Home || What is PIF? || Que es Compañeros en Vuelo? || Bird Conservation Planning || PIF Resources
PIF Meetings and Events || Bird Conservation Directory || Contact Us

Partners in Flight
Implementation Committee

8-9 September 2003

Baraboo, Wisconsin

Minutes

Welcome and Introductions, 0800

            The Implementation Committee is the former Management Steering Committee.

See below for the attendance list.

Wisconsin Presentations

Wisconsin Bird Conservation Initiative (WBCI), Andy Paulios

Andy is the first coordinator for the WBCI and he outlined the mission, goals and objectives of the program.  More detailed information can be found on the website: www.wisconsinbirds.org/news.htm

• Wisconsin partners will deliver the full spectrum of bird conservation, including both game and nongame birds, by working together in voluntary, cooperative initiatives. We will coordinate bird-based projects to ensure effective management for all birds in Wisconsin. We will assess and manage birds and their habitats using the best available science and using ecological landscapes as the management units. Accordingly, we will work both within and outside of Wisconsin to ensure that bird conservation needs are met, and we will share knowledge widely to further bird-based recreational opportunities in Wisconsin.
• The focus of the WBCI is on Wisconsin birds, but coordination of conservation efforts will be required at the regional, continental, and even hemispheric levels, since most birds are migratory. In the Upper Midwest, a regional approach will be necessary to provide the appropriate types, amounts, and distribution of habitats for conservation efforts to be successful.
• Goals: Manage communities of birds at a regional and landscape level.  Keep common birds common.  Conserve and restore endangered, threatened, and rare bird species and their habitats.  Identify and prioritize management opportunities and needs for birds and their habitats in Wisconsin.  Coordinate existing bird conservation initiatives in Wisconsin.  Develop broad-based partnerships.  Provide private landowners and land managers the best available ecological information.  Use voluntary approaches when working with public and private landowners.  Promote bird-based recreation and the enjoyment of birds.  Develop management strategies that consider the social and economic impacts on people throughout planning and implementation.

Shorebird Conservation

Common Tern Habitat Restoration Project, Sumner Matteson

Sumner outlined the success of this project since a Wisconsin Coastal Management grant was awarded in 1986 to rebuild the former railroad pier and critical nesting grounds for terns.  In 1974 only 20 pairs of common terns were nesting on the structure and after restoration the number increased to 176 nesting pairs.  Erosion occurred in 1991 which lead to increased mink predation and a decrease in the number of nesting pairs.  An EPA grant was received in 1999 and the entire structure was rebuilt to combat erosion and predation.  In 2003, 90 nesting pairs were counted. 

Shorebird Habitat Management, Bill Volkert

Many opportunities for management of migration habitat exist but wetlands without permanent protection are easily lost in an agricultural landscape.  Variations in water levels resulting in shallow mudflats make a huge difference and usually it is a matter of water level timing.  Habitat is usually available during extreme weather years and average years can be more stressful without management efforts.  They have focused management (water levels, etc) on foraging guilds and are working towards better timing for multiple species.   They are also focusing on spring habitat as large numbers of shorebirds stop over in Wisconsin. 

Birds in Native and Surrogate Grasslands, Dave Sample

Historically native grasslands covered 12 to 13 million acres in Wisconsin.  Today very little grassland remains (10,000 acres) and very little (1 to 2000 acres) can be considered as “native.”  It is threatened by overgrazing, brush and houses.  Surrogate grasslands are primarily comprised of agricultural land of which the largest proportion is in hay production.  They have looked at bird use of surrogate versus native grasslands and conclude that surrogates are either too dense for use or are cropped in May (e.g., alfalfa).  Grassland species of management concern require a diversity of grassland structure.  Structure is more important than composition of an area. 

Natural History of the Baraboo Hills and Vicinity, Ken Lange

Ken has been the naturalist for Devil’s Lake State Park since 1966.  The Baraboo Hills are an elliptical formation of quartzite rock approximately 200 square miles in size.   The highest points are approximately 150 m.  Quartzite was formed about 1 billion years ago and in some locations sandstone is found above it formed about 500 million years ago.  Quartzite conglomerate is where pieces of quartz embedded in the sandstone and occurred during the period when the Hills were islands/atolls in the tropical period.  During the Pleistocene, the eastern portion of the Hills was covered by the Wisconsin Glacier and it retreated 8 to 10 thousand years ago.  The terminal moraine is very evident generally 6 to 10 m high and 30 m to a kilometer or more wide.  Kettle ponds were formed by melting chunks of the receding glacier.  Also, as the glarier retreated the Wisconsin and Baraboo Rivers developed their present courses.   The unglaciated uplands of the western portion of the Hills remained relatively unaltered during glaciation.   The eastern portion was smoothed by the deposits and planning actions of the glacier.  This area is world renowned by geologists.  Five rockshelters have been identified and all are located in the unglaciated portion of the Hills (on the edge of the melting glacier).  It is estimated that the presence of humans occurred 10 to 12 thousand years ago.  In 1840, the area was 50% forested and 30% oak savannah; today it has changed to 30% forested, 50% agriculture and 5 to 10% urban.  Devil’s Lake State Park receives over 1,000,000 visitors annually primarily from the Great Lakes Region. 

Birds and Conservation in the Baraboo Hills and Vicinity, Mike Mossman

The Baraboo Hills harbor the most extensive tracts of hardwood forest in southern Wisconsin, stream gorges and bluffsides with relics of coniferous forest, jack pine barrens, and forest on sandy glacial lake sediments.  The area also contains typical habitats of southern Wisconsin such as small woodlots, agricultural fields, old fields and disturbed wetlands.  Within the Baraboo Hills, 136 bird species are considered extant during the breeding season, of which 91 have shown positive evidence of breeding.  Mike has carried out an extensive 13-year study that documented the diverse and unique breeding bird fauna and defined the habitat characteristics that are responsible for the diverse avifauna (e.g., white pine and hemlock-yellow birch forests, in stream gorges, jack pine forests, etc).  The extensive tracts of relatively mature forest serve as an island of suitable habitat in a sea of agriculture and dissected woodlots.  Current threats include quarrying and fragmentation.  TNC is working to purchase acres and much of the Hills are in private ownership.  Badger Army Ammunition Plant was established in 1942 and represents 7,300 acres of grasslands.  The ammo plant was BRAC’ed in 1998 (BRAC = Base Realignment and Closure Act). The remediation process (to clean up contaminants) has begun, and is ongoing. Hearings and discussions are also being held regarding transfer of the site to new owners. The composition of these owners is a subject of debate (or worse) right now, with state, tribal and local interests competing. See http://www.badgeraap.org for more information on the site and updates on its status. 

National Coordinator’s Update---Terry Rich

• Organizational document is complete and will be discussed at the PIF Council meeting at the end of the week. 
• Strategic Plan—concern was expressed about the extent of review and it was suggested that another round of review occur.
• Continental Plan---Ken Rosenberg outlined the progress to date and distributed copies for final review in anticipating of having the plan printed by the end of October.  The design specialist at Cornell is leaving at the end of October.  [note: this issue was further discussed during the PIF State and Council meetings and the review was extended to 31 October, the draft can be found at http://www.birds.cornell.edu/pifCapeMay/PIF_Final_Draft.pdf with comments back to Terry or Ken]. 
  • Editor's note:  the following site provides troubleshooting help for common pdf download problems. The tech people at Cornell think that most of the problems are on the users' end and not a problem with the file being too large. http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/article/0,3045,149-0-0-11397.html
  • Printing costs are estimated at $27,000 of which the American Forest & Paper Association has committed $2,000.  Bruce McCloskey is pursuing getting some funds from states via IAFWA.  It was suggested that copies be made available at $5.00 for groups to purchase.  This may also give a better idea as to the total number to print.
  • Ken was thanked for his dedication to this effort.

• East Gulf Coast JV—Dean Demarest outlined the progress of this JV.  A coordinator should be hired within 6 months.
• Boreal Forest –David Pashley outlined the importance of boreal forests to birds and the threats that are present (e.g., water management, oil and gas reserves, etc.).  The Boreal Songbird Initiative has been established with the goal of educating bird watchers and conservationists about the importance of the boreal forest to migratory birds (www.borealbirds.org).  The latest issue (June 2003) of Bird Conservation is dedicated to this topic.
• Mexico—Eduardo Inigo-Elias was introduced and was appointed by Mexico NABCI to represent Mexico on the PIF Council.  Eduardo explained that Mexico is now working closely with PIF and is developing species assessments for all birds at the national and regional scales.
• Midwest Association—Tom Will outlined a symposium sponsored by the PIF Midwestern Working Group for the Midwest entitled Advances in all-bird conservation planning and implementation in the Midwest:  stepping down regional objectives to local scales.   This meeting is scheduled for 10 December 2003 and more information can be found at www.midwest2003.com
• Western Working Group—Carol Beardmore outlined that the fall meeting in Silver City, NM, November 3-6 was going to explore stepping down the PIF Continental Plan.  They will be doing an exercise that will explain how to step the objectives down, discussing western state plans, PIF watch list species and the how the step down objectives can be useful in CWCPs.
  • Carol also encouraged everyone to continue to interact with JV’s as they continue to become all-bird.
• Asilomar—Terry explained that CJ has requested an additional $50,000 to publish the proceedings.  One suggestion was to first pursue distributing the information on CD and in a web-based format and secondly publish a bound version. 
• Monitoring—Jon Bart explained that a monitoring workshop is taking shape for 2004.  Randy Wilson is coordinating a point count effort and is soliciting information and comments from anyone interested in point counts.
• Neotropical Ornithological Congress--The VII^th Neotropical Ornithological Congress (NOC) will take place in Puyehue National Park in Chile, 5-11 October 2003.  The NOC invites all ornithologists, students and everyone interested in the study and knowledge of birds to participate.  See http://www.nocchile.cl for details.  The last NOC was held in Monterrey, Mexico, in October 1999. 
• Western Hemisphere Conference on Migratory Species--- In conjunction with the NOC in Chile, the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will host a three-day conference (6-8 October) focusing on the conservation of migratory species throughout the Americas.  The conference will bring together government officials responsible for the conservation of migratory wildlife from North America, Latin America, and the Caribbean, and will include an opportunity for NGOs and other interested parties to participate.  The goal of this Western Hemisphere conference is to develop a strategy that identifies migratory bird conservation priorities and activities in the Americas, to support the Action Plan from the 2001 Summit of the Americas in Quebec.  They are preparing a Briefing Book of US federal agency migratory bird activities. Participants from each country in the Western Hemisphere at a high level (Sec. of US Dept of Interior or similar) have been invited. Contact Dana Roth at the Department of State for more information
• NOC/Pan American Roundtable—American Bird Conservancy is sponsoring the next PIF Pan American Roundtable at the NOC on 8 October 2003, Termas de Puyehue, Parque Nacional Puyehue, Chile.
• Chicago Lights Out Days---Terry explained that this event is using the PIF logo in appreciation for support.

PIF and Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plans, John Herron, Larry Niles, and Debbie Hahn

• John outlined the importance of these plans, the need for accountability to Congress, and provided a description of the 8 required elements.   He discussed a list of issues:  general or specific species lists; scale selected statewide, ecoregions or smaller; how rare or declining must a species be; and how to prioritize species, habitats, ecoregions, and strategies.
• Larry outlined the plans themselves, current funding levels from Congress, and an example of work being done right now (BCR 30 workshop where priority projects and areas were identified in Fall 2002).  He expressed that a great range in approach was given to each state and the Congressional intent was to build capacity, but it appears that inconsistent interstate coordination and involvement of bird groups is occurring.  Larry discussed a list of needs:  plans will be completed and will require consistent involvement of all bird groups; all plans will be delivered state by state so interstate coordination is necessary; and projects have already started so immediate recommendations on useable techniques on monitoring, habitat assessment, etc. are needed. 
• Input from others:  Greg Wathen explained that Tennessee is using a process for plan development that was used in the western portion of the state for a different comprehensive plan.  They are using PIF plans to the fullest extent and a great need for coordination among states exists.
  • Mike Wilson discussed that Virginia was cutting and pasting from PIF plans and making some adaptations. 
  • Dave Mehlman discussed that multi-regional planning for TNC is complete.
  • Carol Beardmore discussed that the next meeting of the Western Working Group will focus on the integration of PIF plans in to state wildlife plans.

   

• Northeast Model:  Ken Rosenberg and Randy Dettmers outlined the Northeast Model.  This is a standardized approach developed by the Northeast Working Group for Connecticut.
  • Three products were identified:  summary of national, regional, and species specific plans, including resources available, geographic area covered, and contacts for each plan; species priority list by habitat; and issues, goals, objectives and implementation strategies by habitat and focal species.
  • This model could be offered to states for use of all or a number of the products.  It does not outline a process for reaching habitat goals but assumes that states will want to customize a process that fits their specific needs.
  • The three products were generated during a five week period by a detailer working in the FWS' Northeast Regional office.
  • Action:  it was agreed that this model was a good first step and will be presented to the State PIF Committee later in the week.  Other items discussed included: the ability to find resources to produce the products for states; the need for a person or group within states to keep a PIF presence; some states already have completed the products portion but do not have an infrastructure in place; and a coordinated effort will be necessary for success.

   

• Motion to State Committee (taken from the Shorebird/Waterbird/PIF Minutes):  The Shorebird/Waterbird/PIF State combined working group urges that IAFWA request, on behalf of the States, that the PIF Council,  the Shorebird Plan Council, the Waterbird Council and the USFWS assist the states in developing their CWCP by providing information and guidance based on each bird group Plan and the needs of each State. The PIF/Shorebird/Waterbird Working Group also urges that IAFWA request the USFWS to give this action a priority during the next six months. The incorporation of bird plan elements into state CWCP will help achieve the legislatively required elements 1, 2 and 3. We believe this approach to include appropriate elements of each Bird Plan into each state’s CWCP’s will substantially assist states in preparing plans and help coordinate parallel efforts among states. To be effective, this assistance is needed in the immediate future since the due date for the CWCP’s is October 2005. 

This motion was approved by the Bird Conservation Committee with the modification that the USFWS also help assure states also receive current information for their planning needs pertaining to all other bird conservation planning --  i.e..  – NAWMP, North American Quail Plan, and others that exists such as for Woodcock, Doves, etc.

• Action: it was agreed that it would be important for PIF to find individuals to act as liaisons in states without PIF contacts.  The objective would be to form a network of planners and bird people.  Debbie Hahn will take the lead in this effort.
  

• Coordinated Bird Monitoring ---Jon Bart representing the US-NABCI Monitoring Working Group outlined the Coordinated Bird Monitoring proposal as it relates to state plans.  Some portions of the project may not be complete prior to the completion of state plans. 
  • The basic approach involves answering the following questions:  what management issues will the monitoring program help address (goals), what information is needed (objectives), what methods will be used (strategies), who will be responsible for each component of the program (implementation plan). 
  • Discussion:  needs to fit at the BCR level; needs to have state involvement.
  • Action:  formal requests for endorsement were presented at the state / shorebird, PIF Federal Agency, and PIF Council meetings and favorable endorsements were granted.
    

Day 2, Tuesday, 9 September 2003

PIF and Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plans Terry read the draft motion for the State Committee and discussion ensued. 

Implementation and Tracking of the Continental Plan, Terry

o    Terry discussed the need to determine outcome measures for the CPlan and asked the group for input.  The Science Committee has focused on the biology and the next step is to identify metrics and measures for outcomes of work done. 

o    Discussion:  it is the responsibilities of PIF at the national level to develop these measures and in doing so insert PIF into the day-to-day workings of our partners; tracking of outcomes should be the responsibility of JVs, federal and state agencies; the Science Committee can determine scientific tracking mechanisms; many different evaluation metrics exist; the monitoring design is critical and JVs can put it on the ground; need to determine the scale at which we interject ourselves; outcome measures need to translate into tangible results and many times these processes do not happen quickly (e.g., annual basis); BLM uses incremental measures; organizational and implementation goals are already listed in the CPlan; and what we develop should be a nice template for all our partners to count the same way and may use MOUs to do so.

o     Action: a subcommittee was formed to cross walk the goals in the CPlan with those listed in the Strategic Plan.  Specifically, review and arrange the goals found on pages 37-41 of the draft CPlan with those stated in the Strategic Plan.  Review both plans for measurable goals and objectives.   Members:  Terry (lead), Jon Bart, Carol Beardmore, Carol Beidleman, Dean Demarest, Jane Fitzgerald, Laurel Moore-Barnhill and David Pashley. 

Strategic Plan Breakout Sessions

o    Objective: determine specific tasks to accomplish the goals and objectives identified in the Strategic Plan.   The group agreed to tackle 3 of the top 7 three-year priorities as ranked by vote in Winston-Salem during this session.

o    Complete a national landbird population-monitoring plan; Jon Bart spoke for the group.  Endorsement of the Coordinated Bird Monitoring effort of the US NABCI Monitoring Working Group is needed.  Ken Rosenberg stated that the Science Committee is committed and will review any information from the monitoring group.

o    Complete the PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan and the PIF Strategic Plan; the subcommittee formed earlier in the day meet and Terry spoke for the group.  The group began the task of cross walking the two plans by focusing on pages 40 and 41 of the draft CPlan and identified major ideas not captured in both plans.

• Maintain and update the PIF website; Chris Eberly spoke for the group.  Funding for the website has been submitted as part of Terry’s budget and the task of the group was to identify a work plan for the interim period.  The objective identified by the group is to task out different pieces so one person does not have the entire workload.  The group identified existing and potential people to work on the website. This list is included below.  A name is identified for many of the tasks as a possible contact/lead for maintaining current information on this task. Please review this list. If your name is listed, or if your name is not listed and you can help with a specific task, please contact Chris.

   

  • Action: All of us need to review the task list; consider providing assistance for one task. Also, review the PIF web site and identify items that are liked and/or disliked and send them to Chris (ceberly@dodpif.org).

   

  • USGS has hosted the PIF website since inception and due to concerns of the site being out of date we risk loosing USGS support to host the site.

o    American Bird Conservancy is currently revising the 2001 Bird Conservation Directory.  If your personal data in that earlier version is incorrect, you know of incorrect information for another individual that we are otherwise unlikely to catch, or you were not in that version and wish to be in the new one, send this information to Hana Young, at hyoung@abcbirds.org. 

 Research Working Group – Janet Ruth has agreed to be the chair of the Research WG.  An interested group met during lunch to discuss potential roles and responsibilities for a national-level Research WG.  Among the ideas that were discussed were:

• Increasing communication and involvement of the research community by developing an email mailing list or list-serve to encourage dissemination of PIF-related information
• Maintaining the PIF Research & Monitoring Needs Database (currently posted in its first version on the PIF website); it was agreed that this is a valuable resource.  Janet reported on the results of a user survey that indicates a broad range of users (federal and state agencies, academics, NGOs, etc.) and a broad range of uses of the information (developing Masters and Ph.D. research projects, other research projects, or inventory & monitoring projects, PIF-related planning, management or acquisition plans, etc.).  Janet continues to update the database, soliciting help from Regional and State Working Groups to review and edit the database.
• Developing a matrix of priority species X research priorities using the model of the Monitoring WG effort; this would be used as a means of identifying gaps in our knowledge about priority species and common themes across species, and would help direct research
• Helping to ensure sufficient funding to address the priority research needs identified by PIF; it was noted that this role could only be carried out by a subset of the folks we hope to involve in the Research WG because of limitations on lobbying, but to the extent that we have involvement from non-federal and non-state agency folks, it is a possible role
• Being a source of researchers/scientists that could be tapped to address particular scientific issues that arise within PIF, especially from the newly-formed PIF Science Committee
• There remained some concern about whether there was really a clear role for a national-level Research WG, and Janet requested ideas and assistance in trying to define a set of ideas and responsibilities that will encourage involvement from the research community

NOTE:  A conversation between Janet Ruth and Ellen Paul (Ornithological Council) following the meetings revealed that there is a new effort with the U.S. NABCI Committee to start a Research Working Group.  In the interest of synergy and combining forces, Janet has agreed to participate, in her role as PIF Research WG Chair. 

Integration and Implementation Committee Proposal, Cal McCluskey

o    Cal presented a proposal developed by Eric Lawton addressing the highest ranking priority identified during the PIF Strategic Planning session:  integrated PIF Bird Conservation Plan objectives into plans of federal agencies, state agencies, Joint Ventures, NGOs and others.  The committee would consist of representatives from the PIF Federal, State, Industry, NGO, and technical groups.  Representatives on this committee would take a leadership role and be responsible for ensuring that implementation of PIF plan objectives takes place within their respective agencies or organizations.  A number of tasks were outlined.

• Potential Roles of Integration Committee: Coordination at the National PIF Implementation Committee level; facilitate integration of PIF Plan objectives into federal, state, JV, private conservation planning, etc.; representatives provide leadership roles in implementation of PIF plan objectives for their respective groups; evaluate the ability of existing agency or organization processes or policies to address bird conservation priorities; identify opportunities and a framework to facilitate integration of PIF conservation objectives (e.g. planning schedules, key contacts, etc.);  share integration methods or approaches that work throughout the PIF Network; build & maintain a network with other bird conservation initiatives; coordinate with Regional & Local PIF Working Groups to integrate PIF Plan Objectives into federal/ state/ Joint Venture, conservation and land management plans; maintain or develop a regional, and state network to oversee implementation of PIF Objectives at these levels  (ex.  Regional Integration Committee’s); facilitate incorporation of PIF objectives into agency other processes …e.g. NEPA, policies, etc.; report progress annually via the PIF Strategic Plan Progress Report; annual accomplishments, etc.

o    Discussion:  this would engage PIF in agency planning; the MOU has added migratory bird conservation to federal agency planning and it provides leverage; currently PIF is providing internal policy and direction but still need external partner involvement on issues (e.g., Interstate Swift Fox Conservation Committee); need to identify an effective working group size so that it does not become too large for its own good; thought needs to be given to the scale work is to be done; any reporting process used needs to be standardized for all partners to ensure as much transparency in sharing of data as possible; this is a daunting task when considering the number of plans out there; a huge asset in California is notification of the time table for plan completion and best if there early in the process; official liaisons similar to suggestion for state comprehensive plans may be helpful; USFS R8 and 9 bird workshop generated a positive response from forest biologists within the BCR; need to work from the top down and stronger direction from the top is needed; this is a role for state working groups; and need to work with JV’s, a one-stop shop.

o    Action by IC: the group endorsed the Integration Working Group, first focus would be on federal land-use plans, membership of nonfederal people (David Pashley to lead) and federal people (Eric and Cal to lead) would act as liaison’s to provide information on plan deadlines and work within agencies to integrate.  

o    Action by PIF Council:  concern was expressed that the working group was very focused on federal agency land use plans and the original intent of the proposal was to have internal people involved.  The membership was changed to include federal people (Cal and Eric will chair).  Items close to advocacy would be carried to the Policy Council for action.  State Comprehensive Plans will fall under this committee.  

Pet and Bird Trade, Eduardo Iñigo-Elias

Eduardo briefly outlined the impact on bird populations due to the demand of the pet trade.  He suggested that FWS needs to include these species in Appendix 1, 2 and 3 of the CITIES list and PIF needs to become involved to support this inclusion.  The next CITES meeting is in October 2004 and he intends to develop a proposal for the next to name Painted Bunting on Appendix I to stop all international trade in the species. 

Wrap-up:  reviewed actions for the various committees in Madison. 

Next meeting:  15-16 March 2004, Spokane.  Any contacts for where we can meet within about an 1-hour drive from Spokane, let Terry, Chris or Laurel know.    A field trip on Sunday the 14^th does not have to be elaborate and can be as simple as a list of locations to bird in the vicinity of the IC. 

Adjourn: 1600 

Attendees:

Home || What is PIF? || Que es Compañeros en Vuelo? || Bird Conservation Planning || PIF Resources
PIF Meetings and Events || Bird Conservation Directory || Contact Us