Integrated Wetland Bird Management and Monitoring

InitiativeA Structured Decision Making Case Study

So….We in the NWRS Like to Count Ducks and Other Wildlife.

Why do I always do

that?• Its our tradition.

• We like ducks.

• Ducks are important.

• We manage lots of places that ducks like.

• Its fun.

Current Situation

• Wetland management actions are independently conducted at refuges.

• Little emphasis on sharing data beyond the local level.

• This independent development of numerous waterbird monitoring efforts is inefficient and precludes sharing of data.

• Refuge monitoring efforts lack clear objectives.

Current Situation• Waterbirds require quality wetland habitats along their

migration route and wintering areas. • Coordinated efforts to determine if habitat

requirements are being met to support objective population levels are lacking (Runge et al. 2006).

• Refuges believe that better monitoring will lead to effective management and contribute toward larger scale monitoring needs.

• Coordination of management actions and appropriate monitoring could result in improved contributions at larger scales.

So What Do We Do?

Implement SHC

Process

• Conducted Internet Questionnaire to identify waterbird monitoring information needs across Regions 3,4 and 5.

– 224 Units– 82 Responses (37% return rate)– 79% of Respondents indicated that they

monitor waterbirds

Preparation

• Decided to use SDM to address problem.

• SDM workshop scheduled.

• Regional/Flyway Input – 7 questions were developed to generate input.

• Multiple Conference calls to prepare for SDM.

– Multi-regional migratory bird program staff

– SDM Participants

– Regional Chiefs and staff talk biology

We don’t have a monitoring program to guide decisions at multiple spatial scales to sustain migrating and wintering waterbird populations.

Problem Statement

Monitoring Issues

• Lack of linkage between monitoring and management.

• Lack of linkage between local management and landscape/flyway objectives.

• Efficiency.

Resolving These Issues Will Allow Us To:

• Make all-bird management real.

• Improved science-based decision-making.

Efficiently Connecting Local Management to

Landscape Goals and Objectives

Doing the Right Thing, in the Right Place, at

the Right Time, for the Right Reason

Fundamental Objective

Self sustaining viable populations of waterbirds in Atlantic and Mississippi Flyways during migration and winter.

Changing the Monitoring Paradigm

Population Objectives (Flyway/Regional)

Habitat Objectives (Quantity and Quality)

Spatial Distribution

(Of Habitat Along Flyway?)

Spatial Contribution (Importance to population objectives)

Implement Management Action

(Improve waterbird population sustainability cost effectively)

(ΔPopulation / Δ Survival)•(Δ Survival/ Δ Manage)•(Δ Manage/ Δ$)

Monitor

1. Abundance of Birds

2. Quantity of Habitat

3. Quality of Habitat

4. Distribution of Habitat

5. Cost

Population Model

Adaptive Management Framework for Wetland Birds

ObjectivesRegional / Flyway

Model

Regional Actions

ObjectivesLocal Mgmt

Model

Local Actions

Uncertainty

Uncertainty

Predict Observe

Local Mgmt

Regional / Flyway

Objectives and Constraints

• Ensure self-sustaining, viable waterbird populations in Atlantic and Mississippi Flyway during migration and winter

• Obj = ∑ ws Ns, t+1 ≥ ∑ wsts

• Minimize habitat quantity and quality deficits

• Budget, data gaps, resistance to change, information gaps, time, competing objectives and priorities, failure is not an option.

Habitat Quality

Habitat Quantity

Veg Comp

Veg Structure

AvailableHabitat

Water Depth

Timing Water Depth

Convert Habitat

HumanDisturbance

EnvVarialbe

LandscapeConfig

Herbicide

Mech Treatment

Drawdown

Other Habitat

Patch Size

WetlandConstruction

VOR

% Cover

Mosq Control

Inverebrates ?

ObjectivesSupport and

Dollars

Influence Diagram

Local Scale Mgmt

HabitatAcquisition

HumanDisturbance

RegionalFlywayInput

EnergeticDensity

N t+1,i

B t +1,in

N t

Available Habitat

Habitat Quality(Energy)

LandCover

Location

AreaRequirement

Distance to Coast

Historical Distribution

Context

Food Availability

Disturbance Cover

Time

Env.Var

Influence DiagramLandscape/Flyway Scale Mgmt

Available Habitat

Ene

rgy

Den

sity

Good

SuboptimalBad

Suboptimal

ResourceExpentiture

$

Location RelativeTo

Other Sites

Acres of Habitat

HabitatQuality

Habitat Type

Value of Contribution

( Ci )

PotentialBird

Use-Days

TargetContribution

Bird

Use

(B

)

Funds

Bi = αAHi + ∆LC * $i * (LC)

αAH1

αAH2

∆1

∆2

AH = Available Habitat

Potential Contribution to Population Sustainability

(Bang for our Buck)

Information sent from field to Region.

X1

X2

X3

X4

X5

X6

X7

$ ∑Xi = Budget

Obj = ∑ ws Ns, t+1 ≥ ∑ wsts

Sitess

Decision: Where to allocate resources so that we maximize

population sustainability.

Bird

Use

(B

)

Funds

aAH1

aAH2

?1

?2

Responsibility and Timing of Decisions at Multiple Scales

• Population Objectives (xx years)– Authorities shared by Bird Partners. Work thru Joint Venture

Mgmt Boards

• Habitat Objectives (xx years)– Authorities shared by FWS and Land Mgmt Partners

• Spatial Distribution (xx years)– Authorities shared by FWS and Land Mgmt Partners

• Allocation of Resources (Annual)– Regional Scale Land Management Agencies and Partners

• Implement Management Actions (Annual)– Site Managers

Regional/Flyway Scale Uncertainty

• Partial Controlability:• Budget• Partial Observability• Estimating parameters within flyway model• Biological Uncertainty• Process to determine site importance.• Environmental Stochasticity• Uncertain if all Partners will

contribute/participate within entire process.

Local Site Uncertainty

• Partial Controllability.• Partial Observability.• Estimating parameters within site model.• Biological Uncertainty.• Uncertain about proper mix of abiotic and biotic factors.• Process to determine site contribution (unsure about

shape of curve).• Environmental Stochasticity (lots)

Recommendations for Future Development

• Prototype to be evaluated by others, and enhanced.

• Teams to develop decision support models for:

– Energetics, habitat quality and quantity, distribution of sites, bird abundance.

• Development of monitoring protocols/sample designs.

• Communication with other decision makers in R3, 4, 5.

• Consult additional stakeholders, locally and ecoregionally

• Consult/communicate with Joint Ventures

• Move beyond jargonality to awsomality

Thanks

• NCTC, Donna and Mike.

• All the Coaches, Consultants, Apprentices and Observers.

• All Our Team Members.

• Special Thanks to Jim and Eric.– (We Apologize. We didn’t really

mean to mutiny)

So…. Your done listening to us for Today

But We’re Just Beginning

I wonder if there are any

Questions?

Value of decision structuring• Linked monitoring to management actions.• Managing with Partners is critical.• Allowed us to evaluate management and monitoring in a holistic manner

versus focus on each site independently.• Value of discussion enhanced by incorporating diversity of perspectives from

team participants who had varying roles within Wildlife Conservation.• Transparency that SDM creates. Creating buy-in by others. Facilitates buy-in.• Encourages criticism.• Evaluating trade-offs. Critical evaluation of alternative actions.• Implements SHC on the ground.• Connects refuges using biology into a System, and the contribution to broader

goals.• Adaptive Mgmt