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
Sustain waterfowl
populations
Habitat
Harvest
NAWMP
Flyways
Sustain ecosystem
processes
Sustain hunter
participation
Coherent Habitat Objectives
Continental
Among Regions
Within Regions
Local
Continental
Among Regions
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
Local
Continental
Among Regions
Within Regions
I. Local Objectives
Management
Food Production
Populations
Local
Ecosystem
Processes
Hunting
Opportunity
Food plots
Moist-soil
Native
Sanctuary
Dispersion of food & sanctuary
Riparian
Access to hunters / public
More
Less
Either
Continental
Among Regions
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
Local
Continental
Among Regions
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
Local
Continental
Among Regions
Shortstopping
Within Regions
Local

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)
Continental
Conflicting objectives
within regions
Among Regions
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?
Local
Continental
Among Regions
Within Regions
III. Objectives Among Regions
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
Hen non-breeding
grounds
survival
Statistical “noise”

A simple proposal:
Allocate 90% of funds
to breeding grounds
Duckling
survival
9% 7%
2% Clutch size
Re-nesting
5%
intensity
14%
19%
Hen
Breeding survival
43%
Nesting
success
Continental
Among Regions
Within Regions
III. Objectives Among Regions
Local

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
Hen non-breeding
survival
Duckling
survival
9%
7%
Statistical “noise”
2% Clutch size
Re-nesting
5%
intensity
14%
19%
43%
Nesting
success
Hen
Breeding survival
Continental
Conflicting objectives
among regions
Among Regions
Within Regions
Local

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
Continental
Among Regions
Within Regions
IV. Continental Objectives
MSH
5.9 M
Local
NAWMP Goal
8.8 M
Sustainable Annual Harvest
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
Equilibrium Population Size
12
Continental
Conflicting continental
objectives

Among Regions
Within Regions
Local
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
Sustainable Annual Harvest
The effect of habitat change on yield curves
Expanded
Habitat
Current
Condition
Habitat
Loss
K
K
Equilibrium BPOP
K
Continental
Among Regions
What level of increase?
Within Regions
Local
Yield curve with NAWMP goal at MSH point
• Represents a
very substantial
increase in
habitat
(at least for mallards
under average ponds)
Sustained Annual Harvest
NA goal 8.8M
Desired
Current
0
4
8
K=11.4M
K=17.6M
12
20
Equilibrium BPOP
16
Tradeoffs

What tradeoffs are necessary?

How willing are we to make those tradeoffs
(accepting less of one to achieve more of
another)?
Continental
Among Regions
Within Regions
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?
10
9
Number of JVs (N = 18)
9
8
7
6
5
4
5
4
3
2
1
0
Limited
Moderate
Great
Habitat goals based on stepped-down continental
population objectives?
Number of JVs (N = 18)
12
10
10
8
6
6
4
2
2
0
No
Partly
Yes
Landscape attributes that affect key vital rates?
Number of JVs (N = 18)
12
11
10
8
6
5
4
2
2
0
Limited
Moderate
Great
Ability to track acres delivered?
Number of JVs (N = 18)
14
12
10
10
8
6
5
4
3
2
0
Limited
Moderate
Great
Ability to track net changes (losses and gains)?
Number of JVs (N = 18)
14
12
12
10
8
6
4
4
2
2
0
Limited
Moderate
Great
Ability to track waterfowl abundance or
distribution in response to habitat efforts
Number of JVs (N = 18)
14
12
11
10
8
6
4
3
4
2
0
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

B1
B2
Winter Joint Venture Workshop
Linking Waterfowl Survival and
Wintering Habitat Conditions
W1
W2
Links to vital rates (non-breeding)
Habitat Quality
+
+
Surplus
Energy
+
Movement
--
Breeding Propensity
+/-
++
+
+
--- -
+-
Starvation
Predation
Harvest
Disease
Population
Density
+
+
+
Survival
-
+
+
++
+
Body Condition
+
-
Timing of Breeding
Survival
(Food kg/acre)
-
Non-foraging Time
-
Pairing Success
Recruitment
-
Foraging Time
Required
Recruitment
+
Sustainable Annual Harvest
Using BPOP to monitor NAWMP success
Habitat
Loss
K
Current
Condition
K
Equilibrium BPOP
Expanded
Habitat
K
Sustainable Annual Harvest
Using BPOP to monitor NAWMP success
Habitat
Loss
K
Current
Condition
K
Equilibrium BPOP
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
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?