integrated wetland bird management and monitoring initiative a structured decision making case study
TRANSCRIPT
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