|
|
Home || What
is PIF? || Que
es Compañeros en Vuelo? || Bird
Conservation Planning || PIF
Resources |
|
PARTNERS
IN FLIGHT 13 September 2000, Indianapolis Chair - E.J. Williams. Minutes by Merrie Morrison and David Pashley. Introductions - Dean Demarest was introduced as the new SE Regional Coordinator. He will be based in the Georgia DNR office along with EJ Williams and will be supervised by Bob Ford until a permanent National Coordinator is hired. National Coordinator Position - Cyndi Perry - The National PIF Coordinator position has been advertised, with the majority of funding to come from USFWS. This does not replicate the role of Mila Plavsic as the Service’s internal PIF Coordinator. Closing date is 9/25 and the earliest hire will be about 6 weeks. David Pashley, Naomi Edelson, and Bob Ford will assist Cyndi in selecting the candidate. This position can have telecommuting flexibility so the person could possibly be located outside of Arlington. The MSC will help guide this person’s duties. Other Positions - * A National Shorebird Coordinator position is also being posted through USFWS, and also closes on 9/25. Cyndi Perry is again the contact. * Steve Lewis - USFWS Region III has a position open for the PIF Coordinator for the Upper Midwest. * The latter is one of a series of Regional USFWS positions - Each of the seven regions has received funding for PIF/BCR work. Region I (Northwest) has hired Mike Green for that position. Regions II (Southwest), IV (Southeast), and V (Northeast) are getting paperwork done, Region VI in Denver has hired someone who will start soon, and Region VII (Alaska) will continue to have Brad Andres doing some of that work. PIF Directory - Chris Eberly - Web version is done and up and the print version will be coming out soon. Everyone should check their information (partnersinflight.org/directory) and give any corrections to Chris. Formatting is slightly different than previous versions - check that links are correct as well as the contact information. If you find links on the PIF web site to the old directory, contact Janet Ruth. Chris will continue to be the directory update. Elizabeth Ennis at ABC will be the contact person for the print directory. The directory has grown from just PIF to include all bird conservation initiatives and networks including NABCI, JVs, ABC’s Policy Council, etc. Those of you on the PIF MSC list: please also let EJ Williams know if your e-mail address changes. Web Site Updates - Janet Ruth - Janet Evander has been contracted (USGS funds through ABC) to enter information from PIF Bird Conservation Plans into the Research Needs Database. About 446 entries have been made thus far, covering the NE, SE, and MW, with the West not underway. These will not be publicly available until the Regional Coordinators check the information that has been entered (this can now be done for all regions save the West). Eric Lawton - Cornell Lab of Ornithology (with funding assistance from National Audubon) hired Mike Powers to help put BCPs on the web site. All the Executive Summaries are up as well as quite a few of the plans and a number of Table I and Table II’s (priority species pools and habitat suites). Ken Rosenberg mentioned having more ideas to improve the web site including linking directly to the research needs database and to CBO. Mike Carter - The prioritization database on the CBO website is in very good shape now, with up-to-date BCR scores and revised physiographic area scores to be done by the end of September. Some people have requested that old physio scores be kept on the site as well because those scores are the basis for priority species pools in existing plans. Prioritization Meeting Summaries - David Pashley - Two recent meetings have had repercussions regarding prioritization. The first was a meeting in Winnipeg in February with Canada PIF. This was discussed at the previous MSC meeting, but basically resulted in almost complete harmonization between US and Canada PIF prioritization. This included some positive changes to the US system, as well as several issues still being explored. A fair number of PIF scores changed as a result. However, it was noted here and at other times that these refinements actually do very little to change the resulting priority species pool; their most positive impact is making the process tighter, more rational, easier to understand, and more defensible against criticism. Changes may be most extreme in the West, where pools were created some time ago and have not been changed, even after the concept of responsibility was embraced everywhere else. Dean Demarest suggested referring to this process as one of adaptive improvement rather than simply change. The second meeting covered three days at the end of July in The Plains, Virginia. Thirty people attended, including Canada reps, and people from waterfowl and colonial waterbird initiatives (shorebird prioritization experts could not attend, but they were involved in a smaller pre-meeting in Boston). The intent of this meeting was to try to achieve as much harmonization as possible among initiatives and between countries. Although lots of progress was made and the PIF process is better than in the past as a result, we did not achieve the hoped-for level of harmonization, particularly among the initiatives. There are no NABCI prioritization criteria at this point. Within the US, there are differences between PIF on the one hand and colonial waterbirds and shorebirds on the other - this is all so new to the waterfowl community that their positions are not firm. There are two main areas of difference, one is assessing the relationships among distribution, abundance, and population size, and the other in interpretation. PIF uses a combination of summation and categorical approaches to interpret priorities, whereas the other two initiatives reject the option of using sums. Detailed minutes from this meeting will soon be available from David Pashley. Art Martell noted that differences within Canada are similar. Canada PIF and US PIF are on the same page, but Canada PIF does things differently from shorebirds and colonial waterbirds, and it seems that the latter two groups are also different from shorebirds and colonial waterbird procedures in the US. Bob Ford noted that there were concerns voiced regarding prioritization at the NAWMP Committee meeting, particularly as the process affects waterfowl and its application at the BCR level. Use of socio-economic variables particularly relevant to waterfowl will help ease concerns, as will elimination of source of entry into species pools once habitat suites are developed. Several people commented on the need for written documentation regarding prioritization. EJ Williams noted that the validation provided by publication of the Carter et al. prioritization paper in the Auk already has had positive ramifications (an electronic version of this is available on the web as part of the Cape May proceedings). Although the broad outlines of the Auk paper remain applicable, many details of scoring have changed on the basis of the two above meetings and communications since. Many of these changes are going to be captured in the minutes from The Plains meeting, but that should be just the start for an up-to-date rendition. Chris Jauhola said that federal agencies will only move toward more formal use of PIF prioritization when the parameters and means of assigning values are written in detail. Geoff Geupel noted that written details of number derivation is fine, but the greatest need is for a good explanation of how to use the database. One such product would be detailed explanation of tiers used to derive priority species pools (this exists in some form or another in recent BCPs). Janet Ruth reminded us that any written products can be distributed via the PIF web site. EJ Williams noted that PIF lists have been invaluable in development of state Diversity Documents, at least in Georgia, and that this will help direct CARA money toward proper PIF priorities. Guidelines for use, again, are needed. Steve Lewis asked whether plans are going to be updated on the basis of new scores, even if there are not wholesale changes in priority species. There are no specific plans to do this right now, but it is something to be taken seriously in the future. As a final note on prioritization, the difficult issue of subspecies is nearing resolution. More will be distributed on this in the near future. Species of Conservation Concern - Randy Dettmers - There will be lists at three geographic scales: national, USFWS regional, and by BCR. The BCR lists will be created on the basis of the sum of the seven PIF prioritization values, with similar thresholds for inclusion as used for priority species pools. There must be room for inclusion of additional species for which USFWS has special responsibility. The national list will be based on the six global scores. Ken Rosenberg, Jeff Wells, and Dave Mehlman are working on a project comparing official state threatened, endangered, and concern lists with lists for states generated from PIF BCR scores (see more details under IAFWA PIF working group minutes). This will result in production and availability of state watch lists that are based on the same criteria as the SCC lists for BCRs. Distribution of CONSERVATION OF THE LAND BIRDS OF THE UNITED STATES Merrie Morrison announced the release of what was formerly called the PIF Phase I document that so many people have contributed to. With financial backing from federal partners, ABC has had 10,000 copies of this printed and they are available for free distribution. International PIF Conference - Geoff Geupel - Because all of the conference facilities in Monterey are full in the fall of 2001, we are now looking at March 2002. The facility being considered will only hold rooms enough for about 600 people. After considerable discussion, Asilomar Conference Center in Monterrey was chosen as the site and March 2002 was agreed upon as the date. Preferred dates are March 13-16, 20-23, and 6-9; Geoff will check availability and report back. What are the topics for the meeting? This will be a PIF meeting (not NABCI) for the US, Canada, Mexico, and perhaps Central America. The concentration will be technical issues, particularly advances made since the Cape May meeting. These issues will include monitoring and evaluation, practical conservation within a landscape context, restoration, treatment of factors limiting bird populations, species prioritization, advances in Latin America, and the many other topics we have been dealing with over the past 5 years. Canadian PIF representatives Art Martell and Judith Kennedy are added to the meeting Steering Committee. Geoff said we should hire a professional organizer and have the Steering Committee worry mostly about topical issues. Geoff and CJ will produce and distribute a proposal for funds for such professional assistance. Future of PIF - Carol Beardmore - Carol passed out some handouts with some thoughts as to the roles of PIF and Regional Coordinators in the future. This stimulated a lengthy discussion, some general themes of which are summarized here. The roles of PIF and Regional Coordinators need to be more clearly defined and contrasted with those actions that are more appropriate at the BCR or JV or state level. All involved agree that PIF badly needs full-time staff beyond the expiration of the current grant. However, the geographical and topical areas of focus for the Coordinators may change. All of this must be resolved in a timely manner to allow opportunities to attempt to raise funds to maintain the positions beyond their current scheduled termination sometime in 2002. Planning for landbird conservation is certainly within the province of PIF. Just because BCPs are getting close to Version 1.0 status does not mean that they are complete, that they include the best existing thoughts regarding bird conservation, or that they are automatically going to incorporate new ideas as they emerge. We have always referred to these as dynamic documents, and the only people with the specific charge of improving them over time are the Coordinators. The landscape design component of planning falls at least partially into the PIF camp, and this is reflected in many of the existing PIF plans. A great deal of cooperation is needed in this area with NABCI and other partners. Biological objectives should be extended beyond international boundaries. Indeed, some sort of PIF oversight committee at a continental level may be called for. Evaluation is also within the mandate of PIF Coordinators, at least inasmuch as it involves application of proper monitoring techniques, encouragement of inventory and focused monitoring projects, and adaptive responses to new information. This role is shared with others at a NABCI level (within the other initiatives and at national integrated levels as well). Coordinators have some implementation responsibilities, but this is a gray area where there is overlap and uncertainty regarding the respective roles of PIF, BCRs, Joint Ventures, state agencies, and others. It was strongly noted here and in other meetings that the interest and commitment from state agencies, notably state PIF coordinators and wildlife diversity directors, should be a prominent feature in the mix of responsibilities among PIF, NABCI, and delivery mechanisms (combinations of BCRs and JVs). The future role of PIF is broader than the future role of Regional Coordinators, at least in part because of the different mandates of state PIF Coordinators. Currently, the first sort among Coordinators in terms of responsibility is geography. That may or may not be appropriate in the future. Certainly, the nation (or beyond, when cross-border BCRs are considered) should be divided into spheres of responsibility, but it may be better to make a first sort among responsibilities on the basis of themes (monitoring, outreach, etc.). This was not thoroughly discussed during the MSC, but should be pursued thereafter. It was strongly suggested that we shift from political boundaries as separations among PIF regions to BCR boundaries (shorebird and colonial waterbird planning already reflects BCRs, and the recent Ducks Unlimited conservation strategy is also based on BCRs). Dean Demarest is creating some options for future consideration. A subcommittee was created to deal with the issues of roles of the Coordinators, geography of regions, and options for funding the positions into the future. Initial members of the Subcommittee are the four regional coordinators, David Pashley, the new National Coordinator, Mila Plavsic, EJ Williams, Bob Ford, Naomi Edelson, and Art Martell or Judith Kennedy. At least one of the goals of this subcommittee is to have answers and a firm proposal ready before the North American next March. This group met later during the meetings and has begun to communicate since leaving Indianapolis. Contact Mila if you are interested in participating in this dialogue. March Meetings The 2001 North American Conference will be held in Washington, DC, at the Omni Shoreham, from 16-20 March. This means that 14-15 March are the dates for some combination of MSC meeting and NABCI workshop. PIF Awards Deadline for PIF Award nominations is 31 October 31 2000. In the past, the awards ceremony has been part of the USFWS Director’s Reception. While the event is nice, it is usually a rushed affair. David suggested giving them out at the Joint Committees meeting instead. In addition, it was suggested that awardees be recognized at the appropriate regional meetings, on the web site, and in Bird Conservation magazine. All of this seemed to meet with everyone’s approval. EJ suggested that we develop a display of all award winners in PIF history for the Monterrey meeting. ATTENDEES Carol Beardmore cbeardmore@gf.state.az.us (link to previous
MSC
minutes, March 2000) |
|
|