Partners in Flight National Monitoring Working Group Meeting:
This meeting took place March 16th, 1997 in Washington D.C.
For further information, e-mail C. John Ralph at cjralph@humboldt1.com
May 20, 1997
Dear Member:
Enclosed are the minutes for the March 16th meeting of the Working Group held in
Washington, D.C. Many
thanks to Dave Krueper for compiling these.
Also, please note the letter from Jon Bart and me about the process of the "Needs
Assessment," referred to
below as "A review of the methodology, status, and needs for monitoring landbirds in the
Americas".
Our next meeting of the working group will be this fall, October 22-23, at the same venue, and
just prior, to
the national Cowbird Conference in Sacramento, California that will be held October 23-25.
We will also have a major meeting in conjunction with the Joint North American
Ornithological Meeting in
Saint Louis, 6-12 April 1998.
Regards,
C. John Ralph and Jon Bart, co-chairs
The meeting, held during the North American wildlife and Natural Resources Conference at
the Omni Shoreham Hotel, was called to order at 8:30 by C.J. Ralph, Chair.
Goals Statement
The original Goal Statement was revised by Ralph and Butcher in August 1995 and is available
on the Monitoring Working Group (MWG) Home Page:
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/wildlife/birdmon/pif/
It is the intention that the Goals Statements will be revised and updated after this meeting.
Ralph will formalize comments and suggestions, and will distribute accordingly.
Needs Assessment
The consensus is that the Needs Assessment must be updated. The draft revision is available
on the MWG Home Page.
Most of the tasks identified from the original draft from the Arlington meetings in 1991 have
been accomplished. The revisions have been under a review process and it was the intention that it be
completed and published later this year. The question was asked whether we needed a "needs assessment." The
Group agreed that it was very useful for future direction and to foresee our needs. Participants also felt that it
provided a justification for projects under the PIF umbrella program that managers would rely upon. Butcher
said that the document served as a "license" for monitoring programs in North America. It was felt that the
MWG should provide an abbreviated form with bullets in priority order for managers. Pashley suggested that
the MWG incorporate PIF initiatives and progress from across the U.S. which have been developed during
the past 5 years. Ralph asked whether we needed to convene a meeting to address the revisions. The group
decided that it would be appropriate to formulate a document, send it out for review, and compile suggestions and
comments for the revision. Butcher suggested that we reformat the Assessment into chapters, and that volunteers
be "elected" to take the initiative in writing the draft. Rosenberg stressed an extensive public review be
conducted throughout the PIF program. All participants agreed that a succinct, abbreviated version was needed for
managers to refer to. The Needs Assessment revision issue was incorporated into the breakout sessions for further
discussion (see below).
Species Prioritization
Pashley provided an overview of the species prioritization process. A Species Prioritization
Technical Committee (SPTC) has been formed with one representative from each technical committee to
provide review and coordination. Chairs are Petit and Pashley. Previously the prioritization process had been
held on an ad hoc basis without real PIF authority and widespread review, although it had been sent to Western
Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, the Raptor Research Fund, etc. The current prioritization scheme
has been circulated and reviewed by the SPTC. Petit felt that the prioritization criteria should be reviewed
by the AOU Conservation Committee. A description of the prioritization scheme can be found in the
upcoming Cape May proceedings (Carter et al.). This is not currently available on the Internet, but it was suggested
that it should be. [The relevant documents are now on the MWG home page... cjr] Ralph asked whether others can
become involved in the process, and Pashley and Petit welcomed increased participation. Krueper asked
whether there were appropriate regional representation on the Committee and whether demographics, such as
declining age ratios, were being considered as a factor in the process of prioritization. Regional participation
was sought at the state level, and input was received from each state. Demographics are not being used extensively
in the current prioritization process, but it was agreed that future discussions as to whether and how to more
explicitly incorporate demographics could be useful. Pashley said that a written mandate will be developed
as well as updates and lists. A review process will also be included in the standardized process. Rosenberg
mentioned that the national prioritization scheme could be adapted to state or regional needs once established.
Geupel cautioned that the final product should not be considered the final word, but that it be a tool for a first step
in the ongoing prioritization process. Also, Geupel felt that a strong scientific element be included as well. The
National Audubon Society Watch List is the result of the first cut of the prioritization process.
Inclusion of Species Other than Landbirds
Ralph asked whether raptors, shorebirds, and colonial nesting waterbirds should be included in
the Monitoring Working Group, which is currently primarily involving landbirds. It was noted that
the PIF program has been a process. In 1991, only neotropical migratory birds (nongame) were included in the
program. In 1996, resident landbirds and other species of nongame migratory birds were included in the
program as well. Bart mentioned that Manomet Bird Observatory will be making recommendations and providing
monetary support for the shorebird prioritization process. Point Reyes Bird Observatory may also get
involved in the shorebird prioritization process. Ralph pointed out that both at-sea and colonial seabird
monitoring programs have standardized protocols and that monitoring is ongoing and being coordinated to a limited
extent with the Pacific Seabird Group. Butcher suggested that the MWG not put all of the various species under
the umbrella of the PIF program prematurely, but that we should include all of these groups in a "network" and
not ignore them.
It was consensus that the MWG and PIF in general continue to concentrate its effort on
landbirds.
Protocols for Other Groups or Species
There currently are few established monitoring protocols for hard to detect landbird (or
honorary landbird) groups, such as rails, marshbirds, woodpeckers, owls, nightjars, wintering sparrows in grasslands,
and colonial nesting passerines. Standardized protocols for each group should be developed, and it was
decided that this subject will be addressed in the revisions of the Needs Assessment. Each of the hard to detect
avian groups will be described and references will be given within the Assessment, and a plan for producing draft
survey and monitoring protocols in the near future.
Migration Monitoring
Ralph briefed the Group on the recent meeting of the Migration Monitoring Council (a joint
U.S./Canada government group). Two migration protocol documents have been developed (see MWG Home
Page).
Extensive Monitoring
The Extensive Monitoring protocol (E. Dunn) involves the use of
checklists for monitoring avian population change during migration across a broad geographic area (but can
also be used in a more localized area). Butcher pointed out that this process is more than just a checklist and can
involve numbers of individual birds. For example, there are site specific and daily lists compiled for one area in
Quebec since the early 1950's. Wisconsin uses weekly migration counts without as standardized a protocol. It is a
useful tool, but is not as accurate as the Canadian effort. Of importance in the Wisconsin effort is that the area
being surveyed must be site specific and the entire route surveyed must be completed within 1-4 hours total. It is
recommended that each route be done 3 times in the Spring and 3 times during the Fall (at a minimum).
Butcher has drafted a specific methodology and will solicit support from ABA for the program. It was recommended
that the methodology be included on the MWG Home Page. Downes briefed the Group as to the efforts
currently implemented in Canada. Three areas are being surveyed: the most intensive is the Quebec effort
(by Andre Cyr and Jacques Larivee); two other programs have been recently established in the Northwest
Territories and in Alberta. All of these are very successful projects under the umbrella of the Migration Monitoring
Council.
Intensive Monitoring
The Intensive Monitoring protocol (D. Hussell and Ralph) provides for
a network of migration monitoring stations where intensive mist netting and censusing occurs. A regional data
center such as proposed by Long Point Bird Observatory (and Bird Studies Canada) would allow for a central
data repository and a Canadian network for migration monitoring in the near future. It is anticipated that this
example can be replicated throughout North America.
Of note, it is recommended that all people interested in migration monitoring subscribe to Bird
Trends, the publication from the Canadian wildlife Service. For free subscriptions, contact Migratory Birds,
Conservation Division, CWS, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1A 0H3.
Migration Monitoring in the SE U.S
Hunter summarized the proposed migration monitoring
program which uses area checklists and a pool of volunteers. He stressed that while conducting migration
monitoring programs using birders as the primary censusing tool, it was important to focus on adequate coverage of
important bird areas as well as taking into account the importance of avian economics (avitourism). Georgia is
the pilot study area, with Fall 1996 being the first season monitored. Fourteen areas were censused, each
covering from 1-4 hours along a standardized route. In addition to trends, it is anticipated that the timing and the
geographic distribution of migration can be measured. Cecilia Riley is taking over as the coordinator for this
program. Who can provide support and take over this program on a national level?
It was stressed that a standardized format should be developed for a national effort if this
program is accepted.
Cornell's Programs in Bird Monitoring
Rosenberg mentioned that Cornell has recently initiated a new program, an outgrowth of
Project Tanager, called Birds in Forested Landscapes. This effort is supported by National Fish and wildlife
Foundation and collects population data on accipiters and thrushes. In short, it is a point count combined with an
atlasing effort. Rosenberg can provide more information.
Breakout Sessions and Results
Four groups were formed to discuss in depth the issues involved with major topics.
Needs Assessment Breakout Group (Compiled by David Pashley)
The group first decided that a revised Needs Assessment was not only needed, but that it should
both update and go beyond the boundaries of the first edition. The expanded vision should include
methodology, status (ongoing programs, etc.), and needs. Where standardized methodology has been established and
published for a technique or data set, the new document should, in general, refer to the literature rather than
reiterate details. The new document should not, thus, be strictly a Needs Assessment, but rather a summary and
resource regarding the current status of monitoring. It should not be a U.S. document that refers to other
parts of the hemisphere, but rather a document written for and from the perspective of the entire hemisphere.
An extremely tentative title that captures these elements might be "A review of the methodology, status, and
needs for monitoring landbirds in the Americas", which we will refer to as the Review for the time being.
The taxonomic and habitat boundaries not entirely clear - should we include raptors or rails, for example?
There are three primary purposes for the Review.
One is as an up-to-date resource for those interested in monitoring birds, particularly insofar as
it can encourage them to use standardized techniques.
The second is to put monitoring needs in a context, to highlight the most important needs, and
to stimulate efforts to fill those needs. There are needs for resolution of some basic issues of methodology as
well as programmatic needs. It is important to stress both the basic and the applied needs; even if
methods and programs are presented separately in the Review, their respective needs should grouped together
so that priorities can be determined within the entire group of needs rather than between the two different
general types.
The third purpose for the Review is to explicitly tie monitoring to the Partners in Flight Bird
Conservation Planning process. This connection is clear to those directly involved and should be stated in all
Bird Conservation Plans. There is a considerable audience for this Review, however, that may not as
acutely aware of the close relationship. Inventory and monitoring are fundamental to Bird Conservation Plans.
Inventory determines what is present, monitoring determines its status leading to establishment of priority
species and habitats within a planning unit. As conservation objectives are recommended and implemented,
monitoring is critical to determine whether efforts have been successful. Focused improvement and expansion
of monitoring methods and programs are often required in order to meet the needs inherent and specified in Bird
Conservation Plans. Potential funders of monitoring efforts and all others interested in bird conservation must
be made aware of this fundamental linkage. It is of paramount importance, therefore, that the Partners in Flight
Bird Conservation Planning effort be the justification and organizing principle of the Review. A
suggested outline of the Review is:
- Introduction
- Monitoring and Bird Conservation Planning (context and justification)
- Nature of monitoring questions:
- Site-specific responses
- Habitat associations
- Population trends
- Which monitoring method should be used given the nature of questions?
- Methods, for addressing the following types of issues: Abundance, productivity,
survivorship, movements, habitats (including site-specific measures of vegetative structure and composition) and vegetative
community classification schemes.
- Programs - A list, description, and evaluation of existing programs
(it is unclear as to how these should be organized)
- Applications and Needs
- Integration of methods, existing and potential, to answer complex questions.
- Needs, perhaps organized on the basis of types of questions: site-specific responses; habitat
associations, and population trends.
- Ancillary materials - resources, addresses, literature, forms, etc.
Specific Data Sets
Three data sets were discussed in break-out groups: Point Count data set (including
vegetation sampling methodology), Extensive Site Migration and Monitoring Networks ("checklist" programs), and
Intensive Migration Monitoring Networks and Methodology (including mist netting and censusing).
The following 11 questions were used to direct the discussions. Each group attempted to address
all of the questions, but some questions need to be addressed in greater detail:
- Is this a standardized method that is generally accepted or is it at least under
investigation?
- Do we have a good idea of the quantity of data gathered presently, or in the next 2-5
years, using this method?
- How difficult is standardization of the data itself between observers, concerning quality,
quantity, and scale of observation?
- How complex are the ancillary data (e.g. vegetation at census stations)?
- Who will ultimately use the data, why, and how the data can be made available to them?
- What should be the mechanisms of maintenance and management of data?
- How should the data gathering networks be maintained?
- What should be the issues involved with determination of design of monitoring methods?
- What organization or agency is now conducting ar least some aspects of the various
types of data handling:
(1) acquisition, (2) editing, (3) compilation, (4) analysis, and/or (5) consulting?
- What would be the best process to determine the agency or organization to take charge of
one or more of the 5 parts of data handling?
- What would be the geographical scope of the data (regional, North America, Latin America)?
- Vegetation Data Breakout Group
In regards this important component, it is important to bear in mind that there are two tiers.
One is the taking of data at each station (e.g., census, demographic, etc.) on the vegetation at that point. The
second tier, usually derived from a system of aerial photography, is the determination of vegetation types, using aerial
photographic methods, or the actual vegetation data taken at each station. Both tiers are important in bird
monitoring and especially inventory. Many people, however, only think in terms of vegetation types.
- Point Count Breakout Group (Compiled by Dave Mehlman)
- A standardized method?
- Point Counts: Yes, but a regional assessment of differences needs to be done.
- Vegetation: No. Preferably needs to be tiered to a large area classification scheme.
The TNC/GAP approved scheme is recommended as a template and could provide an explicit description of
vegetation appropriate for Level 1 of a 3-part hierarchy as used in the Southeast.
High priority is to tie point count data sets
to a hierarchical classification scheme. Possibly, the habitat association data could be provided
and then PIF could work with TNC/Dave Mehlman on the proposal to complete the species-habitat
cross-matching.
A related topic is how to classify the vegetation for BBS stops. Some work on this has been
done in Canada; perhaps it's a long-term goal for the U.S.
- Quantity of data gathered?
- Point counts: Yes, perhaps up to 1-2 million points, but a more accurate accounting is desired.
- Vegetation: No. We need to find out.
- How difficult is standardization of data itself?
- Point Counts: Difficult, due to potentially large observer variability,
within-site variability, and among-year variability.
It is possible that the very large sample sizes involved will
mask some of this variability, as in BBS.
- Vegetation: Could be standardized, if everyone can agree on methods.
- Extensive Site Migration and Monitoring Networks Breakout Group (Compiled by Greg Butcher)
- Standardized method? Yes.
- Quantity of data gathered?
Quebec has used this method since the 1950's. Alberta and Northwest Territories have
recently started projects. Wisconsin has used this method since the early 1980s.
Florida started a project two years ago. The southeast working group of Partners in
Flight has just started a pilot project. ABA is planning to
start a North American project during the migration season that would
greatly increase the amount of data collected.
- Standardization of the data?
This is not a particularly standardized protocol because it
relies on single observers who vary widely in ability.
There are three differing versions of the protocol -- the
Wisconsin protocol uses county and week for scale, the
Canadian protocols use town and day, and the proposed ABA
protocol uses site and 1-4 hours.
- Ancillary data are few.
- Use of the data?
The Canadian data are ultimately used by CWS and provincial bird clubs. All data are
computerized. The Florida data are ultimately used by
the Florida State Nongame Program. The Wisconsin data are now kept by
the state nongame program; previously, it was analyzed
by professors at the University of Wisconsin in the name
of the Wisconsin Society for Ornithology. The ABA program
envisions hiring data analysts to compare sites and
to create maps of the timing of migration and the
relative abundance of migrants.
- Maintenance and management of data?
In Canada, CWS or the provincial bird clubs can maintain
and manage data. In the USA, Bird Source may
maintain and manage data. Patuxent might serve as a back-up.
- How should the data gathering networks be maintained?
State and provincial coordinators need to be established
to encourage data gathering, to coordinate
computerization of data, and to maintain networks.
- Design of monitoring methods?
There are three types of projects -- ABA is site specific,
Canada is town specific, and Wisconsin is county
specific. The ABA protocol needs to be reviewed before it is widely adopted.
- Organization now conducting data handling?
Canada - CWS and provincial bird clubs; Wisconsin -- either
Wisconsin Nongame Program or Wisconsin
Society for Ornithology; Florida - Florida Nongame Program;
Southeastern USA - Mark Woodrey and Cecilia
Riley. The free market could determine future data centers.
- Geographical scope?
The ABA program will be North American, with a Latin
and Caribbean component possible and desirable.
- Intensive Data Sets Breakout Group (demographic and migration monitoring)
(Compiled by Dave Krueper, Wes Hochaca, and Geoff Geupel)
|
MAPS |
BBIRD |
Intensive Migr. Mon. |
Color Banding |
Nest Search |
| Standard Method |
yes |
yes |
some-limited |
no |
yes |
| Data Quantity |
yes |
yes |
limited |
no |
some known |
| Knowledge of Diff. of Standard |
yes |
yes |
problematic |
no |
yes |
| Complexity of Data |
minor |
major |
some |
none |
some ancillary |
Who Uses Data
Local
Regional
Continental
|
some
good
excellent
|
excellent
good
good
|
limited
good
probable
|
excellent
no
unlikely
|
some?
problematic
good
|
| Data Management Mechanism |
NGO/agency |
coop. |
none |
none |
NGO |
Overriding issues:
- Housing of intensive data:
The group agreed that "regional" data centers are likely to be better for most data sets. Most
existing data and efforts have been designed to answer regional (or local) questions and issues. The amount of data
at a national level would be overwhelming and perhaps less usable . BBIRD/Maps currently manage their own
data on a national scale at about $50 to 75,000 per year. A lot of costs are dependent on the form data is
submitted. Centers would need to require submission of electronic data.
- Important to have NGO sponsorship with both agencies and University cooperation.
- All programs need multiple Principal Investigators.
- All programs need to be integrated, e.g. BTO model of "Integrated Avian Monitoring
Systems" that works
with all levels of monitoring and most taxa.
- Geographic scope needs to be Hemispheric and represents a major problem for expansion.
- Some members felt that BBIRD provided a model of how an integrated intensive program can
work (e.g. annual review by participants, data entry and management, numerous cooperators, and results
published in major journals).
- The maintenance of data gathering network should be a cooperative effort,
along the Canadian model.
- The design of methods should always be an annual review by all
participants and a PIF committee.
Steering Committee Proposal (from the Regional Coordinators)
It has been suggested that a need exists to establish a means of improving communication
between national and regional working groups. Currently, three of the regional working groups have monitoring
chairs or working groups in place (West, Midwest, and Southeast). It was proposed that these chairs, in
association with the National Chair(s) serve as a national monitoring steering committee (5 members at a
minimum). Dissemination of information is the #1 priority, as well as setting agendas and planning meetings.
This was adopted by consensus.
Communication Network
An e-mail, telephone, fax, and snail mail communication network has been initiated in some
regions. It is imperative that this communication network be expanded to include all regions as well as all
monitoring working group participants. This concept will be explored as a result of this meeting.
Next Meeting
The next national Monitoring Working Group meeting will be October 22-23, 1997 in
conjunction with the national Cowbird Symposium in Sacramento, California.
Elections
It was recommended by the Regional Coordinators that all working groups establish an
election schedule of 2-year duration. Periods will be staggered so as to not
have a complete turnover all at once. A motion to this
effect passed unanimously.
The nominating committee (Geupel and Butcher) recommended that Ralph serve again as the
Chair of the MWG and that Bart be elected as the Co-Chair. Pashley made the motion to vote on this
proposal and it was seconded by several members. The motion was passed unanimously.
Adjournment
The meeting was adjourned at 5 p.m.
Monitoring Working Group Meeting Participants
Research Contact:
|
