|
|
Home || What
is PIF? || Que
es Compañeros en Vuelo? || Bird
Conservation Planning || PIF
Resources |
|
PARTNERS
IN FLIGHT 22-23 March 2000 – Illinois State Beach Resort Attendees: Scott Armentrout, Carol Beardmore, Karen Blakney, Mike
Carter, Dan Casey, Dave Davis, Chris Eberly, George Fenwick, Jane Fitzgerald,
Bob Ford, Megan Hill, Marshall Howe, Eric Lawton, Keith McKnight, Dave Mehlman, Tony Melchiors, Merrie
Morrison, Gary Myers, David Pashley,
Cyndi Perry, C.J. Ralph, Ken Rosenberg, Janet Ruth, Steve Sheffield, Jeff Wells,
E.J. Williams Chair EJ Williams called the meeting to order NABCI
NABCI Update – David Pashley.
The US NABCI Committee has created Federal Agency and NGO Subcommittees,
adding their co-chairs (Forest Service and American Bird Conservancy) to the
national committee. That Committee has met twice and will meet again in Chicago.
It has approved the BCR map, and has advanced the Vision document close
to finalization. All parts of NABCI concentrate on increasing the resources
available for bird conservation. NABCI NGO
Subcommittee – George Fenwick. Over
three meetings, the Subcommittee is still feeling its way as to its function.
On many issues, the group will discuss but will not speak with a single
voice, but rather the members can act independently.
The Subcommittee serves as a communication vehicle, at the least. The major thrust is funding, with leadership from Rollie
Sparrowe. There is a wide range of
funding issues, including appropriations on the short and long-term basis,
funding the start-up of BCR delivery mechanisms, CARA and other legislation.
Game bird groups have begun to attend.
Working with the Federal Subcommittee is another key role, and the
Subcommittee has asked the federal agencies for clarity as to their budget
processes. Question – how is ABC
Policy Council different from the NGO group?
The Policy Council is more apt to enter into advocacy roles and also
considers a much broader range of issues. It is more reactionary and less
involved in creating a vision of landscapes for birds than we envision the NABCI
NGO Subcommittee being. The
respective roles of the two must be clarified (George Fenwick will write up the differentiation).
There is industry participation in the Subcommittee, and it was decided
that there would not be a separate industry committee. NABCI Federal Agency Subcommittee – Bob Ford and
Dave Davis. In two meetings, there
has been solid and growing representation.
There is a large diversity in background and commitment to bird
conservation. This group is also
investigating its function. At the
second meeting, the major issues and challenges were outlined, and have been
boiled down to a set of common themes. There
is also a major issue regarding budget, including responding to the NGOs in
terms of bringing clarity to where birds are in budgets, and in coming up with a
stronger cohesive federal approach to birds in collective budgets.
Several agencies are involved that have not been very active in PIF.
Themes that arose were: habitat conservation, conservation of populations
& communities, partnerships, outreach & inreach, and monitoring and
assessment. It was suggested that all national NABCI minutes go out to
the PIF MSC network, as well as placed on the web site.
It is not clear that NABCI – US will have its own website, although CEC
maintains one internationally. We
need an obvious link from the PIF site to the CEC site.
Introductory materials are needed to make the obscure components of NABCI
minutes relatively clear. For
Regional list serves, short references to the availability of notes should be
written and released – Bob Ford and
David Pashley will be responsible for writing this. NABCI Monitoring Subcommittee – Marshall Howe.
Functions of this subcommittee have been agreed upon – a draft terms of
reference is being presented to the US NABCI Committee, including composition,
proposed national data center, funding needs for monitoring (from the four
initiatives). Gary Myers noted that the NABCI Committee also discussed
expansion of the North American Waterfowl and Wetlands Office (NAWWO) to deal
with all habitats and expansion of the roles of the North American Wetlands
Conservation Council to deal with uplands as well as wetlands.
Typically, NAWWO has dealt with habitat and Office of Migratory Bird
Management with populations and regulations.
These will probably continue to be separate functions, although there are
some reasons to support combination. There
is good communication between the two offices in place now. There are concerns among some in the NGO community that
expansion of both NAWWO and NAWCC puts too much authority in the hands of the
waterfowl community. Karen Blakney
also noted concern that using the JV structure to deliver PIF objectives creates
some discomfort. In general, however, PIF is comfortable with the expansion
of the mandate of NAWWO, with the caveat that we need to be vigilant that
non-game bird issues do not become watered-down with integrated with waterfowl. On NAWCA – keeping upland money separate from wetland
money is viewed as desirable. This
separation is between wetlands and uplands, not between game and non-game.
PIF is comfortable with the Council taking on responsibility for other
funding sources, with the caveat that new positions be created on the Council.
One option is to recommend a seat for another upland based federal agency
(USFS or BLM). A second is the
forest products industry (Amer. Forest and Paper Association, although the staff
resources do not currently exist). Could
this take the form of one representative from each of the PIF regions?
This could take the form of another state director, or one of the
agencies, or an NGO. Regional
Coordinators could serve as staff for these individuals. THIS PROPOSAL IS ENDORSED: PIF supports the concept of integrated bird conservation,
with sufficient funding to achieve designated objectives, and expanding the
authority of the NAWC Council to deal with decisions regarding federal funding
of bird conservation projects. If
additional funds become available to the Council to undertake terrestrial bird
(as defined by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act) conservation projects, PIF
recommends two changes: first, that clear separation be maintained between
existing wetland and terrestrial dollars; and second, that the Council be
expanded to include additional members with expertise in upland bird
conservation issues. This expansion should include one representative from each of
four PIF geographic regions. CARA was discussed, and the need for PIF and NGOs to
influence state agencies to use that money (assuming that a bill will pass) for
its original intention for non-game wildlife conservation.
PIF should advocate use of CARA money to fund implementation of Bird
Conservation Plans. CARA money should not be used to deflect shortfalls in
traditional areas. PIF should
address this in the IAFWA CARA Implementation Committee (chaired by Duane
Shroufe). Gary Myers reminded that
Teaming originated with state agency directors deciding that more emphasis needs
to be placed on non-game – this led to the start of the Teaming initiative
within IAFWA. Dave Davis stressed the existence of other large funding
sources that could be applied, at least indirectly, to bird conservation.
This includes other title areas of CARA and also such things as water
quality funding through EPA. This
is something for BCR Coordinators to consider, in that much of this money goes
toward habitat improvements. Bird
issues must be interjected into these decision-making processes.
This might best be done at the BCR level, although a national compendium
of opportunities would be useful. WEBSITE AND PLAN STATUS – All plans that Eric
Lawton has received are now up on the BLM website.
Eric needs access to these to manipulate them before sending them to the
PIF site. For plans not up, the
idea is to link to some information – such as who to contact, status, etc.
D. Pashley will send all of the
updated physiographic area summaries to Eric.
Janet Ruth noted that we need a single page explanation of Bird
Conservation Plans to put on the PIF website to lead into the map and list of
physios provided by Eric. All of this ought to be done within a week or so.
For the interim, a pdf file for each summary will be attached to the phys
area name; over time, Eric will clean up these summaries and attach final ones. Directory – Chris Eberly and Elizabeth Ennis (ABC)
are working on an updated PIF Directory that will include the ABC Policy Council
Directory. This needs to be
converted to a database format and made available on the PIF website.
It will be called something like the “Bird Conservation Directory”.
Using a database format will make this much easier to update in the
future. Research and Monitoring Needs Database – Janet
Ruth and Marshall Howe. This is now
user friendly and workable, but absolutely zero data have been entered into it
thus far. Marshall Howe will discuss funding this through ABC.
If there are enough funds, some of it could be used also to help Eric get
Summaries and Plans up on the Web. Significant upgrades of the web-based plans into html
format are needed. First steps are
to get summaries up, then plans up in pdf, and ultimately conversion of plans to
html. Jeff Wells and Ken Rosenberg will look into a budget to get
this whole package completed, and the MSC will look into additional sources
of funding for such an effort. The ad hoc nature of new funding needs was discussed.
George Fenwick and David Pashley put a summary of needs and costs a few
years ago. This needs to be redone
so we can think about priorities and summed needs and expenses.
Fenwick as chair of funding
committee will take the lead on this, sending out an e-mail requesting input
from the MSC. Janet Ruth noted that this discussion only addresses little
bits of the web site, and that there are many larger issues that we need to
face. She will look into at least
some additional pieces in the next while. PIF STAFFING – David Pashley is NABCI Coordinator
and is passing on PIF National Coordinator responsibilities.
Bob Ford’s new position will be in NAWWO in Arlington, staffing the
NABCI Fed. Agency subcommittee and working with Joint Ventures.
He will take on some national PIF Coordinator responsibilities from
David. Meanwhile, the Migratory
Bird Management Office has created an additional position that has just received
approval from the Director. MBMO
has nearly $1 million, most of which has gone out to Regions to hire PIF people
or as project seed money. The
remainder is being used for the new position, to institutionalize the PIF
National Coordinator if that is agreeable to PIF.
In the interim, David will keep prioritization and implementation under
NABCI. Bob will take on plan
completion work, implementation through Joint Ventures, plus daily work issues
(supervision of Regional Coordinators).
This leaves a vacancy in the SE Regional Coordinator position – a
lengthy discussion has resulted in a decision to fill this job with similar
responsibilities as in the past. Bob
will take over this hiring responsibility. Each USFWS Region will hire a new person to work on PIF
implementation. These new people
will put emphasis on certain BCRs within that Region. Each will have some seed money for projects.
They would not be supervised by the new person in Arlington, but rather
through the Regional Office structure. The
new person in Arlington was originally envisioned as a phys area coordinator,
but is now under consideration as national PIF Coordinator.
This is all aside from the USFWS PIF coordination role played by Steve
Sheffield. If the USFWS hires the
PIF Coordinator, it is important that the new person answers in large part to
PIF; it cannot be seen that USFWS is taking over PIF.
This proposal has many very positive sides, led by the longevity of
commitment to supporting the position. Advertisement for the position could be out in 6-8 weeks. MOTION – PIF welcomes the offer of USFWS to house the PIF National Coordinator,
but requests input, where legitimate, into the role of that individual. Cyndi will forward the list of physiographic areas that
will be the focus of work for the new Regional staff people. Money for our existing PIF Regional Coordinators lasts through approximately April 2002. We have to think about their roles thereafter, including issues of funding. JOINT VENTURES, BCRS, DELIVERY, ETC. – Existing
JVs have continued to increase their commitment to delivery of conservation for
all birds. Dan Casey
(Northern Rockies BCR Coordinator) sees his role as coordinating among states,
getting projects on the ground, working with overlapping JVs, and integrating
objectives among initiatives in a clear manner.
There is great success in folding the Northern Rockies BCR into both the
Intermountain West and Prairie Pothole Joint Ventures.
JV focus areas are being redefined, away from high priority wetlands
toward full coverage of wetland and upland bird conservation areas.
There will not be a new Management Board for this BCR, but rather a less
formal Steering Committee with JV and state participation to guide direction and
provide support to the Coordinator. Mike
Carter (Shortgrass Prairie BCR Coordinator) met with IWJV and Playa Lakes JV and
Colorado Division of Wildlife; one resolution was geographic expansion of each
of the two JVs to include the BCR in its entirety.
Shortgrass will in all likelihood develop a Technical Committee like that
contemplated for the N. Rockies. There
will be a significant evaluation component of BCR work focused on the
distribution of key birds, land use and ownership patterns, and conservation
status of that land. Mike will work
on a short strategic plan for conservation in the Shortgrass. The PIF MSC supports creation of delivery structures for
BCRs, ultimately with wall-to-wall coverage of North America.
Many questions remain, however. How
do BCRs remain accountable to PIF, if at all?
What is the ultimate relationship between PIF, shorebirds, and colonial
waterbird initiatives? Will PIF
ultimately represent all of these initiatives, given that the others may not
have the independent staying power that PIF has?
At any sort of local level, integration at an ecological level makes the
only sense. WHAT ARE THE FUNCTIONS OF PIF IN THE FUTURE?
JOINT COMMITTEES - Janet Ruth suggests beginning to
merge PIF functions with shorebirds, etc., at this level, maintaining the
separate MSC functions within PIF. It
was suggested that the PIF committee structure be maintained at least for the
time being as NABCI settles into place. This
may be a placeholder that could become less relevant in six months or a year. What is the current vision of PIF? Is it at all different from the NABCI Vision document? Tony Melchiors suggests merging the MSC and the JC
functions in the Retreat, freeing up our Friday afternoon meeting for more of a
NABCI related function. At the
IAFWA, strictly PIF functions could be advanced in the state PIF subcommittee.
PIF would maintain its visibility at the International through that PIF
Subcommittee. MOTION – The MSC suggests that the Joint Committee fold its function into the
activities of the MSC, retaining the JC Committee structure but meeting jointly
at the MSC retreat. The new NABCI meeting forum should be on the level of PIF
MSC, not the US NABCI Committee. This
could be a NABCI staff level meeting. – “working representatives” of the
initiatives. This accomplishes two purposes – reduces redundancy in PIF
functions and furthers integration among initiatives. It also would serve NABCI by creating a level of interaction
(both reducing conflicts and incubating ideas) that does not currently exist.
It could break down polarities and expose the IAFWA to functions of NABCI.
Strictly PIF functions would continue to go through the IAFWA state
subcommittee. Would the NABCI staff meeting be an official NABCI
equivalent of the MSC, or would it simply be a forum in which the initiatives
get together? This will have to
evolve. PIF recommends that this be
some sort of formal entity, but that decision is up to the US NABCI Committee. The JC should retain its voting rules, even if it becomes functionally merged with the MSC. PIF TECHNICAL COMMITTEES – INTERNATIONAL – Megan Hill provided an update on
recent PIF International activities: Monterrey
Neotropical Ornithological Congress; workshop for about 25 Latin American
students; WWG meeting resulting in
linkage between western states and Central American countries; National Park
Service linkage with Mesoamerican PIF group (ParkFlight); Megan and Luis Naranjo
are now co-chairs for a new IWG term; Pan-American Roundtable is planned for
April in DC; La Tangara is being published out of Nicaragua; next Mesoamerican
PIF meeting will be in Sept. in Panama City; Conservation Counterparts links
N.Am. bird clubs to projects in Latin America – about $75 K went through this
last year. NABCI currently involves only the US, Canada, & Mexico,
and the PIF IWG clearly extends beyond that area. The PIF IWG therefore has many valid reasons for
continuation. Should PIF encourage
expansion of NABCI beyond these three countries? Yes, and the CEC is not a factor in limiting this expansion.
NABCI should first establish itself in North America, however, and not impose
expansion in an insensitive manner. Should there be a US NABCI website separate from the CEC site? The answer is probably yes, but it is not clear who will support this. MONITORING -
The PIF Monitoring Group has advanced the Landbird Monitoring Strategic Plan,
which is currently out for review. The
relationship between the PIF MWG and the NABCI Monitoring Subcommittee is that
PIF will be represented on the latter, as will be the other initiatives.
The NABCI group is intended to resolve conflicts and increase resources
available for monitoring, including meeting PIF monitoring needs.
The PIF group has played a role in refining and promoting the best
techniques for monitoring. CJ Ralph
suggests that it will be advantageous for the monitoring groups from all of the
initiatives to get together in a relatively major workshop in a year or so.
This integration meeting and all that it entails could be a NABCI
function; at the least it is a need within PIF.
The current status and direction of structure in the monitoring groups is
satisfactory. The MSC submits CJ
Ralph and Jon Bart, Monitoring WG co-chairs, as PIF reps to the NABCI Monitoring
Subcommittee. RESEARCH – Essentially non-functional now in PIF,
but is there sense in retention within PIF?
There is certainly no need to amalgamate this at a NABCI level.
Research WG has never had a clear focus, but dealing with research needs
in BCPlans could be a current focus, with strong leadership.
However, nobody in the MSC has committed to seeking out this leadership.
A lot of research involvement in PIF takes place at a regional level,
where there has been some success in at least some regions.
This calls the roles at a national level into question, but Ken Rosenberg
feels that there are national level considerations that a strong Research WG
could advance. Availability of
funds for national-level priorities could change this picture.
Can NABCI find resources to promote this?
Pooled research projects are extremely difficult to sell to private
foundations – ABC has a good deal of unsuccessful experience at this.
NFWF has been a very important of resources for PIF focused research.
Government sources are a different perspective.
Can we influence an organization such as NSF? Other agencies have research money but don’t have a lot of
direction. The NABCI Federal Agency
Subcommittee could play a role in this. PIF
will keep a Research WG as a placeholder, at least.
CJ, Janet Ruth, and Ken Rosenberg
will consider how to rejuvenate the group. EDUCATION – This year’s IMBD packet is
excellent. Sue Bonfield sends out
regular updates to the MSC. The
role of this WG may change with NABCI, but its direction now is positive and
should be retained as a PIF function. If
we could broaden participation in Education through NABCI, all involved would
benefit. Build synergy through
interaction among the initiatives. COMMUNICATIONS – Merrie Morrison.
Phase I documents are currently in Design and will be out in the next few
months. These will point readers to
the PIF web site. Accomplishments by Janet Ruth, Marshall Howe, Lois Loges,
Eric Lawton, and others on the web site have been extraordinary.
Anne Frances has done a great job as the source of information for the
MSC, but more internal communication is still desirable.
Expansion of expertise and participation with NABCI is desirable, but a
PIF Communications WG should certainly be retained. PRIORITIZATION – US – Canada harmonization has
occurred, with some improvements to the prior US scheme.
A new NABCI level prioritization technical committee is replacing the US
PIF committee. When scores are
assigned on the basis of BCRs, thresholds will be set and birds exceeding those
will constitute a Species of Management Concern list for that BCR.
This set of lists will replace the current single national SMC list
maintained by USFWS. A
greater degree of common ground with shorebird prioritization is needed.
Mike Carter commented on the database – a hacking problem delayed
access to new BBS data for both physiographic areas and for BCRs, but all of
that has been overcome and we now have all the needed datasets.
Some mechanical problems have to be overcome that require a lot of
hands-on work, particularly constructing good breeding bird lists for each BCR.
It all may be up and running and on the web by May. REGIONAL WORKING GROUPS – In some regions,
meetings are already relatively integrated among initiatives – particularly
true for the NE. Integrating at a
regional level could increase participation, in that so much of activity is
focused on implementation. Shorebirds
and colonial waterbirds are not really developing regional structures, so the
PIF groups provide them a forum. Are current Regional WGs functional?
The NE is changing as state groups are weak and emphasis on BCRs
and JVs and other initiatives is increasing.
The MW WG is not really functional.
Work with the PPJV and others is a strength, however. The SE Regional WG continues to be very strong, although as
elsewhere there are some parts that are stronger than others. West – BCRs cannot function without active involvement by
state wildlife agencies. The PIF
group is very strong, with very good interactions with the IWJV and the other
initiatives. The WG is committed to
functioning at the BCR level. There
is a great amount of commitment from the state groups to the PIF plans and the
future of their implementation. State
chapters are all strong and functional, and integration between the JV and PIF
state groups is well underway. There
is a clear and important role for the PIF WG in the West. STATUS OF PLANS – We really need to have finished
plans. Steve Sheffield is putting together a list of timelines of when things
will be done. FUNDING COMMITTEE – There is no reason to maintain
a PIF Funding Committee, and all of those functions should be rolled up into
NABCI. NABCI OUTREACH – 3-pager and 1-pager are in preparation and will be soon available for use. Communication with the general public is significantly less
important in the near future than is communication with key staffers for
Congress. Remember that PIF has
assets and tools with which to sell itself
– maps, plans, etc. The
Phase I document will help a great deal. Success
stories are very useful. Quick
results in our newly staffed BCRs are going to be extremely useful. Keep accomplishments in the N. Rockies, Shortgrass, Sonoran
Desert, or South Atlantic Coast current and impressive. NEXT MEETING – Indianapolis – Sept. 13, 14 for the Retreat; with the IAFWA on the 15-17. (link to next MSC minutes, September 2000) |
|
|