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

15-16 March 2004

Turnball NWR, Cheney, Washington 

Introductions, 0800

See below for the attendance list. 

Welcome to Turnbull NWR, Ronnie

Turnbull National Wildlife Refuge is located on the eastern edge of the Columbia Basin, in Spokane County in eastern Washington.  Turnbull Refuge was established in 1937 and is approximately 16,000 acres in size.  The Refuge is situated within the “Channeled Scablands,” an area formed by glacial floods at the end of the last ice age.  Refuge ecosystems represent an ecological transition between the dry, sagebrush dotted grasslands of the Columbia Basin and the timbered Selkirk and Bitteroot Mountain Ranges that rise up to the east.  The 3,036 acres of wetlands on Turnbull NWR represent some of the last quality breeding habitat available in eastern Washington for waterfowl.  For more information see their website:  http://turnbull.fws.gov. 

Washington's shrub steppe avifauna: perched on the edge in a changing landscape, Matt Vander Haegen, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

• 50% of Washington’s shrub steppe habitat has been lost.  The rate of conversion has been rapid.
• Brewer’s sparrow, sage thrasher, sage sparrow and others are associated with this habitat type and are heavily impacted by fragmentation (e.g., conversion, livestock grazing, exotic weeds, wildfire, etc.).  
• Species are associated with different soil types.  Abundant species for loamy soils include sage sparrow, Brewer’s sparrow, sage thrasher, and western meadowlark.  Abundant species for shallow soils include mourning dove, sage thrasher and western meadowlark.  Loggerhead shrike is abundant on sandy soils.
• Research findings for seasonal nest success found fewer females fledging young in fragmented areas. 
• Where these species being pushed to the edge?  Fewer areas were occupied and at lower densities and fewer birds were produced per unit area. 
• Established a study based on the conservation reserve program.  48 study sites, 6 treatments and 8 replicates.  Old CRP (pre-1998) cropland landscape had non-native plantings of crested wheatgrass and intermediate wheatgrass with few shrubs remaining and located far from source habitat.  Old CRP shrubs steppe landscape with non-native plantings, shrubs often present and adjacent to source habitat.  New CRP cropland landscape has a mix of native and non-native plantings (e.g., bluebunch wheatgrass, yarrow, and big sagebrush) with shrubs present and tracts located far from source habitat.  New CRP shrub steppe landscape had mixed plantings, young sagebrush, and was adjacent to source habitat.  Shrub steppe cropland landscape was a big sagebrush/ bunchgrass community far from source habitat.  Shrub steppe shrub steppe landscape was a big sagebrush/bunch grass community adjacent to source habitat. 
• A higher diversity of species was found in the scrub steppe types.  A higher number of birds were counted in the CRP.  Highest numbers of nests were found in CRP. 
• This study will continue for the next two years and will include small mammal and reptile surveys.

North American Grouse Management Plan, Mike Schroeder

• The North American Grouse Management Plan is a partnership among public agencies, private organizations, and individuals to conserve, restore and enhance the habitats necessary to support self-sustaining populations of grouse throughout North America.
• Examples from history illustrate that these species were and continue to be important culturally.  But, interest is waning due to declining harvest levels, non-migratory nature, and shift in interest to introduced species.  In Europe, grouse populations are in trouble because they are running out of habitat and what is left of the existing landscapes are not able to support viable populations (e.g., red grouse).
• Grouse not only have great value in and of themselves, they serve as umbrellas for other species, as flagships for ecosystems, and bring more traditional hunter-wildlifers together with less traditional birders and biodiversity proponents. Of the 11 species of North American grouse, 5 are on the PIF Watch List and 4 are Stewardship Species. 
• Vision for grouse is to restore, maintain, and enhance the habitats necessary to support self-sustaining populations of North American grouse.
• North American Grouse Partnership was formed in 1999.  A partnership among public agencies, private organization, and individuals is critical because grouse are dependent upon vast landscapes of high quality habitat.   The development of a grouse plan is a major goal of the partnership. 
• The draft will be distributed this week and a final is expected next year.   The plan uses population sizes, trends and status, range maps and links to BCRs.  It also identifies challenges and opportunities.  The focus at the landscape level. 

Brief Updates                                                                                               

2003 PIF Award winners, Chris Eberly

List of winners:

• Leadership— C. J. Ralph, USFS, for the Klamath Demographic Monitoring Network.  Tim Burr, DOD, for the conservation, protection and management of sensitive avian species on military lands in the western United States, including Hawaii.
• Stewardship—  Marjorie Schock Derrick, for using USFWS Communication Tower Construction Guidelines to make County law to save birds.  Steve Lowrimore, for the conservation of Swallow-tailed Kites in the Gulf Hammock region of Florida and the Southeast
• Public Awareness—  Merrie Morrison, American Bird Conservancy, for continued excellence in the production of Bird Conservation Magazine.
• Investigations—  Peter Blancher, Bird Studies Canada and Canadian Wildlife Service, for technical and mapping contributions to the North American Landbird Conservation Plan.  The Institute for Bird Populations, for developing and implementing landbird conservation strategies by modeling.  Kirtland's Warbler Training and Research Project, for conserving the Kirtland's Warbler, the Bahamas' most elusive bird.

• USFWS will recognize the authors of the Continental Plan for their contribution during the awards ceremony this week. 

North American Landbird Conservation Plan, Terry Rich

• The Plan is complete and is ready for distribution!

Asilomar, CJ Ralph

• The proceedings should be out this summer.  At this time of the 800 papers, 200 are in and have been edited.   Final proofs to authors were distributed on Wednesday.   Funding is still an issue and need about $10,000 in additional funds.

PIF Support (budget was distributed), Terry

• The budget was reviewed for additions and changes.  Annual expenses and items will be discussed further during the Council meeting.
• Discussion:  database needs more tracking, 2000 hits a week, who are they?  The possibility for future database funding has been identified as a national conservation need within a multi-state funding grant.  Assuming this level of funding is granted on an annual basis, we need a written description of a process to determine priorities. 

Strategic Plan and Organizational Document, Terry

• Both of these documents are on the back burner pending other high priority tasks.  It has been a year since an update occurred.
• Discussion:  Proposal to post on the web as a working document.  Need to add resource needs, fulfilling Federal Agency request for a business plan.   The Strategic Plan was the focus of the Winston-Salem meeting and produced a list of expectations and deliverables some of which have been completed.   We need to have the ability to demonstrate that some work on the top items has occurred.  Possibility package and tie to the budget request.  Organizational document also needs to be finalized for the website. 

PIF Population Estimates Review by USGS, Janet Ruth

• Solicited input from each list serve on the national level role for the Research Working Group.  Many comments focused on what had not worked before and what other things could be done.  Janet will serve as a catalyst for ad hoc groups and two examples were given. 
• First, develop a workshop to review and give guidance to the population estimates in the Continental Plan.  USGS will take a role in this effort and Melinda Knutson is willing to organize a workshop in Lacrosse Wisconsin in May.  The goal is to form a PIF population estimation review team of invited biometricians from USGS, USFS, states, and academia.  A report of recommendations to PIF and a peer-reviewed publication will be produced.

Research Issues (attachment distributed), Janet

• Research Needs Crosswalk was distributed and is intended to be a tool to identify research priorities instead of just research needs.  One objective of this would be to crosswalk between the species listed in the PIF Continental Plan and the PIF Research and Monitoring Needs Database.   An effort needs to be made to make sure that research needs are completed for the highest priority watch list species.  This was discussed briefly and a group was identified to discuss further outside of this meeting.

Web site (attachment distributed), Janet

• Bottom line is that the website needs to be updated for USGS to continue to host.
• Janet reviewed the entire website and produced a 6 page document highlighting recommendations for improving the site. 
• An effort needs to be made to make items static in order for the site to be maintenance free or link to another site where we do not have the responsibility to update.  Someone needs to be paid full time to maintain an all bird website. 

Bird Funding Coalition, David Pashley

• The President’s budget recommendations for birds are pretty good:  $54 mil for NAWCA (increase of 12 million); $4 NMBCA (most that it’s been funded), recommendation from coalition to fund fully at $5; $11.6 for FY05 JV – move up to target; SWG at $80 mil – TWW lobbying for $125; Migratory Bird Office/FWS – 4.5 million increase but still 2.5 million shortfall to maintain traditional programs (earmarks result in continued shortfall) – coalition arguing to add that 2.5, FWS is still planning to review traditional surveys and address priorities (e.g., PIF needs, T. Rich support, J. Wheeler, PRISM), IAFWA moving request to 4.5 million.
• Need to articulate PIF activities in MBM budget.

FWS Migratory Bird Strategic Plan, David

• A final draft will be available this week and the implementation plan will follow outlining specific actions.  See http://www.fws.gov.

NABCI, David

• JV accountability is an emerging and growing issue.  PIF has entrusted the JV’s with achieving our objectives. 
• Discussion:  need support for the wall-to-wall report, this report generated a great deal of discussion and accomplished its mission; there was unanimous support for BCR’s and the focus of the majority of the comments was on the map; accountability and standardization need to be separate issues as approaches are different across the country. 

NMBCA, Terry

• 139 proposals with a total request of $12 million but only have $4 million.  This is the third year and the total number of applications is declining but except submission to increase with increased funding. 
• Congressman Kind is working with the coalition on the reauthorization of NMBCA 25 million with reduced match for Latin America of 1:1; match in US and Canada is 2:1 (in kind); 50% to US/Can and 50% to Latin America once the funding level reaches a certain level; this maybe introduces in summer 2004.  These potential actions make the NMBCA a much more useful act.  The match can be in-kind.

Western Hemisphere Migratory Species Conference, Terry

• Held in conjunction with the NOC and work continues to move forward. 
• Countries of the western hemisphere identified needs, partners respond to those needs, developing a matrix with needs and capacity.  A follow up meeting with dates to be announced was proposed.

Rapid Vegetation Assessment for point count sites, Terry

• Reviewing what has been done and identifying a single assessment process. 

Best Management Practices Series for Landbirds, Terry

• On Terry’s high priority list and he is working on how to develop a series of one- pagers based on the Continental Plan. 

Status of Mexican avifauna assessment, Terry

• Workshops are on-going and when finished priority species will be added to the Continental Plan.  Discussions will occur between Mexican biologists and the Science Committee.

New Migratory Bird Training Course, Terry

• A comprehensive course developed by FWS that targets their employees but could be expanded to other agencies. 
• Topics include:  MBTA, permits, JV’s, law enforcement, flyways, partnerships, etc.

Mesoamerican PIF Conference, Terry

• We are planning a PIF meeting in conjunction with the Mesoamerican Society for Conservation and Biology,15-19 November, Managua, Nicaragua.

Flying WILD, Terry

• The Council for Environmental Education has developed Flying WILD: An Educator’s Guide to Celebrating Birds.   PIF has been invited to review
• More information can be found at: http://www.projectwild.org/flying_wild/overview.htm
• Discussion:  could this be linked to the PIF website?  Bird Id will soon be available and have a link to the PIF site: http://www.partnersinflight.org/pifother.htm           

North American Migration Network: Exciting Challenges, John Alexander

• John outlined the history and future plans for the North American Migration Monitoring network.  The purpose is to increase the understanding of the entire life history of migrants as well as facilitate cooperation on international conservation efforts. The network is working to coordinate the efforts of individual monitoring stations and regional bird monitoring efforts.  The network will make broad-scale analyses of habitat use patterns, stopover ecology, and migratory connectivity more feasible.  Klamath Bird Observatory has recently begun allocating funds toward the development of the network. 
• Three general steps were identified:  identify and enlist cooperators, archive and compile data, and make results widely available.
• More information on the Klamath Bird Observatory can be found at: http://www.klamathbird.org
• Objective today is to gain feedback. 
• Discussion:  is this the direction we want to move? Current focus is on landbirds. 

Protecting North America's Boreal Forest and its Birds, Lane Nothman

• The U.S. Boreal Songbird Network has been formed to raise awareness in the U.S. about the importance of the boreal forest to migratory birds.  More information can be found at:  www.borealbirds.org
• North American’s boreal forest is one of the largest forest ecosystems left on earth.  80% of the world’s forests have been lost.  The boreal contains almost 25% of the Earth’s remaining forests.  Size:  two million square miles of wood and wetlands, 1.3 billion acres.
• September 23, 2003 edition of the NY Times highlighted the importance of the boreal forest ecosystem to birds.  One-third of all North America’s landbirds fly north to nest in the boreal each spring, more than 40% of waterfowl nest there, 14 species of landbirds breed in the boreal, etc.
• This region is under siege with less than 8% currently protected. Logging, agriculture, oil and gas, and hydro-electric development are pushing northward and threatening the landscape, the wildlife and people.  20% of the boreal has already been developed.
• In some areas of the boreal, forested land is being lost at rates similar to those in the tropical rain forests (87 percent per year). Timber companies in Canada cut approximately 2.5 million acres of timber per year, 90% of which is clearcut.  At this rate, it won’t be long before the boreal joins the ranks of the “once-great” forests.
• Historic efforts are now underway in Canada.  In early December 2003, the “Boreal Framework” was announced. It is an initiative by First Nations, Industry and Conservation groups to protect 50% of the boreal forest and sustainable manage the other half through such practices as FSC certification.  If it succeeds Canada will define a new model for large-scale conservation and resource management.
• 80% of Canada’s forest products are exported to the U.S. Almost 2/3 of the trees cut by the forest industry in Canada’s boreal are used to make paper including catalogs, tissue and toilet paper, junk mail, magazines and newspapers. With the majority of exports coming to the United States, engaged citizens and corporations can exert pressure to bring about responsible stewardship and good decision-making.
• 80% of the boreal is still intact.  Historic efforts are now underway to craft a new model for large-scale conservation and resource management.  Eleven groups have endorsed this initiative to date. 
• Bird Conservation magazine devoted the June 2003 issue to The Boreal Forest:  Breeding Bird Bounty.

 Habitat and Population Objectives: Coordinating with Partners at all Landscape Scales, Mike Green

• Fulfilling the Promise:  In 2000, a team of employees from the refuge system, migratory birds, and fisheries programs was chartered to develop a process to bring existing objectives from the national to the refuge level for the conservation of wildlife populations, habitats and biodiversity.
• The three parts of our charge come from recommendations WH-1, WH-2, and WH-3 of the Promises Document.  WH-1: Wildlife Population Objectives, WH-2: Wildlife Habitat Objectives, (WH-3:  Biodiversity Objectives).  Geographic Scales:  National, Regional, Ecosystem, Individual Refuge
• Team Charter:  recommend a process to help refuges use goals and objectives in national or regional plans to:  focus refuge management appropriately, assist the NWRS in fulfilling mandates and contribute optimally to conservation of wildlife populations, wildlife habitat, and biodiversity in North America, and help  guide strategic growth of the Refuge System.
• The process requires biological and GIS expertise.  GIS is used to delineate the habitat and identify the amount of habitat in conservation estate.  Illustrated progress with a wood thrush example.
• Status:  Just completed internal review – initiating outside peer review; Washington Office coordinator (Dirck Byler) hired to help establish process; Biological Landscape Team developed; some Regions received funds to kick-off finalize this process and integrate with ongoing efforts, e.g. R1 is considering implementing process in coastal OR/WA, in coordination with Refuge CCPs; working to integrate with other ecoregion planning efforts, State Comprehensive Conservation Strategies, TNC ecoregional planning.
• This is not something that the refuge system wants, or can, do alone. National Wildlife Refuges are numerous but small in most parts of the country.  By itself, the System cannot hope to provide the habitat needed for conservation of fish, wildlife and plants. However, we do have an important role to play and by working together with our state, federal and private partners we can achieve great things.   We are working within the FWS to integrate this with other programs (like PIF and Joint Ventures) and hope that we can focus the dialog with our partners when the plan is available for review.
• Discussion:  relying on PIF for goals and objectives; need to agree on starting points and assumptions; continue to work on NE portion of nation; refuges are taking this on and applying this thinking at the planner level. 

Update on IAFWA/Cornell Project for States, Debbie Hahn

• User guides are being developed for stepping down PIF priorities and objectives to state and BCRs.  The content will include the following: PIF Priority species list for each state and BCR, population estimate (from N. Am. Plan) for each state and BCR, population objectives and numerical targets, habitat objectives, and research and monitoring needs.
• Debbie outlined the process with the Connecticut example. 
• Population Estimates:  Continental (global) estimate (PIF Plan); Pop (BCR) = BBS relative abundance (corrected) X Area; Pop (state) = proportion of BCR(s) in state, weighted by BBS relative abundance in State/BCR(s).
• Population objectives and targets:  Continental objectives, If PT = 5 (50% decline), Double population If PT = 4 (15-50% decline), Increase 50%; If PT = 3 (unknown trend), Increase 10%; If PT = 1, 2 (stable, increase), Maintain population.  Use continental or local (BCR/State) trends to determine objectives??
• Habitat Objectives: How much habitat needed to support target population?  Use local density and habitat relationships data.  How much new/improved habitat needed to increase population?  Proportion of BCR habitat objective? Use Habitat Assessment approach (Watts).  Apply to habitat-species suites.
• Habitat Objectives: Connecticut example:  350,000 Ha. of deciduous forest needed to support 208,000 Wood Thrushes, with 12,500 Ha. suitable for 7,400 Worm-eating Warblers, etc.  20,000 Ha. of shrubland and pine barrens needed to support 39,000 Eastern Towhees, with 4,500 Ha. suitable to support 8,800 Field Sparrows, etc.
• Delivery should occur to the states in a few weeks.  This has to occur quickly for states to use in CWCS’s.   

Summary of Issues at Port Aransas, Randy Dettmers

• Purpose and Objectives of Workshop:  review background and development of the landbird, shorebird, and waterbird continental plans; discuss continental (BBS) and local/regional derivation of population estimates and how they can inform one another to develop better estimates; discuss how population objectives can be used in the development of habitat objectives; and discuss how to coordinate planning and implementation within and among geographic areas.
• Workshop process for population objectives:  breakout groups for four different species were formed and tasked with assessing continental population objectives, comparing to local numbers, identifying if percentages of targets were currently being met.
• Overview of breakout:  BBS numbers differed from local estimates, but with changes in correction factors, they were brought closer together; local estimates also have biases.
  •  BBS numbers should still be used!
  •  Planning efforts are under way and need information.
  •  BBS numbers are a tool - a starting point which will be improved through time.
  •  Importance of sharing information across boundaries.
  •  Science Committee should continue to produce tools and information – regional/state working groups use this information.
  •  How do we fund technical information development and exchange in the future?  (BBS, RMBO, Science Committee).
  • More comparisons of local estimates with continental numbers.
  •  Science Committee feedback loop: Refine continental #s based on local data and better monitoring to refine continental objectives.
  •  Move ahead with implementation and look at objectives for suites of species with similar habitat needs.
  •  Evaluate the need for a time of season correction.
• Workshop process for habitat objectives: breakout groups tasked with identification and application of population objectives to determine habitat objectives.  Each group was provided a list of questions used by the Western Working Group as a jumping off point. 
• Overview of habitat breakout:  Suggestion that PIF should develop a general process for deriving habitat objectives within context of regional biological planning and landscape design.
• The group agreed on five important components of a process. 
  • Characterize the ability of the landscape in its current condition to support and sustain bird populations.  The characterization should also provide the capacity to assess the relative contributions of different land parcels to meet objectives most efficiently.
  • Model bird population response to landscape change and land management.  E.g., how do species respond to changes in block size, edge effect, interconnectivity of parcels, landscape context, or specific management practices (silvaculture, prescribed burning regimes)?
  • Conduct a strategic assessment of conservation opportunities in terms of land ownership and management potential (something similar to the patch-based GIS approach demonstrated by Bryan Watts in the Northeast).
  • Develop synthetic models (conservation strategies and landscape design) that integrate species or species suites, landscape capability, and opportunity cost (economics) to propose optimal landscape solutions.
  • Monitoring and Evaluation
• For more detail see minutes from the workshop see attachment at the end of these minutes.  

The 4-Step Process – Long-term from Port Aransas, Tom Will

• Stepping forward population objectives, a PIF endorsed process for conservation delivery.  Improving efficiency and expanding outreach through the application of model-based biological planning.
• Why invest in model-based biological planning?
  • Increases the probability of doing the right things in the right places, efficiency, cost effectiveness, and credibility;  
  • When done properly, biological planning is transparent and defensible;
  • Explicitly defines assumptions in management decision processes, Provides a context for monitoring and research, Strategic growth of the biological foundation;
  • Enables efficient attainment of objectives for multiple groups of birds, other wildlife, and other socio-economic functions and values of habitat management;
  • A science-based community strategy for conservation can lead to greater reach and influence for bird conservationists.
• Tom reviewed several different projects that fall under each of the 5-steps of the process identified in Port Aransas. 

PIF Integration Committee, Eric Lawton

• Eric discussed the progress of the Integration and Implementation Committee.  Development of a user’s guide is needed to explain the federal planning process with identifiable points for input.  A tracking system of what items need comment is also needed.  Comments received from outside an agency usually provide more punch (i.e., from a state).   A real need exists to be proactive in this process and to make sure that PIF objectives are being integrated into federal agency activities.
• Discussion:  USFS plan revisions really start in 2006; NV debate over defining delivery role, i.e., who signs, this may be different for each state; NPS mechanism of the Executive MOU has disappeared but a great concept.
• Goal of the 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). 

Tuesday, 16 March 2004

 Coordinated Bird Monitoring, Jon Bart

• The majority of the day was spent reviewing the status of CBM and commenting on the current set of recommendations.  A document was generated that summarized the actions identified in order to meet the monitoring needs outlined in the Continental Plan.  These items were presented to various IAFWA Committees during the week.
• The actions fall under four general categories:  data management, improving monitoring of species that cannot be covered by the BBS, reduction of bias in the BBS, and programmatic improvements. 
  • Data management:  1) an ongoing project to compile information on current monitoring programs should be continued and completed.  2) recommends that we begin a task of melding data from primary monitoring programs to improve our capacity to address important questions.
  • Monitoring projects: 3) recommend an increased commitment to migration monitoring. 
  • Reduction of Bias in the BBS:  4) recommends instituting an investigation of the influence of bias based on the fact that the BBS is conducted on roadsides.  5) Recommends addressing bias based on the relationship between timing of BBS surveys and bird movement and activity patterns.
  • Programmatic improvements: 6) all aspects of monitoring can be improved through greater levels of coordination. 
• Discussion:  need to identify the role of the IC to implement these items, discussion of the details of each is the role of the Monitoring Working Group; need a context of why these items are important and an understanding of what each item is about; need to make sure these items are the highest priorities for the next 1.5 year and match with the Continental Plan priorities; need to identify the costs associated with each item; possibility to integrate into state CWCS’s as monitoring and evaluation is a required element of the strategies, and the level of detail may vary by state.
• Editorial note:  The Monitoring Working Group has been working steadily for a couple of years now, and numerous aspects of the monitoring framework are coming to fruition.  Importantly, Directors of the FWS and USGS are jointly recommending agency participation in an ad hoc bird monitoring technical working group to be established under the IAFWA Science and Research Committee.  This working group will address technical and operational issues involved in coordinated bird monitoring, building on efforts by biologists on behalf of PIF, NABCI, and others to date.  A report is due in September 2004.                       

Items for PIF Council and IAFWA Committees, Laurel and Terry

• Cost recovery for the North American Landbird Conservation Plan.
• Endorsement of the Continental Plan.
• PIF support budget.
• CBM identify specific products and discussion of the new IAFWA committee. 

Next meeting:  26-27 September, Cape May. 

Adjourn: 1530 

Attendees: 

PARTNERS IN FLIGHT:

BIRD POPULATION OBJECTIVES WORKSHOP

Port Aransas, Texas

4-6 February 2004 

Purpose and Objectives of Workshop:

1)      review background and development of the landbird, shorebird, and waterbird continental plans

2)      discuss continental (BBS) and local/regional derivation of population estimates and how they can inform one another to develop better estimates

3)      discuss how population objectives can be used in the development of habitat objectives

4)      discuss how to coordinate planning and implementation within and among geographic areas 

Why are biological objectives important to conservation work?

Paul Robertson – TPWD.  Much bird implementation work will take place from within states, through efforts organized or coordinated by the state agencies.  Bird conservation strategies, including biological objectives, are critical for inclusion into the upcoming state conservation plans, as there may not be another chance like this for a long time.

Charles Baxter – LMJV. Population objectives take conservation in a distinctly different direction than other objectives, toward the concept of landscape sustainability through the use of sound science and measurable goals.  Ecoregional and landscape-scale objectives are key elements to the success of any landscape-scale wildlife management and conservation programs.  Good objectives should all have the following components: Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Realistic, Time Frame.

Geoff Geupel - PRBO.  Biological objectives can a) guide restoration and management b) prioritize and evaluate projects for funding, c) inform decisions support tools. Three major types of Biological Objectives can be identified, those that identify and concentrate on: 1) Focal species (as measures of diversity), 2) Population size (by bioregion), and 3) Demographic parameters (e.g., survivorship by bioregion).  Geoff presented an excellent example of how these objectives are being applied in CA  

PIF North American Landbird Plan - Ken Rosenberg

Ken gave the complete background of the PIF Landbird Plan. 

The Continental, State and BCR Population Estimates come from intensive analysis of BBS data, mainly from the last decade of the 20^th Century (for conformity and statistical rigor).  Several conversion factors based on detectability for each species have been developed.  The determination of area sampled on each BBS route (and thus estimated density) varies by species.  

Population estimates can be calculated for each of several different polygons (State, province, BCR, etc.) depending on your needs. 

Note:  Population objectives for each state are based on population trend, NOT on population estimates, for the past 30 years.  Critical reminder! 

Stepping-down and Stepping-up (Stepping Forward!)  Landbird Population Objectives.  Examples from the Northeast and West  -- Ken Rosenberg and Larry Neel 

Stepping down PIF objectives to states and BCRs

• PIF Priority species list for each state and BCR
• Population estimate (from N. Am. Plan) for each state and BCR
• Population objectives and targets
• Habitat objectives
• Research and monitoring needs 

Habitat Objectives

• How much habitat needed to support target population? (Use local density and habitat relationships data)
• How much new/improved habitat needed to increase population?
• Proportion of BCR habitat objective?
• Use Habitat Assessment approach (Watts)
• Apply to habitat-species suites 

Discussion:

- A key question in the issue of population and habitat objectives is “how much, by when?”

- Performance monitoring is a critical component of any habitat management / conservation program.  Due to resource limitations, we must identify a few focal species and then determine the trajectory (trend) of the population, monitor the most sensitive or highest priority species, and assume that many other species are benefiting by those actions.

- The Next Generation of PIF may entail work on just the migration habitats and on the wintering distributions if our management / conservation efforts on the breeding grounds don’t show population enhancements.

- Regional and state priority species will be included in management plans of each state and BCR.  Trading “bird credits” (Jane Fitzgerald) is where one state or BCR trades credits (e.g. habitat creation projects and overall habitat created) with the adjacent state or BCR. This is where we all coordinate for the overall management of bird populations and need to be talking to one another. 

Adaptive Management is intolerant of stupidity but highly tolerant of ignorance (and we ain’t stupid) Charles Baxter 2004

Why try to manage at such a large scale?  Because our society expects more than just to maintain a minimum viable population of birds.  They want to witness and appreciate the whole spectrum of the avian spectacle. 

Bird Species Breakouts - Larry Neel and Carol Beardmore

Breakouts to discuss population estimates and objectives, using four focal species: Long-billed Curlew, Loggerhead Shrike, Cerulean Warbler, and Little Blue Heron.

Real bird examples were used with the understanding that this was an exercise and the purpose was to work through the process of moving forward with continental level objectives.  Each breakout group was to review the pair and detection distance correction factors for their species, assess how locally derived estimates compare to the continental estimate, identify all of the assumptions for each method, and discuss whether the population trend and objectives are reasonable. 

Discussion

Two of the four species (Loggerhead Shrike and Long-billed Curlew) had numbers that were significantly off.  BBS numbers are useful, but local information can be more accurate.  The BBS numbers should still be used since planning efforts are on-going and they need information.  The BBS numbers are a tool... a starting point which will be continually improved through time. 

This exercise highlighted the importance of sharing information across state and regional boundaries.  Participants learned a lot about a species by sharing information with their neighbors. 

The PIF Science Committee should continue to produce tools and information.  Local working group is where the rubber hits the road, and will use the information that is supplied by the Science Committee. 

Technical information development and exchange.  BBS and RMBO are under funded, but for regular updates and maintenance of the databases, money is needed.  Joint Venture Coordinators and other land managers need this information, but there is no funding mechanism in place to maintain the databases 

Action Items

·            BBS numbers are a starting point, but local and regional estimates need to be compared with continental estimates (could derive new estimates in some cases).

·            Science Team feedback loop:  refinement of CP numbers based upon local data and monitoring resulting in adjustment of CP objectives

·            Need to move ahead with implementation strategies and look at objectives for suites of species with similar habitats

·            Time of season correction factors need to be evaluated 

Presentations on several examples of developing and evaluating habitat objectives based on population objectives 

Landscape Characterization and Assessment Models: The Derivation of Habitat Objectives.  (Randy Wilson et al.)

Characterization of the landscape to support populations at prescribed levels; an assessment of historic and projected habitat change; and an assessment of restoration, protection, and management potential and priorities. 

MVP Minimum Viable Population (essential for biological objectives to be established).   Assumptions need to be made up front, with reasoning which is defined from parameters from the scientific literature.

NLCD National Land Cover Data is valuable because it is standardized across state and BCR lines and is available for free.  GAP data is valuable, but is not seamless across state and BCR boundaries (too difficult to seamlessly integrate the biological information). 

In a nutshell, the following process is recommended (based upon the West Gulf Coastal Plain and the Lower Mississippi Valley JVs): 

1)  Determine acreage and type of habitat available across the landscape.  A buffer of a certain width may be needed to isolate the core habitat (issues of predation, parasitism, etc.).   

2)  Based upon locally derived population densities (# individuals per unit area within each habitat), get the population density for the avian species of concern. 

3)  Determine total population estimate for the area (multiply total acreage by the density figure). 

4) How many birds are needed in your area to ensure a minimum viable population (MVP) exists for that species (taking into account stochastic events as well as other unforeseen threats)? 

5)  Determine what habitat objectives are needed (spatially explicit) to get to your population goal for each of the species under your management planning area. How will you get to the avian population goal? What land management prescriptions will be required? What are the historical habitats? Issues to consider are: Acreage required in an ideal world; what is the Configuration in juxtaposition with the hostile environments across the landscape; and what are the Habitats that are the highest priority?  Work with your partners (private landowners, USFWS Refuges, DU wetlands, State Parks and similar groups, NAWCA, etc.) to achieve the habitat objectives.

Population Objectives for Continental Bird Conservation: Considerations from a biological planning perspective, Tom Will, Mark Koneff, and Rex Johnson

Form follows Function.  What are we trying to achieve by creating objectives in the first place? 

Functions of Population Objectives:

1)  Communication and Marketing Devices

2)  Foundation for Conservation Strategies

3)  Performance Metrics for Evaluating Accomplishments and Planning Assumptions  

Good objectives should have two components.  One is a population component (p1 Objective) to get at answering what is the total population that you are striving for on the landscape?

and Second is a response component (p2 Objective) such as a recruitment, productivity, or survivorship rate. 

Conclusions:

1)  The most useful population objectives are more complex than simple statements of desired abundance.

2)  Population objectives must incorporate useful performance indicators.

3)  As performance indicators, objectives and monitoring must be explicitly integrated B objectives must be expressed in terms that match existing or planned monitoring programs.

4)  Objectives must be robust to uncontrolled environmental factors for regional population objective; this includes changes in habitat in other areas of a species annual range.

 Evaluating PIF Partnership Land in the Mid-Atlantic Region: Converting Conservation Plans into Conservation Actions, Randy Dettmers, Bryan Watts, and Ken Rosenberg 

Bryan Watts has developed a patch-based GIS analysis to determine where on the landscape objectives can be met for priority species, who owns the habitat patches, how much of the objective can be met on PIF-collective-owned lands, and how to optimize meeting objectives for groups of species with conflicting habitat needs. 

In the Mid-Atlantic region, Bryan Watts has implemented a status assessment and local action planning process that incorporates these elements, based on a patch-based GIS analysis:

1.                   Identify all land holdings of PIF Partners within the region.

2.                   Identify land managers / contacts for partner-owned lands.

3.                   Assess partnership lands with respect to designated priority habitats.

4.                   Conduct status evaluation of PIF-owned lands relative to regional conservation goals – how much does the partnership manage compared to the regional goal?

5.                   Develop parcel-specific recommendations to advance local management toward achieve regional conservation goals 

Part of the status evaluation process involves developing bird-habitat relationship models that allow for translating regional population objectives into regional habitat objectives based on ecological parameters such as local densities and area sensitivity. 

The fundamental conservation actions that take place at the local management level include increasing amount of protected habitat, create/restore habitat, and improve habitat quality. 

Ways to use this kind of status assessment most effectively and efficiently include:

“Money in the Bank” get the most out of partnership lands by improving habitat quality

“Convert the Heathen” recruit nonmember institutional land holders into the partnership

“Surgical Strikes” communicate with all partners involved and work on the habitats most in need of habitat conversion or improvements 

Bird Species / Habitat Objectives Breakout Sessions 

A suggested was made that PIF should work toward developing a process that derives habitat objectives within the context of regional biological planning and landscape design, which resulted in the following conceptual process…. 

WHAT APPROACH SHOULD WE RECOMMEND FOR TRANSLATING POPULATION OBJECTIVES INTO SPATIALLY EXPLICIT HABITAT OBJECTIVES?

The group agreed on four important components of a process.  The components are somewhat logically ordered, but are not necessarily sequential—that is, they could be developed concurrently.  For the most part, these steps are best accomplished via spatially-explicit decision support systems. Partners should be involved at all stages and scales—since strategic decisions are made at all stages and scales.  

THE FOUR STEPS

1.      Characterize the ability of the landscape in its current condition to support and sustain bird populations.  The characterization should also provide the capacity to assess the relative contributions of different land parcels to meet objectives most efficiently.

2.      Model bird population response to landscape change and land management.  E.g., how do species respond to changes in block size, edge effect, interconnectivity of parcels, landscape context, or specific management practices (silvaculture, prescribed burning regimes)?

3.      Conduct a strategic assessment of conservation opportunities in terms of land ownership and management potential (something similar to the patch-based GIS approach demonstrated by Bryan Watts in the Northeast).

4.      Develop synthetic models (conservation strategies and landscape design) that integrate species or species suites, landscape capability, and opportunity cost (economics) to propose optimal landscape solutions.

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