|
|
Home || What
is PIF? || Que
es Compañeros en Vuelo? || Bird
Conservation Planning || PIF
Resources |
|
PARTNERS
IN FLIGHT March 14, 2001 Patuxent River Naval Air Station, MD Management Steering Committee Chair E.J. Williams chaired
the meeting, assisted by PIF National Coordinator Terry Rich.
The meeting was held at the Officers’ Club of the Patuxent River Naval
Air Station, thanks to the efforts of Kyle Rambo and Chris Eberly. Meeting
participants are listed at the end of this summary of the meeting.
Thanks to Merrie Morrison and Dave Davis for taking notes. NABCI Business Plan David Pashley and Terry Rich provided an overview of the
origins and process involved in developing a NABCI business plan.
An initial draft of infrastructure needs was prepared by an ad hoc
group representing the bird conservation initiatives and based upon the needs
papers submitted to the US NABCI Committee for their formal meeting in late
January. PIF’s needs paper was
developed following a special meeting of the MSC in January in DC, prior to the
NABCI meeting. A consolidated draft
was circulated just before this meeting and will be discussed at the NABCI
workshop scheduled for March 15 in connection with the North American in DC. The group discussed PIF’s
core staffing and funding needs, noting in particular that special needs
not associated with “permanent” staffing were not included in this draft.
After some discussion, a consensus was reached that the following special
needs should be added to the staffing needs: Asilomar conference $100 K – one time expense Species data base maintenance 40 K/yr. IMBD national support 75 K/yr. Publications
20 K/yr. David Pashley clarified that we need to include some of the
soft money needs, whether we are seeking to just raise them on an ad hoc
basis or to more permanently institutionalize them. Terry noted that there is still much work remaining on the
business plan, and there will likely be additional opportunities for input from
the MSC. March 15 NABCI Workshop at the North American David Pashley explained that the workshop is intended to be
an unofficial gathering of interested parties which lacks authority to make
actual decisions for NABCI (that authority rests only with the US Committee and
its formal subcommittees). Greg
Butcher, who will facilitate the workshop, noted
that, in general, the agenda
will include funding strategy, role of states, role of Bird Conservation Regions
(BCRs), and a workplan for NABCI itself. An open discussion followed which addressed both the
workshop and the funding plan. Selected
key points included: * There is a strong desire for a consolidated funding
statement, i. e., the NABCI “business plan,” across the various bird
conservation initiatives in order to strengthen our collective ability to secure
funding. * Because of the difficulty and potential time lags in
developing a consolidated statement incorporating the needs of all bird
initiatives, PIF and the other initiatives should proceed with their own
fund-raising with the caveat that the federal agencies (and potentially others)
are concerned with being “nickled and dimed” without a good sense of
total needs and relative priorities. * There is a significant imbalance in the draft
infrastructure paper in that the waterbird initiative includes 50
people at the state level despite the obvious need to have comparable
resources at the state level in support of PIF and the other initiatives; a
consolidated number should be developed and shown under “shared”
resource needs. * There is also a serious concern that some of the largest
numbers in the draft (e.g., 30 and 50 staff) are also the least well developed
and risk scaring off potential supporters.
This area will require considerable additional work among the initiatives
and at the NABCI workshop on the 15 March. * For any “shared” positions, it will be important to
have clarification of how these will work; there is a risk that waterfowl staff
and priorities will dominate given the relative strength of that program and its
deeper institutionalization in agencies and organizations.
On the other hand, there is other concern that landbird issues will
dominate in the future. * We must be careful in how we represent the status of
various PIF “staff” positions; even those that currently exist are for the
most part supported by soft money or are second and third hat positions.
Only the position of the National Coordinator is secure for the time
being. * If we are going to include positions within federal
agencies (that is, PIF Coordinators like Mila Plavsic’s position within USFWS)
we need to include all of them rather than just a few as was done in the draft. * The
discussion revealed the difficulty in identifying who is or is not working for
PIF, or any other initiative for that matter.
There are many gray areas. As a result of these discussions, a new Table 1 was
prepared on the spot and provided to Terry and David for use in the NABCI
workshop. Short-term Funding Problems Terry pointed out that funding to support the four PIF
Regional Coordinators will run out in just over a year (by April 2002), and the
current coordinators will not be comfortable waiting until the last moment to
find other jobs if funding remains uncertain.
The loss of any of the coordinators would be very unfortunate and must be
avoided. Terry is working with
Naomi Edelson to explore options for securing either an extension to the current
grant or some other interim funding pending progress on the consolidated NABCI
business plan. Awards Brad Jacobs, who chairs the awards committee, was not
present, but Terry was able to provide a brief update.
Birder’s World, under new management, is no longer supporting the PIF
awards. Happily, the American
Birding Association stepped forward with support for this year.
Nonetheless, it will be
necessary to postpone presentation of the awards until
a later date, perhaps at the IAFWA meeting in September.
It is hoped that can be achieved by fall.
The names of the next set of awardees are not yet available.
When the awards are made, everyone should make an effort to ensure that
the awardees are given local recognition and that the awards are used as an
opportunity to promote PIF and bird conservation. Asilomar International Conference C.J. Ralph reported that there is substantial progress in
planning and organizing a major international PIF conference at the Asilomar
conference facility at Monterey, California, in spring 2002.
C.J. provided a handout that included a proposed budget, which is
preliminary and based in part on the experience of the Cape May conference.
The Point Reyes Bird Observatory has taken the lead in planning and has
fronted an initial deposit of $20,000 to secure the facility. Asilomar can accommodate 600-800 participants on site.
Terry noted that we need to appoint an Executive Committee to carry
forward the planning and management of the conference and chairs for the various
panels and functions; he solicited volunteers. The MSC then had an open discussion of the conference with
regard to objectives, audience, and format.
The tentative starting point is integration and implementation of PIF
Bird Conservation Plans (BCPs) in the Americas with each session posing
questions that are answered by the participants. Some of the points that were made follow: * It may be useful and necessary to tailor the selection of
topics to potential funding sources. * We need to get our “best and brightest” out front and skip the dog and pony shows, requiring papers before the conference. Even if it is not practicable to get finished papers before the conference, we should consider a web-based posting of presentations in real time to extend the reach of the conference well beyond the on-site participants. * We need to strike a balance between formal presentations
with finished products and the give-and-take environment of a workshop.
We should explore the use of limited presentations to “get the juices
flowing” followed by open discussions. We
should also consider “framing papers” in advance of the event to give people
time to review and think about these topics in advance; this will result in a
richer discussion. * Ideas on target audience ranged widely from those who put
BCPs to use on the ground such as land managers to funders, educators,
researchers, and those involved in evaluation.
We should not forget administrators who make the decisions.
We may want to consider reaching new groups who have not been as directly
involved in our efforts in the past such as coastal or watershed managers, land
use planners, farmers, ranchers, and industry partners including the energy
production and distribution sector. * We may want to explore reaching different audiences in
different ways/in different sessions in order to facilitate learning from each
other. * There is some conflict between the goals of advancing the
frontiers and concepts of bird conservation and providing practical ideas on how
to get BCPs used among our traditional partners. * We might be able to integrate some of these ideas by
focusing on current approaches and adaptive management. * We should look at how we have succeeded or failed in
testing some of our assumptions in the BCPs. * There are many options for how to structure the sessions;
they include: by broad bird group (e.g., grasslands) integrating research,
monitoring, and other functions under each; by hypothetical BCR/JV relying on
actual practitioner experience in those areas; by major problems facing birds
(as was done in Queretaro); or by more conventional topics like monitoring and
land management. * Whichever approach we take in structuring the sessions,
we should consider providing some time for participants to meet with their
colleagues in particular BCRs, groupings of BCRs, regions, or some other
geographical grouping. We must keep
in mind that the BCPs are based upon physiographic areas, not BCRs, although
habitat-based management objectives and prescriptions make it easier to combine
the BCPs into BCR-level plans. * We must also keep in mind that this is intended to be an
international conference, so we should not forget the rest of the
hemisphere--both Mesoamerica and the Caribbean; focusing on BCRs helps keep the
spotlight on the birds, not the political boundaries. In closing this session, C.J. reminded the participants that we should all feature funding needs for the conference in the many meetings taking place over the next week. E.J. and Terry added that we should also look to advertisers and perhaps even trade shows. Communications Working Group Merrie Morrison provided an update on activities of the
working group. She noted that the
group needs to be re-energized and is aiming for having regular contacts,
especially using email. She
solicited participation from any interested PIF people.
She intends to closely coordinate the activities of the PIF
communications group with NABCI. Merrie
identified current and planned activities to include the following: getting the
BCPs on the web site; supporting USGS maintenance of the web site; support of La
Tangara, production of an electronic newsletter (which Terry Rich has
begun), development of a National Public Radio proposal, and support to the
regional coordinators and others. She
emphasized that all of these actions take both time and money. Merrie further outlined the working group’s longer-term
objectives, which include: hiring a web master, enhancing the web site,
preparing an updated Powerpoint presentation on PIF, establishing an electronic
PowerPoint library of PIF talks, putting articles about PIF in publications,
updating the PIF brochure, and supporting IMBD. Jennifer Wheeler provided an update on IMBD activities.
Jennifer and Sue Bonfield are the primary actors in this area.
Jennifer focuses on events and information, general promotion, and
maintenance of an IMBD web site and list-serv.
Sue oversees development of IMBD products and the sales of promotional
items such as T-shirts. She noted
that IMBD is getting bigger and more widely recognized each year. This year’s theme of coffee production is being very well
received. Cyndi Perry discussed the current arrangements for FWS
funding support of Jennifer’s contract position. She underscored the need to have at least ½ workyear in our
business plan to support this important effort. She recognized Jennifer for her commitment and hard work. A brief open discussion added the following points: * We can’t count on this kind of support in perpetuity,
and it appears necessary to raise our estimate of needs for communications work
in the business plan to 2 people, which could be shared with other bird
conservation initiatives. * We should explore the use of web-based publication to
save funds and reach more people. * We need to find a way to return some/all of the profits
from the sale of IMBD promotional products back into the costs of supporting the
IMBD effort. More broadly, we
need to determine how to set IMBD up as a business and house it in one central
place. E. J. asked Jennifer,
Cyndi, and Sue, working with Peter Stangel, to develop a proposal for how to
accomplish this objective. After lunch Merrie Morrison passed out the new Bird
Conservation Directory. It is
the first comprehensive listing of Partners in Flight, the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan and Joint Ventures, the North American Wetlands
Conservation Council, Flyway Councils, North American Waterbird and U.S.
Shorebird Conservation Plans, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network,
North American Bird Conservation Initiative, and American Bird Conservancy
Policy Council. Thanks to Chris Eberly for all of his work on this project and
all the PIF partners who supported its publication.
The directory is also available on-line at the PIF and ABC web sites. Research Working Group Dean noted there needs to be a cooperative effort on
research in order to get funding for projects. Bob Cooper has put together some
preliminary budget figures. Dean
will ask Bob to e-mail his proposal to the Regional Coordinators. Janet Ruth has developed a searchable research database and
it should be up and ready at the end of the month. This should be a powerful tool in helping to get research
done that PIF needs as well as helping researchers find funding for the
projects. Monitoring Working Group Mark Wimer, National Point Count Database Analyst,
presented information on the Bird Point Count Database.
Mark works for ABC under a contract with the US Geological Survey.
The Bird Point Count Database, which has been under construction for just
over a year, will enter the on-line testing phase this month (March 2001), with
several refuges starting to enter their own data over the Web this spring and
summer. After early testing, more users and data will be added through fall
2001. Database personalization features will allow land managers to enter data
on forms tailored to their own needs, and will accommodate a variety of methods
of bird count and vegetation data collection. Once the fully tested system
becomes public, data will be searchable across land use types (i.e. federal,
state, and private lands) using customizable query tools on the web. A user will
be able to create their own custom search, for example, for species of interest
in a particular Bird Conservation Region and within specific forest types. There
were questions about the continued funding for Mark’s position and a general
consensus that this position will be beneficial to PIF in the future.
As Mark noted, he has a “shipload” of work to do.
Terry emphasized that people have been waiting for this database for many
years now and that once people find out that it’s available, the potential
workload is enormous. PIF must help
USGS find a way to institutionalize this position. Marshall
Howe commented that the Monitoring Working Group has not made
much progress on the strategic plan.
They asked for feedback but have not received any.
Marshall will send a copy of the plan if anyone wants.
CJ Ralph noted that the monitoring strategy is on the Monitoring Working
Group web page. CJ
also announced that a migration monitoring workshop is scheduled for the AOU
meeting in Seattle this summer. Migration
monitoring does not currently include stopover biology. International
Working Group Emily
Hayes of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation presented draft short and
long-term goals of the IWG. They
include: ·
Support for La Tangara
newsletter ·
Supporting development of projects
in the international Joint Ventures ·
Support outreach efforts such as
the Pan American Roundtables and a Latin American-focused symposium at the PIF
Monterey meeting ·
supporting more exchanges and
linkages between international PIF groups ·
Assist Mesoamerican PIF in
selecting flagship projects ·
Continue to serve as a reference
point for US/Canadian groups interested in working in Latin America ·
Assist the Mexican AICA process in
the development of site-based conservation projects ·
Assist federal agencies interested
in bird conservation in the tropics to find and fund the best projects. David
Pashley noted that one of the outcomes of the Queretaro meeting was a
determination that a tri-national committee for NABCI was needed.
The US NABCI Committee will set up an International Working Group which
will help set the mandate for the tri-national committee.
The IWG will work on getting funding to international projects. David
also told the MSC that Luis Naranjo is leaving ABC. His absence will create a void with the Pan American
Roundtable and as co-chair of the PIF International Working Group.
David posed the question of how to get all the threads to fit together to
reduce redundancy. The MSC needs to talk to Megan.
Ken Rosenberg mentioned that there is an individual in Ithaca who would
be a good candidate for a bird conservation international position. Presentation
by David DeSante David
DeSante of the Institute for Bird Populations gave a presentation on MAPS.
MAPS is a very powerful management tool that can provide information for
a suite of target species at multiple spatial scales.
For more information contact David at ddesante@birdpop.org
. National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation Emily
gave an update on the bird conservation programs and projects being funded by
NFWF both domestically and internationally.
She also gave out information on the Migratory Bird Conservancy (MBC), a
funding source from business and birders. MBC
is a bird conservation grant fund and Emily handed out requests for proposals.
More information can be found at www.nfwf.org/mbcpage.htm. U.S.D.A.
Forest Service Ron
Archuleta, USDA Forest Service PIF Coordinator, discussed the new Forest
Service Planning Rule which went into effect on November 9, 2000.
This rule guides the Forest Service on how to implement forest plans
throughout the country. Most plans are being reviewed and revised during the next
three years. Ron encouraged the
Regional Coordinators to contact the Forest Service coordinators in their areas
and ensure that PIF Bird Conservation Plans and needs of priority birds and
their habitats are incorporated into Land Use Plans (LUP).
Terry emphasized the importance of having input early in the LUP process
with both USFS and BLM. This can
make implementation of PIF objectives much easier and it affects millions of
hectares of land. National
Park Service - Park Flight Migratory Bird Program Carol
Beidleman represented the National Park Service at this MSC meeting and PIF is
happy to have NPS at the table. NPS
has an important role to play in bird conservation with responsibility for 80
million acres of parks in 380 units across the country.
The Park Flight Migratory Bird Program is a partnership of NPS, the
National Park Foundation, NFWF, American Airlines, and the University of Arizona
to increase bird conservation efforts to protect shared migratory birds in North
America and Mesoamerica. Carol is
the coordinator for the program and is working to increase NPS participation in
PIF and IMBD. The Park Flight
Program is soliciting proposals through the National Park Foundation for
projects with monitoring and education as their focus.
First round of projects should be funded by the end of the month. Prioritization Steve
Sheffield asked about how the prioritization database is updated and noted there
seemed to be a problem with different versions being used.
He stated it does not appear that changes are standardized and that the
process might be improved by a written quality control/quality assessment
statement. There was discussion
about the history of the database and its development, including a paper
published in the Auk two years ago.
The database is dynamic and has evolved
over the years, now moving to a BCR level.
A tri-national system is being developed.
The current version of the database is on the web at the Rocky Mountain
Bird Observatory site. Ken
Rosenberg suggested that the Prioritization Technical Committee may need to help
with standardizing changes. Greg
Butcher pointed out that these are the reasons why continued funding for the
database and its management is critical to PIF. Other
Business Terry
noted there is some feeling that the meeting schedule for the MSC should be
changed. State-level folks cannot
always attend when MSC meetings are attached to other major meetings such as the
North American and IAFWA. State
limits on attendees, costs and out-of-state travel approval are issues.
There was some discussion about keeping the schedule with the North
American Conference but detaching from the IAFWA conference in the fall and
having that meeting in conjunction with another meeting that more state people
are attending. Options will be
explored by Terry, Naomi and EJ. Next
Meeting The
next meeting of the MSC will be in or near Wichita, KS, in connection with the
annual meeting of the IAFWA. Attendees Emily
Jo Williams, Chair, PIF Management Steering Committee, Georgia DNR Submitted by: E.
J. Williams, Chair, PIF Management Steering Committee Terry Rich, PIF National Coordinator (link to previous MSC minutes, September 2000) |
|
|