NAWMP Science Support Team
Parktown Hotel – Saskatoon, SK
Meeting Notes
Ocotber15-16, 2008
Attendance:
NAME
Rob Holbrook
Jorge Coppen
Mike Rabe
Steve Cordts
Mike Brasher
Rex Johnson
Ryan Reker
Dave Howerter
Tim Jones
Mike Johnson
Pat Devers
Jim DeVries
Mark Petrie
Greg Soulliere
Stuart Slattery
John Tirpak
Tim Moser
Kathy Dickson
Jane Austin
Walt Rhodes
Andre Breault
Tom Dahl
Scott Boomer
Dale Caswell
ORGANIZATION
CVJV
USFWS-NAWMP
Pacific Flyway – Arizona GFD
Mississippi Flyway – Minnesota DNR
GCJV
R9 / R3 HAPET
RBJV
PHJV
ACJV
Central Flyway – North Dakota
BDJV
Pintail Action Group
PCJV
UMRGLJV
PHJV
LMVJV
AGJV
CWS
SAT
USFWS - Mig. Bird Surveys
CWS
R3 – NWI
PHAB
AGJV
Oct. 15
JV Implementation Plan reviews vs. JV progress report reviews (M.
Brasher):
M. Brasher reviewed highlights of the status of reviews of four emerging JV
Implementation Plans. We discussed the desire to provide full vetting opportunity to the
NSST. Mike suggested that future reviews don’t require a formal committee since very
few njew JVs will emerge. M. Brasher’s opinion was that review should be for new JVs
only. R. Johnson made the point that for established JVs, review is only a courtesy.
Reviewers do not make a recommendation to endorse. They assess how well thee new
JVs meet the desired characteristics table.
SJV & EGCPJV reviewed already (but no coordinator for EGCPJV). JV IP Committee is
not making a “recommendation to endorse” to the PC, just providing comments related to
the JV’s effort to address the desired characteristics table in the JV progress reporting
guidance document. DBHC may use the reviews to endorse new JVs for 1234 funding.
Next step include providing two weeks for full NSST vetting before revised comments
are forwarded back to the requesting JVs and the PC. SJV IP will be vetted by the NSST
during October. Two weeks later, J. Coppen will send out EGCPJV comments for full
NSST vetting.
RGJV & AMJV reviews are in progress. Three reviewers each secured to date.
Onereview has been completed for each JV so far. By the end of October all should be
done.
J. Coppen noted that the PC decided in PEI not to burden the NSST with assisting the PC
on JV triennial progress report reviews – comments are considered optional from the
NSST JV IP review committee.
Need clarification from the Plan Committee. There was a motion to have full NSST
review of any new JV IPs in the future and reviews of “significant updates from
established JV IPs..
Action Item: NSST Executive Committee needs to get PC clarity re: JV IP Review
Committee role in “recommendations for endorsement” and its effect on funding
decisions. This needs to be discussed at the next PC/NSST conference call.
Action Item: NSST needs to report review scheduling plans to the PC for outstanding
emerging JVs.
M. Brasher felt established JV IP updates need rigorous NSST reviews since they are
critical to contribution potential for meeting NAWMP objectives. For established JVs
needing reviews for significant updates - they could be reviewed by JV IP review
committee using desired characteristics table. PC Needs a courtesy review of established
JV IP updates to recommend if new JVs can be added as line item in budget for 1234
funds. There was discussion about synchronizing a future meeting with PC to address
these issues. It was noted that we need full NSST to concur on recommendation to PC on
technical aspects.
Action Item: NSST Executive Committee needs to ask PC their view on NSST review
of revised IPs of established JVs during our next conference call.
Migration modeling group (R. Johnson, T. Jones, J. Coppen):
The team had initially developed a rapid prototype model for Minnesota and is now
working on expanding to a full model runs for Atlantic flyway that uses wetland
abundance (shoreline attractiveness), forage availability, energy requirements, cost of
flight and disturbance levels for movement decisions. Birds sense food availability and
migrate based on those availability. Metabolic cost of flight based on kcal per h.
Model needs weather (temp. & wind direction) effects. The team is currently assessing
chronic & acute disturbance via night light intensity aerial imagery map as a surrogate
(we need better surrogate data). Still need to conduct a sensitivity analysis for assessing
modifications. Need to refine agriculture land cover classes - eExploring use of soils data
to help differentiate.
R. Johnson will write a formal description of the model framework, and assess funding
needs. Need to use post doctoral support to finalize model. The application of this work
will assist non-breeding JVs in resource allocation decision frameworks for habitat
protection/modification.
Funds of $15,000 were used for an agreement with E. Lonsdorf (Consultant) basically re:
making allocation decisions at the flyway scale and deciding where limiting factors
would occur in getting birds from wintering to breeding grounds or vice versa.
Need to expand current team to include additional NSST representation.
Action Item: Write formal description of model (R. Johnson lead).
Action Item: Assess funding needs (postdoc support to finalize model).
NOTE: R. Johnson needs M. Petrie’s contact re: the study he mentioned of parameters
affecting duck movement decisions.
Mallard GPS Satellite Telemetry Study (R. Johnson, S. Cordts):
A primary issue for NSST is that currently the only parameters studied are movement
patterns. A critique for the study is that it needs to incorporate hypothesis testing to
allow testing key assumptions. These could be drawn from the waterfowl migration
modeling effort.
The study group piggy-backed onto this project with some late-summer radios (given
high mortality for winter radioed birds going into breeding season).
Have had some problems with high transmitter failure rates, transmitter failures, harness
failures, molt preening over transmitters. Appear to be killing birds in some cases.
Management Questions:
•
Timing and amount of food available.
•
Role of refuge and disturbance.
•
Over-riding influence of weather.
•
Differential survival rates due to harvest.
•
Impacts of conservation programs
Have a science committee and an executive committee trying to get more funding.
Good structure for funding & in-kind support
Strengths:
 Represents the type of coordination between the population and habitat
communities envisioned by the Joint Task Group
 Involvement of agricultural and conservation interests provides an opportunity to
address major conservation programs
 Study has the potential to provide guidance for population and habitat
management similar to the groundbreaking radio-telemetry effort in the 1980s in
the Prairie Pothole Region

The time the Science Committee is spending developing specific objectives and
hypotheses represents one of the strengths of the project
Still refining technical problems & objectives of the study. Working on sample size.
Accuracy is good. Also working on reporting stations with a categorical scale indicating
mallard use (i.e., numbers of mallards by date). Will not go operational prior to 2010.
Remaining questions:
Pilot Study:
1) What is the spatial accuracy and precision of the GPS units?
2) How will you know if the mallards with transmitters are exhibiting abnormal
behavior?
3) How reliable are transmitters and capture/fit/release systems?
Long-Term Study:
1) What are the specific objectives of the long-term project
2) How will you determine an appropriate sample size?
3) How will you ensure adequate and representative sample coverage for the long-term
project?
Summary of pilot study progress:




Captured and tagged mallards at J. Clark Salyer and Yorkton Banding Site
A review of literature on satellite telemetry has been completed
Observation of captive reared mallards and black ducks continues
Preliminary comparisons have been made between GPS locations and
observations from the Migration Observation Network
Need to focus on hypothesis testing (testing key planning assumptions) – must address
explicit assumption hammered out. A priority need is more explicit criteria for
estimating abundance of birds during migration.
Concerns:
Late-August trapping may be too early in molt (energetic stress or preening issues)
Reliability of transmitters need to be addressed.
Full suite of study objectives (from modeling exercise) need to be reviewed at NSST
Next Steps:






Possibly use pilot data to add realism to model
Conduct sensitivity analysis on migration model
Identify critical uncertainties in model structure and/or inputs
Articulate key assumptions in model and test as hypotheses using telemetry
project
Establish password protected site for locations of fall birds or post of Arkansas
(CAST) web site.
Possible meeting in late November-December to flesh out full proposal
Principle objectives of study:
 Define migration pathways


Develop realistic models based on understanding of migration drivers
Relate migration drivers to vital rates
Need to get the MALL GPS satellite telem. Study group to confer with Black Duck study
group since similar radio issues occur. (DU – Tina Yerkes, Virginia & New Jersey)
Action Item: R. Johnson will contact Tina Yerkes on this opportunity to share
experiences.
Integrating habitat and harvest management for NOPI (Jim Devries):
This work plan responds directly to recommendations of the AHM JTG, by building on
the nucleus of an idea sketched out in the Appendix of the JTG Report. Advances in this
conceptual and practical modeling application could serve as a model for other species.
J. Devries reviewed work plan components. The work plan:
• defines the goal(s) of an integrated habitat and harvest management modeling
framework,
• defines the necessary components of the framework,
• identifies how the components will be developed,
• sets timelines for component development,
• identifies individuals responsible for each component, and
• estimates the resources needed to complete the work.
Goal Statement: An integrated habitat and harvest management framework for the
northern pintail.
The plan is to build a modeling framework that explicitly captures the interaction among
regional or JV (or groups of JVs) habitat impacts on recruitment, survival, and annual
harvest or harvest potential for the northern pintail.
The model framework will:
1. Use information about regional habitat composition and availability, and model the
distribution of pintails within regions using objective rules (e.g., habitat preferences,
habitat quality, behavioral decision rules, density-dependence).
2. Determine the recruitment/survival consequences of regional distributions and habitat
interactions (i.e., submodels that directly link habitat to recruitment/survival processes,
which may or may not be spatially-explicit).
3. Use existing banding data, radio and satellite telemetry data, and other sources of
information to model movement of birds among breeding and winter areas using
objective rules (e.g., tradition, philopatry, error, pioneering).
4. Determine survival on migration and wintering areas as a result of regional density and
habitat interactions, including our ability to estimate impacts of habitat changes.
5. Determine harvest levels given population size and projected recruitment to the fall
flight in an attempt to maximize harvest opportunity and minimize risk/impact.
6. Determine the habitat base needed in each region to support desired harvest levels.
7. Provide the ability to predict the probable influence of habitat and harvest decisions
Two core breeding areas (Alaska, prairies), 2 core wintering areas (California, Gulf
Coast). Submodels linking habitat at regional scales to recruitment and survival
Assemble existing vital rates. Simplified working prototype life cycle model
Consult with stakeholders
PAG proposes to build and evaluate the performance of a model for pintail population
dynamics that explicitly accounts for habitat and harvest influences. Pintail presents a
unique model system because 1) continental population dynamics are largely driven by
biological processes occurring in a few key breeding and non-breeding areas, 2) there is a
developing toolkit of regionally-based and spatially-explicit population and habitat
2 models, 3) there is an extensive empirical database upon which to model population
dynamics and the recent landscape changes that have affected those dynamics, and 4)
there is considerable conservation concern for this species.
Objective 1. Construct a model framework consisting of 2 breeding and 2 wintering areas
with associated habitat-linked recruitment and survival parameters
Components of a continental pintail population model linking the influences of
population size, movement among core breeding/staging/wintering areas, environmental
variation, and habitat management.
Objective 2. Develop submodels that link habitat actions at regional or Joint Venture
levels to recruitment and survival effects.
Objective 3. Assemble all existing pintail vital rate estimates from past and ongoing
pintail/waterfowl research in North America.
Objective 4. Build the first prototype, life-cycle model.
Objective 5. Consultations with stakeholders.
J Coppen relayed a message that 2008 NSST funds available 100k in discretionary funds
available for funding this work over the next two years.
NSST Alternative performance metrics workshop results (P. Devers):
P. Devers reviewed objectives of the workshop. The attendees did not identify a series of
competing metrics but a consensus around an annual cycle model framework consistent
with JTG recommendations. We will need an NSST discussion to frame development of
final product. A recommendations review by NSST will be next.
JVs need to ID in what season they have influence on vital rates of ducks. JVs will
prioritize vital rates and monitor & assess landscape attributes affecting those vital rates.
These vital rates should provide common currencies to roll-up to continental scale (while
focusing on the single season where they have impacts).
Late-January report to Plan Committee requires this timeline:





Nov. 28 for submission of draft report for NSST
3 weeks for NSST review
Comments back to P. Devers on Dec. 19
Final revisions and out to PC two weeks
Get this on the PC’s agenda
NSST Regional Populations Objectives Workshop (M. Petrie):
Need to move workshop from Patuxent to Memphis to save on travel costs. Keep the Feb
3-5, 2009 workshop dates.
M. Petrie reviewed four workshop objectives:
1) Describe current approaches for formulating population abundance objectives for
breeding, migrating, and wintering waterfowl within JV or WCR boundaries.
2) Critically evaluate the assumptions and data sources now used to formulate population
abundance objectives for breeding, migrating, and wintering waterfowl within JV or
WCR boundaries.
3) Conclude whether our current approaches to formulating population abundance
objectives within JV or WCR boundaries are adequate.
4) Provide recommendations to JV’s about what methods and necessary data sources are
needed to formulate regional-scale population abundance objectives that provide a strong
connection to continental population goals.
A report of the methodology of population step down procedures used in western vs.
eastern JVs need to be completed to inform the speakers for the workshop.
Three speakers (wintering, migrating, and breeding JVs) will draw conclusions on
assumptions made and discuss appropriate use of population objectives.
The “brass ring” concept includes a non-biased estimate of waterfowl distribution over
space & time to get this estimate. Better status in breeding than non-breeding at this time.
This would require a coordinated survey effort across JVs to address the continental scale
distribution. This can also be used as part of an evaluation of JV allocations for habitat
management actions. This represents the ideal. Is there is a middle ground that would
fulfill this goal?
Flyway representation from all 4 flyways was addressed.
R. Johnson noted on issue of population objectives. Need a survey to anticipate real K
thru objective driven process (as used by harvest community) vs. habitat (potential K 20
years down the road for habitat planning). We should not get wrapped up in discussion
of population objectives relevant to AHM folks.
Banding data gives us distribution but not residency times
Need to ensure that travel money for participants is available
Action Item: J. Coppen will check with S. Mott regarding travel money for non-USFWS
participants.
Net Landscape Change (T. Jones):
Justifications for this effort were:
Recommendations A.1a.5 - The NSST and breeding JVs should develop consensus on key
habitat features that must be monitored that are identified in standardized waterfowl
productivity models.
Recommendation A.1a.6 - The NSST and wintering JVs should develop consensus on key
habitat features that must be monitored that arise from standardize energetic – landscape
models.
Preliminary survey summary recommendations include:
Most JVs are using broad scale land cover products to look at habitats available in their
JVs.
1) Decrease time between updated national/continental land cover data sets
 recommend updates every five years.
2) Need finer resolution of land cover classes
 recommend using NatureServe’s Ecological Classification System as basis
for tracking continental land cover changes
 http://www.natureserve.org/publications/usEcologicalsystems.jsp
3) Track land use statistics from
 U.S. Dept of Agriculture (FIA, NASS, CRP, etc.)
 U.S. FWS NWI
 Need to ID similar Canadian data sources
4) Land use statistics should be spatially explicit
 When not use as sample distribution (e.g., NASS)
5) Track forage availability
 Temporal and spatial variability
 Effects of land use policy (e.g., biofuels)
6) Track “disturbance”
 Need measures of chronic & acute disturbance
Whose responsibility is this?
Existing efforts:
In the U.S.

USGS has lead on landscape change analyses
► Chronically under-funded
► Work on cost recovery model

Various provincial and federal efforts
In Canada
Land Cover Change in the Eastern United States:



Thomas R. Loveland and William Acevedo
Analysis conducted at Omernik Level III ecoregions
Sample frame: 10- or 20-km2 blocks randomly selected for each ecoregion
JVs do not have resources to track landscape changes regionally.
Action Item: NSST Net Landscape Change work group will continue to work on these
recommendations.
Need to be able to communicate with USGS regarding sampling frame, intensity etc. so
there needs to be clarification of the mechanisms.
Membership (NSST Bylaws - Article III) (J. Coppen):
S. Mott had originally broached the subject of vetting of ad hoc members by NSST and
their status for serving in officer positions. We discussed proposed changes to Article III
of the NSST bylaws. New directions emerged…







We will refer to all non-regular members as “Ex-officio” and drop the term “ad
hoc”.
Only regular members may serve as officers.
NSST EC can appoint ex-officio members to committees.
Under Article III – deleted text “and representatives from working groups or
subcommittee of the NSST.”
Last line changes: Ex-officio members may not serve as NSST officer
Add “and one representative from officially recognized action groups” to first
sentence groups.
Change all ad hoc to “ex-officio”
Motion carried to change bylaws.
Article 5 - section D: Change vice chair “will succeed” to “will serve in the position of
chair in the event the chair can not serve”
Article 6 - strike second sentence and add “NSST representatives may assign a proxy to
attend NSST meetings and cast votes with written notification to the NSST Executive
Committee in advance of the meeting attended by the designated proxy. ”
Action Item: J. Coppen will send out revised bylaws and copy S. Mott.
PAG & SAT will become fully vested members of NSST.
Article X - standing committees (EC, and action groups currently) so these need to have
full membership. As “officially recognized action groups”
Oct. 16
Membership (Cont.):
Rex Johnson volunteered for NSST vice chair.
M. Petrie will be NSST asst. vice chair according to rotational schedule
We agreed to conduct June NSST meetings on a regular schedule from here forward and
winter meeting with the PC on a regular basis. We will meet with PC at winter meeting
when possible but cannot this coming January. So, we need to request to meet with PC
this July. NSST will attempt to meet two days prior to that meeting.
Action Item: NSST Executive Committee will request joint meeting opportunity for
July PC meeting dates when scheduled.
NWI Work Group – Progress report (R. Johnson [Chair]):
This is a national inventory. Producing JV subsamples are likely to be imprecise. If JV
estimates are required, then we need more samples. We can work with Tom Dahl’s staff
can provide estimates of additional sample plots needed to provide more precise
estimates.
R. Johnson handed out NWI wetland assessment handout for status from 1980-2007 in
the PPR.
R. Johnson reminded the NSST JV folks of the need to report on priority wetland areas
that need remapping and that these are due to the NWI work group COB Friday, January
23.
Action item: By January 23, 2009 each JV with NWI digital data will have completed an
exercise to detect how the wetland component of the landscape has changed since
creation of NWI data for their JV. After JVs without NWI data are serviced (new
mapping/digitizing), JV/ecoregions will be prioritized for remapping based on: 1)
waterfowl priority and 2) amount of landscape change (+/-). The full NSST will be
involved in prioritizing.
Wetland status and trends overview (T. Dahl):
T. Dahl (USFWS Wetland Status and Trends) provided a powerpoint
This is not the NWI
o More current
o Includes upland and farmed wetlands
o Complete geodatabase
o Higher accuracy-less classification detail
o Updated documentation and protocol
o Automated data verification tools
o Increased field verification efforts
Overarching goal of status & trends program is to produce statistically valid estimates of
wetland area for the states.
Sample plots stratified by physiographic regions (Hammond land surface forms)
Sample plots = 4 sq. mi.
11 categories of wetlands
Track all wetland gains & losses
Wetlands status & trends is not NWI mapping. It’s reinterpreting wetlands maps, more
current and includes uplands & farmed wetlands. With higher accuracy (less
classification details). Updated documentation & protocols. Automated data verification
tools. Increased field verification efforts.
Statistical accuracy
Procedural accuracy (3-5%)
Minimum size detection < 1ac. (0.4 ha)
Includes uplands – 5 generalized classes
They don’t identify change from wetland to dry area, only change water level within
existing wetland. Climate change is difficult to surmise over a 5-year period given
natural variablilty.
Wetland status & trends advantages (management – policy)





Provides a measurable element to gauge policy success
Grounded in sound science
Standardized definitions and protocols
Relies on observables that can be verified
Tools and technologies are modern and transferable
Multiple agency buy-in has occurred
Beyond the National Studies



DOI and Service Directorate want to do more status and trends work
National update every 3-5 years
Interim reports that address high priority resource areas with NATIONAL
implications

Best utilized in large areas, ecoregions, watersheds or states
Top priority was Trends in Coastal Watersheds – Eastern U.S.
Possible intensification – JVs
Take advantage of National update work for Status and Trends (2010)
 Substantial cost and logistical savings
 Pacific Coast (lower 48) funded by EPA
 Other complimentary work ongoing
Considerations:
Probablistic sampling
Sampling intensity
Stratification within JV area
 Targeted wetland types & distribution
 Level of classification detail
Possible study objectives
 Estimated total wetland area (status)
 Provide wetland area trends (T1 to T2)
 Estimated total area by wetland type (class)
 Estimated total wetland numbers (basin)
 Others
For the JV remapping needs to be identified via the NWI work group inventory (for
priority waterfowl areas), we would need to figure out how many sample plots are needed
for a given region to estimate cost.
We discussed the potential in the US for the USFWS Wetland Status and Trends (who
also map upland land cover) to do a sampling intensification that would enable JVs to
report on status and trends of wetlands at 5-10 year intervals. In order for T. Dahl to give
us an estimate of the number of plots that would have to be added to make reliable
estimates for JVs, he needs to know which JVs want to be able to report estimates by the
major BCRs in their JV rather than just JV-wide. Reporting by BCRs within a JV will
require more plots and thus involve higher costs.
R. Johnson will relay a single summary message to T. Dahl.
JVs need to provide shapefiles of JV boundary, then they can search out existing national
plots, followed by a calculation of sample areas needed. JVs could provide further study
intensification objectives as this would help gauge intensity of sampling required and the
time & effort that needs to be invested.
M. Koneff modeling method was discussed and some accuracy issues were discussed.
Discussed a rotation of two JVs per year and get on a 10-year update rotation schedule.
It would be useful to group JVs by estimated additional sampling effort needs to make
this more manageable for the status & trends folks.
NWI work group will work with T. Dahl to develop these estimates.
Action Item: R. Johnson will provide T. Dahl all current shapefiles of JV boundaries in
US (plus possible expansion into Canada).
CWS Wetland Inventory update (M. Watmough):
1) Current habitat monitoring program
Formally defined wetland loss and reviewed wetland drainage methods that complicate
monitoring/detecting anthropogenic wetland change.
 Ditching (wetland drainage) was reviewed
 Roadside ditches are a major drainage avenue in the prairies
 Contour draining is difficult to track although basin is still visible, but lip of basin
is removed
 Riparian removal
 Cultivation – continue to work basins
 Filling wetlands (ranges from partial to large)
 Tile or subsurface drainage (difficult to assess whether a farmed wetland had been
tiled or is just dry in a given year due to low precipitation)
 Basin consolidation via channelization forces functional shift in wetland types
since seasonal & temporary wetlands are drained into “permanent wetlands”.
Objective of monitoring program was to establish a framework for estimating a variety of
habitat types within each ecoregion in settled portions of three prairie provinces.
Transects used to collect the data in multiple wetland types
Annual variability in water on prairies is very challenging aspect of monitoring to
detecting change. Wetland change mapping (GIS) is the basis of this.
Data mgmt. (master geodatabse developed)
Pre-exisitng wetland loss (timeframe becomes important, T1 –T2) substantial loss that is
not therefore accounted for.
Gross wetland area loss is estimated before gains.
A “partially drained wetland” indicator may indicate future risks as drainage ditches are
extended through time and drain more basins in a cluster
PHJV example - Wetland loss is highly variable throughout the PHJV
PHJV monitoring program- original objective to estimate habitat loss types.
Showed sample size and distribution by habitat type, aerial photo-based transects run
similar to USFWS May waterfowl survey transects
Showed wetland types, change detection and mapping
Showed table of wetland habitat change in summary table
Looking forward…



Anticipate a 5-10 year update cycle, exploring other technologies, have potential
for reporting historic trends in priority areas, linking annual population survey to
habitat monitoring.
S&T sampling network currently being expanded setting baselines for future
years.
Current work: 153 transects originally, more added since (233). Attempt to
balance out the samples among ecoregions.
2) Status of the CWS Wetland Inventory
There is no current comprehensive wetland inventory & monitoring effort in Canada.
CWS wetland inventory was a framework to pull together a Canadian wetland map &
wetland monitoring program. CWI partners will contribute to Nat’l inventory by
mapping wetlands according to these standards, for selected areas.
Existing data sets not useful in many aspects due to accuracy issues, etc. Have a pilot
developed to present to government and shop it around. Much of this is Landsat based,
but the resolution is too poor to track the majority of the wetland.
Walked through wetland habitat types, bog, fen, marsh, swamp, shallow water
Showed status map. Little is complete. Standardized wetland data model needed.
R. Johnson commented that given wetland efforts in Yukon, pPlot sample approach to
estimating wetland change for addressing climate change might be more accurate.
Report from the May 2008 Wintering JV workshop (R. Holbrook & J. Tirpak):
Several wintering JV staff and experts on wintering ecology met May 20-21. Cross JVcommunication opportunity. Explored options to track vital rates, food availability,
survival, habitat quality etc., and how this could be used for a wintering model. Talked
about problems, difficulties of parameterizing such a model, costs, measuring habitat
conditions.
Second day of workshop, talked about possible habitat model.
Developed equation:
ΔS = f(Δ Habitat + Δ Harvest + Δ Habitat*Harvest) + e
(Where ΔS =change in survival and e = error (noise)).
Winter habitat model – defined what habitat was explicitly. Conceptual model was
fleshed out into a mechanistic model. Showed schematic of processes and relationships…
Considered spatial and temporal scale.
• Spatial scale
– Sub-BCR (e.g., basins of the Central Valley)
– BCR (Mississippi Alluvial Valley)
– Continental (North America)
• Temporal scale
– 3 winter periods (pre-, during, and post-season)
– Whole winter period
– Annual life cycle
• Finer resolution preferable
– Maintains strong linkages between habitat and survival
– Increases learning efficiencies by increasing variation
– Limited by sample sizes needed to accurately estimate survival and ability
to quantify habitat
Use location of marked birds to define spatial scale coupled with the measurements of
those birds.
Develop a priori hypotheses to develop geospatial risk surfaces, similar to the
thunderstorm maps. Looked at costs for 5-year study, 4.4 M for survival transmitters
(100 per year), habitat assessment and remote sensing 3.9 M
Meat & potatoes of model is linking survival to habitat attributes. This is not a
“proposal” but a brainstorming event opportunity to delve into needs regardless of cost
consideration and other aspects…
NSST should review the presentation & model effort for comments.
Next steps are: a white paper, continued interaction with waterfowl community, an
alternative performance metrics workshop, interaction with the mallard telemetry study
group, waterfowl migration modelers and others….Some discussion about whether vital
rate estimation is as important as estimating effects of habitat delivery. Intend to have
white paper ready for review by Jan 1.
Should help to increase accountability for JV relative to continental assessment.
NSST Work Planning (T. Jones):
Future of Waterfowl Workshop implications to integration-
T. Jones reviewed NSST work planning needs relative to unifying waterfowl harvest &
habitat management and incorporating that into the next Plan update.
Building on the JTG report, what is the nature of the technical work still required?





What mix of talents will we need to accomplish this?
o Mix of AHMWG and NSST folks?
o Additional academic or agency people?
What will be the scope of the work required?
How do we envision this proceeding?
What additional policy-level direction is required to enable technical progress?
How would you see the PC and the NSST (and perhaps other bodies) working
together to move such an update ahead?
Future of Waterfowl Management Workshop Steering Committee will be meeting on
Nov 3 or 4 with senior USFWS and CWS managers to discuss a path forward and
requested technical input from the NSST.
We might need to gather some JTG report review committee reps with NSST Executive
Committee to form a committee to scope out rough outline for needs for critical elements
for the NAWMP update. Need to schedule a conference call.
D. Howerter P. Devers, Greg S. and R. Holbrook volunteered for this committee.
We should raise R. Johnson’s concern that AHM WG needs to anticipate conditions on
breeding grounds annually (e.g., next spring) and state the relationship of conditions this
year vs. conditions next year on next PC/NSST conference call
Other items to be included in a Nov 2008 – Oct 2009 work plan:


Regional Population Objectives Workshop
Net landscape change
o Upland & wetland
Draft NSST project proposal protocol (J. Coppen):
NSST was provided version 2 of the protocol that incorporated some of Ron Reynolds
comments (both of these handed out yesterday).
The draft protocol grew out of a need for the NSST to develop a process to identify
research/funding required to meet “priority needs”. NSST needs to develop an annual
priority needs list (to drive RFP process) - targeting proposals toward key uncertainties
hindering scientific advances to waterfowl management.
Process for evaluating & ranking projects: Protocol lays out the criteria for reviewing,
evaluating, ranking and recommending projects for selection by the PC. Appendices are
expected to serve as useful references to the NSST, for the foreseeable future, while
formulating specific, primary information needs of the Plan, on an annual basis, to drive
requests for proposals.
Protocol calls for the NSST to establish an ad hoc NSST Project Proposal Review
Committee charged with soliciting, reviewing, evaluating, ranking and recommending
project proposals to the NSST from eligible partners. NSST Project Proposal Review
Committee members (5-6 NSST members per year) serve on a rotating annual basis
Eligibility


All NAWMP partners may submit project proposals to the NSST provided that
the proposals adhere to minimum criteria for NSST review.
The NSST identifies top priority science-related needs (3-5 issues for research,
monitoring and evaluation) via a delphi technique and then solicits a request for
proposals. These primary needs are the focus of project funding allocation
decisions, are specified in a Request for Proposals and should be updated annually
to reflect current needs and progress.
For projects encompassing objectives relevant to regional (JV) science needs,
those objectives should have a direct relation to and conform to specific criteria
for Desired Characteristics for Joint Venture Implementation Plans (Table 1) and
therefore inform NAWMP or JV implementation planning.
The NSST Project Proposal Review Committee will: 1. Establish partner eligibility and
whether project proposals submitted meet specified minimum and additional criteria
(explicit primary needs are referenced in the Request for Proposals); 2. Review and
evaluate eligible project proposals; 3. Rank and prioritize eligible project proposals; 4.
Recommend project proposals to the NSST for endorsement by the PC.
The NSST Project Proposal Review Committee would use the Project Proposal
Evaluation Form (Appendix G) to conduct rigorous reviews and to rank proposals.
Much discussion ensued re: how to spend the max of 225k USFWS discretionary
funding. After some discussion, most agreed that we should request money for hiring
staff to address top priority recommendations for the NSST from the Continental
Assessment/ JTG Report.
We agreed to find alternatives to dealing with RFP process and better ways to spend
available funds. Find out how much money is available, how can we spend that money.
Our goal is to hire folks with the capacity to address the highest priority tasks.
Action items: NSST Executive Committee will get answers to full NSST re: what funds
are available on a regular basis AND options of how we can use these funds for
allocation of funding. Get this on the next PC/NSST Executive Committee conference
call.
NSST commitments for future work planning (J. Coppen):
Future NSST member participation was discussed. We are still in the planning stages,
but need to ensure volunteerism for when the heavy lifting work commences. We
discussed development of a document addressing this, with review opportunity.
We discussed the need to recognize important work out of the Assessment to JV
Coordinators and policy makers to stimulate more NSST engagement. We discussed the
PC role in celebrating accomplishments of the NSST to elevate engagement and
discussed ways to express appreciation for individual efforts via some form of
recognition. The NSST’s Accountability Famework Committee had been nominated for
PC recognition.
Given that recognition was more valued over cash awards, a letter to the NSST member’s
supervisor from the PC was suggested. This would allow the PC to work through
supervisors to suggest monetary awards for their service to the NSST. Other items
discussed were a certificate of appreciation from the NSST and a waterfowl decoy award.
We decided we would solicit nominations from the full NSST for 2 to 3 members that
deserve recognition each year. Awards could be made to annual nominees at a following
PC or NSST meeting, depending on availability.
Action Item: NSST Executive Committee will discuss what form of recognition for the
NSST’s Accountability Framework Committee for PC recognition.
Action Item: NSST Executive Committee (Gloutney & Coppen lead) will work up a
document with NSST committee chairs to increase participation that includes metrics of
what is expected in terms of NSST membership with reporting opportunity at conclusion
of tasks.
Action Item: J. Coppen will add a solicitation for 2-3 nominees from the full NSST for
recognition & awards for productive NSST members that deserve recognition during the
next NSST meeting.
Adjourn