training webinar i: overview, protocol revisions

Training Webinar I: Overview, Protocol Revisions &

Database Highlights

I. Overview of IWMM II. Protocol Revisions (Habitat & Bird) III. Online Database IV. Case Study

Local Decision Support- Mattamuskeet NWR

V. Example of collective data analysis (aggregating Local Scale Data)

VI. Question & Answer Session

OVERVIEW

Connecting Management to Monitoring for Better Outcomes

IWMM History

2007-08: combined grassroots effort = IWMM

• A desire for a standardized, coordinated approach “To aid in the acquisition, restoration, and enhancement of wetlands during the non-breeding period for waterbirds by providing managers with a framework and tools to guide their management, evaluate the outcomes of their efforts, and incorporate collective learning to improve decision-making.”

• Waterbirds = waterfowl, shorebirds and

wading birds.

• Included staff from FWS & Migratory Birds, States and other conservation partners .

• Started in Atlantic & Mississippi Flyways.

FOUNDATION

FLYWAY: Where, When,

How Much Habitat is Needed?

LOCAL: How to optimally

manage wetlands?

MONITORING: MODELING: Standardized protocols Literature, Spatial and Empirical Data

REGIONAL: Where should funds

and staffing be allocated?

Supported by:

2007-2015 Tools for: • Flyway scale decision support • Local scale decision support • Monitoring • Data Management

2014 NWRS - Natural Resource Program Center (NRPC) • Supervision & Support

• Full-time Science Coordinator • Contract Project Coordinator

• IWMM: platform for Biological Planning

Monitoring

Standardized protocol • waterbird use • habitat conditions • management actions

Only protocol that: • Tracks all 3 elements for nonbreeding waterbirds • Standardizes waterbird and habitat monitoring for potential

aggregation at larger scales • Integrated into local-scale decision frameworks • Evaluates management actions • Updates parameter estimates • Tests alternative models

Goals: 1. Validate and revise bird & habitat monitoring protocols

based on participant feedback and validation studies

2. Inform development of decision support tools

3. Provide basic reports to participants

4. Develop centralized online database for participants

IWMM Pilot Phase: 2010-2014

Multiple sites on refuge, state and private lands in Mississippi & Atlantic Flyways

-Peer reviewed -Revised -Nationally approved

Status 2015

• Guide use & develop site-specific protocols for NWRS

• Compliant

with I & M policy

Managers at the 3 spatial scales (Flyway, Regional, Local) are using the resulting information to inform acquisition, resource allocation, and management decisions at their respective spatial scales. Waterbird and habitat monitoring data during migration and wintering are standardized, creating a ‘common currency’ across the geographic scales and ownership boundaries.

This will constitute an important step in developing full life cycle models for waterbird species and helps individual managers understand how their management contributes to ‘the big picture’ of waterbird conservation.

• To standardize their waterbird counts and habitat monitoring.

• To streamline the development of their own site-specific monitoring protocols, manage data and generate reports via an online database.

• To document the timing and amount of waterbird use and habitat conditions

• To link monitoring and management in an adaptive framework that gives them feedback on how well their management actions are meeting their management objectives.

13

Protocol Revisions (Habitat & Bird)

Integrated Waterbird Management and Monitoring

Provide rapid, visual assessments of the quantity, quality, and availability of waterbird habitats.

“Detailed changes in composition or densities and exact measurements of biomass usually have limited value for refuge needs, whereas more general changes in composition … are essential in monitoring the effectiveness of management investments. Qualitative approaches or general quantitative approaches often are adequate.” Leigh H. Fredrickson and Frederic A. Reid – Waterfowl Management Handbook

Protocol = “Survey” or “National Framework” according to I&M Policy. Manual = IWMM monitoring manual

Multiple years of pilot data Past feedback from participants. Natural Resource Program Center (NWR

national I&M) funding for protocol development.

2012 Validation Study Rigorous design: the “intensive protocol” Assistance from hosting refuge biologists Cooperation from DU on biotech placement MS submitted to Wetlands Ecology and

Management spring of 2015.

Ma et al. Wetlands (2010) 30:15–27

Plant Species Composition Replaces top 4 dominants.

Seed-head assessment Significant revision

Habitat Composition Former % cover

Vegetation Height no major revisions

Water Depth Classes revised to

emphasize shallow water

and guild use

% Ice Cover no change

Salinity No change

Interspersion Clarification

Percent near tall edge no major revisions

Chronic Human Disturbance New

Flood Duration Significant Revision

Unit Boundary Delineation guidance with a

shp or kmz required.

Survey Timing

Composition Annual – late in growing season

(majority of seed-heads developed)

Seed-head Assessment Annual – late in growing season

(majority of seed-heads developed)

Unit Cover Waterbird Surveys

Vegetation Height Waterbird Surveys

Interspersion Waterbird Surveys

Percent Near Tall Edge Waterbird Surveys

Water Depth Waterbird Surveys

Percent Ice Cover Waterbird Surveys

Disturbance Severity Waterbird Surveys

Chronic Human Disturbance Waterbird Surveys

Flood Duration Waterbird Surveys

Composition of emergent vegetation

% cover for vegetated portions of unit

Can exceed 100%

Common species

only

Major issues with top-4 dominants: True dominant undetermined, not ranked 2012 validation study indicated subdominant species often

included.

Revised version Estimates of % cover “Walk-a-bouts” in unit or perimeter vantage points

Seed Head Size Assessment Guide for Selected Wetland Plants (included in Monitoring Manual)

Guide is included in the IWMM Monitoring Manual (version 8). Includes plant species that have a high food value to waterfowl. The species in the Guide were recorded on at least 50 or more veg. surveys done during the pilot phase (2010-2014) of the IWMM Habitat Protocol. More species will be added to the Guide as needed. Seed head size categories are:

-Small -Average -Large

Based on the deviation of the average size of the seed head (for each plant species). Average seed head size is indicated by a blue “arrow” in the Guide to allow you to assess seed head size as AVERAGE, SMALLER than average or LARGER then average.

Assigned to ordinal categories by visual assessing the relative abundance of seed heads within a patch of each plat species. Considers the density of stems and proportion of stems with seed heads. Seed head density categories are:

-Low -Medium -High

Seed Production Index (SPI)

Tested against quantitative

estimates (Gray et al 2009) in 2014 validation study

Goal is to assign units to

broad energetic classes (high, moderate, low)

Based on work in Central valley of CA (Naylor et al 2005).

Unit

Cyperus

erythrorhizos

Echinochloa

crus-galli

Leersia

oryzoides

Leptochloa

filiformis

Panicum

dichotomiflorum

Polygonum

lapathifolium

Polygonum

pensylvanicum

Setaria

faberii

Setaria

glauca

Unit SPI

msz1 20 20 9 3 52

msz10 15 1 6 4 26

msz11 2 2 6 3 13

msz12 15 6 9 6 36

msz13 9 9

msz14 20 12 32

msz15 6 3 20 20 49

msz18 20 12 32

msz19 4 12 12 28

msz2 1 1 20 12 9 43

msz20 3 3 20 2 1 2 31

msz3 12 9 6 6 33

msz6 20 6 4 3 1 34

msz7 20 20 9 2 51

msz9 12 9 21

Percent near tall edge

Field assessments or aerial imagery

Interspersion

Vegetation to water or bare ground

based on Suir et al. (2013)

Categorical based on size and distribution of water/bare ground patches

= Water or bare ground

= Vegetation

Habitat Cover % of unit in each broad habitat class Mutually exclusive (sum to 100) Include senesced vegetation when making assessments

Table SOP-2.5. Habitat classification crosswalk between the IWMM Initiative

Protocol and Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United

States (Cowardin et al. 1979).

IWMM Habitat Class Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats Class

Water See rock bottom, unconsolidated bottom, aquatic bed

Scrub-shrub See scrub-shrub

Forest See forest

Emergent See emergent, vegetated unconsolidated shore

Bare ground Streambed, rocky shore, unvegetated unconsolidated

shore

Water Depth Revised to focus on

shallow water and waterbird guilds

(Ma et al. 2010)

% unit in each class Use gages and or

ocular estimates

Table SOP-2.3.

Categories of water depth.

Category

Dry

Saturated/mudflat

0 to 5 cm (0 to 2 in)

5 to 15 cm (2 to 6 in)

15 to 25 cm (6 to 10 in)

>25 cm (> 10 in)

Flood Duration Use condition

covering the greatest area

Use gage readings

with bathymetric maps or personal knowledge

Table SOP-2.4. Flood Duration Categories

Code Description

1 Surface water present > 90 days

2 Surface water present 30-90 days

3 Surface water present <30 days

4 Permanent Inundation

5 No information

Class Description

1 Inviolate sanctuary, no entry into the unit for any reason.

2 Closed to all use with entry into unit by resource managers or

designees for management activities, surveys, or controlled non-

hunting activities.

3 Managed access for all activities including firearms hunting. May

include effort to control use levels and temporal closures (i.e.

hunting units that close in the afternoon).

4 Open access via trail, viewing platforms etc. No firearms hunting

allowed.

5 Open access, including firearms hunting, often with routine

restrictions but without a site specific management program to

control the level of authorized use.

6 Unknown

Log of actions by unit for the entire year Spatial extent as % of unit Actions grouped by strategy (water level, agricultural) Overlap is ok ( actions can exceed 100% of unit) Cost provided for consistency in advanced decision support efforts

(Don’t use costs for budgeting!)

“It Makes More Sense” DU Biotech - Matt McAdams Fall 2013

Online Database

Case Study:

Mattamuskeet NWR Local Decision Support

Decision support at local scale

Multi-unit Decision Support

• Maximize benefits of management actions across multiple units considering costs & other constraints

Brian Tavernia, John Stanton, Jim Lyons, Brian Loges, Linda Wires, and Guthrie Zimmerman

John Stanton, Proxy Decision Maker.

Refuge Biologist at Mattamuskeet for 8 years (1994-2002) Familiar with refuge’s decisions and decision processes

Knowledge of wetland dynamics and bird response

Currently refuge staff seek John’s recommendations

regarding annual wetland management planning.

Brian Tavernia, Facilitator and Decision Analyst, Former

IWMM Science Coordinator.

Structured Decision Making – Roles:

Mattamuskeet NWR

Problem: How to manage 14 impoundments collectively on an annual basis for non-breeding waterfowl and migrating shorebirds?

• Waterfowl, fall migration and winter season

Management Objectives: Maximize use days collectively provided by impoundments for: • Shorebirds,

fall & spring migration

Decision maker

Stakeholders

Frequency/Timing

Constraints

Uncertainty

58

Management Actions for individual impoundments created by

combining hydroperiod with vegetation manipulation.

Hydroperiod: annual timing and duration of water present

within the impoundment .

Seven hydroperiods were identified.

Three broad vegetation manipulations were identified.

59

Mechanical: physical disturbance of existing vegetation or soil conditions involving the use of mechanical equipment.

Disk: Use tractor and farm disk to break/turn the soil to an average depth of 5-10 inches.

Mow: Use tractor and bush-hog or flail mower to mow undesired vegetation.

Roller-chop: Use an agricultural tractor or bulldozer and roller-chopper to crush undesired vegetation.

Chemical treatment: herbicides are applied according to label directions to kill undesired vegetation. Burn: vegetation is allowed to dry and a prescribed burn is conducted.

60

Identify Alternatives: different collections of management actions possible across impoundments, “portfolios”.

• Actions for impoundments: combined hydroperiods & vegetation manipulations.

• Results in many possible portfolios.

Wetland Alternative 1 Alternative 2

MI – 1 Semipermanent Chemical

Early drawdown, ditch top No Action

MI-2W Early drawdown, ditch top No Action

Early drawdown, ditch top No Action

MI-2E Early/late drawdown No Action

Early/late drawdown No Action

MI-3 Late drawdown, ditch top No Action

Semipermanent Chemical

MI-4 Semipermanent Chemical

Late drawdown, ditch top No Action

MI-5 Late drawdown, below ditch top Mechanical

Late drawdown, below ditch top Burn

MI-6 Early drawdown, below ditch top Mechanical

Early drawdown, below ditch top Mechanical

MI-8W Late drawdown, below ditch top Chemical

Late drawdown, below ditch top Chemical

MI-8E Early drawdown, ditch top No Action

Semipermanent No Action

MI-9 Early drawdown, below ditch top Burn

Early drawdown, below ditch top Chemical

MI-10S Late drawdown, below ditch top Mechanical

Late drawdown, below ditch top Mechanical

MI-10N Early drawdown, ditch top No Action

Early drawdown, ditch top No Action

MI-7 Semipermanent Chemical

Semipermanent No Action

“Portfolio Catalog”

Comparing portfolios:

• Benefits = total number of waterfowl & shorebird use days collectively provided by managed impoundments .

Tradeoffs: Evaluated tradeoffs among alternative portfolios using an optimization technique; identified the portfolio maximizing objectives and respecting labor and financial constraints.

Steps to Integrate the local scale model into Mattamuskeet NWR’s decision-making process for 2015:

• The use-day predictions were used to analyze & identify best portfolios with respect to objectives, costs and labor .

• A Integer Program was written to run the decision support tool

with our inputs (i.e. use-days predictions, budget, etc.).

Tradeoffs: Evaluated tradeoffs among alternative portfolios using an optimization technique; identified the portfolio maximizing objectives and respecting labor and financial constraints.

Mattamuskeet NWR Collective Impoundment Management Plan for 2015

• Refuge staff selected objective weights and entered a budget constraint and then the local model (Decision Support Tool) was run to generate a collective impoundment management plan.

• Plan as implemented for 2015

Objective

Fall Shorebirds 0.2

Spring Shorebirds 0.1

Waterfowl 0.7

Budget 20000

UnitName ActionID Costs

MI-1 SLDT_NA 210

MI-2W SLDT_NA 210

MI-2E SLDT_NA 210

MI-3 SLDT_NA 210

MI-4 SEBDT_D 6469.295189

MI-5 SLDT_NA 210

MI-6 SLDT_NA 210

MI-8W SLDT_NA 210

MI-8E SEBDT_MC 5197.483844

MI-9 SEBDT_D 4447.102919

MI-10S SLDT_NA 210

MI-10N SLDT_NA 210

MI-7 SLDT_NA 210

MI-11 SLDT_NA 210

Local Decision Support Tool built & used (2015) SDM Framework (completed process) Explicit, testable model exists Integer programming: MPort function (Completed) Mattamuskeet NWR: 50+page Case Study Report (Draft available) Manuscript preparation (FY 15 – TBD)

Local Decision Support Tool: Status & Next Steps

Example of collective data analysis (aggregating Local Scale Data)

Predicting local waterfowl abundance during migration: what features matter?

Kevin Aagaard Biologist

USGS – UMESC

S. Crimmins W. Thogmartin J. Lyons B. Tavernia

IWMM Tech Team

Outline Wildlife monitoring programs Scale and resources Incorporating models Habitat structure and forage availability Applications to managements The role inter-species variation

Mississippi Flyway

Atlantic Flyway

Aagaard et al. (in review) Movement Ecology

Scientific name Common name Nobs

Anas platyrhynchos Mallard 7,235,753

Anas carolinensis Green-winged teal 1,978,973

Anas acuta Northern pintail 1,662,212

Anas strepera Gadwall 991,693

Anas clypeata Northern shoveler 632,362

Anas americana American wigeon 266,634

Anas discors Blue-winged teal 253,879

Anas rubripes American black duck 187,279

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

From eBird’s Occurrence Maps, URL: http://ebird.org/content/ebird/occurrence/

Water volume Water area Vegetation structure

Spatial heterogeneity Number of plants

Size of plants Type of plants

Stage of plants

Time of year

Location (latitude) Available area

Common (nuisance)

parameters

Habitat structure

Food availability

Total Wetland

Soulliere et al. (2012) Journal of Fish and Wildlife Management

Aagaard et al. (in review) Movement Ecology

Aagaard et al. (in review) Movement Ecology

Tilman et al. (1996) PNAS

Aagaard et al. (in review) Movement Ecology

Mississippi Flyway

Atlantic Flyway

Thanks!

Questions?

Linda Wires IWMM Coordinator U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Bloomington, MN 55437 Tel. (Office) 612-713-5382 (cell) 612-590-4007 Linda_Wires@fws.gov John Stanton U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Columbia, NC 27925 Tel. (Office) 252-796-2400 (cell) 252-473-0219 John_Stanton@fws.gov

Brian Loges U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Two Rivers NWR Brussels, IL 62013 Tel. (Office) 618-883-2524 ext 21 Brian_Loges@fws.gov Tim Jones U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Laurel, MD 20708-4017 Tel: (Office) 301-497-5674 (cell) 410-271-4225 Tim_Jones@fws.gov