Pacific Southwest Research Station

Partners in Flight West Working Group Meeting:

The Monitoring Subgroup met several times during the course of the WWG Meetings in Portland, our first formal meeting in more than a year. All breakout sessions were well attended. My thanks to all participants for a great session and scores of constructive suggestions and ideas. The widespread enthusiasm was infectious and as can be reviewed in the following, the Monitoring Subgroup has many tasks ahead.

The WWG Meetings formally began with a three-hour special meeting preceding the general meeting to discuss the newly formed Avian Research and Monitoring Support (ARMS) program. Jon Bart gave a briefing of the program, which basically is a service to provide technical assistance on study design, field work, and data analysis for avian conservation projects primarily within the context of the PIF effort. This idea is the brainchild of Jon, a biological statistician with the Biological Resources Division of USGS, in cooperation with PRBO and PIF. The project will maintain information, including a Home Page, of individuals and groups able to provide technical assistance on avian conservation projects, standardized methodology, study design and data analysis. Think of it as a "referral system" to support PIF monitoring efforts. Now in its infancy, this exciting new program will greatly assist field biologists and managers in implementing monitoring programs throughout the West. As an example, Jon is currently working on the San Pedro NCA avian data set for analysis. Currently there is no charge for the services offered. It is anticipated that this resource will be a hot item. If you have need for their support, please contact them ASAP. Contacts are:

Jon Bart, (208) 331-5216, jbart@eagle.idbsu.edu

Geoff Geupel, (415) 868-0655, ggeupel@earthlink.net

Carol Beardmore, (602) 789-3502, cbeardmore@gf.state.az.us

Based upon ideas kicked around by David Pashley, C.J. Ralph, Greg Butcher, and Terry Rich, a list of national level monitoring issues were identified in 1996 to be addressed by each of the 4 Regions. The WWG Monitoring Subgroup discussed these and several other ideas during the course of two break-out sessions in Portland. I will summarize the pertinent ideas and decisions in the order that they were addressed. This will include updates from the 1994 Action Plan as well as current needs and tasks:

1. Geupel gave an update as to the status of the USFWS Statistical Handbook. Bottom line? Should be published and available this year. Geoff will remain the primary contact on this project. This handbook promises to be a "hot" item once off the press. Stay tuned.

2. Altman discussed the OR/WA Monitoring Handbook which is available in very limited quantities. If you are desperate and have the collateral, Bob may be able to provide you with a copy. Call him to discuss the feasibility.

3. A regionwide map showing active monitoring programs was discussed. The idea is to get each state to put all known avian monitoring programs on their state maps to determine geographic or habitat "gaps." These maps will eventually be put onto a web site for access on the Internet. Geupel agreed to be the lead on this project, with help from Sherry Ritter and Jon Bart.

   Action Item: Each state needs to coordinate with Geupel on this project. He needs lat/long measurements for each monitoring program, a description of each type of monitoring program (ie. banding, censusing, MAPS, BBIRD, etc...), and a description of the physiographic region where each are found.

4. The idea of developing a CD-ROM disk with western bird songs and calls was dropped (lucky you, B. Howe!!). It was the feeling of the participants that with the training sessions currently employed (state, BLM, USFS, etc.) that vocalizations were sufficient for our needs.

5. Participants agreed that a WWG Monitoring Home Page is needed. While many people (myself included) do not know how to set a page up, we coerced Brad Andrus into taking the lead on the project (what else does he do in Alaska during the winter anyway?). This will be a separate www site from the National Monitoring Group Home Page. For those without the address of the National Monitoring Working Group Home Page, here it is: http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/topics/wildlife/pif/

6. Standardization of software programs was discussed. Commonly asked questions by field biologists are: "How do I analyze my point count data?" and "How do I analyze my survival data from my banding returns?" Tom Martin (BBIRD), Dave DeSante (MAPS), Barb Kott (USFS), Tara Zimmerman (USFWS), Geoff Geupel (PRBO), and the Bird Banding Lab all currently have computerized software programs which can compile and analyze data. These programs need to be standardized and distributed to field biologists. DeSante mentioned that he would be interested in looking into the standardization of programs (Dave, did I hear you correctly?). Once standardized, we need to determine how to distribute these programs for the cheapest cost. Stay tuned.

7. Mike Carter (Colorado Bird Observatory) gave an update on the prioritization scheme for western avian species. Tom Martin had some concerns regarding the participation of the National Research Working Group in the process. Dave DeSante expressed the need to be able to "pull out" species for closer analysis in certain vegetation types and physiographic regions (ie, Wood Thrush in the East. How do we identify similar species here in the West?). DeSante mentioned that we need to have some measurement of habitat breadth, survivorship (MAPS) and fecundity (BBIRD) involved in the process. Mike explained that CBO had taken into account all the factors that could be anticipated/measured for the prioritization process, and that this effort was the best currently available. All participants agreed that the prioritization process, as now identified, was doing a great job and is/will be of tremendous benefit for future use with WWG.

8. The role of the Research Working Group within the WWG was discussed (it is currently merged with the Monitoring Working Group within WWG). Many of the Portland participants were interested in having the two groups remain together as a functional group, yet identified the need to "break-out" into separate working groups if required. It was agreed that the Monitoring Working Subgroup will continue to incorporate both interests, and when needed, will "break-out" into separate meetings. Jeff Price has offered to be the Research Subgroup Chair. Functionally, Price and Krueper will be Co-chairs of the Research and Monitoring Subgroup from this date onward. Thank you Jeff!! Always good to pass the buck!

9. The WWG Research and Monitoring Subgroup will provide input on the national policy of the management of Brown-headed Cowbirds. We will participate in the national policy statement in March 1997 at the North American Meetings in Washington D.C. When asked about killing cowbirds during banding sessions, one member said "Better to ask forgiveness that to ask permission." I am sure that this quote will come up often.

10. National / Regional Database Repository. This was one of the most important issues discussed. Does PIF need a national data repository, or does the WWG need one regionally? Jon Bart discussed the feasibility of housing a regional repository at the ARMS center. He felt that it was entirely possible to keep western data sets in the West (mainly point counts) because we are so distinct from the East. The BBS would still be based in Patuxent (of course). A regional database would allow for the standardization of censusing protocol and techniques in the West. There is currently an initial endorsement from the USFS, USFWS and the BLM for this proposal, and funding will be sought through the US Dept. of Interior in Boise. At this time it is thought that the repository could contain some duplicate records for the following: BBIRD, MAPS, BBS, point counts, spot mapping, and other census efforts. It's primary function however would be to provide advice on study design and to work on some data sets not currently being analyzed. It is not intended to house all datasets in the West or to act as a dispensation center!! Proprietary problems were discussed but dismissed as inconsequential (professionalism will prevail!). The bottom line. The WWG Monitoring Subgroup supports a national data repository. Furthermore, it also identifies the need for a regional repository, so that "western" data is available in a timely fashion to "western" interests. This issue will be addressed by the national Monitoring Working Group in Washington D.C. in March.

11. Standardization of vegetation and habitat measurements. OK, how's this for a big task? This is a national priority for the Monitoring Working Group. How do we all get on to the same page? It took years to get a standardized format for avian censusing, but vegetation/habitat monitoring? In the West, OR/WA and AK has done this already. Chris Goguen volunteered to take this task on for the WWG (initial review).

    Action Item: State Chairs, please send (if possible) applicable vegetative measurement methodology to Chris Goguen (address in monitoring subgroup contact list).

    David Pashley agreed to contact Hamel et al. to get 100+ copies of the booklet "A Land Manager's Guide to Point Counts of Birds in the Southeast (GTR SO-120). Vegetation measurements are discussed in this publication. If and when I receive the handbooks, I will dispense with them as needed. I would urge you to contact the station yourself for you own copy.

    Hamel, P.B., W. P. Smith, D. J. Twedt, J. R. Woehr, E. Morris, R. B. Hamilton, and R. J. Cooper. 1996. A Land Manager's Guide to Point Counts of Birds in the Southeast. General Technical Report SO - 120. USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station. PO Box 2680, Asheville, NC 28802. 39 pp.

12. Standardized protocols for "hard to detect species." Yet another major concern. Many species of birds are currently being "under-sampled" using conventional census methods. It was agreed that a standardized protocol be developed for the following groups of birds:

    Woodpeckers

    Brown Creepers

    Rails

    Owls

    Caprimulgiformes

    winter sparrows (in grassland habitats)

    colonial nesting passerines (blackbirds for example)

    others (see Hejl, SAB #15)

    in-transient migrants

    wintering birds (in general)

Research Contact:

• C.J. Ralph