BioOne Complete (complete.BioOne.org) is a full-text database of 200 subscribed and open-access titles in the biological, ecological, and environmental sciences published by nonprofit societies, associations, museums, institutions, and presses.

Context The North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the Upper Mississippi River/Great Lakes Joint Venture waterfowl habitat conservation strategy provide continental and regional guidance, respectively, for waterfowl habitat conservation planning. They were not designed to guide watershed- scale waterfowl habitat delivery. Objective Our goal was to develop a waterfowl habitat decision support framework for the state of Wisconsin using biological and social criteria to guide state and local-scale practitioners with an explicit link to larger scale objectives. Methods We engaged a core group of wetland and waterfowl experts to decide upon decision support layers relevant to biological and social objectives, evaluate variables, establish weights, and review model outputs for reasonableness and accuracy. We used spatial analyst tools, kernel density estimators, and weighted sums to create spatially explicit models to identify landscapes and watersheds important for waterfowl. We identified habitat resources that exist currently (Conservation Capital) and considered potential resources (Conservation Opportunities) which could enhance wetland restoration efforts. Results We developed a transparent framework to identify and prioritize landscapes for conserving waterfowl habitat at the Hydrologic Unit Code 12 watershed scale in Wisconsin, by maintaining continental and regional priorities, and including local landscape characteristics, biological criteria, and researcher, manager, and biologist expertise. Conclusions Local detail is critical for implementing waterfowl habitat delivery and making efficient use of limited funds for conservation but can be more abstract in larger regional or continental conservation planning. Our models are science-based, transparent, defensible, and can be modified as social, political, biological, and environmental forces change.

No abstract

The North American Wetlands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 4401-4412) provided funding and administration for wetland management and conservation projects. The North American Wetland Conservation Fund, enabled in 1989 with the Act, provides financial resources. Resource allocation decisions are based, in part, on regional experts, particularly migratory bird Joint Ventures (JVs) (i.e., partnerships for cooperative planning and coordinated management of the continent’s waterfowl populations and habitats). The JVs evaluate funding proposals submitted with their respective regions each year and make funding recommendations to decision makers. Proposal evaluation procedures differ among JVs, however, it could be helpful to consider a transparent, repeatable, and data-driven framework for prioritization within regions. We used structured decision making and linear additive value models for ranking proposals within JV regions. We used two JVs as case studies and constructed two different value models using JV-specific objectives and weights. The framework was developed through a collaborative process with JV staff and stakeholders. Models were written in Microsoft Excel. To test these models, we used six NAWCA proposals submitted to the Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture in 2016 and seven proposals submitted to the Gulf Coast Joint Venture in 2017. We compared proposal ranks assigned by the value model to ranks assigned by each JV’s management board. Ranks assigned by the value model differed from ranks assigned by the board for the Upper Mississippi / Great Lakes Joint Venture, but not for the Gulf Coast Joint Venture. However, ranks from the value model could change markedly with different objective weights and value functions. The weighted linear value model was beneficial for ranking NAWCA proposals because it allows JVs to treat the ranking as a multiple objective problem and tailor the ranking to their specific regional concerns. We believe a structured decision making approach could be adapted by JV staff to facilitate a systematic and transparent process for proposal ranking by their management boards.

No abstract