Notes for the PIF Management Steering Committee:
Illinois Beach -- March 22-23, 2000
Below I present a summary of the meeting of the Management Steering Committee of
Partners in Flight. The items below are those portions that I thought might be of interest for the
Monitoring and Inventory Working Group. This meeting was held at Illinois Beach State Park,
prior to the North American wildlife meetings in Chicago. This is one of the twice-annual
meetings of the leaders of various entities of the PIF. These include the chairs of the working
groups (e.g., monitoring, research, information, non-governmental, federal, etc.), chairs of the
regional working groups, and the regional coordinators.
C. John Ralph
North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) - U.S.
A major focus of the meeting was this newly-formed organization. NABCI is intended to be
an umbrella organization to help facilitate bird conservation throughout the U.S. It intends to
include under its purview the Colonial waterbird Initiative, Partners in Flight, Western
Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, waterfowl Joint Venture, perhaps a raptor conservation
initiative, and perhaps others. They are at the stage of having an approved map of what are
termed 'Bird Conservation Regions' to help focus the efforts. Overall, NABCI is seen by PIF as a
facilitating entity, advancing budget requests onto the larger and higher levels.
- U.S. NABCI
David Pashley, as the new NABCI coordinator, outlined the
present status of the NABCI Committee. Eleven members representing a broad spectrum of bird
interests make up the Board.
- The Non-governmental Organizations subcommittee of NABCI
George
Fenwick (chair) had minutes from their March meeting. Their primary job is helping the Federal
subcommittee get agency funding for bird conservation initiatives (including, presumably
monitoring) underway, and also setting up 'Joint Ventures' for the Bird Conservation Regions
throughout the U.S.
- Federal Subcommittee of NABCI
Bob Ford and Dave Davis reported on the
meetings. One goal is to develop a snapshot of federal budgeting for birds, in five areas of
concentration: habitat conservation; conservation of populations and communities; monitoring
and assessment; partnerships; and communication.
- Communication
We requested that NABCI minutes, etc. be sent out to the
various members of the Management Steering Committee for possible dissemination to the
various groups represented, such as the PIF Monitoring Group. There is a web site within the
CEC (Commission for Environmental Cooperation) for the NABCI overall. It will have links that
explain NABCI. Reciprocal links from PIF sites should also be implemented.
- Monitoring Subcommittee
As chair, Marshall Howe presented information on
NABCI's group that will include agency people from only FWS, BRD, and one from each of the
bird initiatives, plus other bird groups. A primary objective is a National data center for
monitoring of bird and habitat data. The Subcommittee is preparing a general dollar figure for
monitoring for and from each of the four bird initiatives. The PIF Steering Committee
recommended that co-chairs of PIF Monitoring Group (Bart and Ralph) be appointed as its
representative to the NABCI monitoring working group. Bart will be representative for one year,
with Ralph as alternate, shifting next year.
- Funding and representation
The question was addressed about using the
interrelationship and the structure of other NABCI initiatives, such as the waterfowl initiative, for
getting funding for landbirds. It was thought by some that the interests of PIF might be subsumed
to interests of waterfowl. Sources of funding are from different pots. For instance, recent National
legislative actions indicate that much of the new monies may go towards waterfowl conservation
issues. For others, the concern is more about other interests than birds - states don't focus that
much on ducks. Deer and pheasants and recreation don't usually produce much good native bird
habitat, nor do these efforts reform state wildlife agency culture. The concerns are about some
obvious issues and lots of subtle ones. Since the monies will go to the states, they will largely
decide.
A motion was made to recommend that the North American Wetlands Conservation Council
handle new federal sources of money for bird habitat conservation, and that if the new money is to
be directed toward non-wetland birds, that the Council be expanded to include terrestrial bird and
habitat expertise. This was sent forward to the PIF council (the joint committees).
Role of PIF and NABCI
We had a discussion of allocation of responsibilities between the possible divisions along
taxonomic, game and non-game, or habitat lines. Clearly the emphasis of PIF is landbirds. Some
talk has gone on about adding some or all raptors (which some consider to be landbirds and which
always have been included in PIF plans, but not as a major consideration in many other PIF
working groups), shorebirds, and colonial waterbirds, but not seabirds, and of course, waterfowl.
The idea was brought up that PIF is not the management committee, not the regional
coordinators, etc., it is the thousands of folks out in the field. They don't come to management
committee, but they do come to PIF state or regional meetings... or to JV's. They are the primary
landbird people, with good representation of at least shorebird and waterfowl folks.
Joint Ventures
From 'waterfowl only' of only a few years ago, to the 'all birds' approach of NABCI, has been
a rapid transition. For an example, Mike Carter and Dan Casey are working with the JV's in
Colorado and the northern Rockies. The Bird Conservation Regions they are heading up, the
Short Grass Prairie BCR, overlaps with two JV's. This is a potential problem and perhaps quite an
opportunity, as is the whole relationship with NABCI in the minds of some. These two BCR's
were first, but other ones will come on line as opportunities present themselves. As other BCR's
come on line, and agencies organizations may hire coordinators, but they will coordinate with
other entities.
Status of Bird Conservation Plans
Those Plans that are completed are going up onto the PIF web site hosted at Patuxent. They
are now available for folks to access on the web to a certain degree. The funds and time are not
available to get these on completely yet. Most of the Plans are not complete, and are well behind
schedule. The monitoring component of the Plans needs to be assayed.
Funding
George Fenwick (ABC) will remain as a clearing house for information on funding needs for
PIF funding for general projects. Hopefully this will result in new funding, as he will try to bring
all PIF funding needs together into a single paper.
PIF Staffing
Since David Pashley is leaving as PIF Coordinator to go to NABCI, a new person will be
hired. The Fish and wildlife Service indicated they could fund the new positions for National
Coordinator of PIF, as well as a Director of Bird Conservation Regions. They could provide
primary funding, house them, and the people would become part of FWS. It was strongly
suggested that housing the person outside of the FWS, and perhaps other agencies providing
some portion of the overhead, would lower the possible concerns of other agencies and
organizations, and avoid the appearance of FWS taking over PIF.
Overall Organization of PIF
There are various joint Committees, including Federal, State, non-governmental, and industry.
In regards the Federal committee, Dave Davis suggests that the role and people involved in
NABCI are more appropriate (at a higher level) and relevant to interests of PIF. Several people
spoke about it; the consensus was that leaving the framework in place doesn't hurt. Industry
representatives agreed to this. The question was raised about what the role of the Joint
Committee was; many felt that it brings other agencies and organizations directly into the fold.
While there is some redundancy, each level hits a different level of the hierarchy of natural
resources bureaucracy. The suggestion was made that a Joint NABSCI steering committee
replace PIF's joint steering committee. The final recommendation was that various meetings be
merged to reduce redundancy, not that any committees would, at least for now, be eliminated.
The meeting recommended that we suggest to the other initiatives that they have a NABCI
management steering committee that would meet during, and perhaps in part, along with, the
twice-annual meetings of the former Joint Committee meeting at the International and North
American.
- International Working Group
Luis Naranjo and Megan Hill were elected as
chairs. Had a meeting at Monterrey, Mexico, and had a priority setting exercises for various
regions. Also had a training class for data analyses of monitoring. The Western Working Group
had a meeting to link up state groups with a country or a Mexican state for sending books, etc.
Park Flight, a program of the Park Service (Scott Hall international affairs in Park Service), has
lots of round trip tickets for training, largely involving Park Service personnel. They have linked
with the MesoAmerican PIF group, formed in July. A Round Table meeting is to be held in April
for the IWG. La Tangara is still coming out, and on the PIF web site. In September, there will be
in Panama a big meeting for the MesoAmerican. ABC has a program of getting funding from bird
clubs for Latin American projects including monitoring and research. Will be a meeting the week
of November 13 of the NABCI -- a follow up to the Monterrey meeting.
- Research Working Group
Ken Rosenberg reported that he feels that the
Group could be functioning better. The data base is now out. Basics of Needs Assessments of
research is needed. New energy in the leadership of the group might be needed. Research needs in
the Plans are a clearly identified product that is needed. A productive avenue might be exploring
the linkage between agencies or organizations that might have in combination money, direction,
ideas, places, and people (but not all five in one entity) could put money together to meet Plan
objectives.
- Regional Working Groups
Some of the regions are not working as well as
they could, but most are working well, with most having some meetings. They are making
progress on BCR's and implementation especially in Iowa, Missouri, and the Prairie Potholes. In
the West there are three BCR's and one JV well underway, with a good regional working group.
Group has been involving JV and shorebird folks, working on BCR's. Having the state groups
write the plans, the West got the buy in, and has moved towards completion. Holding joint PIF,
duck, shorebird meetings in each of the states.
- Funding Committee
George has role of circulating PIF funding needs. He
feels that will fold it into NABCI funding committee.
Research Contact:
|
