Investing Limited Habitat Restoration Dollars for Maximum Impact

By Dr. Robert C. Jadin, Curator of Ornithology in the Museum of Natural History and Lecturer in the Department of Biology at the University of Wisconsin Stevens Point, Stevens Point, WI and Bruce Ross, Executive Director, Wisconsin Waterfowl Association

This article originally appeared in Wisconsin Waterfowl Association’s January, 2022 Newsletter edition.

Editor’s Note: Dr. Jadin’s day job at UW-Stevens Point, gives him regular access to scientific papers of interest to curious duckers.   And WWA is fortunate to count Dr. Jadin as a member of our Education Committee.   He came up with the idea of making scientific waterfowl research (i.e., Quack Research) more accessible to our readers – this article is the first such attempt.  We’d be interested in your feedback on the idea and what research may interest you in the future. Let us know at [email]info@wisducks.org[/email].

The ability to fund wetland restorations will almost certainly lag the need for such wetland restorations. So how can wetland managers determine where to make investments to provide the greatest waterfowling return?

Recently, we came across an excellent paper that addresses this challenge for waterfowl management and we thought it might interest fellow members of WWA. Ideally, a transparent, science-based, and systematic process, right? Maybe one that accounts for human/political interests and which could be quantitatively explained might help focus management investments and strategies. Such a tool could also help resolve conflicts among stake holders.  As it turns out, this methodology is already helping guide state wetland managers (including WWA) on where to invest your waterfowl stamp dollars.

A TOOL TO HELP DETERMINE WATERFOWL HABITAT PRIORITIES

Palumbo et al. (2021) describes the recent development of an analytical framework – a Decision Support Tool (DST) – aimed at making sound habitat investments for waterfowl management within the state of Wisconsin. These authors started with the optimal biological and sociological goals such restorations serve in waterfowl management.

Biological goals included supporting local breeding habitat for Wisconsin-breeding ducks, sustaining stopover sites for spring waterfowl migration and enhancing sites that support fall migration. Sociological goals included proximity to waterfowl hunting communities and additional restoration benefits such as ecological services (like flood water retention and cleaner water that wetlands provide to local communities).

The DST developers used mapping data to geographically reveal where the local conditions allowed each of these goals to be most effectively accomplished. For example, they used mapping data to show where the state’s breeding waterfowl tend to nest most abundantly (see Figure 1), and the locations where migrating waterfowl tend to find favorable stopover conditions. They did this for all the biological and sociological goals that they had agreed were important at the start.

But since these goals were not all equally important, Wisconsin’s waterfowling experts (including WWA President Bruce Urben) were surveyed as to the relative value of each goal. They were asked, for example, was breeding habitat more, or less, or equally important as stopover habitat. GIS software was used to then find the most intersected regions of Wisconsin. In other words, in what areas did the most important goals overlap the most. Finally, they broke those areas down by watersheds designated as HUC 12 (Hydrological Unit Codes).  The number “12” after HUC indicates a relatively fine level of detail allowing the authors to consider the unique aspects of the local watersheds, essentially down the level of creek or streams.

The resulting map (Figure 2) is a decision support tool to select the preferred locations to implement management strategies where red are the highest priority HUC-12 locations, and blue are the lowest priority.

It’s a little more complicated than this since the authors also considered the concepts of conservation capital and conservation opportunity. In lay terms, we like to think these concepts equate to protect what we’ve got and restore what we can.  The maps for each of these concepts can be used separately, depending on which type of wetland focus managers may have.

PUTTING THIS TOOL INTO PRACTICE

Every two years, the funds collected from state duck stamp purchases must be allocated to projects within the state. The DST map (figure 2) helps prioritize where those funds should be spent to provide the greatest benefit for state waterfowlers. This is not the only factor for prioritizing where the stamp funds are spent, but it is an important one.  Red areas will receive some priority, but a really good project in a blue HUC-12 location may still receive duck stamp funding.

Perhaps most significant is that this habitat management DST can be modified in the future pending new layers, data, or human interests. This framework should provide guidance for detecting habitat priorities at the local and regional level that still support the goals for habitat conservation strategies at the continental scale set by the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes Joint Venture.

In 2019, the authors of this study developed a theoretical construct to focus habitat investments. And now, only two years later, that tool is actually guiding where your waterfowl stamp dollars are being spent!

__________________________________________________________________

References:

Palumbo. M.D., J.N. Straub, M.A. Al-Saffar, G.J. Soulliere, J.L. Fleener, M.T. Bergeson, J.M. Coluccy, A. Cruz, T. Finger, D.N. Fowler, B.J. Glenzinski, R.K. Griffin, S.E. Hygnstrom, G. Kidd, N.A. Miller, K. Van Horn, & K. Waterstradt. 2021. Multi-scale waterfowl habitat conservation planning in Wisconsin, USA. Landscape Ecology 36: 3207–3230.

Diagrams from:
Straub, J.N., M. Palumbo, J. Fleener, B. Glenzinski, D. Fowler, G. Kidd, K. Waterstradt, and S. Hygnstrom. 2019. Wisconsin Waterfowl Habitat Conservation Strategy (2020). Project #W-160- P-36; Final report submitted to the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.