Southeast
Partners in Flight
Steering
Committee Meeting
Southeastern
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies Meeting
Hilton
Head, South Carolina
October
30, 2004
Welcome
and Introductions
The
meeting began at 12:15 pm with 13 people in attendance. See attendance
list here at the end.
Financial
Report, EJ Williams
The
current balance is somewhere between $9,000 and $10,000 of which approximately
$3,000 is ear marked for printing the Biloxi proceedings. The
group discussed the merits of printing the poster in Spanish and agreed
to use some of the existing funds to accomplish this task.
The
group also discussed the need to form an audit committee to review
the finances prior to the annual meeting and report to the steering
committee at that time. We agreed that it will be best for EJ
to continue to be the treasurer. Action Item: Form
a small group to review the books and report to the steering committee
at the spring meeting.
Need
For Chapter Bylaws, EJ
A
draft charter was developed but never approved by the entire steering
committee. The group agreed that this document should serve as
draft to be reviewed by a working group. Action Item: EJ
to email the draft to the co-chairs for distribution, email work for
a final to be brought to the annual meeting in McAllen for approval
by the Steering Committee. If you are interested in being part
of this working group email EJ, Catherine or Laurel.
Report
from Implementation Committee (IC), Laurel Moore Barnhill
Implementation
Committee met prior to the International in Cape May New Jersey, 26-27
September.
PIF
Annual Support Needs: Terry
Rich, National PIF Coordinator, submits a yearly PIF operational
budget. Terry’s salary is covered by USFWS while other
annual expenses are covered completely or in part by one or more
partners but some shortfalls exist. Annual expenses include,
National Coordinator, Database, Science Committee, Mesoamerican Office,
Awards, IMBD, Bird Conservation Magazine, and Web-site Maintenance.
The
group discussed and agreed to contribute $1,000 annually to Terry’s
travel. USFWS does not cover his travel budget only salary and
benefits. The contribution from SEPIF would only be used for
travel to SEPIF specific meetings (e.g., the annual meeting). This
decision is a challenge to the other working groups to review the annual
PIF expenses and if possible identify where they can best contribute.
Asilomar
Proceedings: The
proceedings are close to being finished and distributed to participants. If
your address has changed since the meetings contact Linda Long (lllong@fs.fed.us)
to make any necessary corrections.
PIF
Conservation Directory: ABC
has taken the lead in updating the directory. ABC has assembled
lists by state that needs to be checked for accuracy as people have
moved and to add new contacts. State coordinators have already
received their state list. It is important that these lists
reflect all PIF people in your state (e.g., USFWS, USFS, NRCS, TNC,
Audubon, DU, ornithological societies, universities, industry and
all others). The purpose is to include all individuals working
actively in bird conservation in the America’s at regional,
national, and international levels. Action Item: review
your state list and make corrections as required. http://abcbirds.org/directory/directory.htm
PIF
Role in Advocacy Issues:
Background: California
PIF has developed a decision making process to be used when handling
advocacy issues and brought forward to the Implementation Committee
for guidance. In general, the process addressed the following:
providing scientific, technical, or other expert assistance; advocating
for, supporting, opposing, or otherwise taking formal positions on
legislation, program funding, etc.; and lobbying. Cal PIF is
in the process of determining a final outcome and any documents will
be used for internal purposes only.
The
position of the Implementation Committee is that PIF is a partnership
and its role is to provide sound scientific information. There
is a point at which we (PIF) must step away from the decision making
process. State and regional PIF groups need to keep in mind certain
items (e.g., Hatch Act and PIF MOA with Federal Agencies) and the influence
of their actions on federal partners. The IC is most concerned
about the long-term welfare of the partnership, but national cannot
dictate to a state or regional working group what they can or cannot
do. Each group needs to keep in mind that they are part of a
larger partnership.
There
are a number of avenues for advocacy and one solution is for the Bird
Conservation Alliance to advocate on behalf of PIF. The Alliance
(http://www.birdconservationalliance.org/)
serves as a forum for organizations to exchange information and ideas
regarding current issues in bird conservation, assists its members
in conducting collaborative advocacy, and provides resources to assist
its members in their bird conservation work. The BCA will only
be as successful on behalf of PIF as PIF makes it.
Discussion: This
discussion came on the heels of the discussion about PIF and SEQSG
advocating legislation to influence the Farm Bill, so there was a little
confusion about where advocacy fits within the context of SEPIF. It’s
possible that PIF can provide information to partners such as Audubon
or the American Bird Conservancy (ABC) who can then use the information
for advocacy purposes. Because several people involved in PIF
are state and federal personnel this issue has been difficult to deal
with. State and Federal agency personnel might have more influence
working directly with USFS on Forest Revision Plans. This is
an opportunity for PIF to make sure PIF goals and objectives are considered
in the context of USFS Forest Revision Plans.
Is
an initiative between SEQSG and SEPIF advocacy? If suggestions
are based on scientific information is this advocacy? Negative
comments on an issue versus positive support of a Farm Bill practice
might be taken differently. Comment that providing science doesn’t
always get the job done. Example of field borders for quail-numerous
studies have shown that field borders are positive for quail. That
didn’t really help the movement much, there needed to be an advocacy
movement when the group went to Washington and started lobbying for
the legislation to implement these practices. The joint initiative
we have started on will eventually get to that point.
Can
individuals represent themselves when advocating or whether they can
represent PIF? Do we need guidelines that might be appropriate
for PIF in terms of advocacy so that certain people can step back if
they need to? Can individuals make recommendations that are not ‘official’;
for example, individuals becoming involved with USFS Forest Plan Revision
are a type of advocacy, an opportunity to influence planning while
using PIF goals. Some consider American Bird Conservancy as the advocacy
group for PIF.
Action
Item: This
will be an agenda item for McAllen, TX Steering Committee. Discussion
on PIF and its role as an advocate within the context of a larger
discussion of the SEQSG and SEPIF initiative. Well thought
out initiatives with good representation from SEPIF should not cause
problems. Discussion at a broader level would be appropriate. Case
by case basis analysis might be good for advocacy issues. Consensus
is important.
State
of the Birds, Audubon: During
the IC, Greg Butcher distributed reprints of the insert included
in the October 2004 edition of Audubon Magazine. The reprint
and companion website (http://www.audubon.org/bird/stateofthebirds/)
are intended to document key findings on a review of the status of
654 species and to identify policy implications. Copies are
also available from Greg (mailto:gbutcher@audubon.org).
PIF Continental
Plan
Nearly
all of the 10,000 copies of the PIF Continental Plan have been distributed. But
due to the continued demand, we have decided to reprint another 5,000
copies. As before, we will send 1-5 copies to any requester free
of charge. But we are requesting donations of $10 per plan for
orders of more than 5 plans. Partial up-front support for the
reprinting has been provided by Cornell, the National Park Service,
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Forest Service. We
continue to explore options for producing a pdf or other web version
for downloading. Many of us believe that the plan should continue
to be distributed as a whole, and not as stand-alone tables or other
parts.—Terry Rich (terry_rich@fws.gov)
The
August 2004 issue of Bird Conservation magazine is almost completely
devoted to the PIF Continental Plan, with articles on most of the major
plan components. This issue is targeted at those who have some
interest in the science of continental-level assessment but who are
not interested in all the details. Terry has some additional
copies available, first-come first-served, for distribution to appropriate
audiences.
PIF
Pins: Tri-national
PIF pins will be available in the IMBD catalogue and samples were
handed out to those present. A request from Sue Bonfield (sbonfield@aol.com)
was posted to the list serve in early November to determine interest.
These are excellent items for International Migratory Bird Day events,
meetings, etc. More IMBD items can be found on the website: http://www.birdday.org or
linked from Partners
in Flight Home Page - U.S.
Coordinated
Bird Monitoring (CBM)
Monitoring
Avian Conservation: Rationale, Design, and Coordination (September
2004) was prepared by the Coordinated Bird Monitoring Working Group
of the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies
(IAFWA). This review and report was requested by the directors
of the USFWS and USGS, in consultation with IAFWA, at the North
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference in Spokane in
March 2004.
The
general objective was to assess opportunities and challenges in coordinated
bird monitoring. Specific charges were to 1) identify key technical
issues, approaches, and suggestions about the coordination of bird
monitoring, 2) suggest a process for integrating and updating ideas
from the avian conservation and research community; and 3) produce
a report for the IAFWA Science and Research Committee with recommendations
on technical aspects of coordinated bird monitoring.
The
working group report consists of three sections – Rationale,
Design, and Coordination – which emphasize the need to focus
monitoring efforts on evaluation of avian responses to conservation
actions. The report recommendations are intended to serve as
a springboard for the bird conservation community to develop a shared
technical and administrative framework for coordinating bird monitoring.
The
US NABCI committee is requesting focused comments, will synthesize
those comments, and take appropriate actions to advance priority bird
monitoring needs through a reconstituted Monitoring Working Group. The
comment period ends on December 1, 2004 and the report can be found
at http://www.iafwa.org. They
are requesting that comments be consolidated if possible. Each
state director was sent a letter from Steve Williams requesting comments
from agencies. If you have comments that represent your agency
make sure that they are included in your agency’s response. SEPIF
comments will be sent to Terry for incorporation into a single PIF
response.
Jon
Bart’s draft of CBM was reviewed by the Bird Committee at the
IAFWA meeting and they have made recommendations based on this review. NABCI
and Bird Committee are asking for comments on their recommendations;
each state will get a letter for comments. State PIF coordinators
need to make sure they are a part of this process. SEPIF should also
draft comments
Report
from Science Committee, Chuck Hunter
The
Science Committee met two days before the IC with Chuck Hunter and
Dean Demarest representing SEPIF.
PIF
Species Assessment Database--Funding
In
1991, Partners In Flight (PIF) began developing a Species Assessment
Process to objectively evaluate the conservation status of
each bird species in North America, and to identify areas where conservation
efforts for those species would be most effective. This process assigns
scores to species in categories pertaining to their biology and conservation. The
database is a widely used planning tool but it does not have an adequate
nor stable funding base. The database is accessed via the web
on average 2,000 times per week (http://www.rmbo.org/pif/pif-db.html). Rocky
Mountain Bird Observatory (RMBO), the creator and steward of the
database, was recently awarded a $30,000 grant from NFWF to maintain
and update the database, on the condition that these funds be matched
(1:1) by non-federal (U.S.) funds raised specifically for this project. Presently,
$10,000 in matching funds have been secured thanks to the Western
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and an additional $5000
from Canada, but RMBO still needs $15,000 in order to take full advantage
of the NFWF grant. A proposal from RMBO outlining intentions
and budget allocations was distributed. The database
has been identified as a PIF national level priority.
Action
Item: the
group agreed that the Species Assessment Database is a worthwhile
cause and supported the proposal. The group endorsed moving
the proposal forward to the SE Director’s Non-game Committee. The
proposal was brought forward to the Directors and was tabled until
the spring meeting due to their not having seen the material prior
to the meeting.
PIF
Species Assessment Database—Physio Scores
Although
the database was originally intended to assist in regional conservation
priority-setting among breeding birds, specifically in U.S. states
and PIF Physiographic Areas, the PIF process can also be used simply
as a means of assessing conservation status. More recently, the approach
was applied at the continental scale to address species at the level
of Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs). The Science Committee
has agreed to pull physiographic region scores from the database
despite certain BCRs having specific issues relevant to small areas
(i.e., sub-BCRs). Also, some concern exists that some regional
species will not be adequately assessed with a change towards a BCR
assessment of priority birds. (e.g., Appalachian
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker, BCR 28).
The
question at hand then becomes, are physiographic scores still being
used at the state and BCR level? Should we change our approach
to regional assessments for priority birds?
Action
Item: Send
comments to Chuck (chuck_hunter@fws.gov)
-
Are
physiographic regional scores still relevant? For example,
were they used in your state’s CWCS bird prioritization process?
-
Are
physio area scores needed in order for the database scores to be
up to date?
-
If
Physiographic region scores are not available will certain species
fall through the cracks?
-
Other
comments?
Discussion
Who
has the role to manage all of these databases (i.e., Audubon databases,
BBS, habitat changes database, state databases, etc.)? How do
Joint Ventures fit in with monitoring? There is a Director’s
order to JVs on the role they should play with five functions as guidelines. JVs
can be the mechanism to pull things together from an all bird viewpoint. A
need for regional oversight exists.
SEPIF
Poster, report from Cliff Shackelford given by Catherine
Migratory
Landbirds of the Southeast: Valuable and Vulnerable poster was reprinted
in March 2004 and approximately 28,000 posters were purchased by about
a dozen states. The supply was completely sold out. Reprinting
of this highly informative and widely utilized outreach product was
made possible by the generous support of SEAFWA and Texas Parks and
Wildlife. Bob Brantley conducted the accounting and billing for
the project and TPWD provided personnel that arranged for printing
and distribution. Numerous sponsors and fiscal ingenuity of TPWD
resulted in funds available for printing and distributing a Spanish
version of the poster. Logos from all sponsors are on the
back of the poster.
Southeast
Partners in Flight Newsletter, Laurel
Anna
Huckabee (formerly SCDNR) agreed to do quarterly newsletter for SEPIF,
but people did not send information in a consistent manner. The
group agreed that the idea has merit but not the means. There
are a number of avenues for information exchange: national PIF
Newsletter that Terry produces each quarter (submission of items approximately
one month in advance), ACJV via Craig Watson, LMVJV website, and SEPIF
list serve.
Nongame
and Private Quail Hunting Initiative, Laurel
Jeff
Holmes, Co-Chair, Partners in Amphibian and Reptile Conservation Southeastern
United States, asked SEPIF to review a proposal for an initiative between
private quail hunting and non-game conservation communities. A
similar request was made of the SE Quail Study Group and after discussion
that group decided to table the proposal.
The
purpose of this initiative is to build bridges between the game and
non-game conservation communities by identifying common goals and emphasizing
mutual benefits. Privately-managed quail hunting lands represent
some of the best examples of pristine habitats in the Southeastern
United States. Not surprisingly, the conservation power of privately-managed
hunting lands extends far beyond their game-oriented mission. Species
lost or declining due to poor management or habitat alteration elsewhere
may be quite common on these well-managed lands. Perhaps the
most remarkable aspect of the conservation power of these sporting
lands is their private ownership. Understandably, many members
of the private hunting community are vocal advocates of landowner rights
and opponents of government interference on private lands. The
Endangered Species Act and other federal programs are of particular
concern to many plantation owners, managers, and patrons. This
distrust may, in extreme cases, extend to all non-game conservation-related
activities, organizations, and individuals. Despite their wealth
of ecological and biological potential, many hunt clubs are hesitant
to allow non-game scientists, government agencies, or other biodiversity
conservationists on their land.
Although
it will take some time to identify the details of how the non-game
and private quail hunting communities can best cooperate, there are
a few steps that can be taken immediately.
What
the Non-game Community Can Do:
Expansion
and Connectivity:
Many private land trusts focus their efforts on buffering, expanding
or connecting existing public lands. We feel that an equal emphasis
should be placed on well-managed private quail hunting lands. Where
opportunities exist or can be created, land trusts should consider
purchasing land to “flip” (donate or sell) to well-managed
hunt clubs. These efforts should, where possible, focus on critical
habitats and key “connector” tracts, and should be afforded
permanent easements that are mutually beneficial to both game and
non-game conservation.
Rewards
and Incentives:
Easements and other financial incentives should be fully explored
or, where lacking, developed to reward/encourage high-quality ecosystem
stewardship on privately-managed hunt clubs. Emphasize voluntary
contributions to non-game conservation. Good habitat management should
be rewarded.
Educational
Materials and Opportunities:
Provide educational materials, workshops and other opportunities
to owners, managers, technicians, and hunters to help them better
incorporate non-game wildlife into their list of priorities.
Remember:
Quality Hunting is the Goal: Whether
conducting research or developing management recommendations, the
mission of private hunting lands must be respected. The quality of
the hunting experience must be considered in every decision made.
What
The Hunting Community Can Do:
Baseline
Inventory: Have
the non-game biodiversity on your land inventoried to help determine
how your management practices are contributing to non-game conservation.
These services can be provided by private consultants, academic institutions,
select non-government organizations, or some state agencies.
Incorporate
Non-game Biodiversity: When
developing or revising management plans, consult a professional conservation
planner on how best to incorporate non-game biodiversity into your
plan while simultaneously continuing to improve the quality of the
hunting experience you provide. Oftentimes, small steps (retention
of old stumps, summer burning through ponds, etc.) can greatly improve
non-game habitat on private land. These services can be provided
by private consultants, academic institutions, select non-government
organizations, or some state agencies.
Monitor: Periodically
monitor non-game response to your management regimes. If unanticipated
changes in non-game populations are observed, consult a professional
planner on how best to adjust your management activities. These services
can be provided by private consultants, academic institutions, select
non-government organizations, or some state agencies.
Allow
Research: Privately-managed
hunting lands are some of our last, best potential field laboratories
and may be vital to filling significant gaps in our scientific knowledge
of pristine lands and their associated biodiversity. Allow non-game
scientists to conduct research on your lands. You will be making
an invaluable contribution to conservation that extends far beyond
your property boundaries.
Educate
and Protect: Educate
your staff, clients, and guests regarding the importance of non-game
conservation and prohibit or carefully regulate the harvest of non-game
species. These services can be provided by private consultants,
academic institutions, select non-government organizations, or some
state agencies.
Discussion
From
during the meeting and emails: What goes on at large private
quail hunting lands is likely pretty good for several high priority
birds in the southeast; Red-cockaded Woodpeckers (and the ESA) may
become an issue for some landowners that don't want them but their
management may attract them...this may be a place for help via the
Safe Harbor Program; how many acres does this speak to; this could
build trust and common ground between landowners and biologists but
could also make plantations uneasy; seems to directly target quail
plantations and not habitat management on private lands in general;
in favor of habitat management for private lands; need to find other
avenues to join forces; may be a role for Tall Timbers.
The
overall consensus was that the initiative had merit if it focused on
private lands in general and no further action should be taken at this
time.
Logistics
SEPIF Annual Meeting 2005: Texas, Catherine
The
details of the Annual Meeting in McAllen Texas are coming together
quickly. AGFC has agreed to host the website and the most up
to date information can be found there (http://www.agfc.com/sepif).
Lodging
Lodging
and meeting accommodations are at the Country Inn and Suites and we
are strongly encouraging people to stay at that hotel. If 70
rooms are reserved SEPIF will not have to pay a rental rate for conference
rooms. A block of rooms listed under “Partners in Flight
Conference” is reserved until February 8, 2005.
Registration
Catherine
will be handling registration and the early registration fee will be
approximately $75, $55 for students (subject to change). Lunches
will be catered at the hotel and costs are included in the registration
fee.
Call
for Papers
Bob
Cooper has developed the call for papers—both oral and poster
presentations. Abstracts for oral or poster presentations (< 250
words, not including title or names and affiliations of authors) should
be submitted by email to Mark S. Woodrey (mailto:mark.woodrey@dmr.state.ms.us)
by January 7, 2005.
We
are encouraging researchers, agency personnel, and especially graduate
students in natural resources, ecology and biology curricula to present
papers and posters that summarize research, monitoring, or management
projects addressing any aspect of bird conservation. Participation
is anticipated from state and federal agencies, universities, state
ornithological societies, and non-government conservation organizations
contributing to bird conservation under the umbrellas of Partners in
Flight and the North American Bird Conservation Initiative. The poster
session will occur during a special evening social on Thursday, February
17. As in past years, students presenting posters will be eligible
for a Best Student Poster cash award.
In
addition, we are encouraging southeastern researchers in bird conservation
to give oral presentations, which will be organized into concurrent
sessions on both Thursday and Friday. We especially encourage
graduate students to present, but request that oral presentations be
limited to research efforts that are complete or nearly so, rather
than presenting preliminary research results that are largely inconclusive
(Preliminary results are suitable for posters). Researchers from
all regions of the southeast, Mexico and the Caribbean, and those involved
with any aspect of bird conservation, are invited to participate. We
especially encourage participation from research efforts in Mexico
and southeastern Texas
Field
Trips
Cliff
Shackelford is the local host and working on the ground to pull this
together while on maternity leave. A list of field trips (morning
and after the conference) will be posted to the website as soon as
the details are worked out. Morning conference sessions will
start late to accommodate early morning birding.
Silent
Auction
Joni
Ellis (joni@opticsforthetropics.org) will
be coordinating the Silent Auction and proceeds benefit Optics for
the Tropics (http://www.opticsforthetropics.org/)
and student travel. Please contact Joni with questions and to
let her know what items you will bring.
Sponsorship
Sponsorships
are one way to help defray travel and lodging funding and in the past
funding of student lodging has come from sponsorship dollars. If
you have any ideas or leads for sponsorships contact Catherine (mailto:cwrideout@agfc.state.ar.us)
Agenda
SEPIF Annual Meeting 2005: Texas, Catherine
The
group reviewed and commented on the outline to date. Wednesday 16 February
will be devoted to SEPIF and SEQSG respective steering committee meetings. Thursday
and Friday will focus on plenary sessions and breakouts with the poster
session scheduled for Thursday evening. Exact details of sessions
are still being worked out by the planning committee. In general
one session will focus on a range of topics dealing with bird conservation
in Northeast Mexico and South Texas, another will focus on population
monitoring and habitat objectives and the direction of SEPIF, and a
third on management of public and private lands.
One
idea for the poster session was to have each state present a poster
on their CWCS and have state planners in attendance.
Joint
SEQSG SEPIF Initiative, Don McKenzie
The
purpose of this joint initiative is to develop, advocate, achieve and
implement a major new private-land habitat initiative through the Farm
Bill to the mutual benefit of northern bobwhites and priority grassland,
early successional and/or savannah species of landbirds. This
formal initiative would make conversations become reality and aim for
the 2007 Farm Bill. We also need to be thinking about mechanisms
to make this stuff happen on the ground.
Three
draft white papers have been developed from work that began at the
August SEQSG meeting---Cropland Flexible Fallow, Wildlife Woodlands,
and Native Grasses for Livestock and Wildlife. Three separate
efforts will each define a vision and a plan with the possibility of
going to different places in federal code, draft legislation. Determination
of where the best fit will be will depend upon timing and being ready
when opportunities arise. The closest open window at this time
is in the private forest land arena for a number of reasons: pulp
prices have crashed; beetle populations are increasing and spreading;
and the forest land enhancement program not doing well. Forestry
community is asking for help for this program and the SE Forestry and
Wildlife Working Group meet in Atlanta recently where a high level
of consensus occurred on basic issues. This program needs to
be comprehensive and not just focus on tree planting.
A
long list of activity within the forestry arena also point to the opportunity
for a forest based initiative at this time. The Longleaf Alliance
(http://www.longleafalliance.org/)
held their bi-annual meeting in early October and there was a high
level of enthusiasm for conversion across the landscape to longleaf. During
the meeting wildlife was a center piece but few biologists attended. Membership
to the Longleaf Alliance is a modest $35 which includes a newsletter
and SEPIF needs to become more involved with this group. A longleaf
understory restoration conference was held in October in Florida and
discussions were on oak savannah restoration in areas where longleaf
is not present.
The
group also discussed the need to identify based upon the three white
papers which species would benefit from the practices by BCR and breeding/wintering
season. Action Item: Develop a list of species that will
benefit from Cropland Flexible Fallow, Wildlife Woodlands, and Native
Grasses for Livestock and Wildlife programs. Practices described
related to bird benefits; id suite of birds and how relate to suite
of species (grassland, crop, forest) Chuck to start with Dean (and
others?) with review by JV’s, coordinated through Don.
State
Reports on CWCS Status, Catherine
Highlights
from several states were presented and discussion ensued.
Alabama
Terwilliger
Consulting has been contracted to assist with development of the CWCS. The
2nd Alabama Nongame Conference held in 2002 (using WCRP
funds) prioritized species of concern, linked them to primary habitats,
ranked the habitats and described general management objectives for
high ranking habitats. This symposium addressed the first four
of the eight required elements. The expert panels from the symposium
have been reconvened to update the information and extend it to more
refined “on the ground” management recommendations. An
initial series of stakeholder meetings regarding development of the
CWCS is nearing completion. Through August, 29 meetings have
been held, including more that 400 individuals from state and federal
agencies and NGO’s. A detailed outline for the CWCS has
been completed and initial drafts of various chapters are in development. When
a draft CWCS is completed (by March 2005) it will be available for
review by the general public and a series of public meetings will be
held.
Arkansas
· Our
planning is being done in-house by AGFC and partners
· Steering
Committee is the decision making body in the CWCS process: members
from The Nature Conservancy, Audubon Arkansas, USFWS, Arkansas Natural
Heritage Commission, and Arkansas Game and Fish Commission.
· Species
list was derived from a merge of Arkansas Game and Fish Commission
species of concern list and Natural Heritage Commission lists. This
list has gone to the species teams.
· Approach
has been to use a smaller bird subcommittee team to derive our list. Four
members: used Chuck Hunter’s “Proposed State Lists of Priority
Bird Species for FWS Southeast Region States” and merged
it with our Heritage list. We decided to narrow our list by removing
some species that are on the Heritage list but where AR is on the periphery
of their range and they are only occasionally recorded in the state. Our
list has 79 species currently. We have been working on listing
potential and known problems, priority research, monitoring needs and
strategies, and conservation actions needed within smaller group. We
are getting ready to send out our list to a larger group within the
state for review and feedback which will include personnel from the
birding community, university professors, federal and state personnel,
and non-profit groups.
· Using
eco-region approach. There are Habitat GIS/Aquatic systems and
Terrestrial systems using similar vegetation classification that the
USFS used in their forest plan revision. This approach results
in a group of 30 to 35 habitat types. Forest Service lands make up
the bulk of 2 of the eco-regions. This made them an important
partner to work closely with in the process.
· A
database is also being done in cooperation with the Forest Service. It’s
intended to be used for data storage and analysis. This database was
designed by AGFC for the USFS Plan Revision.
· There
is an MOU with TNC to do the GIS work.
· It
is likely that the Communication Team will be led by the Cooperative
Extension Service, who will develop four eco-regional workshops. County
agents and DC’s will be working on public involvement up front.
This will lend credibility to the process. Drafts will be taken
to all these meetings to facilitate buy-in and different perspectives.
GENERAL
ISSUES
1) Consistency
of eco-regions across borders and consistency of habitat priorities
across borders are an important issue. As we continue to work
on our plans, it should be easy to compare lists among states that
share borders and, although it may be difficult to use the exact same
habitat types, it might be good to address habitats after plans are
written to make sure that we understand each other’s use of language
about habitat types.
1)2) Consistency
of species lists across state lines is also important. This should
be easy to do as we continue to post information to our state planning
websites.
3) During
the plan updating process, which should occur every 10 years, SEAFWA
or IAFWA might sponsor regional meetings for interstate facilitation.
Louisiana
-
Completed
our list of priority species (species of conservation concern).
-
Determined
how we will look at habitats/species in Louisiana:
-
Break
state up into eco-regions based on the method developed by
The Nature Conservancy.
-
Identify
habitats and species found in each eco-region and identify
stresses, their sources and methods to address these stresses.
-
Finished
identifying stresses/sources of stresses for the habitats and
species of the East Gulf Coast Plain eco-region.
-
Working
on addressing ways to lessen/remove these stresses and ways of
monitoring future progress.
-
Beginning
work on Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes eco-region.
-
Habitat
Rankings – habitats only found in one region are given
a higher priority, lesser priority is given to habitats that
are multi-regional, but these habitats may be addressed with
a higher priority in regions where they are predominate. (Example:
BLH – found in almost every eco-region but a dominate habitat
in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain).
-
Focusing
on strategies to protect habitats and species by working with
numerous stakeholders to address stresses/sources of stress and
methods to abate these stresses.
-
In
order to facilitate more information exchanges through smaller
meetings, will be going to different State, NGO, and Federal
agencies instead of holding large public meetings. Will
be taking drafts of completed parts of the Strategy in order
to get feedback, build partnerships and gain new perspectives. This
is planned to begin in November.
-
Want
to look at species and habitat issues which cross state boundaries
to develop a process to crosswalk planning efforts; focus especially
on marine and bird issues.
-
Aquatics
issues will be addressed based on 12 drainage basins. This
is the method used by Inland and Marine Fisheries Division to
monitor fish habitat. Aquatics habitat issues will be defined
within eco-regions and will crosswalk with issues effecting terrestrial
habitats.
-
Were
recently told we would have to include insects (invertebrates).
Kentucky
Kentucky
Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources (KDFWR) is now working on
identifying threats and finishing up habitat and their conditions for
each species. We have made a species’ list, which was sent
for review to federal agencies, BCR coordinators, state universities,
NGO’s (TNC and KY Ornithological Society), and state agencies. An
additional review was sent out on habitat and distribution maps. We’re
in the process of taking those comments and updating the distribution
maps and community types. We are also identifying population
trends (global and state) and key habitat locations and conditions
for each species. Once completed, this will again be sent out
for review.
We
have had good feedback from reviewers. Almost everyone, except
LMJV (have Randy Wilson or Charles Baxter not been receiving our
packets?) has responded with helpful comments and suggestions. KDFWR
greatly appreciates these comments for they have been extremely helpful
in the planning process.
A
public outreach page is up: http://fw.ky.gov/conservstrat.asp
Mississippi
The
technical staff from the museum and wildlife and fisheries programs
has finalized the MS CWCS Species of Greatest Conservation Need List.
The list includes 71 bird species and has been prioritized into 4 Tiers.
Criteria used to prioritize the list included the following:
1)
Nationwide Conservation Priority Rank (Natureserve.org) (1-3 points)
2)
Eligibility of Species to Receive Other Sources of Federal Aid Funding
(1-3 points)
3)
Geographic Range of Species (1-4 points)
4)
Trend in Population Size (1-3 points)
5)
Degree of Existing Data Available to Support Designation as a Species
of Greatest Conservation Need (0-1 points)
6)
Summary of Knowledge Level of Species (1 – 3 points)
7)
Statewide Conservation Priority Rank (Mississippi Natural Heritage
Program) (1 – 3 points)
ADVANCE
\d4ADVANCE
\d4Total Possible Points: maximum 19 / minimum 6
The
list has been submitted to over 100 people that serve on our Advisory
Committee – our external stakeholder group made up of other agency
and NGO representatives who will provide input throughout the development
of the strategy and will be asked to assist in reviewing and revising
the plan periodically.
We
held our first Advisory Committee meeting on August 20th and 76 people
attended. We will hold another Advisory Committee meeting on
November 19th.
The
technical committee is currently working on identifying and prioritizing
key habitats. We have also made progress identifying stresses and sources
of stresses as well as conservation actions.
South
Carolina
The
taxa groups covered by South Carolina's Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Plan include: Fish (fresh water and marine), Mollusks (all snails,
some mussels, and some marine mollusks), Crustaceans (crayfish and
some marine crustaceans), Aquatic Insects (selected orders and/or families),
Terrestrial Inverts (selected insect species), Mammals, Herps, and
Birds. Each taxa team has developed two lists, a comprehensive list
of species known to SC and a priority list. Experts from within the
agency as well as partners are helping to write the various species
(or guild) accounts.
Actual
text for the plan has been drafted and flows in the order of the required
elements: DESCRIPTION (taxonomy, basic description, and status); POPULATION
DISTRIBUTION AND SIZE; HABITAT(S) / NATURAL COMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS;
THREATS; CONSERVATION ACCOMPLISHMENTS (state and federal);PRIORITY
CONSERVATION OBJECTIVES AND IMPLEMENTATION RECOMMENDATIONS /OPPORTUNITIES
(subsections: habitat protection, management, priority research and
survey, monitoring, and education / public outreach/cooperative efforts);
PERFORMANCE MEASURES (INDICATORS OF SUCCESS); and LITERATURE CITED. Pictures,
maps, and trend graphs are also included. This format was modeled after
some of the USFWS recovery plans.
In
addition to the priority species, we are identifying priority habitats
based on these species/guild accounts. These habitat prescriptions
will follow the same format as the animals and will be at fine and
course scales.
The
final chapter incorporates the work of the experts and the comments
from our public input into some statewide strategies that fall under
these broad topics: (1) Education and Outreach; (2) Private Lands Conservation
(the working landscape); (3) Public Lands Management; (4) Urban and
Developing Lands -- are there any species that depend on us; (5) Habitat
Protection;(6) Survey, Monitoring, and Data Systems; and (7) Regulations
(taking and possession). We are creating Issue Committees to write
these sections. The overall Public Input Process has been written by
our partner, Clemson Institute for Community and Economic Development,
and will be updated and incorporated in the final text of the Plan.
Material for the Introduction, Executive Summary, and Glossary is being
gathered into folders in anticipation of the upcoming task of writing
these sections.
According
to our internal timeline, we expect a draft of the entire plan to be
available for public comment in July 2005. Our website (http://www.dnr.state.sc.us/wcp/)
has been updated, and we anticipate using this venue to reach many
audiences.
North
Carolina
As
we enter into the final year of Strategy development here in North
Carolina, we have begun the task of actually pulling information together
into an organized document. This has required extensive coordination
and the technical expertise of many staff within our own organization,
as well as representation by staff in many other agencies. As
expected, the assembly process is quite iterative in nature, as we
are constantly accruing new information, bringing more individuals
into the process, and gaining the perspective of other state efforts. Yet
this milestone also seems to have given our stakeholders and external
partners a clearer vision for the Strategy, allowing them to see where
their ‘expertise’ or ‘perspective’ fits into
the larger picture. Soon, as individual sections of text are
completed in a draft format, we will be posting them to our website
in an incremental fashion for external review. The final review
period will take place in early 2005 at which time we will begin work
on final design and publication of our Strategy products, for completion
by summer 2005.
As
we work towards completing our first iteration of the Strategy, we
are cognizant of the fact that we must work to ensure that there is
a smooth transition between the ‘development’ phase and
the ‘implementation’ phase. The Strategy is as much
about the processes and frameworks we have developed as it is about
the actual text. Throughout the Strategy development process,
the CWCS Coordinator has attempted to build connections with other
conservation efforts developing in the state in order to facilitate
communication on common interests and enhance opportunities for coordination. The
success of our Strategy will be contingent upon those experiences.
Discussion
Issue
of heritage list versus other lists, huge distraction and spent a lot
of time arguing over lists. Problem, heritage lists focus on
the rarest of the rare versus PIF more common, not make a high s or
g score. Idea should be not to just focus on a group of species
that have not been focused on the past. Focus to keep stuff off
the endangered species list. For those species we do not what
listed---very important part of the plan. Funding may disappear
if states only have listed species considered within their plans. Need
to think of the plans as a wildlife plan not a funding plan. Finally
agree on the lists, time to implement, lets not get tangled up on where
put funding. Not limited to only funding g1 listed species. Listing
issues will not go away after plans are finished, wrestling will still
consider. G ranks are meaningless for birds. Need guidance
from IAFWA, thoughts on what might help to Debbie. Worry, plans will
not produce a fundamental shift of how agencies will do business. Funding
drives agencies. Over time states can change, document can provide
guidance and oversight for the entire community throughout the state
involved with wildlife, not just changing the state agency. Need to
have dollars attached to each plan. All 50 plans will demonstrate
a fundamental need for funding for all of the species and projects.
GAP,
Chuck
The
primary goal of the Southeast GAP is to provide data on the conservation
status of native vertebrate species and to work with natural resource
agencies in the implementation of that data. Drawing on their
experience from previous state-based GAP projects, SE GAP is working
to develop seamless high quality land cover and vertebrate models throughout
the region. The region totals over 275 million acres and spans
portions of thirteen states.
The
SE Gap Analysis Project in cooperation with the USFWS and JV’s
scheduled a meeting to inform partners of current progress and objectives,
obtain feedback on draft aggregation of Ecological Systems into Habitat
Types, review the priority bird species selected for each habitat type,
review existing avian models for those species, provide the background
on ancillary data available for use in modeling and work with partners
to identify specific parameters based on their expertise, and get feedback
on additional methods/data that could be used to improve modeling.
A
key objective is to have habitat and ecological systems matching up
over state lines. Work is occurring to identify multiple states
and priorities that will be helpful---defining ecological systems and
bird habitat groupings to see if they can be consolidated. Not
disregarding ecological systems, but trying to aggregate for birds.
Adjourn: 4:30pm
List
of Participants
|
Affiliation |
Email
address |
Laurel
Moore Barnhill |
USFS |
lamoore@fs.fed.us |
Elizabeth
Ciuzio |
KY
Dept of Fish and Wildlife |
Elizabeth.ciuzio@ky.gov |
Jon
Gassett |
KY Dept of
Fish and Wildlife |
Jon.gassett@ky.gov |
Randall
Gray |
USDA-NRCS |
Randall.gray@usda.gov |
Debbie
Hahn |
IAFWA |
dhahn@iafwa.org |
William
C. Hunter |
USFWS |
Chuck_hunter@fws.gov |
Don
McKenzie |
WMI/NBCI |
wmidm@ipa.net |
Gary
Myers |
TWRA |
--- |
Kenny
Ribbeck |
LDWF |
kribbeck@wlf.louisiana.gov |
Catherine
Rideout |
AGFC |
cwrideout@agfc.state.ar.us |
Tim
Slone |
KY Dept of
Fish and Wildlife |
Tim.slone@ky.gov |
Craig
Watson |
USFWS/ACJV |
Craig_watson@fws.gov |
Emily
Jo Williams |
USFWS |
Emilyjo_williams@fws.gov |
|
