1. Habitat Management in an Integrated Framework John Eadie, UC Davis Mike Anderson, IWWR, Ducks Unlimited Canada Jim Ringelman, Ducks Unlimited Inc

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

3. Habitat NAWMP Harvest Flyways Sustain waterfowl populations Sustain ecosystem processes Sustain hunter participation

4. Coherent Habitat Objectives Within Regions Among Regions Continental Local

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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

10. 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

11.  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

12.  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

13. 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

14. 024681012 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 Within Regions Among Regions Continental Local Within Regions Among Regions Continental Local

15. 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

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

17. 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 048121620 Equilibrium BPOP Sustained Annual Harvest NA goal 8.8M Current Desired K=11.4M Within Regions Among Regions Continental Local

18. 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

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: 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

21. 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

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

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

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

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

26. 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 LimitedModerateGreat

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. 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

30. 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 - - +/ - + +

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

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

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 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 )

37. 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?

38. 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?

39. 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?

40. 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

41. 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?