# Presentation: 681099

## Habitat Management in an Integrated Framework

- John Eadie, UC DavisMike Anderson, IWWR, Ducks Unlimited CanadaJim Ringelman, Ducks Unlimited Inc

## Coherence - what do we mean?

- Coherent Objectives
- Coherent Models
- Coherent Monitoring
- Coherent Management Actions

## Habitat 

- Habitat
- NAWMP

- Harvest
- Flyways

- Sustain waterfowl populations

- Sustain ecosystemprocesses

- Sustain hunterparticipation

## Coherent Habitat Objectives

- Within Regions

- Among Regions

- Continental

## I. Local Objectives

- How would you manage if your objective were to:
- Manage _only_ to increase waterfowl populations
- Manage _only_ to maximize ecosystem processes, biodiversity, ecological services
- Manage _only_ to maximize hunter opportunity & participation

## I. Local Objectives

| Management | Populations | Ecosystem Processes | Hunting Opportunity |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Food Production 	Food plots |  |  |  |
| 	                Moist-soil |  |  |  |
| 	                Native |  |  |  |
| Sanctuary |  |  |  |
| Dispersion of food & sanctuary |  |  |  |
| Riparian |  |  |  |
| Access to hunters / public |  |  |  |

- 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”

## 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

## 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)

## Conflicting objectives within regions

- 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?

## 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 fundsto breeding grounds

- 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

- 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

- Other objectives are important:
- Supporting partnerships
- Providing hunting areas
- Ensuring that non-breedinghabitat does not become limiting

- III. Objectives Among Regions

## Conflicting 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

## IV. Continental Objectives

- 0

- 2

- 4

- 6

- 8

- 1

- 0

- 1

- 2

- Sustainable Annual Harvest

- 0

- 1

- .

- 4

- 1

- .

- 2

- 1

- .

- 0

- 0

- .

- 8

- 0

- .

- 6

- 0

- .

- 4

- 0

- .

- 2

- NAWMP Goal
- 8.8 M

- MSH
- 5.9 M

- Equilibrium Population Size

- IV. Continental Objectives

## Conflicting continentalobjectives

- 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

## The effect of habitat change on yield curves

- Equilibrium BPOP

- Sustainable Annual Harvest

- Current Condition

- K

- Habitat Loss

- K

- Expanded Habitat

- K

## 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**

**Sustained Annual Harvest**

- NA goal 8.8M

- Current

- Desired

- K=11.4M

## Tradeoffs

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

## Coherence - what do we mean?

- Coherent Objectives
- Coherent Models
- Coherent Monitoring
- Coherent Management Actions

## NAWMP Continental Assessment

- Challenged JVs to do 3 things:
- Develop biologically-based planning models
- Track net habitat changes (losses, not just gains)
- 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

**Number of JVs (N = 18)**

- 4

- Limited

- 9

- Moderate

- 5

- Great

## Habitat goals based on stepped-down continental population objectives?

- 0

- 2

- 4

- 6

- 8

- 10

- 12

**Number of JVs (N = 18)**

## Landscape attributes that affect key vital rates?

- 0

- 2

- 4

- 6

- 8

- 10

- 12

**Number of JVs (N = 18)**

- 11

- 5

- 2

- Limited

- Moderate

- Great

## Ability to track acres delivered?

- 0

- 2

- 4

- 6

- 8

- 10

- 12

- 14

**Number of JVs (N = 18)**

- 5

- 3

- 10

- Limited

- Moderate

- Great

## Ability to track net changes (losses and gains)?

- 0

- 2

- 4

- 6

- 8

- 10

- 12

- 14

**Number of JVs (N = 18)**

- 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

**Number of JVs (N = 18)**

- 11

- 3

- 4

- 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

## Links to vital rates (non-breeding)

**Body Condition**

**Habitat Quality**
**(Food kg/acre)**

**Survival**

**-**

**Movement**

**Recruitment**

## Using BPOP to monitor NAWMP success

- Equilibrium BPOP

- Sustainable Annual Harvest

- K

- K

- K

- Current Condition

- Habitat Loss

- Expanded Habitat

## Using BPOP to monitor NAWMP success

- Equilibrium BPOP

- Sustainable Annual Harvest

- Current Condition

- K

- Habitat Loss

- K

- Expanded Habitat

- K

## Objectives

- Planning
- Models

- Monitoring &
- Evaluation

- Management
- Actions

## 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

## Questions

- 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

- 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

- 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)

- Cranky Questions (Mike & Jim are absolved)

- 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

- 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

- 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?