training webinar i: overview, protocol revisions
TRANSCRIPT
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 [email protected] John Stanton U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Columbia, NC 27925 Tel. (Office) 252-796-2400 (cell) 252-473-0219 [email protected]
Brian Loges U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Two Rivers NWR Brussels, IL 62013 Tel. (Office) 618-883-2524 ext 21 [email protected] Tim Jones U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Laurel, MD 20708-4017 Tel: (Office) 301-497-5674 (cell) 410-271-4225 [email protected]