Document Repository

Joseph D. Lancaster
Gulf Coast Joint Venture, Ducks Unlimited Inc.
Barry C. Wilson
Gulf Coast Joint Venture, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

ABSTRACT

Fleming et al. (2019) developed autumn and winter nonbreeding abundance objectives for 23 duck species or species groups at Joint Venture scales. Abundance objectives and guidance on their temporal application relative to migration chronology from Lancaster et al. (2024) has furthered Joint Ventures’ ability to calculate regional duck use day estimates for conservation planning. However, choosing between Fleming et al. autumn or winter regional abundance objectives has remained a subjective decision for Joint Ventures. Instinctively, extreme northern and southern Joint Ventures are likely to select autumn and winter objectives, respectively due to regional duck distributions and harvest within those periods. However, differential timing of species-specific migrations makes it difficult to identify the appropriate period objective among other Joint Ventures, especially those at mid-latitudes. We developed a visualization of regional daily harvest and eBird relative abundance information across the nonbreeding period to allow planners to make informed species-specific decisions to use Fleming et al. (2019) autumn or winter regional abundance objectives. Further, we make recommendations for 23 duck species or species groups for which Fleming et al. (2019) developed abundance objectives. Recommendations were based on three criteria; 1) cumulative daily harvest across the autumn or winter period; 2) cumulative eBird relative abundance across the autumn or winter period; and 3) the eBird relative abundance at the suggested autumn and winter anchor point date. In most cases (79%), recommendations were unanimous across data types, but in some cases additional scrutiny is necessary. We suggest regional planners use our visualizations and recommendations to help inform decisions establishing nonbreeding objectives using either the autumn or winter abundance objectives in Fleming et al. (2019).

ABSTRACT
Migratory Bird Habitat Joint Ventures (JVs) of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) are tasked with quantifying regional waterfowl habitat objectives that support continental waterfowl populations at objectives outlined in the NAWMP. Fleming et al. (2019) developed a framework to derive non-breeding duck population objectives to inform JV habitat conservation planning in North America. The JV-level population objectives alone do not account for temporal variation in duck abundance and require additional migration chronology data to compute objectives across the non-breeding period. An important consideration to integrate population objectives and chronological abundance is selecting the appropriate “anchor point” date to which objectives are assigned. Fleming et al. (2019) suggested anchoring objectives at midpoints of the planning periods but acknowledged a need for more defensible guidance. The Gulf Coast Joint Venture Waterfowl Working Group recently developed a method to calculate species-specific anchor points applicable across Joint Ventures within autumn and winter periods. Our method calculates species-specific daily harvest distribution within each JV and identifies the individual date on which daily harvest distribution across JVs most closely matches the mean distribution of harvest across the entire period. As the latter was used by Fleming et al. (2019) as a proxy for abundance to proportionally allocate JV-level population objectives among JVs, this method offers an empirical approach to achieving coherence between independent planning parameters (i.e., population objectives and anchor points) in bioenergetic models. The result is a set of species-specific anchor points for the autumn and winter periods for potential use by all JVs. Application of anchor points and Fleming et al. (2019) step-down objectives across JVs allow calculation of JV-level population objectives across the non-breeding period that efficiently and consistently account for continental duck populations.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The waterfowl management community has long been committed to restoring waterfowl populations, using periodic updates to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP or the Plan) to identify and communicate changing priorities. The current document builds upon previous iterations of NAWMP by considering several important aspects of the Plan and including contemporary data. The North American Waterfowl Management Plan was developed as a strategy to restore waterfowl populations and through several updates the Plan’s focus has remained waterfowl conservation, but the number of waterfowl species and populations (>70) requires strategic thinking in prioritizing management efforts. In 2004, the Plan prioritized waterfowl species in terms of perceived management need given habitat conditions and importance in harvest (NAWMP 2004). Additional biological and social data are now available along with updated goals of the Plan. In particular, the 2012 Plan Update added social values associated with waterfowl as important objectives of the Plan.

The three primary Plan goals were used to identify classification criteria and prioritize species within all ducks and geese and swans combined. The classification criteria are presented in Table 1 and the results of the above methods are presented in tables 3 and 4. High priority was assigned for 12 of 38 duck species (40 populations). For geese/swans, 11 of 35 populations were classified as High priority.

The waterfowl species prioritization was updated to account for a wider range of social values, accommodate additional current data, and achieve Plan goals. This update relies heavily on the Avian Conservation Assessment Database (ACAD) created by Partners in Flight (2021). The primary source for many ACAD criteria included expert opinion of waterfowl managers, including the NAWMP Science Support Team and associated Joint Ventures. For ducks, the waterfowl population objective of the Plan was scored using population trend information from ACAD and the habitat objective was scored using ACAD threats to breeding and non-breeding habitats. To address the human dimensions objectives, two criteria were used for ducks, total harvest from federal harvest surveys and observations by bird watchers using eBird. For geese/swan populations, the population objective used the most recent 10-year trend in relation to population abundance. The ACAD habitat threats scores were used to classify populations for the habitat objectives of the Plan. For the human dimensions objectives of goose/swan prioritization, population objectives defined in flyway management plans were assumed to represent societal goals for management, and scores were based on the qualitative difference between management plan objectives and current population abundance. For each group the scores of the three categories were averaged so the objectives of the Plan were equally weighted. The range of final scores among populations were subdivided approximately equally to obtain 3 levels of prioritization (high, medium, or low) for ducks and geese/swans.

This report focuses solely on the continental scale. Upon completion of this report, work will commence towards updating regional level scores at the appropriate scale. The continental and regional prioritization will then be updated as needed and as additional information is obtained. The NAWMP Science Support Team (NSST) will work directly with ACAD to prioritize updating expert opinion and trend data at time intervals that are relevant to strategic planning and management decisions.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Conservation social sciences—the human dimensions (HD) of conservation—encompass a variety of issues and disciplines related to how people think about natural resources and the factors influencing related human behaviors. Recent revisions of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) and Partners in Flight (PIF) landbird conservation plan include an explicit emphasis on people. Traditionally focused on regional biological planning and habitat delivery, migratory bird Joint Ventures (JVs) are at various stages of using HD in their work to further the goals of continental bird plans and to increase the effectiveness of JV conservation work. The intent of this assessment was to document status and approaches to HD integration among JVs and to provide experiential insights to the bird conservation community regarding this new challenge. Specifically, we wanted to determine the extent to which JVs are engaged in HD and are integrating people-related goals and objectives into bird conservation planning and bird habitat delivery. Further, we explored HD assumptions made by JVs, as well as challenges, barriers, and needs for expanded HD integration.

During early 2021, we contacted JV coordinators regarding a 2-phased study approach to determine application and integration of HD in their regional bird habitat planning and conservation delivery. All JV coordinators responded positively to the invitation, including 22 habitat JVs and two species-focused partnerships. The first phase of the assessment was an online survey with questions related to available HD expertise, past HD use, current HD interest and barriers to use, common people-related assumptions, and the value placed on HD in JV planning efforts. The second phase of the assessment included semi-structured interviews of the JV coordinator and, in some cases, additional JV staff invited by the coordinator to participate. These 2-hour discussions covered many of the topic areas included in the online survey, allowing JV representatives the opportunity to elaborate on their HD experiences.

Our results revealed that the JV community is keenly aware of the social and environmental change occurring in North America and the importance of using social science expertise to understand humans within the landscapes where they work. Joint Ventures largely recognized that future conservation focus must include birds, habitats, and people. However, respondents cited JV traditions and culture, partnership composition, regional landscape characteristics, and especially JV staff capacity as major factors limiting their ability to manage HD integration. The level of HD engagement by JVs generally fell into one of three groups: 1) no work yet, 2) used available data and literature to better target conservation, develop models, or learn about landowner decision-making, and 3) collected HD data with existing staff or through support from outside researchers and used results in conservation decisions. JVs were at various stages of conservation planning, and some implementation plans lacked HD emphasis simply because they were outdated. Although one JV had established an explicit HD objective for waterfowl hunter abundance, most JVs viewed conservation social science primarily as a means to serve a biological goal. The idea that quantifiable HD objectives would be established alongside quantifiable bird or habitat objectives was largely absent from JV responses. Although focus on people objectives is highlighted in the 2012 and 2018 NAWMP, JVs at this point are using HD science primarily to help achieve biological goals.

Adding social science expertise may be the highest near-term priority for many JVs. This proficiency can help identify how various regional stakeholders perceive the bird conservation community while also evaluating barriers and motivations to conservation activities, all of which are important for enhancing JV programs and communications. We found that seven JVs have staff members with at least some formal training in conservation social science, with one JV recently adding a second HD specialist to their staff. Another JV, lacking HD expertise within their staff, recently recruited a social scientist to their JV Technical Committee. The 2-phased approach used for this assessment was time-consuming to develop and manage, but we believe information reported here provides valuable HD guidance and an important baseline against which to measure progress. Examples and prospects for expanding HD in JV conservation programs are provided.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Habitat Joint Ventures (JVs) originally formed under the auspices of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan have assumed responsibility for the conservation of multiple bird groups including waterfowl, landbirds, shorebirds, and waterbirds. Using a variety of methods, JVs are identifying the conservation needs for each bird group, which are typically described in JV Implementation Plans. As JVs continue to make progress in establishing conservation objectives for each bird group, there is growing interest in determining how objectives might be integrated across bird groups to increase the efficacy of all-bird conservation. As a result, we assessed and reported integration techniques used by JVs. This effort included developing a set of questions used to interview staff members from all 22 North American habitat JVs and document the current state of bird-taxa integration by the JV community. Joint Venture regional partnerships have unique geographies and distinct political, cultural, historical, and biological features affecting their operations. Our intent was to capture the full range of bird-group integration experiences within JVs.

Joint Venture representatives participating in this assessment indicated appreciation for the opportunity to contribute. Most (59%) JVs responded that their conservation work included consideration of more than one bird group using “common habitats” within planning units, but only three (14%) indicated their planning documents explicitly integrated (combined) habitat conservation objectives for multiple bird taxa. Joint Ventures more advanced in multiple bird-group planning had a strong science foundation linked to species-habitat models and landscape prioritization and often designated focal species or umbrella species as habitat representatives. The waterfowl bird group had the strongest science foundation in the highest proportion (82%) of JVs. Nearly half (45%) of JVs used BCRs as their primary planning units, but many also specified that they “step-down” large BCRs into smaller sub-regions for planning or habitat implementation. Planning for designated focus areas, typically dominated by a primary bird habitat category within a BCR(s), was also common (27% of JVs).

The potential to increase efficiencies related to multiple bird-group planning and habitat delivery was recognized at various scales, ranging from individual projects to planning landscapes to entire JV regions. Most (82%) JVs indicated existing government-funded conservation programs were broadly suitable for delivering JV-established objectives for at least some bird groups. In general, JVs identified the USDA Natural Resource Conservation Service Farm Bill programs as most suitable for implementation, followed closely by projects supported by the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA). Two categories — data/knowledge needs (35%) and capacity/resource needs (30%) — were identified by JVs as the most important barriers to increasing integrated conservation across bird taxa. Predictably, the top (65%) solution identified by JVs to eliminate barriers was to increase capacity for science and implementation. The majority of JVs indicated meeting a mission for all-bird conservation required integration of bird-group conservation in some manner.

Regarding measuring effectiveness, no JV identified a dedicated program in place to evaluate their all-bird conservation outcomes beyond site-scale monitoring efforts. Many JVs assume conservation actions targeted at focal species also benefit other birds in specific habitat guilds or occurring in common areas. The most frequently identified opportunities to move integration forward were associated with JV habitat-focus areas for wetland birds (32%) or wetland-grassland-pollinator complexes in cropped landscapes (18%).

Highly variable approaches to integrating multiple bird-taxa objectives and inconsistent spatial planning units among JVs may hamper ability to integrate work across regions sharing common bird cohorts during the full annual cycle. Furthermore, inequity in the knowledge base of various bird groups remains a barrier for achieving integrated conservation of all birds (i.e., science weakness in ≥ 1 taxa area leads to weakness in integration). Although various direct and indirect bird-conservation integration is already taking place, expanded capacity for JVs and their collaboration networks was considered critical to leverage more resources, especially related to expanding and complementary environmental initiatives (e.g., addressing climate change). Moreover, if land cover changes due to development, intensive agriculture, and climate factors continue at current rates, traditional JV decision-support models will become less meaningful. Predicting future bird response to habitat management may be even more uncertain due to accelerated environmental change. Consequently, the focus on customary products (e.g., bird species/guild abundance and distribution) familiar to previous generations of wildlife managers may need to become more pliable as we plan and work in increasingly altered and changing systems. Continued networking among bird scientists, land managers, and other relevant experts will be important to better leverage knowledge and resources to most benefit birds and people.

ABSTRACT
During the early 2000s, a methodology was developed to derive regional non-breeding population abundance objectives from continental abundance estimates (M. Koneff, USFWS, unpublished data). This information was foundational to North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) Joint Venture (JV) habitat conservation planning and implementation for non-breeding waterfowl, especially wintering ducks. The 2012 NAWMP Revision and its amended population objectives motivated JVs to begin updating their waterfowl implementation plans. Fleming et al. (2017) revisited the initial work to derive non-breeding abundance objectives and developed an updated approach. Although Fleming et al. (2017) made use of the least biased and most geographically consistent datasets, they identified outstanding issues to be resolved before the derivation technique could be effectively applied across all regions of North America. We updated the work of Fleming et al. (2017) by addressing 3 of those issues. Specifically, we incorporated Canadian harvest data and calculated autumn–winter population objectives at degree block and JV-regional scales in Canada, updated and calculated winter population objectives for Mexico at degree block and JV-regional scales, and expanded the list of species for which objectives were calculated. Updated JV regional population abundance objectives for the non-breeding period are provided for 23 waterfowl species and species groups across North America.

Introduction: 

Initially, we considered reviewing a variety of habitat types (wetlands and coastal habitats, forest, and grassland and scrub-shrub) to assess net landscape change assessment information needs. For some of these habitat groupings it appeared that alternate sources of data allowed for cost-effective, alternative approaches to assessing changes in landscape composition. Eventually, we gravitated to a set of key habitat elements viewed as showing the greatest need for such information. Those elements resulted in the following identified needs: 

1. Fulfill agency mandates to update NWI 
2. Improve classification and quality assessment of grassland and shrubland habitats 
3. Increase communication with NRCS NRI regarding data needs and accessibility 
4. Increase opportunities to update NLCD 

Our objective for this whitepaper was to focus efforts to pursue data where alternate sources do not provide the requisite information to assess landscape composition change. Each section presents a brief description of limitations of existing data, what data is needed and at what resolution, the importance and value the desired data holds for JV conservation planning with examples showing how JVs intend to use the data in their net landscape change assessments and ultimately its value in habitat allocation decision making. To the extent possible, this will be supplemented with cost estimates.

In each section, we provide recommendations for the US NABCI committee to consider in their efforts to interact with agency leaders to address the paucity of information limiting more transparent and effective habitat conservation delivery. Those ten recommendations are summarized immediately below

ABSTRACT
During the early 2000s, M. Koneff (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) developed a methodology to derive regional non-breeding waterfowl population abundance objectives from continental abundance estimates. This information has been foundational to Joint Venture (JV) planning and implementation of habitat conservation for non-breeding waterfowl, especially wintering ducks. The 2012 NAWMP Revision and its amended population objectives motivated many JVs to begin updating their waterfowl implementation plans. Accordingly, interest grew in revisiting Koneff’s analysis to calculate JV regional non-breeding population abundance objectives consistent with the revised NAWMP breeding objectives, while also seeking process refinement and repeatability using persistent datasets. We describe the data, equations, and caveats of the original derivation technique and compare results of alternative approaches using updated population and harvest information. Of the four methods compared, the superior approach (fewest number of short-comings) employed harvest data partitioned into separate autumn and mid-winter time periods, thus enabling finer temporal characterization of duck distribution and resulting population objective across individual JV regions. This approach
made use of the least biased and most geographically consistent datasets, collected over an extended time frame, and likely to be collected in a similar manner into the future. JV regional population abundance objectives are provided for the 17 most commonly harvested duck species. Recommendations for applying results along with uncertainties, assumptions, and limitations which will guide future revisions are provided.

ABSTRACT
Improved spatial analysis tools and waterfowl population data for many regions of North America prompted refinement of the 2004 NAWMP map depicting areas most significant to waterfowl at the continental scale. The NSST established an 11-member committee to coordinate map revision via Joint Ventures (JVs) and their conservation partners. The committee was not able to develop universal criteria for area inclusion on the NAWMP map, but JVs were required to support proposals with the best quantitative information available. A total of 41 adjustments proposed by 15 habitat and 2 species JVs were approved by the map committee, but quality and reliability of available population data varied considerably among regions and proposals. Despite data limitations, the revised NAWMP map represented material improvements in depicting areas of continental significance to waterfowl. However, given the subjectivity in its development and refinement, the NAWMP map has limited ability to inform conservation decisions. The committee advocates a succeeding effort to develop products for guiding conservation at appropriate scales and addressing the 3 fundamental goals of the 2012 NAWMP Revision. Key decision frameworks must be established to assure resulting maps and decision-support tools are rooted in a clearly defined and accepted context.

ABSTRACT
In 2009, the NSST Alternative Performance Metrics (APM) Committee identified a limited number of alternative performance metrics to be adopted and implemented by the NAWMP Committee and Joint Ventures (NSST Technical Report 2009-1). The APM Committee developed guidance for advancing beyond financially and area-based objectives and accomplishment metrics to those more meaningful for assessing biological impacts of conservation actions.

Although development of these recommendations represented a significant accomplishment, tangible advancements in measuring biological effectiveness of conservation actions will occur only if the recommendations are adopted by the NAWMP community. The NSST identified as a priority item in its 2012 – 2016 Work Plan the need to continue shepherding these recommendations and to facilitate their implementation. Thus, the NSST Demographic Objectives Committee was established in 2010 with the primary goal of developing methods for setting demographic objectives (i.e., vital rates) at BCR/JV-scales for focal waterfowl species.

The NAWMP Science Support Team’s (NSST) Demographic Objectives Committee convened a workshop on 14-15 June 2011 in Corpus Christi, Texas to solicit input from Joint Venture representatives on their efforts to establish regional-scale demographic objectives, logistical and technical challenges to doing so, and opportunities and strategies to expedite the surmounting of those challenges. To catalyze workshop discussions, each attending JV representative was asked to deliver a presentation describing the biological models used to establish waterfowl habitat objectives within their region and the extent to which their models were linked to vital rate objectives. Primary objectives of the workshop were to: 1) provide peer review of current JV biological modeling approaches; 2) establish a commitment from JVs to begin developing demographic objectives within the next 5 years where they do not already exist; and 3) develop a clear understanding of the most appropriate strategies for measuring habitat conservation impacts on key vital rates.

Workshop recommendations for establishing objectives and measuring accomplishment in terms of demographic rates are included in this report and are summarized as follows: promote completion of pintail, scaup, and black duck annual cycle models; develop an annual cycle model for a generic dabbling duck, perhaps based on mallard demographics; and develop strategies to communicate the value and utility of integrated annual cycle models and demographic objectives.

ABSTRACT
Joint Venture (JV) scientists use regional population abundance objectives for waterfowl to quantify habitat objectives and frame conservation delivery strategies. Inconsistent or unreliable approaches for deriving population objectives among JVs will, by extension, produce inconsistent or unreliable habitat objectives across JVs. Furthermore, a 2007 North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) Continental Progress Assessment identified several JVs whose waterfowl population abundance objectives lacked a clear relationship to NAWMP continental goals, reenforcing a need for guidelines to establish population objectives at the JV regional scale. Consequently, a NAWMP Science Support Team (NSST) Committee was formed to review existing approaches and provide recommendations to formulate regional waterfowl population abundance objectives explicitly and consistently linked to NAWMP continental population goals. This effort included a workshop in February 2009 to facilitate review of existing approaches and to seek input from the NAWMP community on recommendations for improvement. Methods for establishing population abundance objectives and their use in JV conservation planning logically differ among periods of the waterfowl annual cycle (i.e., breeding, wintering, and migration). However, our workshop revealed even among JV regions focused on the same annual cycle period, establishment of population objectives varied and were often not linked to NAWMP goals. For example, the primary breeding regions in North America, encompassing the Prairie Habitat Joint Venture (PHJV) in Canada and the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (PPJV) in the U.S., used different reference years for population objective setting. The PHJV retained NAWMP’s original reference period (i.e., based on 1970s abundances) whereas the PPJV revised their population objectives upward based on duck abundances during a recent time period (1994‐2004). Although no longer explicitly linked to current NAWMP population goals, the PPJV (and other breeding JVs) justified establishment of higher population objectives to reflect long‐term increases in breeding duck carrying capacity. JV waterfowl population abundance objectives for wintering and migration regions were generated using various combinations of population and harvest data, research on marked birds, and often expert opinion. Although none of the techniques we assessed for apportioning continental goals to wintering and migration regions were considered ideal, superior approaches were identified and recommendations for consistency were developed. Underlying discussions of change in landscape carrying capacity for breeding ducks and the importance of viable non‐breeding period distribution surveys was the explicit need to better coordinate among JVs. Using information we provide, the NAWMP community can move toward a more uniform and integrated approach for establishing regional population abundance objectives and ultimately more effective waterfowl habitat conservation at the continental scale.

ABSTRACT
The NAWMP Science Support Team’s (NSST) Alternative Performance Metrics Subcommittee hosted a 2-day workshop on 5-6 August 2008 at Patuxent National Wildlife Research Center - Laurel, MD to explore alternative metrics for measuring progress in achieving NAWMP goals by linking habitat actions to vital rates regionally. This workshop resulted from a recommendation introduced in the NSST’s Technical Report No. 2008‐1 entitled “Continental Progress Assessment Report Recommendation A.1 – NSST Scoping Document: A Report to the Plan Committee from the NSST.” The workshop goal was to measure our collective influence on waterfowl across spatial scales. The objectives of the workshop were to: I. Understand the biological and administrative need for new alternative metrics that apply across Joint Ventures; II. Identify candidate metrics; III. Develop an objective process to evaluate and select preferred metrics; and IV. Achieve consensus around a limited number (1–3) of preferred alternative metrics for implementation under the NAWMP.

A small group of invited Joint Venture Science Coordinators and representatives from the Flyway Councils and Federal Agencies were selected to participate and provide broad representation, skills, and backgrounds from the waterfowl community. Results and recommendations from the workshop are submitted in this report.

Workshop participants reached consensus on a general monitoring framework. In the short-term, workshop participants agreed to the following:
i. JVs should frame their accomplishments in terms of changes in demographic parameters (i.e., season specific vital rates).
ii. All JVs should adopt the annual life cycle model (Fig. 1) as the basis of their monitoring program. This framework explicitly links ecologically similar JVs (i.e., breeding JVs or wintering JVs), thus facilitating decisions about appropriate levels of resource redundancy required to meet the life cycle needs of waterfowl among JV’s, and links JVs temporally throughout the year.
iii. Individual JVs should develop conceptual or empirical models to explicitly describe how habitat management actions influence vital rate(s) and JVs should develop monitoring programs to track the direct influence of their management actions on the quality and quantity of refuge areas and food resources. Resulting estimates then provide information on local impacts of JV actions and can be rolled up across JVs to estimate cumulative impacts on waterfowl population dynamics and carrying capacity at the continental scale.
iv. At the JV scale this framework should be used to complement traditional metrics including number of acres protected, enhanced, or restored, dollars spent, and dollars leveraged.
v. At the continental scale, this framework will complement the current metric of comparing continental population size to the population goal.
vi. In the long-term, JVs should incorporate the influence of both their management actions and population size (Fig. 3) on vital rates. This next step will allow managers and researchers to understand the impact of density-dependence on management actions and vital rates.

ABSTRACT
At their meeting at Savannah, GA during January 9-11, 2007 the North American Waterfowl Management Plan Committee identified top priorities distilled form the Continental Progress Assessment Report which included Recommendation A.1: The Plan Committee should ensure development of a clearer and more robust accountability framework for the achievement of NAWMP biological objectives involving all organizational levels in the Plan Community.

Subsequently, the Plan Committee developed management responses to the Assessment including a response to Recommendation A.1 as follows:
The Plan Committee will work with the JVs and the NSST to develop and maintain an accountability framework for the achievement of Plan goals. Necessary components will include coherent objectives at continental, national, regional (JV), and sub-regional scales and regular reporting among the committees and organizations responsible for Plan implementation.
Estimates of regional habitat gains (including NAWMP accomplishments) and losses are essential for estimating net conservation progress. Combined with improved understanding of how landscape conditions affect waterfowl vital rates, plan partners will be better able to set adequate habitat objectives and assess biological progress.

The Plan Committee expects the NAWMP Science Support Team to develop and report recommendations for Plan Committee endorsement. This scoping document was developed in response to the Plan Committee’s request for NAWMP Science Support Team recommendations to address the charges within Recommendation A.1 and will contribute to the development of NAWMP Science Support Team efforts to address priorities.
The NAWMP Science Support Team provided a summary review of the issues associated with each sub-element of recommendation A.1, discussed pros and cons for each sub-element, and developed NAWMP Science Support Team recommendations addressing each sub-element of recommendation A.1 to present to the Plan Committee.
Logical sequencing of NAWMP Science Support Team recommendations addressing each of the sub-elements reflected the NAWMP Science Support Team perspective for urgency and need.

ABSTRACT
We present the mission, objectives and roles of the NSST, chart a course for developing a NSST vision, goals and objectives based on a comprehensive analysis of the NSST Charter (mission and objectives) and NSST Roles (task assignments and charges) identified in historical documents. We elucidate the primary impending challenges ahead for the NSST. 

Among the most pressing issues discussed are: 1.) Addressing the coherence of harvest and habitat management under the realization that harvest and habitat management are inextricably linked, and the objectives of both harvest management and the NAWMP should explicitly reflect that linkage; 2.) Coalescing regional habitat objectives and linking them to continental population objectives so that they “add up”, while being partitioned amongst the Joint Ventures (JV), to a cogent continental assessment to assess NAWMP progress while accounting for uncontrolled environmental variation; and 3.) Developing creative, efficient approaches to waterfowl and habitat conservation, given limited resources and globalization of stewardship initiatives, that reaffirm our commitment to those resources in the context of “All Bird” management.