Habitat Management in an Integrated Framework

1. Habitat Management in an Integrated Framework John Eadie, UC DavisMike Anderson, IWWR, Ducks Unlimited CanadaJim Ringelman, Ducks Unlimited Inc

2. Coherence - what do we mean? • Coherent Objectives • Coherent Models • Coherent Monitoring • Coherent Management Actions

3. Sustain waterfowl populations Habitat NAWMP Harvest Flyways Sustain ecosystemprocesses Sustain hunterparticipation

4. Local Coherent Habitat Objectives Continental Among Regions Within Regions

5. Continental Among Regions Within Regions Local Continental Among Regions Within Regions Local 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

6. Continental Among Regions Within Regions Local I. Local Objectives More Less Either

7. Continental Among Regions Within Regions Local 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”

8. Continental Continental Among Regions Among Regions Within Regions Within Regions Local 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

9. Continental Among Regions Within Regions 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)

10. Continental Among Regions Within Regions 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?

11. Continental Continental Among Regions Among Regions Within Regions Within Regions Statistical “noise” Hen non-breeding survival Local 2% Clutch size Local Re-nesting intensity 7% 9% Ducklingsurvival 5% 14% 43% 19% Nesting success Hen Breeding survival III. Objectives Among Regions • 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

12. Continental Among Regions Within Regions Local Statistical “noise” Hen non-breeding survival 2% Clutch size Re-nesting intensity 7% 9% Ducklingsurvival 5% 14% 43% 19% Nesting success Hen Breeding survival 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-breedinghabitat does not become limiting

13. Continental Among Regions Within Regions Local 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

14. Continental Among Regions Within Regions Local Continental Among Regions Within Regions Local IV. Continental Objectives MSH 5.9 M NAWMP Goal 8.8 M 1 . 4 1 . 2 1 . 0 0 . 8 Sustainable Annual Harvest 0 . 6 0 . 4 0 . 2 0 0 2 4 6 8 1 0 1 2 Equilibrium Population Size

15. Continental Among Regions Within Regions 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

16. The effect of habitat change on yield curves Expanded Habitat Sustainable Annual Harvest Current Condition Habitat Loss K K K Equilibrium BPOP

17. Continental Among Regions Within Regions Local What level of increase? • Represents a very substantial increase in habitat (at least for mallards under average ponds) Yield curve with NAWMP goal at MSH point NA goal 8.8M Desired Sustained Annual Harvest Current K=11.4M K=17.6M 0 4 8 12 16 20 Equilibrium BPOP

18. Continental Among Regions Within Regions Local Tradeoffs • What tradeoffs are necessary? • How willing are we to make those tradeoffs (accepting less of one to achieve more of another)?

19. Coherence - what do we mean? • Coherent Objectives • Coherent Models • Coherent Monitoring • Coherent Management Actions

20. 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

21. Biological models & planning tools? 10 9 9 8 7 6 5 Number of JVs (N = 18) 5 4 4 3 2 1 0 Limited Moderate Great

22. 10 6 2 No Partly Yes Habitat goals based on stepped-down continental population objectives? 12 10 8 Number of JVs (N = 18) 6 4 2 0

23. Landscape attributes that affect key vital rates? 12 11 10 8 Number of JVs (N = 18) 6 5 4 2 2 0 Limited Moderate Great

24. Ability to track acres delivered? 14 12 10 10 8 Number of JVs (N = 18) 6 5 4 3 2 0 Limited Moderate Great

25. Ability to track net changes (losses and gains)? 14 12 12 10 8 Number of JVs (N = 18) 6 4 4 2 2 0 Limited Moderate Great

26. Ability to track waterfowl abundance or distribution in response to habitat efforts 14 12 11 10 8 Number of JVs (N = 18) 6 4 4 3 2 0 Limited Moderate Great

27. 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?

28. 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)

29. B1 B2 W1 W2 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

30. Pairing Success + - - Foraging Time Required Recruitment Non-foraging Time Timing of Breeding - + + - + + Breeding Propensity + Habitat Quality (Food kg/acre) + + + Surplus Energy - Body Condition Starvation - + + - + Predation - + - Survival + + - + Harvest + + Movement Disease - - - - +/- +/- + - - - Population Density Population Density Links to vital rates (non-breeding) Recruitment Habitat Quality (Food kg/acre) Body Condition Survival - Movement

31. Using BPOP to monitor NAWMP success Sustainable Annual Harvest Habitat Loss Current Condition Expanded Habitat K K K Equilibrium BPOP

32. Using BPOP to monitor NAWMP success Sustainable Annual Harvest Habitat Loss Current Condition Expanded Habitat K K K Equilibrium BPOP

33. Objectives Planning Models Monitoring & Evaluation Management Actions

34. Uncertainties • Habitat quality vs. habitat quantity • Density-dependence • Regime shifts (climate, policy, land use, water quality)

35. 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

36. 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)

37. 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?

38. 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?

39. 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?

40. 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

41. 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?