation

ManagementActions

Uncertainties Habitat quality vs. habitat quantity

Density-dependence

Regime shifts (climate, policy, land use, water quality)

Take homes Coherence - clarifying objectives and

evaluating willingness to accept tradeoffs

Conceptual challenges - formally integrate habitat models and harvest models at a continental scale (with HD)

Frank discussion - value of prescriptive modeling, ability to monitor success, cost of doing so, resource allocation to ensure biggest bang for the buck

Questions1. How do we “solve” for multiple objectives?

To what extent should our habitat programs be targeted toward:

Sustaining & enhancing waterfowl populations

Sustaining & enhancing wetland processes, systems and ecological services

Sustaining & enhancing hunting & recreational

opportunities (and other stakeholder needs)

Questions

2. To what extent should efforts to achieve

any one objective limit our ability to

achieve the others?

What is our tolerance for accepting less of one

in order to achieve more of another?

Questions

3. How can we affect continental “K”?

What is needed (technical, institutional)?

How do we measure K and ∆K?

How do we “step-up” local / regional actions to

meet continental goals?

Cranky Questions (Mike & Jim are absolved)

1. How serious are we about developing multi-objective, structured decision models, integrating harvest, habitat and human dimensions? What is necessary? What is the willingness of the waterfowl

community to go there?

Cranky Questions

2. Will better integrated models (habitat, harvest & human dimensions) get us there? Increased complexity, lack of data,

uncertainties over functional relationships How to do this for more than just mallards and

a few other species

Cranky Questions

3. Can we ignore the other stakeholders? We are just now (2008) talking about more

explicitly engaging hunters & HD Over the next 1-2 decades, will it still be hunters

“driving the bus”? Are we on the edge of a “hunter bubble”?

Where will the resources come from to support these additional functions?

Should we expand our triangle (HHH) now to include other constituencies?