Home || What is PIF? || Que es Compañeros en Vuelo? || Bird Conservation Planning || PIF Resources
PIF Meetings and Events || Bird Conservation Directory || Contact Us

Partners In Flight
Management Steering Committee Meeting

11-12 September 2001
Great Bend, Kansas

Tuesday, September 11

The MSC gathered at 8:30 a.m. CDT and learned of the tragic events that had taken place in New York and Washington DC.  We adjourned for about 1 hour to give everyone and opportunity to watch the news and to contact family and friends.

Following introductions and house keeping items, MSC Chair EJ Williams and PIF National Coordinator Terry Rich facilitated the meeting.

Updates from PIF working groups

Communication WG – Chris Eberly reported for Merrie Morrison

1) PIF Brochure – provides an overview of PIF and is intended to be a concise document for use as a handout at events such as IMBD, meetings, presentations, etc.; a draft is available for review from Merrie Morrison; the cover of the brochure may be the same as the BCP summary document with the Henslow’s sparrow.

2) Future topics for Bird Conservation –

- Threats to Birds            - Island Conservation
            - Seabirds                       - International Conservation
            - Birding Economics    

Everyone is encouraged to contribute to these issues and to make suggestions for future issues.

3) We need a new PIF conference display.  Julie St. Louis may be able to help with this project.  Send your ideas to Terry Rich or Merrie Morrison.

Education WG– Sue Bonfield circulated an electronic update prior to the meeting.

1) IMBD – The theme will be "Celebrating Special Places for Birds" and the artwork will be Charlie Harper’s stylized image of bird migration.  The date for IMBD 2002 is May 11.

Monitoring WG - CJ Ralph distributed a draft document for review that the Monitoring Working Group has developed.  The document discussed how PIF monitoring efforts and protocols mesh with and address the monitoring needs of   NABCI.  Comments should go to CJ or to Jon Bart.

Research WG – The Research Working Group was not represented but participants indicated that Terri Donovan is still interested in organizing this working group.  The Research Needs Assessment will be published in the Journal of Field Ornithology.  A discussion followed about the need for a Research Working Group and the need for some direction for that group.  The suggestion was made that the group function on an “as needed” basis.  The Research Needs Database serves as a contact point for researchers. Carol Beardmore reported that the Regional Coordinators had discussed the possibility of a ½-day PIF-hosted symposium at 2002 North American Ornithological Congress in New Orleans –  “Bird Conservation Databases: bridging the gap between science and land managers.”   Such a symposium would be an excellent opportunity to engage researchers in PIF. CJ Ralph said that many researchers were coming together for the PIF Asilomar Conference and suggested that these researchers could be an ad hoc Research WG.  Thus, Asilomar could be the springboard for a new WG.  Jane Fitzgerald indicated that the Regional Coordinators were the most appropriate connection to the research community and likely a regional focus on research would be more effective.  We agreed that it is better to engage researchers at the local and regional levels and that state working groups in particular should be encouraged to strengthen connections to researchers. Jane also pointed out that we need to find out what local and regional universities, coop units and other entities have in the way of research priorities and try to fit some of our needs within their interests.

International WG – no formal update was presented

We discussed the PIF logo and the fact that the translation of Partners in Flight was not a direct translation in Spanish.  The group desired a direct translation and Chris Eberly will investigate the possibility of changing the logo from "Aves de las Americas" to "Compañeros en Vuelo."

PIF Strategic Plan

Terry Rich reported on the development of the PIF Strategic Plan.  Although a priority for Terry, the PIF Plan has been on hold pending information from NABCI and the other initiatives.  David Pashley recommended that PIF not wait for NABCI, PIF should drive process.  In January 2000, in preparation for developing the plan, Terry requested long- and short-term objectives and a time frame for achieving those objectives from each of the PIF Working Groups. Feedback was mixed and working groups are encouraged to once again supply this information. Jane Fitzgerald suggested that the plan be written in the BCR context with specific strategies for specific places that would encourage implementation.  The IAFWA Integrated Bird Workshops provide good opportunities for input.  Bob Ford pointed out that in many cases, it wouldn’t be necessary to wait for these workshops because many JVs may host similar workshops.

This led to a brief discussion of the IAFWA workshops.  These and similar JV-sponsored workshops need active participation from PIF to ensure inclusion of land bird needs.  The IAFWA workshops are intended to launch statewide programs and put projects on the ground.  Gary Myers indicated that Tennessee was using the $8000 allocated for one of the Central Hardwoods BCR workshops to support travel by managers that can accomplish implementation in the BCR.  But it is difficult to include everyone that should be involved and the workshops will not be the answer to all the implementation needs.  The need to coordinate the IAFWA Workshops and JV Workshops was stressed as a way to facilitate the best overall coverage of all BCRs.  Terry Rich and Bob Ford should provide this coordination.  The workshops may differ between areas focusing on planning in some areas and training in others.

The discussion of the PIF Strategic Plan continued and the relationship between the Strategic Plan and the PIF Business Plan (now entitled Bird Conservation Support Needs) were discussed.  Due to the pressing need for the Strategic Plan, Terry will develop an outline and distribute for review by December 1.

PIF Awards Committee

Brad Jacobs, Chair, reported that the 2000 awards recipients have been selected and notified.  He displayed the artwork chosen for the 2000 awards, a gorgeous painting of antbirds.  The recipients were to be recognized during the IAFWA Conference in Wichita at the IAFWA Partners in Flight Committee/ PIF Joint Steering Committee meeting.  That will not occur as planned due to the cancellation of the conference.  These recipients will be recognized at Asilomar.

The need for a new Awards Committee chair was discussed.  We also decided that we want the 2001 PIF Awards recipients to be recognized at Asilomar and the new chair will get that process started.  (Following the retreat, Rich Fischer volunteered as Awards Chair and Chris Eberly will assist him).

PIF Web Site

Janet Ruth gave an update on the status of the PIF web site and an overview of the recent changes.  These improvements include a condensed list of options and eye-catching feature blocks.  The text of many sections has been updated.  Links have been improved and added.  Janet indicated that there are still some updates needed but that the web site is greatly improved. Several people pointed out that the site is as attractive and well-organized as any on the web. Lois Loges has been instrumental in supporting and improving the web site and is a recipient of one of the 2000 PIF Awards.  Everyone thanked Janet for all her hard work and dedication to the quality of the web site with a big round of applause.

Janet is stepping down as the PIF web person and we discussed the future of the web site. Janet presented 2 options: 

1. status quo – a PIF content person that serves in the same capacity as Janet (approval of all submissions, soliciting of material) and Patuxent as the host and technical support

2. pay web site person – either PIF or combined with other bird conservation efforts

Based on our PIF Bird Conservation Support Needs Plan, a Communications person was the next priority after Regional Coordinators.  It was proposed that this position be shared with other initiatives.  In the interim, we will continue with the status quo and Chris Eberly will be the new PIF contact person.

Regional Coordinators Updates

Terry Rich pointed out that the Regional Coordinators are providing leadership and input to a very wide variety of entities, committees and meetings, from PIF State Working Groups to NABCI Internationally, and everything in between. All the bird initiatives, IAFWA, the prioritization process, the Joint Ventures, federal agencies – just about everyone – is turning to the RCs for advice, guidance and leadership. They are absolutely the cornerstones of PIF.

Carol Beardmore reported on the West.

1. all plans completed except Utah’s, which must go through a rigorous and required internal review by Utah DNR.

2. all coordinators spending much time with national issues including reviewing Technical Assessment Question 2 for NAWCA grants, PIF Prioritization, serving on the Asilomar Steering Committee and organizing one or more sessions each, development of assessment questions for an upland equivalent of NAWCA, the Denver Marshbird Workshop and associated PIF Marshbird document. The RCs are tapped by everyone including the other initiatives, other bird conservation interests, and all levels of PIF.

3. JV activities – very involved with the Sonoran JV as part of the Technical Committee and liaison to the Management Board. Involved with the Species Assessment in Mexico that covers 9 BCRs.

4. The next Western Working Group Meeting in Reno will be focused on coordination of monitoring and coordination across borders. This will function as a meeting of the national Monitoring Working Group.

Ken Rosenberg reported on the Northeast.

1. 12 Physiographic Plans are complete with 8 plans available on the web and 4 in draft and out for review.  The Piedmont Plan is in the works. 

2.  The NE Working Group has a new chair – Randy Dettmers – and vice chair – Chris Eberly.

3.  Ken has also been very involved in working with the Atlantic Coast JV.

Dean Demarest reported on the Southeast

1.  Dean also stressed his involvement in national issues, prioritization across borders, and other items which take a lot of time away from working on BCPs

2.  He participated in a workshop on stopover ecology sponsored by TNC

3.  He has been involved in state level management assessments in GA and KY and provided input on monitoring efforts and training in KY

4.  BCPs: 17 Physiographic Areas:  6 with complete plans; 7 plans in TX in the works; prior to taking a position as director of the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, George Wallace was taking the lead for 4 BCPs in FL - unsure of who the new contact will be in FL; draft plans for the Piedmont and Ridge and Valley are under review. Some Physiographic Areas may be combined so that we can produce plans for geographic units that make more sense. All plans should be complete by March.

Greg Butcher reported on the Midwest

1. BCPs: 10 Physiographic Areas: 6 complete; 2 close to complete; Greg will take the lead on the remaining 2 and has started work on those plans

2.  3 plans have involvement by JVs and a great deal of integration of bird goals

3.  Greg has also been involved in developing the waterbird conservation plan, the Marshbird Workshop, planning the upcoming first IAFWA workshop, and planning for Asilomar.

4. Greg had planned to present a report at the IAFWA Conference on state partnerships.

NABCI Update

David Pashley gave an update on NABCI.

1. US-NABCI Retreat was very positive.  Significant changes included the addition of a 3^rd Co-Chair for the Steering Committee.  An  NGO Co-Chair was added to the existing State and Federal Co-Chairs and will be initially filled by George Fenwick.  2 additional seats were also added - Resident Gamebird with John Frampton representing that group and the Association of JV Management Boards. 

2. NABCI staff met after the retreat with Terry Rich representing PIF. The meeting went well and staff responded to requests from NABCI Steering Committee. Items addressed included development of a Bird Conservation Support Needs Plan, Strategic Plan, or Support Document by each initiative. The documents include existing positions with secure funds, existing positions with insecure funds, and unfilled positions. The documents also delineate short term (1-2 years) and long term (3-5+ yrs) priorities for each initiative. We reviewed the short and long term priorities for PIF as described in the PIF Bird Conservation Support Needs Plan.

3. Development of action plan for NABCI.  What is it? Who is target audience(s)? This resulted in a list of those things most important to bird conservation in the US (not in any particular or priority order).

• Funding source for upland projects

• CARA

• Building international capacity

• Funding for Federal Agencies

• Monitoring

• Farm Bill with adequate wildlife provisions

• Nationwide “JV”/ “BCR” coverage

• Communication

4. Staffing of BCRs.  Forest Service cost share agreements directly effect conservation in BCRs and provides partial funding.  Overview of status in BCRs:

• Great Basin – JV to supervise BCR coordinator and help support the position

• Northern Rockies – JV provides support for Coordinator, Dan Casey

• Boreal Hardwood Transition – Wisconsin DNR to house coordinator

• Atlantic Northern Forest – not sure how this will happen

• Coast CA and Sierras – Funding support to PRBO

• Central Hardwoods – JV provides support to Jane Fitzgerald

• Northern Pacific Rain Forest – JV provides support to Bob Altman

• West Gulf Coastal Plain – Lower Miss JV and NFWF funds support activities

• South Atlantic Coastal Plain – Asst. JV Coordinator, Craig Watson functioning as BCR Coordinator

• Northern Great Plains – new position recently filled

5. Internationally – items identified in Querétaro

An International Agreement with commitment of 3 government agencies to bird conservation is likely by spring.  A tri-national communication strategy that is linked to the US strategy will be added to the web site trilingual translations and links.  The tri- national NABCI “pilot projects” are very complex and somewhat urgent.  Art Martell commented that this worthwhile objective has lost some focus on the original purpose of demonstrating on the ground projects. There are real projects happening on the ground that meet the intent of NABCI even though they may not be specifically designated as “NABCI projects.”

6. US NABCI communication strategy was developed by Dave Case and involved interviews with people around the US relative to NABCI.  The strategy recognizes that integrated bird conservation happens at many levels.  At the national level we have to identify the target audience and identify message before choosing the appropriate tools.  Actually doing things – not just identifying needs - is necessary.  People with whom you’re communicating need to feel like you’re listening.  Across the board, the vision of integrated bird conservation is accepted but not fully understood.  Biologists are lousy at communication.

The target audience identified includes some of the US-NABCI Committee, JV Management Board, key state and federal agency administrators and managers, and leaders in bird conservation.  The target audience is actually pretty small – about 2000 people across the US.  First, we target our allies and long-term we reach those controlling funds.  Reaching that small group of allies requires personal attention and takes time, resources and commitment.  PIF needs to maintain the focus on land bird issues and the need for resources and programs.  We also need to push for integration.

Waterbirds and Marshbirds

Mila Plavsic provided an update on these initiatives. 

1.      The Waterbird Plan is completed and a draft will be available for review soon.  The plan is available at www.nacwcp.org. The Marshbird component was discussed at an August workshop and is being written with input from regional working groups. 

2.      Jennifer Wheeler has been hired by the Division of Migratory Bird Management as the Waterbird Coordinator.  She will be working on a continental waterbird monitoring strategy and facilitating regional waterbird plans and the integration of plans.  She will continue to coordinate IMBD also.  John Will is the Waterbird IBA assistant coordinator.

3.      Marshbird Workshop held in August with 60-70 participants. Breakouts by species group identified population and habitat objectives and information limitations. The assumption that no one was paying attention to marshbirds just wasn’t true. There are 4 groups with longstanding involvement including PIF, Flyway Councils, and the Colonial Waterbird Council. These groups can share development of plans. This also helps bring Flyway Councils into the NABCI effort. The PIF Regional Coordinators put a great deal of time and thought into developing Marshbirds and Partners In Flight: A Summary of Marsh and Associated Wetland Species in PIF Bird Conservation Plans. This document includes a summary of the objectives for marsh and associated wetland species from each of the BCPs, priority species lists, examples of text describing management issues, and generally shows the extent to which marshbirds have already been addressed by PIF. The workshop was a great opportunity to discuss some of the conservation issues on a continental basis. Minutes are available from Melanie Steinkamp.

List of Birds of Conservation Concern (formerly Birds of Management Concern)

This revision is final and will be published in the October Federal Register.  It includes 3 lists (National, BCR, and FWS regions) and 140 species nationally.  Approximately 10% of a Regions species and 8-48 species per BCR are listed. Some birds, mostly seabirds, not actually covered by MBTA are included.  No hunted species are listed (king rail).  Tom Will pointed out the incredible value of PIF database in developing this list and emphasized need to maintain an updated prioritization database.  Species with scores of 24 and above were included.  Uses of list include evaluation of Technical Assessment Question 2 in NAWCA proposals, a focused list that looks beyond endangered species for use by other agencies, and in addressing the language in the Executive Order on Migratory Birds.  This list might be too restrictive for determining on the ground conservation priorities.  Need to keep in mind that this list doesn’t replace the PIF list! This list is required by law to be produced by the FWS every 5 years. We hope that in 5 more years, many of the remaining differences in species prioritization will be completely worked out among the bird initiatives.

Division of Bird Habitat Conservation

Bob Ford provided an update.

1.  Bob passed out the following fact sheet developed by Dee Butler.

Conserving All Wetland Birds. In 1989 Congress passed the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (Act) and established a matching grants program that supports private or public organizations and individuals working in partnerships to conserve wetlands throughout the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The primary purpose of the Act is to support the long-term conservation and management of wetlands and associated uplands needed by waterfowl and other migratory birds in North America. Recently, Congress increased the Act’s authorization level up to $50 million, reflecting its and the public's support of the Act's goals. The North American Wetlands Conservation Council ("Wetlands Council"), established by the Act, reviews and recommends project proposals to the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission that grants final approval for funding. The Division of Bird Habitat Conservation, USFWS, administers the program and provides technical assistance to Joint Ventures and other partnerships.

2.  Bob gave an overview of the NAWCA process and the role of JVs.  JV’s are partnerships with management boards comprised of various organizations.  The Wetlands Council ranks NAWCA proposals and sends the proposals to the JVs for their input on project priorities.  These priority-ranked proposals then go back to Council for final approval.  JV’s are typical implementation mechanisms but certainly not the only means to implement projects.  Proposals should be tied in with and show obvious connections to bird plans and their objectives; PIF can be involved in existing proposals or lead in developing proposals.  A discussion followed regarding how to ensure coordination between people developing these proposals and the plans.  Some Regional Coordinators felt that they should be involved in developing proposals that claim values for land birds or address PIF BCP objectives.  The process is obviously working better in some areas than in others.  Bob gave an example of how the Atlantic Coast JV will integrate technical expertise from the 4 bird initiatives by forming an Integrated Bird Conservation Committee to provide input on proposals and other issues involving implementing integrated bird conservation.  Also, he reminded us that NAWCA is just one of the many possible mechanisms for accomplishing projects.

MISAC Multi-Initiative Species Assessment Committee

Ken Rosenberg led the discussion of MISAC. Some groups have a problem with the use of the word prioritization to refer to the biological assessment of species needs. To some, prioritization infers the inclusion of non-biological factors such as political and socioeconomic issues. MISAC has addressed this problem by referring to the use of the PIF database, or of other databases, as "species assessment." "Species prioritization," would be the next step wherein bird initiatives take the assessment outputs and bring in other factors to produce the list of priority species. This has a number of advantages but, primarily, it keeps the biological/scientific component separate from the social/economic component. Species might only have an average assessment score but could still be a high priority, based on other factors.

PIF Database

Arvind Panjabi provided a very insightful overview of the Database.  The Database is at a critical point with insufficient funding and increasing demands from current uses and MISAC.  Arvind gave an overview of the PIF process and database management and the many uses of the database.  The website was recently updated and everyone should visit the site at www.rmbo.org/pif/pifdb.html.  Currently the database is funded by a USFWS grant of $20K.  This is insufficient and too unstable to meet the present and future needs. The level of support proposed by Arvind to properly document, maintain and expand the database is a full-time position and travel support, estimated at $67,000 per year. Additional support of a database technician at $35,000 per year is also requested.

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act

Mila Plavsic provided an update.  At the time of the meeting, discussions were ongoing and figures ranged from $0-5 million and the mechanism for distributing funds was not known.  (In October, $3 million was allocated to fund the NMBCA, procedures are pending).  The US-NABCI Committee identified upland funding as a priority with NMBCA as the most likely mechanism. Gary Myers pointed out the opportunity to connect CEC projects with NMBCA projects.

Executive Order relative to Migratory Birds

Mila Plavsic provided an update.  The EO was signed by President Clinton in January 2001.  The Bush administration reviewed the EO & left it in place, so FWS began implementing the EO.  The EO directs all Federal Agencies to consider birds in their actions and instructs these agencies to limit direct take and to be more proactive in considering migratory birds.  In June a kickoff meeting was held with about 40 FWS staff on a team assigned to work with 22 Federal Agencies to help the agencies develop Memoranda of Understanding. The kickoff went well and there was widespread agreement that there are  many opportunities to work towards bird conservation.  The federal land management agencies were  particularly enthusiastic and pro-active.  January 2003 is the 1^st milestone with the anticipated announcement of signed MOUs with Agencies.  MOU templates will be released soon.  FWS is stressing the need to view this as an opportunity and give representatives within each agency a chance to move birds forward.  Carol Beidleman added that within NPS, the EO is seen as an opportunity to engage with other agencies and something that will help those interested in birds to move birds forward.  The EO may also help with funding for bird conservation.

Wednesday, September 12

International Partners in Flight Conference at Asilomar, 20-24 March 2002

Terry Rich, CJ Ralph and Sandy Scoggins led this discussion.  An announcement of the conference will be featured in the next issue of Bird Conservation.

Thursday, March 21:  5 Concurrent Sessions with Geographic focus and including PIF, shorebirds, waterfowl (NAWMP) and Waterbirds.  Emphasis will be on the process of how you do stuff and how issues are addressed.  Some background will be included but the sessions will move quickly.

Friday, March 22:  Concurrent Sessions with a Biome focus.   These sessions will be project oriented with “How to” examples from all initiatives, including international projects, monitoring, research, education, etc.

Saturday, March 23:  These sessions will follow a more traditional conference format with themes such as Birding Economics and Stopover Ecology.  There may also be some optional smaller breakouts depending on interest from registrants.

Several Keynote Speakers have been contacted.  Great social activities planned.

Call for papers has been distributed and is on the website.  The deadline for papers is November 1^st.  Session Chairs will be able to invite speakers and if needed pick from these papers.  Papers not selected will have the option of presenting as posters.  The conference can handle up to 300 posters.  The deadline for posters is December 1.

Proceedings: Papers & Posters will be peer-reviewed and may appear in the Proceedings.  CJ Ralph and Terry Rich will be the overall editors.  Session chairs will handle the peer review of papers.  CJ is pursuing options for publication. We propose to follow the Estes Park model, having the proceedings produced within 1 year and then a more rigorous, peer-reviewed book produced from a subset of the more scientific papers.

Fundraising: 110 contacts have been made with 28 specific replies received including 23 yes or likely to contribute.  $65,000 has been received, $18,000 almost committed towards goal of $100,000.  CJ provided a handout of the Draft Budget.

Online Registration will be available. Early Registration deadline is December 1.

Numerous Field Trips planned for Sunday – 47 choices including 6 Pelagic trips

Birds of Two Worlds Symposium, March 6-10, 2002

This is another meeting of interest sponsored by the Smithsonian Migratory Bird Center and to be held at the National Conservation Training Center.

PIF Staffing and Funding Issues

1. Regional Coordinators: A proposal was submitted by IAFWA to extend funding for the RCs for an additional year (April 2002 – April 2003) using Federal Aid funds. The proposal is ranked as the top priority by the Migratory Wildlife Committee and Gary Myers feels we have good chance. (This proposal was approved and the funding extended for an additional year).

This solution is still a temporary fix for a long-term issue and David Pashley is pursuing other options through NABCI’s Bird Conservation Support Needs document and strategy. Major sustained funding from federal, state, and NGO partners will be required to make this work in the long run.

2. Regardless of funding options, we need to clearly articulate the role of Regional Coordinators and their relationship to other PIF positions, particularly FWS positions, Nongame bird biologists, state nongame biologists and Diversity Program Managers, JVs, BCR Coordinators, etc.  This should be in the context of the long-term strategy that Terry is outlining.  We really need to develop this strategy before December 1 and Terry will bump that up ASAP.  Several participants requested a copy of the PIF “Business Plan” and a copy of the “Infrastructure needs report to NABCI” will be sent to the MSC.

3. Support for the National Coordinator.  Despite some anxious moments and difficulties in getting all the contributions from partners, Terry’s travel budget worked out and he was able to travel to most of the meetings he needed to attend.  The FWS agreed to pay for Terry’s salary if other PIF partners would provide support funds particularly for travel.  Because Terry’s expenses for 2001 covered only a 9-month period, funds were adequate.  Partners need to fulfill their obligations in 2002 and send support monies to FWS.

How does PIF deal with broader research issues

Janet Ruth provided background for this discussion.  An example given was research involving the use of stable isotopes in bird research.  Can PIF write a letter of support for this type of broad research topic.  CJ Ralph commented that the Monitoring WG has dealt with this type of issue.  The WG evaluates new methods, etc. and brings forth suggestions to MSC.  This type of evaluation could be dealt with by a the Research WG in the future.  CJ suggested that the isotope issue can be dealt with by Monitoring WG at this point. Gary discussed the Science Team approach used by the waterfowl folks and suggested that this type of team is a long-term need for PIF particularly at the BCR level.  Carol Beardmore added that researchers with this type of issue could refer to the research needs assessment.  This would make connection between outcome of proposed research and PIF plans.

Timing of MSC Retreats

The issue of when and where the MSC Retreats are held is a recurring question.  Some interested people have expressed concern that participation may be limited by having the Retreat in conjunction with the North American and the IAFWA conferences.  To facilitate this discussion, EJ Williams sent a survey with help from Naomi Edelson to the MSC and to the Wildlife Diversity Program managers in each state.  In summary, no one strongly favored holding the MSC independent of the larger conferences.  Several responded that having the MSC retreat in association with the conferences helped or might help with their ability to travel and attend the MSC.  Most regular MSC participants said that they would attend the MSC no matter what the timing.  So, the MSC will continue to be held in conjunction with the North American in the spring and the IAFWA Conference in the fall. The group also agreed to continue the format of holding the retreat at a less formal and more scenic location a reasonable distance from the main conference.  The possibility of holding the MSC retreat in association with Asilomar was briefly discussed and determined to be infeasible.

The next MSC retreat will precede the North American in Dallas.  Local PIF folks in TX are working on the particulars.  The retreat will be held near Fort Hood, TX on Monday, April 1 and Tuesday, April 2 with a field trip to Fort Hood (black-capped vireos and golden cheeked warblers likely). 

Addressing management needs of birds on public funds

Jane Fitzgerald introduced the topic with examples from Central Hardwoods BCR.  Numerous species in this and other BCRs require active management including timber harvest and prescribed fire.  This management is becoming increasingly difficult because of actions by anti-management groups.  Lawsuits are hindering land managers’ ability to implement parts of the BCPs. How can PIF raise awareness of the needs of early successional or disturbance dependent species including birds and numerous other organisms?  How can PIF convey the needs and benefits of responsible management to ecosystem functions and biodiversity?  How does PIF engage those anti-management groups.  After a thorough discussion, the following actions were suggested:

1.      Jane will talk to the ABC Policy Council which has representatives from many environmental groups

2.      Develop some type of document that pulls out the management needs of early successional species from BCPs – similar to the Marshbirds document

3.      Provide the appropriate Literature and Scientific base to the USFS as support

4.      Develop a brochure or fact sheet explaining species in need of management

With comments from Brad Jacobs, Ken Rosenberg, and Greg Butcher, there was recognition that many groups are purely opposed to cutting a tree and that some groups have the perception that managing for early successional species is a front or excuse for cutting trees.  We have to make certain that we provide the scientific background for decisions.  Demonstrating sustainability should also be part of the argument.  Based on her experience, Mila Plavsic noted that many Environmental Lawyers don’t understand the biological issues.  Perhaps PIF could host a symposium and participate in Environmental Conferences attended by those involved in this litigation.  Cal McCluskey suggested that this should be tackled at regional level because the issues vary so much regionally.  The Executive Order and resulting MOUs should incorporate management objectives for birds and may help with these cases.  Jane and Ron Archuleta commented that although some issues can be resolved at the regional or local level, some lawsuits are brought at a higher level and discussions will also be needed at the national level.  CJ Ralph suggested that this might be an excellent session at Asilomar.  Greg Butcher commented that we likely won’t get consensus, nor convert zealots.  We need to stick to our mission and push our message of priority species and habitats.  PIF has a good history of getting different groups to the table. Janet Ruth suggested that this would be an excellent topic for an issue of Bird Conservation. 

USFS Update

Ron Archuleta provided an update on some of the current USFS activities.

1. Road Management Policy.  FS has over 400,000 miles of roads and billions of dollars of backlog for maintenance.  Basically they have more roads than they can maintain.  The revised road policy requires that National Forests and Grasslands must conduct an analysis of roads and develop a road atlas.  Many Plan revisions after July 01 must have this atlas completed as part of the Plan.  The Bush Administration reviewed the Road Policy and basically left it the same but extended the deadline for inclusion of a road analysis in the planning process.  By January 13, 2003, all Forests must have a Road Plan and Analysis.

2. Roadless Policy.  The FS is changing from overarching national roadless policy to a Forest-by-Forest policy. The Bush Administration reviewed the Roadless Policy passed by the Clinton Administration and delayed implementation.  It required 1) an informed decision process, 2) protection of homes, 3) protection of access to private property, and 4) protection of the forest.  There was no specific mention of wildlife.  Currently the rule is enjoined, and the Forest Supervisor must review any new roads and review applicable maps.  There is still time to respond to Inventory Roadless Areas Rule and information is available at the Forest Service Web Site.  Currently, Foresters at the regional level still have discretion regarding roads.

3. 2000 Planning Rule Revision.  Since 1982, forest and wildlife habitats have been required to be managed to maintain viability and populations shall be well distributed.  This raises the question – Can the FS maintain viability and distribution?  In 2000, the document Sustaining the Peoples Land was developed by a13-member panel.  The requirements for viability and distribution are still included although hotly debated.  The Bush Administration appointed a team to review the planning rule.  Ron provided a handout.  Some of the questions to be addressed include

• Are Forest Plans programmatic in nature?

• Should ecological sustainability be a top priority equal to other concerns?

• What role do science and scientists play in FS planning?

• Should some of the details of the current Rule be Directives?
  (a Directive should be less subject to legal action)

In late September the draft Rule will appear in the Federal Register with a 60-day comment period.  The Final Rule should be published in February or March 2002.  Directives should be published in Federal Register in April with a 60-day comment. Final Directives will be published in June 2002.

4. How do we incorporate PIF plans into the Forest Plan revisions?  Make sure that the Biologists with USFS have the information.  In reviewing draft Plans, look at the Standards and Guidelines and be sure that these reference PIF plans.  The management direction for the Forest is contained in those Guidelines.  With so many plans under revision, we likely will not be able to participate in all revisions.  Ken Rosenberg suggested that the process needs some facilitation from the national level.  Some language should be suggested at the national level for incorporation into all plans.  Ron indicated that the Regional Forest Service representatives should handle this and he will work with the Regional Program Leaders to ensure a link between Forest Plans and PIF BCPs.  This connection could also be specified in the MOU developed between the USFS and FWS for the Executive Order process.

Opportunity to learn Spanish

Carol Beardmore announced a Spanish Emersion Class for PIF participants in January 2002 in Guatemala.  The course is highly recommended by Megan Hill and others and provides 1 on 1 instruction.  The cost is very inexpensive:  $250/week including room and board and instruction.  You will live with a Guatemalan family and speak only Spanish.  There will of course be birding opportunities.  If you are interested, contact Carol.

Cerulean Warbler update

Ken Rosenberg reported on a meeting he attended in Knoxville in June that took a very pro-active approach to timber industry involvement in Cerulean Warbler conservation.  This was a very effective approach and should produce positive results.  He then described an alarming threat to Cerulean Warbler habitat resulting from mountain top removal and valley–fill mining by the coal mining industry primarily in West Virginia.  The practice involves lopping off the top 500 ft. of a ridgetop and dumping the material into the headwaters of streams in the valley below.  This is taking place primarily on private lands and EPA has been permitting the activity.  EPA is currently being sued.  Pending permits effect ½ million acres in next 10-20 years, which would be devastating to CEWA.  This activity causes permanent alterations to the topography of the land.  Restoration is not a matter of reclamation or reforestation.  The forests being devastated are very rich, mixed mesophytic forests.  The EPA contact is John Meagher.  This issue may be one that can be addressed by the US NABCI Federal Agency Subcommittee.  Mila Plavsic will also look into the possibility of adding a representative to that committee from the Office of Surface Minerals.

3^rd North American Ornithological Conference, New Orleans, September 2002

Terry Rich suggested that this meeting would be a great opportunity to get PIF on radar screen of many ornithologists.  A PIF Workshop would be a great addition and something developed for Asilomar might be a good start.  Deadlines are coming up soon.  Contact Terry with ideas or commitments.

The meeting adjourned at 3:00 p.m.

(link to previous MSC minutes, March 2001)
(link to next MSC minutes, April 2002)

ATTENDEES:

Home || What is PIF? || Que es Compañeros en Vuelo? || Bird Conservation Planning || PIF Resources
PIF Meetings and Events || Bird Conservation Directory || Contact Us