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

Southeastern Working Group

Steering Committee Meeting

Jekyll Island, Georgia                      Wednesday, 3 March 2004

Welcome and Introductions, EJ Williams, Laurel Moore Barnhill

The meeting began at 10:30 a.m.  See attendance list at end of document.

SEPIF Poster, EJ

Deadline for ordering posters was Monday, March 9; poster cost is $0.50 each.  Extras will be printed but a location for storage is needed.

National PIF Implementation Committee, Laurel

• Continental Plan (CPlan) will be available at the North American, 16 March 2004.  Additional copies are available at a cost of $10.00 each in order to recover printing costs. 
• A review team will be reviewing and giving guidance on the population estimates within the CPlan at a May 2004 workshop in La Crosse, WI.  Janet Ruth, Research Working Group, is organizing this effort with Melinda Knutson, USGS.  One product of this effort will be a peer reviewed publication of the workshop findings.
• Best Management Practices: a series of one page documents in process of being developed.  Opportunity for the SE is with longleaf and other systems.
• Coordinated Bird Monitoring:  Jon Bart has been moving forward with this effort and will report current status at the IC meeting in Spokane. 
  • Discussion:  need a forum to debate the validity of this effort and process; regional coordination efforts should move forward; coordination at National level may need more discussion and checks to be sure that process is inclusive enough; Support at Regional level for CBM; support for process at National level needs more scrutiny; be certain that everyone that’s appropriate is involved in a truly inclusive national monitoring effort (USGS, FWS, etc); Task Force needs to communicate better; CBM moving forward on several fronts but there may be some communication issues; Process of adding regional/local level monitoring together to address national issues is premature; and how to best allocate resources within JV/BCR to address specific management issues/questions is a good investment.
  • Motion:  Recommend that the National Science Committee critically review this process at the continentals level (is the concept good?) and provide a recommendation to the SE Steering Committee.

Texas Workshop, Laurel, Dean Demarest

The North American Landbird Conservation Plan has been distributed.   The Plan estimates population objectives for 400+ species and objectives are based on population estimates with many assumptions.  This has never been done before at this level.  A workshop in Texas (February 4 - 6, 2004) brought together practitioners to discuss use and usefulness of these objectives and to evaluate the population objectives and estimates.   

 Outcomes:  How good are the population estimates? 

One objective was to discuss continental (BBS) and local/regional derivation of population estimates and how they can inform one another to develop better estimates.  Breakout groups by focal species compared local information and data to estimates made thru BBS calculations and the general consensus was that BBS numbers are a starting point and local/regional estimates need to be compared with continental estimates.  In some cases it is understood that new estimates may result from a comparison.  Some local information from the local level put projections way over PIF estimates and some much less.  So, population estimates may not be extremely accurate but within order of magnitude they do give relative population levels.  Despite inaccuracies and variances, population objectives do provide guidance to JVs and others charged with implementing bird conservation actions.  It is important to continue moving ahead with implementation strategies and to look for objectives for suites of species with similar habitats.

 Biological Planning Process (population objectives to habitat objectives): 

A second objective was to discuss how population objectives can be used in the development of habitat objectives.  The group agreed on four important components of a process.  The components are somewhat logically ordered, but are not necessarily sequential—that is, they could be developed concurrently.  For the most part, these steps are best accomplished via spatially-explicit decision support systems. Partners should be involved at all stages and scales—since strategic decisions are made at all stages and scales.

THE FOUR STEPS

1. Characterize the ability of the landscape in its current condition to support and sustain bird populations.  The characterization should also provide the capacity to assess the relative contributions of different land parcels to meet objectives most efficiently.
2. Model bird population response to landscape change and land management.  E.g., how do species respond to changes in block size, edge effect, interconnectivity of parcels, landscape context, or specific management practices (silvaculture, prescribed burning regimes)?
3. Conduct a strategic assessment of conservation opportunities in terms of land ownership and management potential (something similar to the patch-based GIS approach demonstrated by Bryan Watts in the Northeast).
4. Develop synthetic models (conservation strategies and landscape design) that integrate species or species suites, landscape capability, and opportunity cost (economics) to propose optimal landscape solutions.

 Discussion:

• How does this process interact with Physio Plans and their use?  Not really discussed in TX. Step up, Step down, Step forward evolution---CPlan will complement existing plans.  How do we integrate Continental Watch List with Regional Priorities?  Needs to occur at regional level, the JV, BCR, State, etc determines the priorities, will require communication and trading. 
• How many BCPs in SE have population objectives?  Those plans were used to revise the FS plans in Appalachians and the highest priorities are consistent.  The Tier 2s may be different (regional priorities may not be reflected in C Plan). That level is where integration needs to occur and two sets of priorities can exist (continental and regional) not necessarily one over the other. Issues come in with more common species with high level of responsibility/stewardship.  ACTION:  need to step forward population objectives for all 16 SE plans. 
• How is this process being translated to All Bird Workshops?  This hasn’t been the approach at some of the All Bird Workshops but it probably should be. Rather than a particular approached followed by a JV; this is a general process adopted and promoted.  Strategic plan discussed to convey this process.  Talk of producing a cover document/exec summary for the C-Plan and this could be part of that document.
• What is the time line for regional population objectives?  Ken Rosenberg is being contracted by IAFWA to break down the Continental population estimates and objectives to BCR and State levels. Also asked for a formula that translates those pop objectives into habitat objectives – Ken working on simplistic models to move birds to habitats. Some agencies by law focus on habitat (USFS) whereas others focus on numbers. Ken developing a document that can be used by states in time for use in the plans.   ACTION: this information is coming from IAFWA; communicate with Debbie for your state.
• Habitat prescriptions logically are developed at the BCR, State, JV level – partnerships work from the continental population objectives to set habitat objectives.  Difficult to prescribe habitat objectives from the continental level to other scales.  Start at large scale level and then work down.  ACTION:  develop habitat objectives at BCR, State, and or JV scales.
• Feedback loop established with the Science Team links local information to continental population objectives.
• Is this a process that could be incorporated into a refuge’s CCP?  May be too local a scale but the partnership that provides input into the models should include appropriate refuge personnel; thus give buy in at the step that describes regional objectives and the refuges role in meeting those objectives.  Same is true for National Forests.

 PABU Workshop, John Cely, Laurel

John Cely organized this meeting and we meet on February 17 – 19, 2004 to build upon the workshop held at Sapelo Island in 2001.  As a result of the meeting Joe Meyers developed a web site and complete minutes can be found at www.pwrc.usgs.gov/pabu/painted/

The following topics were discussed:  state updates, status and distribution; population estimates; research updates; management recommendations; integration with the Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative; Monitoring/Evaluation including determining focus areas; education, development of fact sheets and a poster; international issues, change of status in CITES and caged bird trade; and communication issues, developing a website and list serve, both have been completed.   This group focused on the eastern subspecies.

 STKI Tri-state Initiative, EJ, John, Diana Swan

• EJ outlined the history and progress of the tri-state STKI Initiative. 
• There is a balance between single species needs and initiatives and habitat driven efforts.  Not an effort to work towards single species management as focus is on habitat improvements that benefit suites of species.  Single species focus is needed in cases where little is known about that individual and collective resources are needed.
• The Cooperative research approach being developed by Bob Cooper focus’ on suites of species but with tight budgets sometimes the focus moves to a single species approach.
• Value of poster child – PABU is poster child for maritime forest/ STKI for Bottomland forest.
• We need to take advantage of eBird--Cornell’s database for sightings (www.birdsource.org/ebird).  Information provided by the general public and included latitude and longitude.  Purple martins are a good example of data gathered by this site. 

FY05 Budget Update – David Pashley

David reported on the work of the Bird Funding Coalition.

The President’s budget recommendations for birds are pretty good:  $54 mil for NAWCA (increase of 12 million); $4 NMBCA (most that it’s been funded), recommendation from coalition to fund fully at $5; $11.6 for FY05 JV – move up to target; SWG at $80 mil – TWW lobbying for $125; Migratory Bird Office/FWS – 4.5 million increase but still 2.5 million shortfall to maintain traditional programs (earmarks result in continued shortfall) – coalition arguing to add that 2.5, FWS is still planning to review traditional surveys and address priorities (e.g., PIF needs, T Rich support, J. Wheeler, PRISM), IAFWA moving request to 4.5 million.

 Even without any of the additional requests; significant budget increases are present for birds. 

 Concerns:

• Cuts to other agencies may weaken the impact of increases to FWS and other bird funds. There should be more input to Coalition into USFS needs in the 2006 budget.
• States inability to take advantage of SWG funds because the lack of match will be interpreted as inability to use or lack of needs.
• Message needs to include real world limitations despite funding increases.  Agencies with severe staffing limitations and no source of match cannot benefit and the funds will not realize their full or even partial potential.

 Congressman Kind working with the coalition on reauthorization of NMBCA 25 million with reduced match for Latin America of 1:1; match in US and Canada is 2:1 (in kind); 50% to US/Can and 50% to Latin America once the funding level reaches a certain level; this maybe introduces in summer 2004.  These potential actions make the NMBCA a much more useful act.

Break for Lunch

SEPIF Future Direction and Structure, Functions, Group Discussion              

Steering Committee Structure:  Discussion:  Do we need a formal process to select members?  Don’t want to exclude people from participating because they aren’t on the Steering Committee.   Letters requesting attendance from the Co-chairs can be produced upon request.   The group decided to continue at status quo in terms of infrastructure and used the remaining discussion time to outline future priorities/actions.  ACTION:  further develop the charter in order to pursue nonprofit status. 

 Role of SE PIF:  At the SE Region scale, PIF can provide the best information available for implementation and outreach.  Actual implementation and outreach is the role of states, bcrs, and jvs. Provide the best information available to partnerships, Provide the mechanism for doing this, and Provide the necessary structure and support to accomplish this.

Priority: Complete and update BCPs in SE

Issues and Discussion:

• 6-7 BCPs need attention as this science is the basis for broader planning efforts (USFS, State CWCSs). 
• Role of regional working group – to address questions, provide input on priority species, update assessment scores, develop habitat summaries, etc.  Focus on priority species and updating executive summaries. Need regional oversight to insure consistency across BCR’s.   
• State/BCR/JV working groups need to also receive this charge in order to apply local knowledge when identifying priorities.  Also, need to instill ownership by people in the field.   Every state coordinator should be able to use the assessment database to identify priority species.
• Management action levels from Continental Plan—need to draft a process to align continental watchlist with regional priorities.  PIF Science Team is working on a revised working on revised Regional Priority system consistent with how priorities are articulated in the Continental Plan.  Ideally, a system for assigning Conservation Action levels at the regional level will also be devised to further promote consistency between regional and national PIF plans.  Likely completion is late 2004- early 2005.
• ACTION: update executive summaries/extended executive summaries and priority species for BCRs and Physiographic plans.  Need to find a co-op student or otherwise contract this work out so that a completed project is attained in a reasonable length of time.

 Priority:  Monitoring

Issues: nationally also receiving attention; need for consistency, use of data, support and funding, purpose (objective based monitoring); need to develop a SE Monitoring Plan.

Discussion: 

·         Southern region USFS and many states with data; confusing as to correct protocols and usefulness of data; this sends mixed signals to administrations especially in tight budget years; monitoring provides the critical feedback loop for habitat management activities; what is the purpose of FS monitoring, both trends and effects of management/no management at the Physiographic scale (grouping forests to spread out responsibility for needed points).

·         How do you approach a monitoring program?  Scales are critical to get enough points to really determine trends.   Probably need to consider a coordinated monitoring system for the SE.  See NPS as a good example – web page that walks you through the monitoring process (inventory monitoring program).  This will be a huge task to take on for the SE.  New planning process leads to develop of monitoring objectives and approach. 

·         SEPIF needs to define the focus of monitoring – provide direction to agencies and other people doing monitoring.  Create a coordinated bird monitoring system for the SE.   Regional group would provide feedback to national level monitoring working group. 

·         ACTION:  create a working group to discuss the above issues at a regional level. 

Working Group Progress

Education and Outreach: Joni continues to make progress as an army of one. 

International:  current membership is comprised of Joni Ellis, EJ, Carol Hardy and others???  Carol needs to step down as co-chair.  ACTION: identify a new co-chair for this working group.

Research and Monitoring:  Bob Cooper and Mark Woodrey outlined priority themes and other information needs. 

The Biloxi Proceedings are being reworked so ecosystem management is the bases for each chapter.   This has resulted in updating of all chapters and adding an additional 13 chapters.  Some chapters as they were will need to be reworked to fit.  UGA Press has agreed to be the publisher.  NEEDS: committee meet, reassess timeline.  Committee membership:  Bob, Mark, Chuck Hunter, EJ and is open for other involvement, contact Bob or Mark if you are interested in being involved with this effort.

Research needs database is managed by Janet Ruth, USGS.  The database provides a very comprehensive set of research priorities available for a diverse audience and very is time consuming to keep updated.  Janet is using the new watchlist as a guide to identify research projects as they relate to those species.  NEEDS:  identify high priority information needs by species and region and send to Bob or Mark. 

The Research Cooperative is modeled after the SE Cooperative Disease Study to conduct large-scale research on management questions.  The lack of funding continues to hamper the progress of this effort but an opportunity may exist with SWG’s.  Timeframe—this is not happen quickly but is moving forward, will discuss this issue at this meeting during one of the sessions.

Coordinated Bird Monitoring:  In the short term a need exists to be able to provide feed back to Jon Bart.  Those thinking about monitoring will continue on parallel---this is the monitoring priority.

SE PIF Coordinator

Gary Myers was working with SE directors seeking funding for all bird coordinator (land birds, shorebirds, waterbirds).  Duties:  similar to pif regional coordinators but will speak to all birds (a go to person to address some information needs), role within steering committee (co-chair).  The proposal was developed and submitted by Tennessee.  Funding was denied at the North American in March. 

 Co-chair

EJ will not continue as co-chair.  Laurel stepping away from IC Chair at the Spokane meeting in March (Chris Eberly will be the new IC Chair), and SE in the Fall.

New Co-Chair:  Catherine Rideout.

ACTION:  identify co-chair for Fall 2004.

Annual Meeting 2005

It is expected that the World Birding Center will be open by February 2005.  If not Kentucky has offered to host the meeting.

Themes:  International Cooperation, Outreach and Education, Research, and the Status of Conservation in Mexico and points southward.

Research Component:  In addition to presentation of research papers during a session, Bob Cooper suggested having an evening poster session recommending a regional focus but inclusive to all topics that presenters offer.  The Research Working Group will take the lead on this effort and will look for involvement by someone working in this geographic area.

Program Committee:  David Pashley, Joni Ellis, Catherine Rideout, Cliff Shackelford, Celica Riley, Dave Krueper (Dean to contact), and Mark Howery.  Anyone else interested in being part of this planning effort please contact David. 

Adjourn---4:30

List of Participants
 

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