Description: These data depict areas of the U.S. where NAWCA projects should be developed and favored based on benefits to wetland-associated shorebirds. The idea is that protecting, enhancing, or restoring wetlands within these landscapes has greater value than conducting these same conservation activities outside the landscape boundary. Shorebirds include families of birds that dependent on wetland, grassland, and beach habitats to complete portions of their life cycles, such as, avocets and stilts, plovers, oystercatchers, sandpipers, and phalaropes. Technical Question #3 for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) asks applicants to describe how the proposed grant and match activities will address the national and/or continental geographic priorities for wetland habitat conservation as outlined in the four major migratory bird conservation plans and makes reference to geographic priority maps for these bird groups. These data were compiled by the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Partnership in consultation with regional U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Bird biologists, state shorebird biologists, NGO shorebird experts, and staff of the bird habitat Joint Ventures to develop a national-scale map that depicts areas where habitat acquisition, enhancement, and restoration would yield the greatest benefits for the highest priority wetland-associated shorebird species. The original shorebird map illustrated coarse areas (i.e. blobs) of national importance to shorebirds (2004). These areas focused on wetland landscapes that were used by large numbers of migrant shorebirds (>20,000 individuals) or that supported high densities of breeding or wintering shorebirds. The landscape approach was chosen because of the geographic variability in shorebird use of discrete versus dispersed sites throughout the nation and the attempt to balance use during the breeding season with migration and wintering. The same landscape approach was used for the 2012 revision, with the goal of improving the usefulness of the coarse map. The 2004 “blob” map did not define very precisely the boundary of important areas. To remedy that problem, we used (generally) the EPA’s Level IV Ecoregion boundaries, which are available for every state except Alaska and Hawaii. We produced state-scale maps designating refinements to the previous blob map for review. Maps originate from one national, scalable shapefile that will be available to applicants and other users. Although the idea of providing levels of importance to sites (e.g., WHSRN categories) has been previously considered, we believe the complexity would be difficult to portray on a single map, particularly considering the differences between breeding and migrations sites discussed above. Regional importance of sites to shorebirds is assessed separately as a second part of Technical Question #3.
Copyright Text: U.S. Shorebird Conservation Partnership
Description: These data depict areas of the U.S. where NAWCA projects should be developed and favored based on benefits to waterbirds. Waterbirds is a term used to encompass families of birds dependent on aquatic habitats to complete portions of their life cycles, excluding those species known as waterfowl and shorebirds. Technical Question #3 for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) asks applicants to describe how the proposed grant and match activities will address the national and/or continental geographic priorities for wetland habitat conservation as outlined in the four major migratory bird conservation plans and makes reference to geographic priority maps for these bird groups. These data were compiled in collaboration with the Bird Habitat Joint Ventures to develop a national-scale map that depicts areas where habitat acquisition, restoration and management would yield the greatest benefits for the largest numbers or highest priority waterbird species.
Copyright Text: Waterbird Conservation of the Americas, 2012
Description: These data depict areas of the U.S. where NAWCA projects should be developed and favored based on benefits to wetland-associated landbirds. Landbirds is a term used to encompass families of birds dependent on terrestrial habitats to complete portions of their life cycles, including warblers, thrushes, sparrows, finches, hummingbirds, flycatchers, raptors and other groups.Technical Question #3 for the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA) asks applicants to describe how the proposed grant and match activities will address the national and/or continental geographic priorities for wetland habitat conservation as outlined in the four major migratory bird conservation plans and makes reference to geographic priority maps for these bird groups. These data were compiled by the Partners in Flight Science Committee in collaboration with the Bird Habitat Joint Ventures to develop a national-scale map that depicts areas where habitat acquisition, restoration and management would yield the greatest benefits for the highest priority wetland-associated landbird species, including White-crowned Pidgeon, Mangrove Cuckoo, Willow Flycatcher (southwestern subspecies), Yellow-billed Cuckoo (western subspecies), Nelson’s Sparrow, Seaside Sparrow, Saltmarsh Sparrow, Tri-colored Blackbird, Rusty Blackbird, & Prothonotary Warbler. This map was created through consultation with Bird Habitat Joint Ventures (JVs). JV Science Coordinators were asked to identify and justify priority areas, reconfiguring, adding, or eliminating areas identified on the previous version of this map (2005). Justifications were requested to be based on best-available, referenced population data, although no specific criteria were provided for inclusion. The development of consistent inclusion criteria is stymied by the absence of national and regional scale information on abundance and densities for most birds. This lack of data, coupled with the wide diversity and habitat usage of wetlands by landbirds, makes it very difficult to derive a consistent data-driven method for describing important landscapes for wetland-associated landbirds and setting standard thresholds for national importance. Fortunately, the data we need to generate a data-driven map of important areas during the annual cycle is being collected in disparate geographies and more areas are coming online every year; these efforts will lead to a greater understanding of the distribution / relative abundance / trends of landbirds which will improve subsequent map revisions. JVs were also asked to provide digital shape files based on actual spatial data (wetland, soils, or topographic data), wherever possible, for compilation into a modern GIS. Once submissions from JVs were compiled, they were reviewed by the Partners in Flight Science Committee, whose combined knowledge and experience encompassed the taxonomic diversity of landbirds across the U.S. The committee considered the map and justifications holistically as well as specifically according to their expertise.The committee endorsed the submissions, recognizing that the short timeline given to Joint Ventures precluded better coordination of priority areas across JV boundaries. The map is an improvement to the previous version, but additional iteration would be improved by additional deliberation and decisions about stringency and comparability of justifications; use of objective criteria to the extent possible given data limitations or at least attempts towards consistent philosophies underpinning subjective decisions; appropriate levels of resolution in depiction of identified areas, and most importantly, inclusion of additional field information or mapping refinements as they become available in the future.For more information, contact Ken Rosenberg at kvr2@cornell.edu and/or relevant JV staff for particular areas.
Description: 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.
Copyright Text: North American Waterfowl Management Plan Science Support Team