Slide 1

Lower Grand River Conservation Opportunity SeminarUpdating Wetland Plan

Revising the Missouri Wetland Plan

Remaining Wetlands as Percent of Historic Total NorthMid-LatitudeSouthSetting the Stage for Planning A Highly Altered LandscapeLeveesDamsRoadsRailroad trackReservoirsImpoundmentLand use changesand the list goes on..3Consequences of AlterationIncised river channels

Streams disconnected from floodplain

Flooding patterns have changed

Existing wetlands overwhelmed by system processes

4Deposition

Scouring

Connected Scour

1. Mingo Basin (Duck Creek)3. Otter Slough Conservation Area8. Lower Grand River Wetlands (Fountain Grove)16. Manitou Floodplain (Eagle Bluffs)24. Nodaway Valley Conservation Area26. Bob Brown Conservation Area28. West-central Missouri River Bends (Grand Pass)31. Ted Shanks Alluvial Complex32. Lincoln Alluvial Complex (B.K. Leach)35. Great Rivers Confluence (Marais Temps Clair, Columbia Bottoms)36. Osage River Bottoms (Schell Osage, Four Rivers)40. Southeast Missouri Bottomlands (Ten Mile Pond)Audubon of Missouri: Important Bird Areas

Wetlands for Critters and PeopleGrand Pass CA

4,000 hunters spent 22,000 hours hunting

600 anglers spent 1,500 hours fishing

4,000 non-consumptive users spent 5,500 hours on the area

How do we meet the life history needs of wetland dependent species on the 13% of wetlands that remain in a highly altered system?

Lower Grand

123 wrp easements refuge, dnr12

How do we plan across scales with multiple partners?Within RegionsAmong RegionsContinentalLocal14Planning from The Bottom UpLower Grand River COA Goals and Objectives

Statewide Goals and Objectives

Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Joint Venture

North American Waterfowl Management Plan and other NABCI PlansA Living DocumentConceptual ModelsAssessmentObjectivesStrategiesMonitoringCompeting AlternativesBased on ModelsWetland reviewsPlan OutlineIntroductionShared framework of understanding (models)Assessment of past, present, and desired conditions of Missouris wetlandsGoals and objectivesStrategiesMonitoring, evaluation, and researchLiving DocumentA Shared Framework of UnderstandingHGM: Linking Ecosystem structure and processes to desired habitat conditions

Providing habitat for wetland dependent species life history needs

Public user participation model: Linking habitat management to the social landscape

A Shared Framework of UnderstandingHydro-geomorphic model to define landscape setting and system processes

Wetlands on the Move Through Time and Space

OxbowsPoint BarsEphemeral PoolsTerracesBluffsAbandoned ChannelsBackswampActive ChannelWhat is the new desired state: A Comparison of Historical vs. Current ConditionsCan the site/region be restored to historical communities and distribution?If not, can historic habitats be restored in new locations?What processes must be restored to sustain the community?21A Shared Framework of UnderstandingHGM: Linking Ecosystem structure and processes to desired habitat conditions

Providing habitat for wetland dependent species to meet life history needs

Public user participation model: Linking habitat management to the social landscape

A Shared Framework of UnderstandingHGM: Linking Ecosystem structure and processes to desired habitat conditions

Providing habitat for wetland dependent species to meet life history needs

Public user participation model: Linking habitat management to the social landscape

Modeling habitat needs for wetland dependent species to meet life history needsWhat are assumptions our assumptions about the role the Lower Grand COA plays in meeting life history needs of wetland dependent species?

Open Water River or DitchMarsh

WinteringMigrationMigrationBreedingWet Meadow, Open BLHManaged BLHMoist Soil Unit

25Waterfowl are the stated management priorities on these areas and thesesLinks to vital rates (non-breeding)Body ConditionHabitat Quality(Food kg/acre)Survival-++Foraging TimeRequiredSurplus Energy-+--++Non-foraging Time--MovementRecruitmentPopulationDensity+-+/-+Pairing SuccessTiming of BreedingBreeding Propensity++--+++---PredationHarvestDiseaseStarvation--+++-Body ConditionHabitat Quality(Food kg/acre)++Survival-MovementRecruitmentPopulationDensity--+/-++26Linking Habitat and Populations(Meeting Life History Needs)Truemet Model

Other species models?27Decision about Habitat DistributionHow much habitat do I need to achieve a certain waterfowl population objective ?

Given the habitat on my area, what should my waterfowl population objective be ?

Population Energy DemandDeficitEnoughSurplusPopulation Energy SupplyPopulation ObjectiveBird Energy NeedsHabitat AcresFood Densities29Truemet is basically a biological planning process that calculates both energy demand. And energy supplyEnergy Demand Vs. Energy Supply

Kcal x 106 SupplyDemand30It is a way of estimating whether or not enough food is being produced to meet population objectives, and conversely, a way of estimating whether or not population objectives are reasonable.

Open Water River or DitchMarshManaged BLHMoist Soil UnitPre-SpawnPost SpawnSpawning (spring, summer)

Winter

Wet Meadow, Open BLH31When we start looking at other species and how they respond to these hydraulic regimes we can be confident that we are bring fish into these habitats.On-going Work to Develop ModelsMallard satellite telemetry project to assess resource utilization

Marsh bird project testing assumptions about the links between landscape setting, management, and presence

Fish and amphibian project to develop rapid assessment methodsProposed Hunter Participation ModelHabitatPop.RecruitmentRetentionTurnoverAttritionCapacity to HuntIdentity FormationDecisions to HuntHunters33The existing model is based on the assumption that if we manage habitat and populations we will maintain hunter numbers at desired levels. However, in recent years we are finding out that this model no longer is working as it once did. We have more opportunity as defined in terms of number of days and bag limits, yet we have declining hunter numbers. This group proposes that the decline of hunting is related to social factors involved in hunting. We focused on three models that when taken together can help improve our understanding of the trends influencing hunter vital rates (retention, recruitment, etc.). You can think of these models in a JV, regional, or state level that can be rolled up to provide a national perspective.Hunter Participation ModelCapacity BuildingIdentity ProductionIndividual SocietyTemporal ScaleDecision to Hunt34The goals of the plan address the different scales in which actions are required. Public Use in the Lower Grand COAWhat is the appropriate amount of refuge?

Can managed hunt reservation systems influence participation?

How does hunting fit into Swan Lake objectives?

How can this region connect people to the outdoors through a variety of activities?

Assessment/Populating the ModelsHGM AssessmentAssessing landscape conditions past, present, and future

Energetic Assessment/Meeting Life History NeedsAssessing food abundance and availabilityApply species specific energetic requirements

Public Use AssessmentAnalysis of POS dataGreen card dataOther public use data setsManagementPopulationsEcosystem ProcessesHunting OpportunityFood Production Food plots Moist-soil NativeSanctuaryDispersion of food & sanctuaryRiparianAccess to hunters / publicI. Local ObjectivesWithin RegionsAmong RegionsContinentalLocalMoreLessEither37Identifying Tradeoffs Restoring system processes

Emulating system processes

Providing resources for wetland dependent species

Providing public use opportunitiesPlan OutlineIntroductionShared framework of understanding (models)Assessment of past, present, and desired conditions of Missouris wetlandsGoals and objectivesStrategiesMonitoring, evaluation, and researchLiving DocumentPlan OutlineIdentify goals, objectives, and strategies that enhance coordination among wetland management units within 6 regions with major wetland complexes.

Develop goals, objective, and monitoring systems that can be rolled up to state and broader scales.Wetland Plan Coordination Team Composition (16 members)4 Wildlife

5 Resource Science

2 Fisheries

1 Private Lands

1 Forestry

1 Outreach & Education

2 Wetland ConsultantsPotential Subcommittees1. HGM model/assessment 2. Truemet model/life history needs assessment 3. Public use model/assessment4. Regional Teams5. Monitoring, evaluation, and Research6. Education7. Wetland Reviews

ScheduleMajor Tasks and MeetingsFY10FY11FY 12Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4Q1Q2Q3Q4I. IntroductionII. Develop Conceptual ModelsXXXXIII. Assessment of Current Conditions by Missouri EcoregionsXXXXIV. Goals and Objectives by State & EcoregionsXXWetland Review (goals and objectives)*XV. Implementation StrategyXXWetland Review (strategies) *XVI. Tracking and Monitoring XXWetland Review (monitoring) *X VII. Living DocumentXFinal Revisions*XXPresentation to CommissionXPartner InvolvementSeptember 29, 2009 Partner Meeting- 6 National Wildlife Refuges- 3 Joint Ventures- 2 Integrated Waterbird Management and Monitoring - 4 NRCS- 1 MODOT- 6 NGOs- 3 DNR- 3 USGS- 4 COE- 1 Kansas Biological SurveyPartner Involvement - Do we develop a state wetland plan or an MDC wetland plan with partner input?

How do we get partner input at the local, regional, and state levels?

- How do we connect a wetland plan with plans with others dealing with adjoining ecological communities?

- How do we coordinate MDC planning and management activities with other agency plans and actions?Chart18713

Acres

Sheet1AcresLost87Remain13To resize chart data range, drag lower right corner of range.