Integrated Waterbird Management & Monitoring Program

IWMM

Andy WilsonUSGS Patuxent, Laurel, Maryland

amwilson@usgs.gov

What is the IWMM Program?

The integration of management, data and decisions at the local,

regional and flyway scale.

Problem: difficulty of managing wetlands for a wide range of species, in changing landscapes

“What is the best way to manage this wetland?”

“What is this wetlands highest and greatest contribution to flyway conservation efforts?”

“How does the bird use and management of this wetland compare to other wetland units?”

“How should this wetland be managed to optimize stopover quality?”

Where did IWMM come from?

“How do I allocate funds among wetland units in an informed and transparent way?”

“Which wetlands are important to waterfowl …. shorebirds ….. wading birds?”

“If I allocate more funds and staff which areas will significantly increase this region’s contribution to flyway conservation efforts?”

“Where, when and in what numbers are migratory birds using stopover habitats?”

“Where in a flyway should we focus acquisition and restoration activities?” “Are there important

sites within this flyway that are not protected?”

Key Management Decisions

Flyway: when, where, how much habitat?

Regional: optimal allocation of

funds

Local: optimal management

strategies

Adaptive Management

SHC

Linking Management Decisions with Data

Improved Resource Contributions

Good Decisions Supported by defensible data

Clearly Documented Decisions Promote understanding of decision making process

Reduce controversy

IWMM Evolution Structured decision making workshops at NCTC

Need for integration across spatial scales

Steering Group formed in 2009

Protocol Development in 2010 Lots of partners

Model development 2010-2012

Pilot Season 2010/2011

Operational later in 2011 or 2012

Build organically Program success will depend on development of useful tools

Flyway

Identify Critical Waterbird Sites

State / Region

Determine Funding Distribution

• Evaluation of Site Contribution

Local Actions

Determine Optimal Wetland Management Scenario

Monitoring Data:

•Habitat Quality

•Bird Use

Management Decisions:

• Mgmt. Actions

• Costs

• Habitat Conditions

• Focal Species

• Conservation Priorities

• Habitat Deficiencies

• Bird Use:Cost Analysis

• Site Potential

• Land Acquisition Priorities

• Conservation Priorities

• Allocation of Staff & Funds

• Land Acquisition Priorities

• Conservation Priorities

Flyway Model

High: 100

Low: > 0

Distance to nearest open water

Components include GIS data layers and biological parameters (from literature)

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90 Path 1 = 1706 Birds

Path 2 = 530 Birds

Flyway Model

Bird

Use

(B)

Funds

αAH1

αAH2

∆1

∆2

Regional and local allocation: cost effectiveness

∆3

AH = Available Habitat

B = Contribution of Bird-Days

αAH3

2010/2011 Pilot Season

• Test basic Vegetation Survey and Bird Survey Protocols

• Highlight key constraints for effective data collection• Recommend modification for basic methods and

development of more detailed techniques where needed

• Use “real data” to test Structured Decision Making Models

• Designed to be simple – mass participation!

• Based on expert knowledge - >20 biologists consulted

Vegetation Surveys twice per season

Weekly Bird Surveys

Use “site condition” to make predictions…

• The model will allow us to predict change in BUDs due to changes in habitat (ultimately management)

• Scores all units on a comparable scale for each guild site 1 site 2 site 3

swans/geese 65 40 30

dabblers 72 89 50

divers 19 10 90

waders 27 70 22

shorebirds 58 60 8

e.g. site 3 is a diving duck site – flyway model might suggest it would contribute more as a dabbler site

Management increases habitat-value index for site from 40 to 60

Bird-use days/ha (dabblers) predicted to increase from 40/ha to 250/ha

∆ buds on a 10 ha site = 2,100∆ buds on a 200 ha site = 42,000

Over 100 sites surveyed during pilot season

Moving forward

• Lots of challenges remain:– Protocols, large areas, inaccessible wetlands– Very complex and ambitious program, steep

learning curve, progress may not be linear!– Long-term funding– Scale

• Other taxa?• Four regional teams (NA, SA, UM, LM)• Online data system• Ensure we keep learning lessons!

Acknowledgements

• Over 60 individuals - program development• Over 90 participants in pilot season• Partners:

– FWS, USGS– State agencies– Ducks Unlimited– LCCs and JVs– Universities– Lincoln Park Zoo– PRBO

Hal Laskowski