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 ecosystem processes Sustain hunter participation

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 Populations Ecosystem Processes Hunting Opportunity Food Production Food plots Moist-soil Native Sanctuary Dispersion of food & sanctuary Riparian Access to hunters / public I. Local Objectives Within Regions Among Regions Continental Local MoreLessEither

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 funds to breeding grounds Within Regions Among Regions Continental Local Within Regions Among Regions Continental Local 43% 19% 14% 9% 5% 2% Clutch size 7% Nestingsuccess Hen Breeding survival Duckling survival Hen non-breeding survival Re-nestingintensity 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 size 7% Nestingsuccess Hen Breeding survival Duckling survival Hen non-breeding survival Re-nestingintensity 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

Sustainable Annual Harvest NAWMP Goal 8.8 M MSH 5.9 M Equilibrium Population Size IV. Continental Objectives Within Regions Among Regions Continental Local Within Regions Among Regions Continental Local

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 Within Regions Among Regions Continental Local

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

Yield 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 Equilibrium BPOP Sustained Annual Harvest 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? Number of JVs (N = 18) 4 Limited 9 Moderate 5 Great

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

Landscape attributes that affect key vital rates? Number of JVs (N = 18) LimitedModerateGreat

Ability to track acres delivered? Number of JVs (N = 18) LimitedModerateGreat

Ability to track net changes (losses and gains)? Number of JVs (N = 18) LimitedModerateGreat

Ability to track waterfowl abundance or distribution in response to habitat efforts Number of JVs (N = 18) LimitedModerateGreat

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 B1B1 B2B2 W1W1 W2W2

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

Equilibrium BPOP Sustainable Annual Harvest KKK Using BPOP to monitor NAWMP success Current Condition Habitat Loss Expanded Habitat

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

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 1.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?