Home || What is PIF? || Que es Compañeros en Vuelo? || PIF Bird Conservation Plans || PIF Maps   || PIF Species Assessment 
Research and Monitoring Needs   PIF Newsletter || La Tangara || International Migratory Bird Day
PIF Regional Working Groups || Other PIF Resources || PIF Contacts

Partners In Flight

Implementation Committee

26-27 September 2004

TNC Eldora Nature Preserve, Delmont, New Jersey 

Minutes

Introductions, 0830

See below for the attendance list.

 Welcome to Eldora Nature Preserve, Bob Allen

• Property donated 10 years ago, previous owner focus on moths.  Part of the generation of true naturalists, banded ospreys, very competitive.  Original home, Name:  C. Brooke Worth.
• Books he wrote: Of Mosquitoes, Moths, and Mice; A Naturalist in Trinidad; Mosquito Safari: A Naturalist in Southern Africa.
• First preserve TNC put aside for moths; a number of trails, some parallel salt marsh and views of upland forest.    Has over 900 recorded species of moths present, many nights get over 400 species in a single evening.
• Office focus on southern NJ.

 TNC Delaware Bayshores Program, Bob Allen

• Haven for migratory birds.
• Area important area for geography, ocean on one side, mountains on the other.
• Red Knot, only stopping place on way to artic breeding grounds, horse shoe crabs finally getting some actions.
• Not just the location, its also intact habitats.  Heavily urbanize state in the country, NJ; still relatively intact habitats, breaks down closer get to beach.
• Stone harbor bird sanctuary, a look at what could have been on barrier islands.
• 7 mile island where Avalon and stone harbor---100 pairs of osprey in the good old days- compare with 450 pairs present within the entire state now.
• TNC, program office in the late 80’s, established.
• Conservation Strategy (5 bullets on slide)  Selecting priorities, stressors, sources of stress, strategies, measure of success.
• Habitats working on
• Beach and dune habitats:  Atlantic and Delaware bayshores; interest in areas where horse shoe crabs come up to nest. 
• Tidal wetlands and waters.  Extensive marshes, 520,600 acres of tidal wetlands and waters.  Fresh water tidal marshes, wild rice production.  Number of rails amazing.
• Coastal Forests; 583,000 acres of costal forest.  Original focus on migrants and this work continues; increasingly starting to think about breeding birds.
• Top Treats:  development, moving inshore from ocean.  Prices going up rapidly.  Zoning helps some but not strong enough, still taking down all of the forest.
• Invasive species:  phragmites, problem in fresh and salt marshes,
• Human Disturbance:  along beaches is a big factor, a couple of pairs of piping plovers, long battle to get loose dogs off beach, succeeded during nesting season.  This was the largest problem, but not seen large increase in numbers, this year 100% nest success.
  • Beach replenishment project also gong on.
• Lack of data:  especially true bird wise, skipped tnc preserves; also rare plants, moths, grasslands.
• Solutions:  land protection to decrease these threats.
  • Millville, new property, on edge of Maurice River, slated for barge site, development, bridge, etc.  Partnership, TNC manage portions of this location as a park, within limits work with county and cities.  Not want conservation due to loss of tax revenue.
• Stewardship:  habitat restoration for migratory birds, succession mgt, fencing around beach-nesting birds, control/removal of invasive species.
  • Control of phragmites, last 10 years TNC and state park, army corps work on a project beach replenishment,  many aspects to make sure phragmites not get dominant control, herbicide spraying just finished this past week, very controversial, threats of lawsuits and bodily harm, application with marsh masters, used Rodeo, end point, restore mudflat areas and native wetlands.
• Community Outreach, work a lot with local towns, and local planning efforts, this is making a difference over time.  Environmental interpretations, youth education, community outreach, tours, during shorebird migration close beaches on bay side, build viewing platforms so view birds; trash pick up; intern programs with NYC;
• Measures of success: Science.  Breeding avian inventory on each preserve, spring/fall migration and winter habitat assessment, avian use of early/mid successional habitat, high and low salt marsh bird surveys, migratory bird habitat restoration assessment, phragmites removal a pre and post treatment avian assessment. 
• Goal, want to keep things flying through here and breeding here. 

RESEARCH CROSS WALK, Janet Ruth

BACKGROUND

• Issue not covered in Science Committee meeting; relevant to both groups.
• Background documentation sent to Science Committee; contact Janet for a copy.
• Research needs and monitoring database; get species from CPlan.
• How to make this information available, 100 watch list species first focus. Some of the needs of the plans are not complete but a place to start. Created a matrix, e.g., pop status and trends, habitat needs, effects of mgmt, species interactions, predation, migration, invasive, disease.
• Next step, fill in the blanks, id research needs.  Mine other sources for needs:  BNA’s, FWS species status assessments, etc. 

HANDOUT

• Species examples, Template; done for about 20 species.
• Common name, scientific name, national level conservation status
• Is this valuable?  If yes, Janet will continue to create and link to PIF website. 

DISCUSSION

• Getting a better definition of needs and next steps. Need to review and see where to plug into whatever systems you have to get these things done. FWS, science support program and internal program can submit proposals for funding. USFS research arm can get this information into the right hands.
• Think about non-game research needs, non species specific research needs, connections across species; how to get this information to people.
• Science committee identified highest priorities, then clumped to consolidate resources: Mexican BBS; NW woodpeckers not covered by BBS. Seek to create program based upon these needs.
• Also consider the 40 to 60 species influenced by caged bird trade. Eduardo can provide Janet a list of these species. 
• Bibliography, web format, review process, how to prioritize.
• Possible links to CBM and Science Committee efforts.
  • ACTION – Implementation Committee: id needs for clumped groups of species
  • ACTION – Science Committee: bring in new people to ad hoc working group.

BRIEF UPDATES 

IMBD 2004 report, 2005 preview, Chris Eberly

• Sue Bonfield sent Chris report of activities from 2004.  Email Chris if you would like an electronic copy of the 5MB report.
• IMBD 2005, focus will be collisions—cell towers, wind turbines, glass, vehicles. Artist is David Sibley. Art work will not include dead birds.  Working to get him to the Bird Fest at the National Zoo.  Visit http://www.birdday.org/ to see artwork and other IMBD info.
• In fall 2004, International Migratory Bird Day was selected by the Biodiversity Education Network from among over 20 other national and international biodiversity education programs as a model of successful program development, implementation, and evaluation. IMBD will be featured at the National Association for the Advancement of Environmental Education conference and on the Biodiversity Education Network’s new website, www.bioednet.org.
• NPS still trying to get translation into Spanish, this has been approved for next year.
• Lights Out Chicago, picture dramatic; spring and fall migration, letter from Terry on PIF letter head to these building, 40-50 of them, quoted in the Mayor’s proclamation to city, also mention in the major paper, and trade magazine to buildings.  Photo in next issue of Bird Scapes (FWS magazine, this is the last issue of this magazine?).  Has taken a number of years to get to this point. 
• BirdFest, IMBD event at the National Zoo, occurs every year; organized by Mary Deinlein. Great attendance. Usually last weekend in April. Admission to National Zoo is free (every day!).

• New 3 language PIF pins are here!!!  New - replaced “Aves de las Americas” with “Compañeros en Vuelo”. All who registered for IC meeting received one; PIF Regional Working Group Chairs each received 100 to take to their next meeting.
• The group was polled on the desire to have PIF pins available in the IMBD catalog. Group gave resounding approval. Chris will work with Sue Bonfield to have PIF pins in the 2005 IMBD catalog.
• Patches, always popular but are out of now. If PIF patches are desired, contact Chris or Terry. We can have these for 2006 IMBD catalog if people want them.
• A better communication mechanism between IMBD and PIF is needed. What started as a PIF educational event is now largely done without PIF input. For 2006, what would be a good theme? item for March meeting. 
  • ACTION, Chris will pursue a process for PIF input into the theme; to be discussed at the spring 2005 meeting in DC.
   

Outreach tools, Chris

• The Lahontan Audubon Society (Reno, NV) published the Nevada Birding Map in 2004, the first map of its kind for this state. Copies were handed out to IC meeting attendees. The front side of the map has detailed descriptions for 87 locations. The reverse side is a full map of Nevada with each location pinpointed.  The map is folded in road-map style and opens to 24 x 36 inches. It's printed in full color on 80-pound, dull-coated, glossy paper for durability and strong color definition.
• To order Nevada Birding Map send $4 per map cash or check payable to Lahontan Audubon Society to Ron and Carol Conkey, 1865 Eastlake Boulevard, Carson City, NV 89704.  For additional information contact Nevadabirdmap@aol.com.
• The SE PIF poster “Migratory Landbirds of the Southeast: Valuable and Vulnerable” was reprinted.  Reprinted 28,000 and they sold out in 3 months! Contact Cliff Shackelford for more information on this highly successful outreach project. 

Posting PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan to web, Janet

• Huge PDF file, over 100MB. Short term solution, provide just the tables.
• Janet, Terry and Ken discussion on what the best route to make this available; Cornell is the keeper of this plan, and is working on a web site version. Suggestion: Make plan into interactive set of web pages, model after BNA on line.  Cross referencing ability. Another model is Colorado PIF BCP.
• What are the needs?  Web version best accessibility; however, some people would want to download the entire plan.
• Ken:  many options, what do users want?  Printed 10,000 copies and they are virtually gone.  Cornell did recoup the money from the original printing.  On the verge of reprinting 5,000 additional copies, have not put in the order yet.  Some agencies have already committed funding for this. 
  • ACTION: enough agencies and some states (GA) to go forward.  Order placed in 2 weeks.
  • FOLLOW-UP: Additional copies now printed and available. Contact Terry.
• Trade-offs of PDF version: huge size for whole thing. Lack of cohesion if only pieces (i.e. Tables) provided. Low res PDF would not look professional.
• Put on cd’s--- cheaper than mailing a hard copy.  Significant savings in postage.
• Distribution: each federal agency and a few states purchased batches.  Sent batches to sponsors and on-going supporters.  Debbie Hahn help get this message out to the states.
• Hard copy easier to use than the PDF, but cost is an issue. Cornell is keepers of the plan, but it is the PIF plan.
  • ACTION:  add this to the PIF budget. 
• If we invest funding into web version, how will this relate to next version, and will we need to go through this again.  Biggest issue is getting Table 1 on the web.  Need to have tables and associated text.  Worth doing the current version now. 
• Valuable to have an interactive website, more useable for implementation of this information. 
• If someone really does want the PDF, can link to Cornell person doing the distribution.
• Timeframe, up on the web in a few months. 
• For Latin America, not cost effective to print in hard copy; important to have PDF chapter by chapter. This will be goal for the next version.  For this version, how much does it cost to print and distribute a CD?  

Other Web issues from Janet.

• Working on updated Spanish version of “What is PIF” (“Que es Compañeros en Vuelo”).   

PIF Strategic Plan and Organizational Structure document, Terry Rich

• Terry:  Need to review Strategic Plan, done at Winston-Salem meeting (spring 2003), and think about goals and objectives.
• Available on the PIF web site.   

PIF budget, Terry

• Sent around, not very different from last year—no feedback received. If have any funding needs not identified in spread sheet make sure terry gets these items. 

Asilomar proceedings update, Terry

• CJ says everything is ready to go. Two volumes, page charges were needed to break even on the printing. Attendees will receive a copy. 15,000 will be printed.   

Bird Conservation Magazine, David Pashley

• David:  current issue (August 2004) focuses on PIF continental plan; Terry will have these; if attending a meeting get copies to distribute. 

Birder's World reprints

• Terry has copies 

BLM Wind Energy Draft Programmatic EIS, Terry

• http://windeis.anl.gov/
• Out for comment, distributed to the PIF list serve.
• Nothing internally for the agency was included.
• Opportunity to comment, especially people not in agency; Terry will go through and look for target points.
• Comment period: September-December 2004
• All NGO’s should communicate so comments are consistent.
• ABC and Audubon comment on a lot of this stuff; get them information and they can feed through the political system.  They try to take action an all of these issues, send them information. 

Nicaragua meeting, Terry

• November; symposium on Nov 17: “Bird Conservation in Mesoamerica: Strengthening the Partners in Flight Mesoamerican Group”
  • FOLLOW-UP: approx 80 attendees at symposium. Contact Terry for minutes.
• Carol:  NFWF (Eloise Canfield) helped get a grant to help Mesoamericans there. 

FWS Migratory Bird course, Terry

• New Course, offered twice. Includes Migratory Bird Treaty Act, history of bird conservation in the US, conventions and treaties, legal foundations of what FWS does, partnerships, planning, international links. Good holistic course on bird conservation, with legal foundation of MBTA.
• FWS will try to get every one in the FWS to take this course; also interest from BLM, USFS, DoD. 
• Terry teaches a portion of course, on species assessment, global initiatives, etc.
• Course taught at NCTC; may go on the road.   

Best Management Practices progress, Terry

BACKGROUND

• High priority in Strategic Plan to get our objectives into the plans and activities of other agencies and partners.
• We should consider crafting and expanding BMPs so that they are useful as specific guidance following up on each federal agency MOU with FWS.  Answers the question as to exactly what migratory bird conservation means to the agencies.  Farm bill and state-level recommendations too.  Need for the practices keeps building. 
• Pinyon-Juniper BMP document to be released soon.
• We currently have BMP documents for sagebrush; Wyoming grasslands, riparian; shortgrass prairie. We have some models of how to write these; might be best organized by BCR and habitat if we have a choice. 

DISCUSSION

• David and Debbie meet with new leadership of NRCS, keen on having these items, short and simple for priority birds in these places.  If new structure agrees that these are useful, funding to produce them will not be an object but level of funding does dictate our course of action and timeline.
• Information is all there, not just for landbirds, but also waterbirds, shorebirds.
• $3 billion in Farm Bill funding goes to on-the-ground conservation.  This could be one of the most important things that we can do in the next couple of years.
• However, we do not yet even have a clear idea for bobwhite habitat BMPs.
• Not clear if this is an IC action or SC action, or both.
• After October meeting with NRCS we shuold know a great deal more. 
  • ACTION:  David or Debbie will send results of Oct meeting to both IC and SC. We have to answer questions about format and level of detail.
• Might have to tailor these to each issue. Helpful to send to listserve what has been done already for format.   
• Current BMP’s are not on the PIF web site (Sagebrush (ID); grassland for WY; riparian ID and WY; shortgrass prairie RMBO CO); PJ in the works now.  Formats and level of detail different; we NEED consistent approach. 
• What is level of involvement by states in producing these?  Some states have done some of this – MD PIF, Mass Audubon; state plans are habitat based.  Need to bring all of this info together.
• We should review NRCS county and state levels BMPs to landowners to see how they typically set these up.
• Migratory Birds MOU – verbiage there for each agency.  Also feed this information back to the agencies.
• CalPIF has some one-page management guidance docs.
  • ACTION: Kim will send these to David.
• Ray Evans already working on wildlife habitat review for national practices (contracted by IAFWA).  Only at the national level, standards and specifications are very broad; we need to hit the ground at state level and need to be specific.
• Terry is working on book chapter on effects of fire on birds in various western forest types; so BMP background for fire management in these habitats has been assembled. 

ASWM meeting - Wetland birds focus, David Pashley

• Association of State Wetland Managers, meeting in October in Kansas City.
• Focus: bring world of bird conservation and wetland mangers closer together.  Doing good things for birds and not even know it. Goal is to set up better communication.
• NABCI Communications Working Group is meeting in conjunction with this meeting; will try to build relations with this group. 

NABCI, David

• US NABCI Committee met September 21 and 22.
• Over last several months, transition in the US NABCI Committee; more active and effective doing things that people think is important for bird conservation.  Members and staff want to take the action items that we have and reformulate them (funding for upland, health of initiatives, etc) more consistently with the 9 themes, and other obstacles to bird conservation would be a series of objectives for 3-5 year time frame.  Committee will ask PIF (IC, Council, Science Committee) within these themes and objectives what PIF perceives as being achievable goals in a 1 and 5 year time frame.  Committee will accumulate recommendations and turn into realistic work plans (might not be best term) for the Committee staff to begin to address.
• What does PIF really need that we as a collective body are having trouble getting?
• Think about the biggest obstacles to land bird conservation that are achievable. Think big—money, public land management, etc. What are the things that the US NABCI Committee can impact, what can the NABCI Committee add value to.  CPlan and Strategic Plan—already have. These would be the first things to deliver.
• Send ideas to Terry; PIF will send in one response.
• Real opportunity now with current leadership in FWS, IAFWA behind bird conservation.  9 themes are broad priorities where the Committee is developing 3 to 5 year priorities.  Proactive approach to addressing issues.
• Example, reauthorization of Neotrop Act, 2007 Farm Bill reauthorization.
• Committee was cautious about taking over the initiatives, but needs to be more involved; need to be careful the Committee does not run out there without the initiatives.
• Perceptions from states and JVs that Committee has fizzled out.  Need to let everyone know that Committee is active. 
• Role of the committee for the three countries is to help overcome political barriers.  Many things are happening, sometimes not as fast as we would like.
• May be time for Committee to be more visible, engage with people doing conservation on the ground.  In a sense this is already happening.   Meetings are not advertised, but anyone can attend.
• Timeframe:  will be a request with guidance.  Terry produce a response based upon items in the back of CPlan.
• Committee works by consensus.  If one initiative “votes” against then item not done by Committee.  All initiatives need to work together.  Phrase this concern in the guidelines if this is what PIF wants. 

Bird Conservation Directory (the “Red Book”), David

• Out of date,;ABC is trying to update it.  Converting to a web based system; 2 parts: organizational structure and contact information.  Structure will be a link to initiative websites; up to PIF to maintain its org structure; part B name address, etc, will be searchable by state and organization.
• Need help on this for your organization
  • ACTION: David will send current directory listings for each organization to the org contact person. Please update and correct this list, and add new people. 
• Chris: CWS has a searchable database, regional PIF working group meetings. 
• What level of detail to include? Basic national, regional, state structure. 

Painted Bunting, Eduardo Iñigo-Elias

• PABU proposed for CITES Appendix 2 protection by US, hot topic for the meeting next week.  European Union insists trade should continue. Cuba and Costa Rica have joined the US proposal, will be a battle.  Desire is to stop all trade. Right now 40-50,000 birds each year in international trade, does not include illegal US trade. 
• SE PABU is really the issue. CPlan number does not address this. 4.5 million PABU “worldwide”.  Lobbying for protection based upon the trend of decline, especially for SE PABU.
• Problem within EU; Italy Spain, Belgium, Netherlands have enough birds in captivity to breed.
• In US, on-going illegal black market trade in south FL. 
• US and others are well prepared to address this issue at CITES meeting next week.
  • FOLLOW-UP from Eduardo: CITES protection was denied at meeting. Vote: 40 in favor, 50 against, 30 abstain. The EU blocked the proposal.  They based their position on IUCN review and no matter what anyone else said they would not support the proposal.  Another reason: aviculturist industry in the EU countries such as The Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, UK and Spain lobbied strongly with EU to block the proposal.
• Mexico needs monitoring guidelines, BMPs because pet trade is very strong there. Need a law in place to allow sustainable exploitation of wild birds, IF habitat is protected. Need to have different options available--if going to exploit, what is best (take chicks or adults, when and on what basis).  Will come back with specific request for this information. 
• On Trilateral committee agenda; need to do something bi-nationally. 
• Cornell funded study, habitat, size of population to provide Mexico government with baseline for passerines.   

PIF SCIENCE COMMITTEE: SUMMARY AND ACTION ITEMS, Ken Rosenberg

• Previous two days meet.
• Currently represents people who wrote CPlan.
• Monitoring
• Updating the plan
• Lingering technical issues involving the database.
  • Goal results of species assessments updated and finished in RMBO and on website. 
  • spp assessment handbook on the website will also be up dated.  End support of phyio area assessment numbers.  Plans written now at BCR level; will be there in archived form.   Rational to keep this with large BCR’s and need to recognize geographical differences.  If separate groups would like to step down, would be open to a process as long as funding is also available. 
  • New assessment scores up on the web, available sometime before the end of the year.  ACTION TO COUNCIL from Sci Comm.
  • People working on BCR plans, need to communicate these changes now.
  • DOD language with MOU and mig bird rule spp of concern list; compiling spp of concern at a base within a BCR.
  • State lists of priority spp; grouping structure for these lists will be retained within the database.  Provide that level of stability (tiers will still be there).  Available for all states for anyone---need to put up on the website ACTION.
  • Process more appropriate for larger scales.
• Continuing to work on and refine population estimation process and Janet help organize an official review, took place, produced a manuscript for AUK, critiques the process.  Working on a paper describing process etc and appear as companion piece in auk.  First paper, good review and suggestions, many of which we already knew.  Praised group to being bold enough to undertake this effort.
•   Mexico, exciting stuff, Eduardo reported; better to have spp assessment for all birds.  1100 birds, divided country by biomes, finished in July.  Key player in this whole country effort was Arvind.  Next step is review by Mex steering committee.  Then a committee of three nations to review and then put on the plan, Mex suggest that should be all birds, understand there are issues in the US, Canada in agreement with Mex.  There are different options in Mexico, have to go back to their committee and present all of the options.  Maybe by 2006 have some type of plan. Not a plan but an assessment with recommendations. 
  • Additional product that will feature Mexico.  This will also force all of us to think about wintering ground issues that was not tackled in first plan.
• Focus on issues of planning, at same time implementation issues.  Moving forward, translate PIF objectives to a spatially explicit design on the ground.  Need to be thinking about how to move this stuff to implementation.
• Actions for the IC/taken up through committees:  letter to partners from the Council, report on the assessment process.
• NFWF grant for database, looking for the match, looking for $20k nonfederal.
• Terry: most of the action at this point in time is in the science end of PIF, outreach, education, international essentially nothing happening; coming back to a science core. 
• How is the Sci Comm going to integrate with JV to link habitat suitability to these numbers.  What are the most approaches most appropriate; how to move really implementation forward.  Link habitats and populations.
  • Jane, Janet, Tom, Carol Beardmore, Randy, David, Bob—ad hoc group.  Charge already there from Charles Baxter, Aransas; formulate a process of who can do what.
  • At some point PIF has won with JV’s, great success on one hand.  On the other hand, national perspective PIF engaged in a quest for more scientific information, and marginalizing role in main stream---have to think from a national prescriptive what is the direction of national PIF, run the risk of trivializing ourselves.  Perceptive is everything.
  • Committee figure out path forward, and also explore this as a JV PIF request.  Also, talk with JV’s directly (David provide listing).

MOVE TO BUDGET---Jina, ways to fund the database; on-going issue, bring back up to council.  On-going need to institutionalize funding for the database, still looking for brilliant ideas and a permanent fix.  Bring forward to NABCI as an issue.

• Any movement on the issue of dues.  Will keep bringing this forward, a possible long term solution.  States and federal agencies, institutionalize within budgets. 

JOINT GRASSLAND/SCRUBLAND INITATIVE, SE QUAIL STUDY GROUP/SE PIF

Don McKenzie, Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative Coordinator, outlined some progress being made by the SE Quail Study Group.  More about the overall Initiative can be found at http://seqsg.qu.org/seqsg/index.cfm. 

• CP 33:  One current success story and a major victory for quail restoration is the announcement by FSA in August of the CRP Northern Bobwhite Quail Habitat Initiative.  Conservation Practice 33 will put 250,000 acres of early successional grass buffers along field borders and is valued at approximately $200,000,000 for habitat restoration.  This value could easily increase in up coming years.  SEQSG and states are wrestling with how to put this on the ground as the sign up began on 1 October in 35 states.  One FSA requirement is that all states implement a monitoring plan to document quail and bird response.  SEQSG has drafted a standardized interstate monitoring protocol that includes monitoring of songbirds and the use of this protocol has been indorsed by the SE Directors.  Discussions regarding lists of priority songbirds that are prevalent, easily identifiable, and could benefit from native vegetative field border habitats have started between SEQSG and SEPIF.  This type of monitoring fits the CBM paradigm of management based monitoring. 
• Joint Initiative:  SEPIF and SEQSG have come together and agreed to launch a joint initiative.  The purpose of this joint initiative is to develop, advocate, achieve and implement a major new private-land habitat initiative through the Farm Bill to the mutual benefit of northern bobwhites and priority grassland, early successional and/or savannah species of landbirds.
• The joint initiate has multiple objectives.  To provide substantial benefits to restoration of both northern bobwhites and a suite of priority grassland, early successional and/or savannah habitat landbirds.  To bring the Southeast Quail Study Group and the Southeastern Partners in Flight together at the beginning of a major new initiative of mutual interest, as equal partners and contributors. To secure lots of new USDA money for private-land bird habitat restoration. To “fill a gap”; i.e., to create an effective, major private-lands bird habitat program where no effective or adequate program currently exists.  To integrate bird habitat restoration and enhancement with working agricultural and/or forest lands.
• A great deal of progress has been made and draft white papers have been developed for three different possible opportunities.  The bulk of this work occurred during SEQSG’s annual summer meeting in August where members of SEPIF became members of SEQSG working committees.  The overall time frame for this initiative is to have information ready for when the Farm Bill is reauthorized in 2007. 
• The three areas of opportunity:  Cropland Flexible Fallowing, purpose:  to temporarily (e.g., 2 to 5 years) fallow individual fields of cultivated cropland on a rotational basis and establish vegetative cover suitable for bobwhites and priority PIF species.  Grasslands for Livestock and Wildlife, purpose, to convert exotic grass monocultures typical of southeastern pastures and hay lands to diverse mixtures of native, warm-season grasses and forbs that are mutually suitable for livestock, bobwhites and PIF priority species.  Wildlife Woodlands, purpose, Manage family forestlands [also known as “non-industrial, private forestland (NIPF)] by timber stand improvements, burning and other means to create open woodland or savannah conditions with a lush understory of native grasses and forbs, in appropriate regions where such habitats once existed.
• We understand that these programs are not a silver bullet and one size will not fit all bird needs.  The intent is to build off past and present programs within the farm bill, fill in the gaps for wildlife conservation.  The best opportunity at this time appears to be with the forested land initiative.  Cropland will be the most difficult to find common ground for birds and the time of year and species impacted will be variable. 
• CRP Comment Period:  FSA published a request for public comment on various aspects of CRP in the Federal Register in early August and is also available at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/crpcomments/.  The comment deadline is 8 December 2004.  PIF needs to weigh in on the long-term strengths and weakness of CRP to bird conservation and add a voice to other wildlife comments.
  • ACTION:  working group formed to draft PIF comments to submit.  Members include:  Don, David Pashley, Laurel Barnhill, Jane Fitzgerald, and Greg Butcher. 
• Discussion:  possibility of expanding the joint initiative to include western quail species; currently WMI has a NFWF grant to undertake a review for western quail; quail are a species shared with Mexico, quail are really in trouble there and the need and desire to collaborate is real.  Need to invite someone from Mexico to the spring SEPIF meeting who knows the status of quail in Mexico to provide a link to extend influence into Mexico.  The potential to link with other birds associated with quail is huge.   

CALIFORNIA PIF DECISION MAKING PROCESS, Kim Kreitinger

INTRO, Chris

• PIF NE Working Group was asked to comment on mountaintop removal-valley fill mining issue; provided scientific information.
• Requests and need for “advocacy” occur frequently in a variety of forms.

BACKGROUND, Kim

• Need for “advocacy” came in Dec 2003, for CalPIF support for more funding for Neotrop Act.  Conflict of interest for federal partners to advocate for federal funding.  Gridlock resulted and precipitated this decision making process.
• CalPIF Executive Steering Committee asked the Agency Integration Committee to outline a process for CalPIF to provide technical information and advocate for issues without jeopardizing federal partners.
• “CalPIF Decision Making Process” reviewed and commented on by entire Executive Steering Committee. Intended to be used by executive committee.
• Process outlines 3 categories:

1. providing scientific, technical, or other expert assistance
2. advocating for, supporting, opposing, or otherwise taking formal positions on legislation, program funding, etc.
3. lobbying

DISCUSSION

• Can quickly get into semantics: “Representative” vs “member” of CalPIF is an important distinction.  Participation in CalPIF is voluntary, not contracted in any why, not paying dues. “Representative” represents views of the group, which would make “member” the better word. CalPIF ExCom advises its own members on events/issues.
• In past, PIF provides facts, anything advocacy sent to ABC, Audubon, etc.; can get caught in a thousand different traps. Cannot fix this but need to stay away from advocacy. There are a million issues and a mine field to step through on each one. Immediate gray area past category one. Just the facts.
• Press will not distinguish NGO members of CalPIF from CalPIF from national PIF.
• Association of JV Mgmt Boards decided to stay away from advocacy; difficult to speak for all of the JV’s. Atlantic Coast JV made strict decision not to get into policy issues.
• PIF can identify priority species that have benefited from CRP, pass to ABC to do advocacy. However, if fescue pastures have little or no value for birds, PIF statement does not advance the issue. PIF may need to cross this line to make this statement. Can ABC advocacy be as effective in this case?
• PIF has been successful because it has stayed out of lobbying; only provides the facts.  Credibility was build by providing facts, could be lost if we step beyond.
• There are ways of strengthening category one to say that fescue is bad; professional interpretation of facts. “If we continue with this program, declines of priority bird species will continue.”  In mountaintop mining example, NE PIF not advocate what to do, but said continuing these activities will result in declines of birds; scientific and factual statement.  Scientific advocacy, interpret the science and don’t use loaded words (“you should do this”).
• There is no distinction between category 1 and category 2.  Science and Advocacy are at opposite ends of a continuum. We are asked to do things all the time that fall along that continuum; we select a response based on politics.
• Marshal comments to NGO’s. But NGOs need to have the right information from PIF. Other groups can provide a benefit to birds. Don’t endanger non-partisanship of PIF, but continue to build relationships and trust. 
• What about the losses if don’t; advantages of a larger entity weighing in on certain issues at certain times.  Do not want to lose opportunities. 
• Federal Agencies participate in PIF through an MOA; bound by Hatch Act, non-advocacy restriction. Agencies could pull people from or support for PIF.
• PIF’s defining element is non-adversarial brain power (!).
• If we do not formalize the process how do we know when to draw the line?
• Do not put anything on paper. Process involves discussions and is based on science. 
• Case study: NABCI funding priorities. NGOs came together, now lobbying for bird conservation funding; name changed to Bird Conservation Funding Coalition. 
• Important to have a mechanism. Mexico example: not mechanism to deal with proposed Mexico City airport; absence of mechanism resulted in a huge crisis. There is common ground in bird conservation but we are doing different things. 

SUMMARY, Chris

• Two outstanding questions; we will revisit tomorrow:

1. is there something we can do to help CalPIF get answers to their questions
2. what is the relationship between national, regional and state PIF groups  

BIRD CONSERVATION ALLIANCE, David

• Powerpoint presentation – contact Alicia Craig for a copy.
• Policy Council, created in 1995.  Meet three times a year.  Does good things, information exchange, Washington based; NGOs not taking full advantage of this opportunity. 
• Policy Council morphed into the Bird Conservation Alliance (BCA) in 2004.
• BCA: a network of organizations that focus on bird conservation, study, education, observation, and advocacy, representing millions of birdwatchers and concerned citizens, united for the conservation of birds.
• BCA assists its members in conducting collaborative advocacy, and provides resources to assist its members in their bird conservation work.
• Greater number of organizations gives the alliance more power. Get as much information into the hands of groups so they can do more for bird conservation.  Any organization (NGO) that has an interest in bird conservation can join.
• Perception: Policy Council was an ABC entity.  BCA trying hard to create reality that this in an independent entity.  ABC providing facilitation through Alicia Craig (mailto:acraig@abcbirds.org). 
• All-bird focus
• Website: (http://www.birdconservationalliance.org/)
• Two ways information flows through this: ABC will develop materials that are useful to people; other organizations can develop information and pass to alliance for members.
• Example of relevance to PIF: for passage of Neotrop Act, having lobbyists in Washington is great, but real power in Washington comes when people around the country influence their delegation. If PIF can get all of these people focused on issues, we can affect the political process.  BCA attempts to figure out how to increase attention and commit members to effective bird conservation and to do things. Want to create a menu of things for them to do and allow a forum for them to have their issues bubble up nationally. If this works the previous discussion becomes mute.
• Advocacy done collectively?  BCA take no positions on anything, those member organizations can sign onto a group letter and only represent themselves.  Power is to have everyone represent themselves.
• As the national Implementation Committee, we need to figure out how to take advantage of this opportunity, think of ways to be proactive, seek out those political and policy issues that are important now or in the future and start developing information on them.
• Joint SEQSG/SEPIF initiative: purpose is to influence the Farm Bill; SEPIF role is information, they will not lobby for funding; SEPIF providing the science; BCA mechanism for NGOs within SEPIF, need to define role of SEPIF, maximize the potential of NGOs.   

------END OF DAY ONE----- 

USGS REVIEW OF PIF POPULATION ESTIMATES

• Yesterday, Janet 

PIF INTERGRATION COMMITTEE, Terry

• Identified in Winston-Salem as a high priority, something we could do in the short term without additional staff or funding.  Specifically talked about influencing federal plans.  State stuff moving forward with Debbie Hahn’s involvement and their commitment.
• Should more groups be included (e.g., JVs)? Carol Beardmore is willing to take lead with integrating JVs; Jane Fitzgerald will help. Terry will talk to Science Support Team of JVs to ensure every JV has at least one strong PIF person involved with stepping down CPlan into JV planning.  David has list of JVs with level of PIF involvement. Terry will talk with Bob Ford and Seth Mott on how to do this best.
• Each federal agency is different in its planning and involvement in PIF. More clearly defined planning process for USFS, BLM, DOD, etc.
• Refuge planners for FWS.  Biological goals planning for refuges.
• From Spokane meeting: Goal of the (Implementation and Integration) Committee is to identify and education on how to comment on each plan with direction on a process and input points for each agency (tracking of the Federal Register).
• BLM is short of personnel, and this is not a priority. Eric cannot do anything in short term.  Can someone else to step up to the plate?
• Need more than one person.  What is the overlap with state and federal planning efforts?
• Objective is to make sure major land use plans have a component that addresses land birds. 
• Keep as standing committee? YES. Jina Mariani to chair. Agency contacts:
  • USFS – Jina Mariani
  • BLM – Eric Lawton
  • DoD – Chris Eberly
  • Refuges – Terry Rich
  • NPS – Carol Beidleman
  • States – Debbie Hahn
• Make sure the planners come to state workshops and other meetings; Debbie send out to IC group.
• Important to utilize state and regional groups.  All CalPIF plan revisions up on their web site http://www.prbo.org/calpif/plans.html. 
• A lot of support comes from agency regional biologists, if these people are in the loop then a lot of stuff gets done.  Regional PIF working group chairs need to pass down information, and know who the resource people are.
• PIF must attend agency regional biologist and planning meetings, make sure copies of PIF CPlan are in every agency office; encourage agency personnel to attend state and regional PIF meetings.  

LOWER MISS/CENTRAL HARDWOODS JV SCIENCE SUPPORT PROPOSAL, Jane Fitzgerald

• Powerpoint presentation
• Addresses need within the JV framework to develop more spatially explicit habitat objectives that can be linked with BCR-wide population goals.
• Approach developed to evaluate NF plans, impacts on birds and other animal populations. 
• Objectives: to assess (map and quantify) the potential of large landscapes to support viable populations of priority species and quantify the impacts of various land-management and natural disturbance scenarios on habitat suitability.
• Study areas are currently the Mark Twain and Hoosier National Forests. Scientists at Univ. of Missouri and USFS are modeling habitat suitability at spatial scales up to a million acres for an array of animal species including several PIF priority birds. The models are spatially explicit but not exact. 
• LANDIS software is a component of the modeling process that is in the public domain.  Tool allows the user to enter information about the current condition of the habitat at a given spatial scale (e.g. the age and species composition of trees in a forest stand), and then select different mgt scenarios and project forward response of landscape.
• Calibration process---USFS models based on 30m pixels, will have to change to a larger unit to model habitat at the scale of a BCR and/or would have to break into sections.
• A number of ways to approach these problems, need to be thinking about the best one in terms of assessing habitat and population goals.
• Examples of models for Ovenbird and Prairie Warbler models were given. Model parameters are derived from the literature on species-habitat relationships. If/when the modeling is done for BCRs, would want involvement from local/regional landbird experts to assess the model components.
• Developing models for a set of individual species will allow planners to assess where habitat conditions are each are and will occur under various management and disturbance scenarios. Can then assess trade-offs among species and habitat types and conditions.
• Need to find ways to develop density estimates to link acreages of suitable habitat to population goals; may be able to derive densities from BBS or point count data, etc. Can also model projections of a population’s viability over time if data on vital rates are available, but many more assumptions would be involved.  

SOUTHEAST GAP PROJECT, Jane Fitzgerald

• Project goals: to develop “second generation GAP products including updated landcover classification. This is being done on an ecoregional basis, applying a similar methodology across state lines within regions. Also will develop spatial models to map predicted occurrences of priority bird species and are willing to work with bird conservation people to get the correct information into the models.
• New vegetation classification units called “ecological systems” and are derived from landcover imagery as well as the use of ancillary data sets including the national wetlands inventory, canopy closure estimates, landform models, digital aerial photos, etc.  

DISCUSSION:

• The group recognized the need and utility of developing predictive spatial models of habitat suitability that can be linked to population goals for priority species. A subcommittee of the PIF Science Committee (the Habitat Implementation Committee) was formed to look into the matter further.
• The subcommittee will consider the idea of holding a workshop to provide PIF and JV/BCR planners with a better understanding of the array of spatial data layers and modeling approaches currently available. The committee also will revisit the “5 Elements” white paper that resulted from the PIF workshop (Port Aransas, TX, Feb. 2004) that also spoke to the need for spatial models to develop population goals and habitat objectives. The white paper also spoke to the need for a process/methodology that will enable planners to evaluate the most efficient means of reaching population goals and habitat objectives by assessing PIF partners’ capabilities to deliver the needed quality and quantity of habitat. The subcommittee should attempt to address that issue as well.
  • ACTION – Science Committee and Habitat Implementation Committee: visualize a specific product.  Then look at tools available to accomplish this objective(s), and possible need for a workshop. 

COORDINATED BIRD MONITORING (CBM), Jon Bart

• Two topics
• Report—decisions will be made this week of how to move forward on CBM.
• Report emphasis important of why monitor what management issues will monitoring address, this is not controversial.
• Then detail on how to carry out monitoring on various management issues.
• What more controversial management with broad scale multi spp surveillance monitoring, important but down plays this type of monitoring.
• This is a compromise position within the committee.
• BBS is an example of the type of monitoring deemphasized.
• Question of where should CBM be housed.  Bring back to the monitoring working group or leave with IAFWA---will be discussed and decided on in the next couple of days.
• Context of why it started in the first place; we were trying to deal with the issue of all of the states getting $$ to carry out bird conservation and monitoring, CWCS, states are carrying out bird monitoring right now and no coordination.  Use coordinated state monitoring to determine trends.  Call for simple standard protocols for monitoring, all of the state plans add up.  It does not matter what the report thinks, because states are already carrying out monitoring and chance for national and regional level monitoring is being lost. This report does not address national level monitoring. Need to move forward. 
• US NABCI Committee recognizes there is momentum and cannot afford more time because no one there to act on this.  NABCI respects anyone in IAFWA to take a leadership role as long as something happens.  If interest of IAFWA that a group of people NABCI staff circulate this report and be repository for comments and fill any potential vacuum, recommend this at research and science committee Tuesday morning.
• Issue was born out of the initiatives; there are parallel courses for monitoring.  Initiatives move forward with what we think needs to occur with monitoring.
• There is resistance to changing state monitoring protocols.  Need to overcome practical problems.  If we cannot get federal entity to do this then have a private group to do this.  Start at state and regional effort with national level efforts, meet in the middle.
• Problem: Jon is the leader but needs a context to work; NABCI and monitoring group was settled on, and somehow ad hoc group interpretation that NABCI was pulling plug on Jon, NABCI no authority to move forward, not explicit.  Jon ceased to work because had no support.
• If resources for monitoring become available what statements in the report are people going to key into, surveillance monitoring may not be funded.  Alternative, key into on statements at end of the report, need to review. 
• How do we get CBM back into NABCI monitoring working group. 
• 3 alternatives; 1) no direction; 2) IAFWA with one of its committees steps up and takes a leadership role; 3) NABCI steps forward in leadership role. Which is the best way to go? 
• For states, need to add up work to the national level, not just for birds.  Done for waterfowl and game species.  Key problem is lack of protocol. 
• Perception that Bird Conservation committee is state focused, loss of NGO and federal participation.  NABCI included all partners from the very beginning.  
• Emerge with a shared responsibility.  With people assigned to allow movement forward.  NABCI offered up a group of people for comments, Joint committee take to bird conservation committee, add people and make more than a repository, deal with all issues and problems of surveillance monitoring, report to bird conservation committee. 
• Keeps NABCI involved and getting IAFWA involved.
• This decision can be made at joint committee, report to bird conservation committee.  Basically go back to where we were a year ago.  Focus the charge, identify the specific issues, which ones most pressing.  Create the right structure for a group to move forward.
• Jon, David, Larry, David, Ken work on how best to work through this process.
• IC and SC gives credit to Jon for his long term perseverance and hard work in moving this effort forward.
• MONTORING REPORT RICKY DUNN
• Will come to IC digitally for approval, going through review process at this time.
• In light of previous discussion, need to include strong reaffirmation of existing processes.  Statement from PIF.
  • ACTION: IC and SC receive a review of decisions on the topics that we have decided to move up through the IAFWA committee structure (Terry).
    

NATIONAL CONSERVATION PRACTICES, Debbie Hahn

• Ray Evans is reviewing national standards and would like bird conservation community to review these standards.
• Multi-regional team of people. Review and tweaking of these, not a re-write effort.  Immediate timeline, next three to four months; but every year do 1/5 of the standards.
• Have ad hoc team consolidate comments, identify most important for PIF.
• Debbie can keep track of review, revise schedule, give timeline, and provide PIF comments to the reviewers.
• Sub committee involved in this Laurel, Jane, Terry, David, Carol identify someone from the Western Working Group, Greg, Jina. Debbie send to all of us, Jina assemble comments and send to Debbie.
  • ACTION: how do we do this for the long term (March 2005 agenda item)
• This is legitimate role for PIF in the light of yesterday’s discussion on science/advocacy.
• Invite NRCS and FSA biologists to increase involvement in NABCI and PIF. 

 CWCS ONE YEAR OUT CONFERENCE, IAFWA/CORNELL PROJECT FOR STATES, Debbie

BACKGROUND

• All 56 completed by 1 October 2005.  Some states planning process at a point where local PIF can influence.  Most workshops are done now, but there may be a few in 2005). Reviews will be occurring; Debbie is working with Dave Chadwick of IAFWA to find a way to track these. 
• Debbie provided an overview of the process of working with the states and providing them with bird information and contacts. 
• States are required to add priority species to their plans. http://www.teaming.com/cwcs_species.htm
• Done a good job getting this information to the states.

DISCUSSION

• Getting information to the states is one thing but how they use it can be totally different.  Remember the level states have to integrate all of the systems, almost forced to take as systems level approach.  Time to visit with NatureServe and accept PIF prioritization process,
  • ACTION (SCIENCE COMMITTEE): This is also relevant for the federal plans because they consistently use Natureserve biotic levels (birds can get lost).
• One year out, develop final guidance from PIF, priority lists, statements.
• Need to remember what these planners that are faced with, need to convince these people that the world is like birds, can go into more detail about birds and follow the same process for other kinds of wildlife.  Birds can be a good leader, same process can be followed for all species of wildlife (e.g., Important fish areas, Important salamanders areas).
• Emphasis should be on inclusion of all birds within the plans.  Our influence as a model for other species assessment processes.
  • ACTION:  bird people working within a state continue to emphasize PIF and all bird species.  Debbie distribute hit list and contact appropriate people (working with Dave on where the states are and a potential hit list.  Send list of absolute items that need to be included to Debbie.
• Cornell product, approximately 600 pages, user guide with state information.  Working to get on the web, state strategy website, link to PIF.
  • FOLLOW-UP: Report and user’s guide are available at this link:

http://www.iafwa.org/bird_conservation/landbird_reports.htm  

--LUNCH-- 

USFS PUBLICATION, Jina Mariani

• “Working with Partners for Bird Conservation”
• Accomplishments for birds, National Forest system, research, list all of the programs.
• Web site, appendix (118 pages) with hundreds of projects USFS is doing for birds: 

o  http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/wildlife/bird_report_2004.pdf 

o  http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/wildlife/final_bar_app_a_2004.pdf

• Web site for Forest Service Wildlife Publications & Downloadable Files:

o  http://www.fs.fed.us/biology/resources/pubs/wildlife/

• Contact Jina if you would like copies of this document. 

STATE OF THE BIRDS, Greg Butcher

• Greg Butcher distributed reprints of the insert included in the October 2004 edition of Audubon Magazine.  The reprint and companion website (http://www.audubon.org/bird/stateofthebirds/) are intended to document key findings on a review of the status of 654 species and to identify policy implications.  Copies are available from Greg.
• Summarize watchlist species and declining species by habitat type.
• BBS trends and watchlist proportions. 
• Conservation has worked well in wetlands.
• Planning on analyzing Christmas Bird Count data, identifying inconsistencies, in full cooperation with Patuxent, self analysis through statistically rigorous methods and serve to web so people can use the data.
• Strong message for need for conservation on grasslands and shrublands.
• Assessment of threats section
• Want to get Audubon more involved in PIF and other initiatives, Greg is the point person for this.
• Interim team guiding science, 5 people, being run by committee until someone hired to fill director of science.   

FOLLOWUP FROM YESTERDAY – CalPIF and Need for Advocacy

• Need for advocacy will always be there; what do we do when these issues arise
• Strong sense of group – PIF has persisted because direct advocacy is something that we have avoided in the past (planning phase).  However, now in implementation phase; faced with different situations, need to get PIF views heard.
• PIF needs to make sure BCA is successful. We need to get the information to BCA. 
• Can’t differentiate science from advocacy; it is a continuum.  Every question is different, not able to identify a threshold along the continuum, have to exercise good judgment as go along.   
• Nothing is gained by having anything written. 
• CalPIF process is for CalPIF internal use only – not to be distributed any further. 
• Hatch Act applies to all federal employees; cannot lobby.
• Various avenues for advocacy exist (e.g., BCA). 
• Not just an issue for federal agencies, an issue about the partnership. PIF is a partnership and its role is to provide sound scientific information.
• National PIF is looking out for the long term welfare of the partnership. However, National PIF cannot mandate the actions of state or regional PIF groups, but each group needs to keep in mind that they are part of a larger partnership.
  • FOLLOW-UP: CalPIF Executive Steering Committee met in November. Revised process was discussed, and comments requested. Cal PIF is in the process of determining a final outcome, which will be used for internal purposes only.
   

Next meeting—14 and 15 march 2005.

Probable location: Patuxent National Wildlife Visitors Center, Laurel MD

ADJOURN:  2:00  

ITEMS FOR THE COUNCIL

• Report on PIF assessment update
• Memo from Council regarding updated assessment, dropping support for physiographic areas
• Advocacy and PIF, role of Bird Conservation Alliance 

IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE ACTION ITEMS

• Contact Sue Bonfield about PIF pins in IMBD catalog (Chris)
• Investigate best ways mechanism for PIF input into IMBD theme (Chris)
• Put IAFWA/Cornell state species assessments on web, with user’s guide (Debbie Hahn)
• Update Bird Conservation directory
  • Send out current organization/agency listing (David Pashley)
  • Compile revisions, additions to organization/agency listings (org/agency contacts identified in minutes)
• Brainstorm ways to make Integration Committee beneficial to IC members (Jina Mariani)
• Summary of key items and decisions passed through IAFWA committees relevant to Implementation and Science Committees (Terry)  

ITEMS FOR SPRING 2005 PIF IC MEETING

• IMBD theme – request input from PIF (IC, listserve)
• Report on ASWM meeting (October 2004)
• How can PIF provide for review of National Conservation Standards on regular basis
• GAP – status, history, how can PIF use it 

Attendance