· web viewdiscussion: how do we get the word out? do we have enough jobs to post? ... agreement...

Partners in Flight Western Working Group Meeting-NOTES-

April 11-13, 2017Santa Fe, NM

Meeting Objectives: Implementing the PIF Continental Plan, coordinating with the JV’s for

implementation.● International committee updates.● Species specific presentations and much more……….

Tuesday

1:30 Welcome, introductions and agenda review (Discussion, Barb Bresson, 30 minutes)

2:00 National PIF Program update (Presentation, Bob Ford, 20 minutes) (Discussion,

10 minutes) National PIF Program update (Dan Casey in place of Bob Ford, National PIF coordinator)National PIF SC – reformed – 6 new focal areas, Dan on SC, Recent Spokane meeting to discuss the new 6 focal areas and towards developing a leaner and meaner SC. The Focal areas are 1) Assist JV’s in implementing all-bird conservation, 2) Improve public lands mgmt. to benefit birds, reminding forest service they were founders of PIF, DST implementation, re-engagement with public agencies 3) Improve private working landscapes for birds (e.g. Farm Bill policy, Farm Bill, working with industry, looking for private sector $$, 4) Hemispheric connections and full life cycle conservation (expand ACAD database in Latin America, seek out $$ for Conservation Business Plan’s, and planning and implementing of PIF VI meeting October 30 – 2 Nov 2017,5) Building constituency for bird conservation (e.g. Human dimensions and other users, NAWMP), advocacy, outreach via E-bird, engage birders, blue ribbon panel (industry and other reps to work with state agencies to build a pot of $ to work on biodiversity). 6) Continue to improve on incorporating science into bird conservation efforts.

Newly released PIF website:

PIF Western Working Group Meeting April, 2017

Please send blogs, to make this a live website, regular additions.

Person who built website will not be working on it for long term.

There are ways to provide feedback

Old PIF resources are all still there.

All the regional PIF groups have their own tab and page: will Mike Green be able to maintain our WWG site? Mike will continue to maintain our WWG page. We will link our site to the new national website.

The SC will train a handful of people to be able to maintain and update the website and working group updates.

We will maintain our page rather than maintain two separate sites and link our site to the national page.

Edwin: We are revamping our site so we need to consider how we want to portray WWG to the world.

Recommendations: 1) better to ensure the landing page for PIF WWG won’t need constant updating, but instead will have a link to our WWG page. 2) ACTION ITEM): update our introduction/landing page on the National site (Edwin, Sara O. Mike Green to update –Everyone to send updates/suggestions to Edwin.

2:30 PIF and the Joint Venture’s, an example of the Continental Plan Implementation. (Presentation, Dan Casey, 20 minutes) (Discussion, 10 minutes)

Dan Casey – PIF and the JV’s, and example of the Continental Plan Implementation

Introduction to Northern Great Plains JV (70% private ownership)

Centre of sweet spot for grassland bird biodiversity; Focuses is on working lands

16 members of steering committee ( 8 agency, 6 NGO’s and 2 industry/private)

Dan is only paid staff member of JV

habitat focus: GRSA, shrub steppe, wetland and riparian ecosystems

Highest priority is to maintain native grass and shrub rangelands

2006 implementation plan – doesn’t have quantitative objectives

2012 priority species list (26 species) - Many sp. with greater than 20% of global population.

2


New PIF continental plan – trend population objectives

Dan wants to do math and acknowledge that aim might be to slow declines rather than reverse immediately.

35% of chestnut-collared longspur occur in JV.

Build and improve species models and incorporate them into DST

Work with landowners to design grazing and livestock regimes to benefit birds.

Reverse declines of yellow watch list species – slow rates of decline; Common birds in steep decline

Science support – FWS HAPET office, Bird Conservancy of Rockies, WWF, citizen science

Grassland bird conservation areas = type I, II and III identified and mapped – currently mostly intact (Montana, N and S Dakota, Wyoming)

Reservation lands – outreach to come – large tracts of great habitat.

Thunderstorm maps to show hotspots– habitat model for GRSP. Mainly based on BBS data.

Montana has 42 BBS routes.

Predictive occupancy mapping using IMBCR data – predictive maps overlaid with habitat maps.

Oil and gas and wind turbine locations overlaid in species range distribution areas.

Shrub steppe habitat still being converted

BBS species models = probability of occurrence – would be great to incorporate eBird data to improve models.

Plow print by WWG – mapped out all plowed ground and perennial cover using NASS cropland data layer to look at cumulative impact of conversion – since 2009, conversion to amount equalling size of Kansas within Great Plains = mostly corn, soybeans and wheat.

eBird note: reviewer determines quality of records, so good to check if reviewer is on top of things, or if what you see on map is an artefact of human.

GS conservation conceptual model (soil quality, cropland land-use and perennial cover) – looking at by county. Can determine risk and quality for certain bird species.

3


Next step is how much habitat conservation (BY BCR) to change declining trends (e.g. for BOBO) – maybe a dampened rate of decline is reality check versus

NGPJV conservation delivery – NRCS biologist, state biologists, Farm Bill, Sage Grouse initiative, etc.

Farm Bill shapes a lot of on the ground work

Grassland banking program – NCC 65,000 acre ranch – reduced grazing rates to a rancher IF he implements conservation actions on his own lands (e.g. rotational grazing, using fire in conjunction with grazing)

Recently funded partner projects (LBCU, grassland bird demography, etc.)

Working lands for wildlife 2.0 – opportunities to increase financial assistance (RCPP) = NRCS puts $$ towards particular projects

RCPP and NFWF grants – boots on ground, landscape conservation design, financial assistance for habitat work

Most intact grasslands – within NRCS to identify GS of special significance

PIF implementation grant – 45$K – coordinated objectives between two JV’s to apply trend objectives, build out conservation design tools, guided outreach to conservation delivery networks, seed money for habitat projects)

Dan working on 5 year action plan DRAFT Sept 2016 and beyond

Action plan principles: working lands focus, strategy over opportunity, full life cycle cons, engage with land trusts, engage with FN, inform farm bill delivery, establish and support partner biologists, emphasize ecological services.

68 counties in JV – can be strategic in outreach based on population size of county –

Next steps: species habitat priorities to 2020, adopt trend objectives tying in quantitative habitat goals, increase engagement in TrUST, clarify role of BBS/IMBCR for trends/modeling, unified spatial representation.

Improve spatial layers of GS and shrub, occupancy models for pop response, Inform NRCS, more clearly define conservation estate.

Working lands work comes through a county focus – can identify priorities and focus by county. Conservation guidance directory – currently an Access database.

3:00 PIF and the Joint Ventures: An example of the Midwest Working Group structure.(Presentation, Tom Will 10 minutes), (Discussion, 5 minutes).

4


Looking for WWG input on what makes a successful working group because WWG has been successful since 1991 – maintain a core

SE PIF working group – similar model but waning, NE WG has come and gone, Midwest has a new structure

Not expecting all working groups to work the same

US FWS folks took on a coordination role

Midwest coordinator – Brad Jacobs – focus shifted to area where Brad had big influence – international.

Tom Will focussed on monitoring and hired a coordinator for that – to make all bird coordinated bird monitoring, but lost participation from 4 states.

Was hard to have meetings because many state folks did not have permission to attend.

A lot of Midwest capacity can’t be members of all of it (e.g. working group, JV, etc.) – how to get participation

Bobolink plan – how to coordinate across the species range and make a range-wide population trend difference?

Upper Mississippi Great Lakes JV – 5 BCR’s

Schematic diagram – Midwest coordinated bird monitoring partnership and Upper Miss and Great Lakes region JV landbird science team – Midwest avian data center is the way that data are shared. Mandatory with a grant to submit data to this center.

Midwest ?gs? bird working group – created an atlas of 95 data layers for thinking about grasslands in the Midwest – mainly agricultural matrix. This is second data hub

Midwest WG has particular committees tasked with certain actions (Midwest migration network, northern forest working group, avian cons assessment WG)

Meet by phone, operate as a steering committee

Meet as a group every 2-3 years. – usually a 3-day meeting – organized around plenaries and workshops – each committee meets within this meeting as subgroups – used to be other groups like nightbirds working group – usually 80-100 participants.

Midwest PIF was chaired by Brad Jacobs, so could not take that from this group, plus is all-bird. If there is a Midwest PIF, this would be it.

Northern forest group and grasslands group see themselves as PIF, but other groups might not.

5


Chris: WWG has the migration pathway

Dave K: WWG has large scale at migratory level – west of 100th meridian – cover half of USA – fewer partners, but state by state administrative duty. West thinks differently. Also lots of public lands – agencies with deep pockets and key people high up in agencies who helped catapult WWG forward.

Dan Casey – had active state PIF groups – had a state rep reliably coming to meetings. Had state PIF plans being developed. – still have challenge of getting state folks participating

Carol B – thanks to Mike Carter, early engagement with Mexico, and with Canada.

Tom: Maybe follow up on what Chris said. Revise to scale of migration pathway: Atlantic flyway, Mississippi flyway, central flyway

Tom: thinking of structure and strategy: to engage missing partners, how to mobilize partners to create better partnership

Barb: states are opportunistic, but there are some regulars like Edwin, Peggy, Colleen

Tom: Bob Ford got a letter from Central Flyway Tech Comm. asking to know why they were left out of working group? – they want engagement

Scott: SE: more state non-game biologists show up.

Edwin: how pacific flyway states have been engaged and replicate that in central flyway

Jaime: San Diego meeting white paper was how to have tighter connections. Talked about trying to have PIF WWG having meetings in conjunction with theirs. (Flyway;s?)

Edwin: idea of having updates from Pacific Flyway at our PIF meeting. What about Central Flyway?

Which states from Central Flyway are participating in WWG? NM, (and others MT, WY,CO used to).

Science Committee – not enough communication.

Scott: states were resistant to new continental plan being put on their desk when they were not consulted in development. States might feel disempowered.

Tom: Need to find solution for this disempowerment. Should we work along flyway’s. Don’t care whether or not it is called PIF as long as PIF needs are met and that regional coordination is occurring.

6


Tom: how to create representation across different groups? What is the network that we want to create and how to sustain that network versus the groups themselves?

3:15 Break (15 minutes) 3:30 Association of Joint Ventures Meeting, Report from the Hill (Presentation, Geoff

Geupel, 15 minutes)

Presentations to bigwigs in DC about roles of JV’s. It was mostly a sales pitch. Not quite lobbying.

6-10 JV’s represented. Uncertainty due to change in administration Talk about how much JV’s have leveraged in non-federal funds ($30:1) Usually go in with a $$ ask. Had a fairly aggressive ask this year. Typically put in a letter “dear colleague” to argue continued support of NAWCA.

Also provide fact sheet of JV. Were received more positively in offices of congressmen – because republicans

are well represented by current government so they were listening. Geoff: Really enthused that Arizona and ?? realize the importance of ecotourism

in their states. Should make additional visits to DC to reinforce needs and education Tours to bring staffers out on landscape

3:45 IWJV Sagebrush management and songbird conservation, (Presentation, Patrick Donnelly, 20 minutes), (Discussion 10 minutes)

He had the wrong dial in info so we did not hear this talk

4:15 Current Common Nighthawk Migratory Connectivity and Recovery Efforts (Presentation, Elly Knight, 30 minutes), (Discussion 15 minutes)

Migratory connectivity Did nightjar survey coordination Twitter and nightjar Guild-wide mechanism for declines – atmospheric pollutants reduce food,

phenological mismatch with food, agricultural pesticides, mortality from pesticides, increased storm frequency.

Experts have called for full annual cycle research – key part being migratory connectivity – improved understanding needed

7


Migratory networks for these species – useful steps for evaluation causes in differential population trends

Barn swallows – difference in migration strategies east to west, eastern birds travel further and could be more vulnerable

Purple martin – mixing between subspecies on the wintering grounds suggests limiting factors on the breeding grounds

CONI great species to identify migratory networks – declines across range Long distance migrants but little known of migratory connectivity Hypothesized mechanisms for decline 2015 – first stab at project 10 transmitters in northern Alberta on territorial males

– argos GPS 75 – 3.5g tags – 30 GPS points on a preset schedule. Uploads data to argos satellite at the end of the schedule – no need to recapture bird but need to wait entire year for data.

July 2016 – no data uploaded 70% of tags transmitted locations and 50% of tags transmitted full annual life

cycle data Fall: Cross gulf via Florida and into SA into Amazon basin Spring – more direct route across gulf, daily travel rate 114km per day Cuba might be a key stopover location for these birds Roosting home ranges are about 150 ha each Cerrado and Amazon biomes in Brazil 5 of 7 in patchy landscapes with some level of anthropogenic change which is

similar to breeding landscape of these individuals in northern Alberta; 2 of 7 in contiguous forest

High breeding site fidelity (within 1.5km of their 2015 capture location) Also put out 5 tags on females in 2016, results forthcoming Migratory connectivity appears low but need more data from more populations Janet – started work (Ng et al. in review) Expanded project – 60 tags – sent out request on listserve – funding from ECCC

and Smithsonian and U of A. - to describe connectivity, to examine environmental correlates, and also to collect CONI feathers for ecotoxicology

Multivariate cluster technique to select pops with similar demographics to define populations – not working well for Canada due to fewer data points

11 populations planned across E-W and N-S range gradients. Population trend gradient

Used map to plan deployment of 60 tags Florida, Texas (both negative trend), Oregon (positive trend), BSC working on

Ontario, ECCC, Klamath, coastal bend, Texas tech, U of south Dakota Methods: call playback and decoy nearby to booming males and nesting females

8


Tags – new firmware – 60 points and with path prediction – uploads data every 3 fixes, so if bird dies or tag falls off, still get some data

Elly spent 100’s of net hours to recapture previously tagged males with no luck – can reuse tags if retrieved. Cons: limited data points, limited migration timing inference

Suggestions for other data collection while birds are in the hand? Got some good boluses – long horn beetles Other nightjar projects out there? That might want to joint network? Lots of collaborators: Dan: MPG ranch doing work with Poorwills Carol B: Cuban connection – ornithologist there – Birds Caribbean group July 13-

17 meeting in Cuba. What is migratory connectivity? – Spatial connection between breeding and

wintering, including stopover. Patterson and how much intermixing on wintering grounds so if LOW, means lots of mixing. HIGH connectivity population might be more at risk by stochastic events.

Nightjar survey data will be used for habitat association and has just been input into national database to help with CH ID.

Jay Carlisle – can you catch CONI on migration? – Elly: no idea. Janet: any data collected to assess body condition? Standard morphometrics

and fat, but would like to hear suggestions. Please contact: [email protected]

5:00 Adjourn

Wednesday

9:00 PIF “Road Shows” Workshops Sharing Data and Tools for Avian Conservation.

Jay briefly presented the PIF Road Shows that presented resources for bird conservation to land managers and biologists during three workshops in Idaho.

Carrie then gave a more detailed walk-through of her PowerPoint that she gives to BLM managers. An excellent presentation (highly recommended for your review) that she makes to BLM land managers. Her PowerPoint presents the history of bird conservation, the legal requirements of the ESA and the MBTA, and various resources (BBS, Ebird, bird life history information, etc) that managers should use when assessing the environmental impact of any proposed project. Carrie’s presentation also contained “seven steps to success” that land managers should follow, plus some case studies of two projects, when developing projects that may impact birds.

9


Tanya noted that Canada has developed a table of nesting times for birds of concern that would be helpful in assessing the timing of a project – she should present this info at a future meeting.

9:40 E-bird and AKN Tools Development (Presentation, Jaime Stephens, 20 minutes) (Discussion, 15 minutes)

Jaime presented the Avian Knowledge Network and its new tools, including a search engine that is being piloted to allow users to search the AKN for data retrieval. She also discussed how users can get their data in – soon you will be able to use the new uploader tool (users can contact the “regional node” to get assistance and access to this tool to enable them to upload their data).

Together we perused the AKN website. Jaime’s favorite tool = the Multi-Map tool. Click on your project area, then various data layers and you can see “Dots” appear which represent bird data (from eBird, BBS, etc.) One can then use this data, for example, to generate bird lists with counts sited by year. AKN allows users to input a higher level of detail of the data than, for example, eBird. This accommodates more detailed data gathered via various monitoring protocols. Also noted that eBird data is only downloaded to AKN on an annual basis. Discussion pointed out that data is richer at the regional nodes than at the continental scale.

Federal agencies are now discussing whether AKN can be used as a national platform for handling/storing/retrieving all federal bird information.

D Younkman asked for a quick “five things you can do with the AKN” and Jaime made a very quick walk-through of how to generate bird list by clicking on the Conservation Planning tab, then move into state plans, climate assessment models, etc. Discussion that followed noted that there were several PowerPoints and training exercises out there. Jaime noted that a few case studies were being developed. Dan suggested we post such ‘teaching examples” at the front of each node website.

10:15 Break

10:40 International Committee Update (Edwin Juarez, 45 minutes, discussion)

Edwin presented on our efforts to reach out to our Latin American colleagues, enhance communications, linkages. Here are the updates:

Maintaining an active Facebook page One of the first things we worked on was developing our Facebook page. Edwin already asked WWGers to “like” the Facebook page. Edwin and Sarah Otterstrom co-administrators on the page – he welcomes anyone to contribute – items can be

10


posted on the page, and the co-administrators approve the items. Suggestions for postings – conferences coming up, project updates to share, interesting bird sightings. Just “share” stuff direct on the Facebook page and the administrators will approve and enable the posting of it. Organizing a digital network of PIF professionals Investigating creating a Linked-In group. Sarah has started such a group, but just beginning. Should create a forum of international ornithologists who can meet and communicate. Research Gate another good platform that we can use to share information and make connections. ACTON: Share this group through each of our Linked-in contacts plus post it on our Facebook page. Creating a Job Board for Latin Americans Mary Whitfield presented the Western Working Group job board and her contacts with the Texas AM Job Board. Looking at auto-posting and auto-deleting job board systems. Mary has volunteered to administer the WWG job board. Discussion: how do we get the word out? Do we have enough jobs to post? Should we use other existing job boards? Can we link to Texas AM? Should the job board engage all the PIF Working Groups? (we all said yes). Action: Group felt it was worthwhile to launch the job board. Planning the next PIF WWG meeting in Mexico We have as standing invitation from Lydia Lonzano of NCI to hold a meeting in Mexico. Discussion abruptly cut off: “We will discuss at end of the meeting”, says the mean Chairwoman Barb Bresson. Some in the group concerned about the use of cat-of-nine tails (whip). Others were glad that Edwin was finally kept within his time window. Proposed strategy for updating the WWG WebsiteMike Green has been managing it and doing a great job keeping it up to date. Discussions underway on updating the look and content of the website – need to put a team together to do this. Content is the major obstacle. D Younkman suggested that the power of the Western Working Group (WWG) website’s main value is to contain the presentations made at these meetings. Tom Will suggested we adopt the template of the Nat. PIF and embed our content there – already ready to go. Carol suggested we use it to encourage other to join the WWG – Edwin said we need to do more to encourage Latin Americans to join us. Also noted that the main issue is to get people to produce content. Edwin calls for volunteers: Brad Bales, Jay Carlisle, Chris McCreedy, Sue Bonfield all raised their hands. Janet Ruth interested in helping out with the PIF Logo.

11:30 NM Avian Conservation Partnership - NMACP, (Presentation, Peggy Darr, 20 minutes) (Discussion 10 minutes)

11


Really, rather than read my notes on Peggy’s presentation, just pull up her PowerPoint and go through it – very good and understandable presentation. Really, just look at her PowerPoint. But ok, here are my notes:

Established in 1995, originally PIF and land birds, went all birds in 2000. Diverse steering committee. Work on assessment scores for birds, identifying habitats of concern, high priority management needs and actions, bird conservation resources. How assessment process works in NM (different than PIF national). Passed out list of NMACP Species Conservation Level 1 and Level 2 list. Discussed some birds that seem common, but declining populations and significant importance to NM (Woodhouse’s Scrub Jay and Juniper Titmouse)…Several common birds made Level 2 for NM (e.g. Mt Chickadee). NMACP Group wanted strong focus on habitat. Pinon-Juniper has the highest habitat score – perhaps a bit shocking. Note: Pinyon Jay declining 85%, 19 year half life, NM has majority of this bird. Also Montane habitats need attention. Note American Robin and Stellar Jay, montane species, doing poorly in NM. Grasslands – NM often wintering grounds for grassland birds. In east NM we have lot of Prairie Chicken work, need more Chihuahua work. Can Climate Change need to be factored in conservation plans. Note that conservation needs to be considered and addressed at various scales – scale matters. Planning NMACP meetings every other year.

Discussion. Note: NMACP did NOT assess subspecies (eg. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, western Yellow-billed Cuckoo), but did create a “professional opinion” list developed by a few experts like Dave Krueper. WWG felt this was extremely valuable assessment and state-level scoring process. Noted that the IWJV has a huge area and a long list of target species, so these lists are important. Dan Casey noted that removing juniper in the west is often thought of as “good” – especially for Sage Grouse – so noting that juniper woodlands are important in NM is a critical part of this discussion.

Also check out the group website: Search for New Mexico Avian Conservation Partners. http://avianconservationpartners-nm.org/

12:00 Lunch (90 minutes)

1:30 FS Planning Rule (Presentations, Ernie Taylor, 30 minutes) (Discussion, 30 minutes)

Ernie brought us up to date on the Forest Service 2012 Planning Rule: FS has statutory requirement to preserve plant and animal communities and has adapted an ecosystems approach to implement this requirement. Assumption: Ecosystems first, then species: “species viability risk (persistence) is proportional to the system departure from the reference condition” (defined as pre-European settlement). Focus on structure, composition, and process, and proportional

12


representation of seral /states in the reference condition compared to the current condition. Coarse filter: system integrity ok, species ok. Fine filter: check to see if additional species-specific conditions are needed. (Focal species are only used for monitoring). Species drive the development of the plan to make sure components in the plan provide for the species’ needs.

Process 1) carry out assessment – ecological and social/economic. 2) the assessment defines the “need for change” which then drives the 3) development of the plan.

Assessment: 1) Development a list of at-risk species, a monumental task. (see FSH 1909.12, Chp 10), Species of Conservation Concern (SCC) – mostly from NatureServe plus input from other agencies and lists. These SCCs need to be known to occur on the plan area Must use best available science to see if there is “substantial concern” about the species capability to “persist over the long term” (i.e. last forever) in the plan area. (Digression – FS has concern of Pinyon Juniper – most at risk from climate change due to topography – but don’t know what to do about it. 2) Gather information and determine status: a) understand what current management is doing. Lots of conditions are due to past management that no longer takes place, (e.g. even-aged logging that affects Mex Spotted Owl is a legacy from past actions) b) consider ecological conditions that support species c) look at status of ecological conditions on the forest and its trends and d) other relevant data – desperately need distribution and abundance data across an area – does the species saturate the habitat -- Mex Spotted Owl does saturate in some areas. 3) Gather at-risk species info. Pretty good for birds, not good for rare plants. FS looks at: occurrence; distribution and abundance; specific threats to persistence.

Discussion of focal species versus measuring current and desired vegetative conditions. FS always gathers veg information when they treat an area, then monitor for focal species to see if they have achieved their habitat and wildlife goals. Best tie to get involved is at the beginning assessment stage and during plan development.

Action: Barb will contact Ernie to get info on planning calendar for NM National Forests.

2:30 Shorebird Program: (Presentation, Vanessa Loverti/ Mike Green, 10 minutes) (Discussion, 5 minutes)

Mike Green on the phone presented the new Pacific Americas Shorebird Conservation Strategy.

A “Strategy” NOT a “Conservation Business Plan”o Does not have specific Goals and Objectives, timed targets and costs

attached. Review of maps, some specific sites highlighted by the plan Seven strategies and next steps

13


Here are Brad Andres summary notes of the Plan – read if you want to know more: Plan Summary

Conservation need● Across the globe, 45% of Arctic-nesting shorebirds are decreasing.● Within the Pacific Flyway, 11% of shorebird populations demonstrate long-term declines; none are known to be increasing.

Geographic scope ● The Pacific Americas Shorebird Conservation Strategy project area spans 120 degrees of latitude from Alaska to Chile along the Pacific Coast.

Purpose ● An effective strategy must integrate conservation actions across the full suite of geographical, ecological and cultural landscapes.● Funders, conservation organizations, industry, and government agencies seek guidance on priorities as they seek to effectively invest time and money in shorebird conservation.

Methods● Lead by an international Steering Committee of more than 85 experts in 15 countries to help develop the Strategy.● Deliberate process of identifying threats and developing strategies following the Open Standards for the Practice of Conservation.● Integration of past planning efforts across the Flyway to construct the Strategy.

Results● These experts identified the following main threats: climate change, development, invasive species, disturbance from recreational activities, water use and management, aquaculture, and shoreline and wetland modification.● Efforts to conserve shorebirds wherever they occur will be most successful if linked to human wellbeing (e.g., maintaining habitat for fish that people depend on; protecting coastlines with natural habitats rather than hardening shorelines).● The following strategies were identified as highly effective in addressing main threats:

1. Manage and Conserve Existing Habitats2. Cultivate and Empower Conservation Constituencies3. Create Conservation Initiatives with Natural Resource Industries4. Strengthen Compliance and Enforcement5. Develop Environmental and Wildlife Protection Policies6. Improve Knowledge of Present and Future Habitats7. Increase Partner and Stakeholder Capacity

● Monitoring effectiveness of short-term objectives and success toward long-term outcomes is a key component of the Strategy● Risks to successfully implementing the Strategy were identified and solutions to overcome these risks were proposed.● A series of “next steps” have been identified to aid in implementing the strategy across the entire Flyway.

14


Sponsors and participating organizationsDevelopment of the Pacific Americas Shorebird Conservation Strategy involved more than 53 unique institutions from the Western Hemisphere including 60% nongovernmental conservation organizations, 23% government, 13% academic institutions and independent individuals (4%). The David and Lucile Packard Foundation provided financial support along with the National Audubon Society, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Canadian Wildlife Service, MUFG Union Bank Foundation, Pacific Birds Habitat Joint Venture, USDA Forest Service, and private individuals.

The Pacific Americas Shorebird Conservation Strategy, posted here on the US Shorebird Conservation Partnership webpage: https://www.shorebirdplan.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Pacific-Americas-Strategy-2016.pdf

2:45 Local Spotlight: The New Mexico Land Conservancy - Conservation work that benefits Avifauna. (Presentation Connor Jandreau, NMLC Land Steward -- 20 minutes) (Discussion 10 minutes)

Connor presented New Mexico Land Conservancy work, Noted that NM has a lot of public land, but some of most productive is in private hands. We have recently lost 18% of irrigated ag lands = NM riparian, lowland and productive ag lands are extremely important for habitat. Significant amounts of land changing ownership – breaking pieces up, fewer people working the land.

NMLC has protected 160,000 acres, $50 million in CE donations, $10 million in public and private funding. Also develop wildlife projects, restoration plans, reintroduction efforts, outreach.

Case study -- Canadian Shortgrass Prairie project. $1 million proposal to NRCS to designate this area as grassland of national significance. Working with landowner who owns 160,000 acres – focus on 6000 acres. Has Southwestern Willow Flycatcher.

Case study - Burro Cienega. Applying for damage funds from local mine to acquire easements – now have acquired them along the entire reach of the cienega. Working with landowners on restoring the wetland. Putting another 3000 acres under easement. Working with FWS on riparian exclusion and restoration.

Case study – Ceinega Ranch – north of the Chiricahau Mountains with TPL. Sited the third US jaguar there. 20,000 acres under easement. Restoration will follow.

Riparian work on Gila, Mimbres, Chama and Pecos RiversNOTE: In NM we still have large land holdings so we can work at scale. Note: relatively passive focus on birds – our strong focus is on protection and restoring habitat. We have great local contacts. We are ripe for research and collaboration.

3:15 Break (15 minutes)The refreshments were exceptional, all in attendance agreed.

15

https://url.serverdata.net/?a5NlIIoNu6x4W82Y6AmlWmWNuJfbLe8nsYIa0H51l7rTTA1zQGY1hWY7jIaOIpC2sU7WCBDP300OJ3yCKlTMBCc92hRviNEQgUNGnr_Qua6UMuB4hHYrjSVvc-stjVKK3vru3gtHLGbqmhmHz-HSiA1RIMkoI8XtSHmTomj_SNsPIyoC2npzZOtrWBGvSIjM2aEM9bVVoDF24Vc46UL80-w~~

https://url.serverdata.net/?a5NlIIoNu6x4W82Y6AmlWmWNuJfbLe8nsYIa0H51l7rTTA1zQGY1hWY7jIaOIpC2sU7WCBDP300OJ3yCKlTMBCc92hRviNEQgUNGnr_Qua6UMuB4hHYrjSVvc-stjVKK3vru3gtHLGbqmhmHz-HSiA1RIMkoI8XtSHmTomj_SNsPIyoC2npzZOtrWBGvSIjM2aEM9bVVoDF24Vc46UL80-w~~


3:30 Western Hummingbird Program Update, (Presentation, Sue Bonfield, 20

minutes) (Discussion, 10 minutes)

Sue presented the Western Hummingbird Partnership (WHP), complete with a photo of a hummer with a big red “S” on his/her chest. WHP Objectives: Develop network; support projects broaden awareness, identify and fill science gaps, develop habitat guidelines.

Materials include: All about hummingbirds/Todos sobre colibris booklets; hummingbird poster; hummingbird education guide; land managers guide (all available on WHP website = www.Westernhummingbird.org). WHP has newsletter; Facebook page – sign up!

Research: WHP makes small research grants. Currently focusing on phenology of birds, snowmelt and vegetation (e.g. Broadtail research – dust has impact on timing). Want to establish and expand citizen scientist program.

Rufous Hummingbird project – with Klamath Bird Observatory and Univ. of Guadalajara in Mexico. RUHU seeing pop declines (2%/yr for 40+ years). Range from Alaska to Mexico – long distant migrant. RUHUs are changing timing (8-11 day at two coastal sites; 7-17 day earlier at 4 northern sites – why?) Sarahy Contreas doing amazing work at U of Guadalajara.

Encouraging data sharing; offering internships to students of color (migratory shorebirds); looking at phenology through pollen extraction from banded hummingbirds.

2017 Action Plan – State of Rufous Hummingbird Document; develop citizen science phenology project; research at post-fire treatments in OR and Jalisco to benefit hummingbirds; develop pollinator plan; connect to new partners, find more $$ for research; work on joint meeting with WWG.

4:00 Hummingbirds, Bridging the gap between science and education (Presentation, Zach Cartmell, 20 minutes) (Discussion, 10 minutes)

Zach works with National Park Service. Picked public education project focused on hummingbird – good way to connect and interact with the public, can contribute to climate change research, and create opportunities “for the ordinary to become extra-ordinary” (i.e. hummingbirds are cool). Reaching about 3000 people this year. Already changing the nature of our relationships to the local community, educational institutions, and partner organizations. Education outreach also creating engagement across boundaries. Now moving ahead with expanded research with interns and citizen scientists that can monitor changes in hummingbird migration, timing, etc. Jay mentioned that Murdock Foundation can

16

http://www.Westernhummingbird.org/


supply grants around $5k for building partnerships with teachers – could help here.

4:30 Grassland Bird Conservation Strategy; a full life-cycle plan for 4 priority grassland birds. (Presentation, Scott Somershoe, 20 minutes, discussion, 10 minutes)

Scott presented the ongoing work to develop a Grassland Bird Conservation Plan. Top focus is on Baird’s Sparrow, Sprague’s Pipit, Chestnut-collared Longspur and McCown’s Longspur. Presented lots of declining bird graphs. Goal is to develop full life-cycle conservation strategy to improve the status of priority birds by providing guidance to land managers, researchers, biologists, decision-makers; also to identify knowledge gaps and facilitate conservation planning and delivery. Pull together existing information and literature and compile into one document – Jay has done this for McCown’s. Target is to get first draft done by September 2017, final in 2018. Epic effort. Plan to update every five years. Long list of collaborators.

Pre-closing we recognized Dave Krueper with a PIF Recognition Award for his Leadership…YAY!! All in attendance were weeping with sadness of Dave’s leaving and joy and celebration for all that he has done.

We are all familiar with the Partners in Flight Awards and how they recognize exceptional contributions to the field of landbird conservation. This afternoon I’d like to recognize one of our very own, David J. Krueper, recently retired Migratory Bird Biologist with the USFWS-Region 2. Dave has been recognized for his Leadership in Landbird Conservation in the Western U.S. and Northwest Mexico by our Nat PIF CommunityDave has been an integral part of PIF and the Western Working Group (WWG), since early 1991, he helped coordinate the first WWG meeting in Tucson. He has been a steadfast contributor to the WWG and the broader PIF community for 25 years. He has been a strong contributor to bird conservation efforts throughout his career, especially as it pertains to desert species monitoring and management. Some highlights include………..

Dave helped create and deliver the BLM's first Mig. Bird training course, which was followed by many other sessions and through that effort, he changed the culture of the BLM from deer and grouse to birds. No small feat!!

Dave was instrumental in documenting the importance of the San Pedro River in southeastern Arizona, recognizing what would come to be the first Global Important Bird Area in the U.S. This work is still frequently cited as a hallmark conservation success and inspiration for riparian restoration across the west.

17


He is an authority on bird distribution throughout the southwestern U.S. and all of Mexico.

He is the lead author on the Bendire's Thrasher Focal Species Plan and Chair’s the Desert Thrashers Working Group.

He recently worked with others to re-invigorate the New Mexico Avian Conservation Partnership

He has been the President of the New Mexico Ornithological Society for 4 years. He participated in and has been a reviewer for updating the Birds of

Conservation Concern document, and most importantly, worked on meshing US scoring with scoring of species in Mexico, helping to identify conservation priorities in the U.S.-Mexico border region.

Dave has served for two years as President of the Western Field Ornithologists, And he is a member of the technical committees for both the Sonoran and Gulf

Coast Joint Ventures. He has been a member of the PIF National Steering Committee and Science

Working Group. He is an on-going BBS survey route participant, covering 5 routes in NM. And finally Dave has served as the historian and photographer for the PIF WWG,

Dave has donated his personal artwork to the PIF WWG for use as logos or for our shirts/hats/webpage. He also generously donates his professional photographs for use by conservation organizations and projects, including the Sonoran Joint Venture. He even donated a previous PIF award to help bolster a Mexican biosphere reserve in Jalisco, The Sierra de Manantlan. And here, at this meeting he organized the book sale from he and Janet’s private collection with the goal of contributing funds to our MX biologist travel fund. They collected close to $700.00 by the closing of the silent auction!

Dave serves as a mentor to many inside and outside the government in the world of bird conservation. His work has paved the way for conservation in so many realms, and his achievements are a beacon to those that follow. We are blessed to of had Dave as a friend, colleague and significant contributor to our WWG and overall PIF initiative. We are extremely honored to have him leading our two field trips and have been blessed to have him part of our WWG team. We then presented him with his carved American Redstart.

18


Unidentified Western Working Group member (right) looking fearful of going over allotted time and being “corrected” by Chairwoman Barb Bresson (left).

Barb, do not delete this photo! David Younkman

5:00 Adjourn 6:30 Group dinner, NM local restaurant, short walk from the hotel, The Cafe Thursday 9:00 Avicaching: Engaging birders to inform thrasher management and decisions

about solar energy development mitigation. (Presentation, Chris McCreedy, 20 minutes) (Discussion, 10 minutes)

Priorities: Thrashers and birds taken at solar installations SJV: Bendires and Le Conte’s especially – red listed Mitigation for solar projects due to solar flux (incinerates feathers and birds can’t

fly again) – There are about 150 solar installations in California, right in major mig bird

migration routes

19


Data from Ivan ? site = 978 individuals killed (85 spp represented) but little data eBird doesn’t cover the solar sites well: birders focussing on migrant traps Avicaching – score points for submitting eBird checklists in under-birded places –

standings and prizes motivate people Idea to use this to get solar location data and thrasher data Jennie MacFarland and Tucson Audubon involved on project Recruiting volunteers at Audubon meetings – providing locations of where

surveys wanted – locate them close to popular places to be strategic Protocol: point counts on road or offroad, or area searches or a mix? Cornell to help build the game on eBird Prizes and publicity Jaime: eBird – can’t always create a hotspot on private land Jay & Janet: thinks area search might be a better method esp. for birders who

don’t do point counts normally, and migrants might not be singing as much during that time.

Chris welcomes others to develop an eBird game with him for their area [email protected] , [email protected]

9:30 Shrub steppe species-centered habitat modeling, an update (Presentation, Jaime Stephens, 10 minutes – Discussion 5 minutes)

Replicating modelling from forest modelling for sagebrush ecosystems with Aaron Holmes doing work (for Sage Grouse)

For forests, are songbird focal species representing habitats for Spotted Owl? YES

Modelled bird distributions to Landsat. Songbird Occurrence, abundance and community composition to serve as

indicator of whether they are actually achieving ideal shrub steppe condition they are aiming for

Will do this in grassland shrub steppe for Sage Grouse mgmt conditions. – can we see tight connections with songbird composition?

Focal spp: BRSP, SATH, SAGS, HOLA, WEME, GRFL, VESP, LASP, GTTO, ROWR

for Northern Basin and Range Should be done by end of year. As part of project, also inputting some KBO and Point Blue data into AKN Dave K: Mammal like a pygmy rabbit in model? Dan: Lots of sagebrush without sage grouse, so will be interesting to see.

9:45 Break (15 minutes).

20


10:00 Cats, birds and vets: Engaging BC veterinarians in partnership and education on cat overpopulation and bird mortality. (Presentation, Tanya Luszcz, 40 minutes) (Discussion, 20 minutes).

Based in Penticton: formed a local cat coalition…a few cat colonies in the area No real interest by local government in regulating or dealing with cat colony issue Also no real provincial or federal policy Lauren Sherwood, Univ of Victoria, other partners Local humane societies don’t feel they have vets on their side for low-cost spay-

neuter programs; one vet was shunned by colleagues for providing low-cost spaying-neutering

100-350 million birds killed by cats in Canada annually; awareness of this does not really motivate changes in behaviour

Nature Canada has received funding to do outreach around cats (also window strikes)

Working on cats first…as much emphasis on cat welfare as well as wildlife protection: “pledge now to keep your cat safe”

Survey link (23 questions) to 1458 vets; 414 responses (389 complete= 26.7% rate)

Broke down respondents by gender, length of time as a vet 56% agreed or strongly agreed that “cat overpopulation is a problem in (their)

community” Top solution: spay-neuter owned cats; then education, then TNR (!) Vast majority (91%) think they are a part of reducing the problem 65% currently provide support toward low-cost spay-neuter clinic or service 70% provide pediatric spay/neuter on request Tattoos and microchips always provided in conjunction with s/n by 55% of vets

(some free, some for fee) Then analyses of how these variables overlapped Data can (are) being broken down by location, gender, length of time in service… Relatively high level (30%) of neutrality on the issue of cats as a significant

source of bird mortality (53% agree)…yet, 77% of those neutral on the issue still recommend that clients keep cats indoors…for the safety of the cat.

Asked for assessment of most effective/practical/popular solutions to bird mortality

Younger vets more likely to recommend cats indoors 300 vets willing to help distribute responsible pet ownership outreach materials

21


Next\; follow up with the non-converted; sort out urban versus rural issues; replicate in other regions; find advocates in the vet community; work with vet schools and present at conferences

Discussion around dog versus cat cultural issues; Tom pointed out that threats to human health greater in some ways (3x more likely to get bitten by rabid cat), toxoplasmosis…even though dogs have killed people directly, while cats have not

AFWA starting a cats committee (Sara Schweitzer)…Brad will help connect this to them

Example: aggressive bylaws regarding licensing, yet still just 55% compliance Carrie: rural cat owners even more cavalier about cats roaming…and more of the

birds we worry about are affected in those areas. Much discussion…interest in replicating the survey in other places? ABC does have a cats list serve (actually more of a newsletter…latest science,

new happenings, legislative actions, etc.) What about the use of cat control as a mitigation tool (e.g. to mitigate other

causes of mortality). Something along that line to protect Newell’s Shearwater in Hawaii.

Please contact Tanya at [email protected]

11:00 Multi state Desert Thrashers Species Assessment, (Presentation, Edwin Juarez, Geoff Geupel, 20 minutes) (Discussion, 10 minutes)

Bendire Thrasher and Le Conte’s Thrasher assessment – red list species b/c Big territories with low density and low productivity and habitat fragmentation and alteration (e.g. changing fire regimes) and drought

Special thanks to Desert Thrasher working group BLM and state funding Protocol development – area search surveys: 300x300m plots; 40 min area

search, 3 visits (LCTH, BETH, LOSH are focal species but collecting data on other spp also)

Huge area to cover – need to focus on thrasher spots Vetted BETH records in eBird to determine likeliehood of breeding occurrence PLuMA: planning for landscape management and adaptation – done for BETH

and LCTH – based on Arizona breeding bird atlas, Great Basin bird observatory data with updated Landfire veg

Edwin:

22


Took two models created by point blue (rank assigned to each plot and focused on HIGH and randomly selected from these to find plots. In Arizona focussed on BLM land (excluding parks, state) because didn’t have time to get appropriate permission for access

Arizona BETH surveys – 22 locations, each a cluster of 9 plots; 3 visits to each plots = about 70 plots once done;

CA thrasher surveys: 9 locations; each a cluster of 6-8 plots; 3 visits to each plot = about 60 plots

Le Conte’s Thrasher plots – Nevada – 13 clusters ( about 12 plots per cluster); 152 plots

BETH Nevada plots – 32 surveys………….. Prelim results: LCTH: 80-90 LCTH sightings BETH – 1 BETH on plot survey survey, 1 near plot duding survey and 1 near plot

off survey CA results – 21 LCTH detections and 2 nests; 10 BETH detections AZ results: 11 BETH detections, 2 nests, 4 LOSH; 5 CBTH; 3 SATH, 5 CRTH Next steps to finish surveys, analysis and begin collaborating for next year Jesus: any attempts to coordinate with Mexico? Edwin: interested in surveys in

Sonora and have some interested partners, just need funding which would not be much required (Cuckoo surveys are about $8,000 per year in Sonora)

LOSH recorded because they are a species of concern in California

11:30 Olive-sided Flycatcher migration: new results for Alaska! (Presentation Julie Hagelin, 25 minutes) (Discussion, 5 minutes)

Co-authors are James Johnson (USFWS) and Michael Hallworth (Smithsonian) Army of people involved in OSFL Collaboration from Yukon College, U of Alberta and ECCC (Sam Hache) 76% decline in last 40 years (-4%/yr); Alaska decline less dramatic Boreal breeders in Alaska more successful? If birds make it back to Alaska, have

80% nest success; lower nest success in Oregon and California from previous work (1997 and 1999 Oregon)

Migratory route of OSFL: Most geolocators were light level tags 2013:8, 2014: 22 - geolocators 2015: 31 + 10 GPS units 2016: 20 GPS units (Lotek pointpoint (10 points) or Lotek Swiftfix (80 points)) None of 10 GPS 2015 units came back and hoping that 20 from 2016 come back

this year

23


Reliability of GPS units is lower Have recovered units from 13 birds, some are 2 year recoveries (not seen in

interim year) or duplicate years All birds no injuries and all successful breeders (average 30% return rate per

year, but depends on site; variability) Geolocators record light intensity over time; Latitude (day length); longitude (time

of noon/midnight) so coarse location estimate Male and female pair were both tagged; equinox period = terrible messy data due

to day length being similar everywhere; birds wintering in different locations – male was 500km north of female; leave wintering grounds around equinox; female ended up on breeding grounds about a week earlier than male

Fall migration was a more interior route whereas spring was further west. Cross Gulf in Fall if at all. Lots of birds moved overland, 20,000 to 22,000km annually fuelled by bugs

Spring have more stops of greater than 5 days Spring: 420km per day and 52 days (probably faster as they have longer stops

along the way) Fall: 237km/day and 55 days Geolocator data are messy, but there two are central locations where birds

overwintering: Central Ecuador and SE Peru/NW and North-central Bolivia Spring: Pacific NW and BC are important as a stopover and Columbia/Panama

areas Fall: Looking at where birds are and what is protected (IUCN maps): avg protection

per bird is 16.35% plus/minus 0.74SE 1.7million square kms protected overall Looking at where birds are with protection overlaid: helpful graphic to help focus

conservation efforts geographically and to do some on-the ground surveys for OSFL

Spring stopovers showing little protection (e.g. PNW (Oregon, WA and BC) Dave: wants to share maps with ABC international team Julie: 13 locations encompass complete migratory journey appear to be most

important along birds trajectory: Ecuador area seems to be a pre-migration stop of about 2 weeks perhaps to tank up on food.

Barb: are birds in PNW on east side of mountains? Julie: not sure we can determine that. Geolocator data are fuzzy. Geolocator data essential for telling us how to program GPS units

Fall: 61 days/ Spring: 58 days – different map – Chris M: seems importance of southern Mexico site is higher because they have

really booked it down there and need a stopover.

24


12:00 Lunch (90 minutes) 1:30 Grassland Birds, demographic monitoring in the Chihuahuan Desert,

(Presentation 20 minutes, Erin Strasser), (Discussion, 10 minutes) Birds of Chihuahuan declining greater than other grasslands – the WHY is

unclear Shrub encroachment, drought, grazing Began as a monitoring project but now full annual life cycle project – monitoring

demographics in northern great plains as well Winter Survival monitoring sites – Janos, Marfa, Valle Colombia, Cuchillas de la

Zarca Focussed on Baird’s Sparrow (narrow niche) and GRSP winter survival using

radio-telemetry; also determining causes of mortality, characterizing movement patterns and contributing to full life cycle

Want to work with sprague’s pipits, but hard to capture What factors limit survival on winter grounds? Also looking at antenna length and transmitter length on bird survival – didn’t find

any differences Capture in December and recapture in March Assessing habitat at bird locations and across study area, have climate data from

local stations and do transects to determine bird density To date 972 sparrows tracked since 2002: 444 BAIS, 528 GRSP 34% of individuals confirmed dead; 37% of individuals lost – are lots of floater

birds around ,but also tag could be destroyed in predation event Loggerhead shrikes are top culprit for predation, but also raptors, NOHA and

MAKE and SEOW Have found some birds died from exposure Winter survival varies substantially year to year This year was good from maybe 50-70% survival rates Taller shrubs = lower survival (and more shrikes); shrubs can be managed on

landscape and grass recovers quickly Colder temperature = lower survival (likely due to energetic stress and foraging in

open makes them more exposed to predation Grassland birds need variation in grass height (thermal refuge and refuge from

predators) Collecting feathers to determine sex – haven’t seen differences in survival

between sex

25


Sparrows use three distinct space use patterns: sedentary (stay put all winter), stay and go (home range for a while and then shifting to another site), floaters (move a lot throughout winter)

Going to be using drones to collect habitat data; test run done this past winter Aerial imagery mosaic and elevation model to get a 3D picture of habitat and can

also get % cover – will help determine thresholds for shrub tolerance levels Will also be using Infrared camera to determine how birds will be doing next

winter based on grass? (moisture level?) Lots of side projects: seed collection, loggerhead shrike study, tracking

Sprague’s pipits (have captured 8 so far) - They use twice as much habitat as the other two species.

Community outreach and capacity building – brings students out to help capture birds; also training of interns and volunteers

Linking demographics across the FAC; breeding season work in the NGP (eastern Montana and Dakota and also new site in Alberta (2017); Hoping to recovery 147 geolocators deployed in 2016 in these sites

Adam Green doing integrated population modelling (IPM) to try and get at why birds are declining

Interested in coming down? [email protected] Want more concurrent summer and winter monitoring Mike Green: low site fidelity in BAIS and GRSP may make it hard to retrieve

geolocators Janet: GRSP – broad geographic difference with site fidelity (Midwest has lower

return rates; but where she worked, they had much higher return rate) Jay: did both sparrows use space use? Erin: Yes (60% sedentary, and then next

were stay and go and then fewest of the floaters) Jay: what about conversion rates? Near Janos, a couple of pastures have been

converted, right in middle of a biosphere reserve; but stll lots of gs and relatively large ranches still there

Jesus: plow rate of Chihuahuan GS is huge mainly Mennonites for potato fields at a large rate.

2:00 Long-billed Curlew conservation and research update. (Presentation, Dan Casey/Jay Carlisle, 20 Minutes) (Discussion, 10 minutes)

Migratory pathways work continues Page et al. paper BC (Bird Studies Canada) now attaching transmitters summer 2017 27 new transmitters including 7 in BC

26


Modelling method called utilization distributions to get at wintering area location and size (home range and core use area) also sit familiarity (inter-annual % overlap of home ranges)

Results: wintering ground spatial ground distribution – territoriality and foraging flocks – want to quantify this between different areas.

Jay Junior bird example: Thor and Valkyrie: wide range of habitat use. In progress summarization for 4 different wintering areas: coastal birds being

territorial on intertidal mudflat, core range is 6.4 square miles; Central Valley is 144 square mile core range

Dan Casey – LBCU conservation Habitat % conservation Objectives for LBCU – gave foot in door to talk about

grasslands overall Created outreach pamphlet for ranchers Low numbers of birders in Montana so lower survey effort than desired Sporadic LBCU surveys in Montana, Dakota, Wyoming 22 routes in 4 states, 2 replicates of many and only got 4 LBCU, so not finding

hotspots. Working towards more consistent surveys across these states LBCU are a great showpiece species to do grassland conservation work Cheryl of ABC works in an NRCS office – LBCU were the foot in door, but she

has influenced 13,000 acres of habitat (NRCS) – reducing weeds and more; 50,000 more acres to influence

There is funding to continue and she is working on RCP proposal Dan: habitat conversion threat is main thrust but there are opps to work with

someone who has already converted land because LBCU might use their land Dave K: Saskatchewan bird migrated through New Mexico; birds breeding east

of Texas wintering in Georgia are dropping off. What about Northern Chihuahuan birds? Jay: birds are flocking there mainly birds from east of the Rockies.

Jay: Habitat availability seems to drive LBCU habitat-use behaviour. Want to look at availability of habitat.

Jay: Birds that bred together did not winter together.

2:30 Working Group Updates (10-15 minutes each with 30 minute break at 3:00)● Non-Game Tech Committee, Colleen Moulton

2014 meeting: Increasing effectiveness of NTC to increase awareness of various groups and review roles and responsibilities and define role of NTC in bird community = produced a white paper

27


Identified 6 first steps all of which progress has been made: 1) mechanism for funding southern wings, 2) NTC member on AKN steering committee (Joe Buchanan and now Colleen), 3) developed process for submitting national cons needs, 4) assessment of data sharing and data management strategy - submitted info note to council of this survey, 5) endorsement of projects that need support (e.g. pacific shorebird monitoring and nightjar surveys), 6) ???

Used Miradi process to identify priority initiatives to drive NTC’s workload for next 5 years: 1) assessment of mig pthways and important stopovers, 2) implement coordinated monitoring for SEOW, 3) wetland connectivity, 4) rodenticides, 5) cuckoos - ?

Migratory Pathways – multistate conservation grants for national conservation needs– did not submit this year

SEOW: Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, want to expand to all pacific flyway states – piggybacking on experimental grazing project – trying to get an AKN data entry portal

Wetland connectivity – US shorebird cons partnership – Pelicans – Southern wings – pacific flyway shorebird project as part of southern wings; Pelicans have mgmt. concerns – doing basic movement patterns work including satellite tag work – hoping to get 70tags out – Audubon society developing info on importance of saline lakes

Rodenticides impacts to birds – Arizona has a white paper Cuckoos are still on workplan for NTC Hoping to have another partners meeting in 2018 – want it to be topic-

driven, so Colleen requesting topics from this group – If anyone wants NTC to be discussing a particular topic, please contact her

Also, if you want to be on mailing list for NTC, contact her [email protected] 208-287-2751 Barb: Pls communicate with WWG before NTC meetings so that WWG can

provide input

● Pacific Birds Habitat Joint Venture, Brad Bales Oak and Prairie Conservation – current implementation strategies More staff from this JV will be involved in WWG More all-bird than previously PIF is a high priority and WWG is the main forum for this Developed cons business plan for regional prairie oak cons strategy –

prairie, oaks and people – being at moment

28

mailto:[email protected]


Intertwine Alliance, Willamette Valley oak-prairie co-op, East cascades Oak partnership, Klamath-siskiyou oaks network, NW California oak network,

$$ - Willamette wildlife mitigation program, Doris Duke Charitable foundation to Nature Conservancy, Farm Bill

Policy and incentives: California forest practices Act (2016 legislation), Oak Accord (voluntary agreement partnership with wine industry), northwest forest plan (trying to influence them to consider oak)

Streaked Horned Lark conservation Update – ABC and others to focus on private lands to find realistic recommendations and incentive programs, considering farm-scale and landscape-scale approaches to cons – landowners apprehensive but NRCS approach could help

Brad to connect with Barb and Jaime about some project funding opps Brad looking for stories and info for newsletter

PIF WWG participation at the 2018 International Ornithological Conference in Vancouver, Bob Elner. Plan and discuss the WWG and St. Comm. involvement.

Vancouver meeting to be biggest bird meeting of all time Bird studies Canada coming in as co-host, as well as British OU Birdlife International might stage with IOU as well as Cornell, Audubon

and hopefully ABC – go the space Lots of opps for PIF Workshops as part of congress but also Sunday and Monday, we could

have space in conference centre. PIF to have exhibition stand Sunday, August 18 to 26 Venue paid for, except for special AV equipment Monday: PIF Symposium or meeting or both - Aug ? opp to talk about

what PIF is – workshops available – could just be a PIF meeting Call for workshops and informal meetings going out soon – PIF could

tender workshops during scientific meetings; also exhibition area available that will have public access.

Barb: Did Bob Ford give any indication of interest in symposium? No, but said that a core PIF committee will work on this.

Deadlines? – next three months. Barb: WWG Action Item to connect with Bob Ford on this Exhibition area: PIF could have a booth ($2,000 normal cost), but

probably could get it for free due to low-funded nature of PIF and its importance.

29


Bob: would like to see PIF support Latin American partners to attend Congress: could identify people who could benefit, but don’t have resources

Barb: Continental interest for PIF working groups to all meet in Vancouver

IOC website is live: with details on exhibition space www.iocongress2018.com Tanya Luszcz and Wendy Easton are both contacts for Bob: PIF has pioneered a sense of welcoming and friendship Carol Beardmore: “Bob puts on the best meetings!” Vancouver Symphony Orchestra has composed a fanfare for the

congress 10x10 pics display of all endangered birds in the world which will head to

China on display Barb: We will work with SC and other working groups and get back to

Bob Elner via Tanya Luszcz Geoff: Steering Committee plans to have their fall meeting at IOC Also planning to put together a symposium

Rosy finch update, Scott Somershoe At Medford meeting, started working group to try and find these birds on

the landscape Brown-capped Rose Finch work getting started in Colorado – banding by

region of the state have a one colour metal band; want to do breeding bird work, trapping birds to determine where they breed.

Scott Rashid in Estes Park Colorado banding them in his yard. Denver nature and science museum working with specimens on genetics Is there still interest from WWG folks to think about Rosy Finches? Chris: Is Tom Hahn at Davis still working on them? Would be interesting to

known what happened to CA birds during drought. Sandia Crest work Mike Green: some previous work – potter traps? – was working in a

national park in CA – maybe would work with geolocators with potter traps

PIF VI, Greg Butcher/ Carol Beidleman. SOURCE OF PIF VI IDEA (napkin, talking to PIF MESO folks at PIF V, never

held internationally) PLANNING- SLOW START, HALTING (linear process, small subgroup calls,

lead from PIF MESO (CR Coord), mainly Greg, Carol B-AZ and Carol B-NM) originally set for Feb. 2018

30

http://www.iocongress2018.com/


DISCUSSION TRANSFERRED TO TICOS (in-country committee, number of groups, CLO CR, concern over multiple meetings in CR (SMBC 2017, if PIF VI 2018, and NOC 2019; a lot to host).

DECISION IN-COUNTRY TO CONNECT TO MESOAMERICAN SOCIETY OF BIOLOGY AND CONSERVATION (SMBC)-soon!

DATES OCT 30-NOV 3, San Jose, www.congresosmbc.org. What is SMBC-all taxa, regional attendance and locations-moves around, annual theme, thematic groups (no general bird group). This year’s theme relates to the role of women in conservation, both professionally and in communities. Regular thematic group examples: climate change, invasive species, marine, terrestrial, protected areas, socioeconomic, etc. Is Sarah O. on line? She was involved in-region.

HISTORY OF PIF AND SMBC: PIF MESO met with SMBC meetings (including in Honduras in 2005, where we initiated the PIF species assessment for Mesoamerica), by our U.S. initiation and support; without is difficult. As a result of our lack of engagement and support generally, it has become inactive.

Agreement signed by me for Terry and Olivier Chassot, again a main contact for us, in 2008, goal to strengthen bird conservation components, collaboration and strengthen the PIF MESO WG/SMBC network in the region, including capacity building workshops for which I fundraised with partners:

o Strengthening Partners in Flight Mesoamérica Migratory Bird Conservation Efforts through North American Banding Council Certification Opportunity, Costa Rica, 2010

o Strengthening Partners in Flight Mesoamérica Migratory Bird Conservation Efforts through Training in Statistical Analysis and Scientific Writing, Belize, 2009*

o Strengthening Partners in Flight Mesoamérica Migratory Bird Conservation Efforts through Bird Banding Training and North American Banding Council Certification Opportunity, El Salvador, 2008*

LEADS: In U.S. Greg Butcher; Chassot in CR CURRENT INFORMATION: Greg just sent out an update. PIF themes will include conservation strategies,

development tools, field methods, research findings. Instructions for submitting symposia, workshops, course, forums and special

lectures—deadline May 19 (send to him). There is a SMBC logistics manager, Zaida Piedra.

Need for funding to cover regional travel/attendance (can’t go unless covered) INVOLVEMENT/IMPORT OF PIF WWG:

31


Historic relationships between WWG (Mike Carter) states and PIF MESO countries. Think of what can submit and how can support regional travel (nice to have your partners; but an equitable system is better with limited dollars), thinking strategically but being equitable. Up to WWG if through international group.

TrUST update for PIF WWG – Tom Will

Tri-initiative Science Team – TRIST – 2006 – to address issues across JV lines

Great if all science teams would come together – unified science team – TrUST was born for two years which will expire Oct 2017 – transitional unified science team

Statement of purpose on NABCI website Developed set of priorities, ranked them and came up with the top 10 Showing four today: 1) population estimates and objectives 2) vulnerability assessment – similar to PIF assessment 3) landscape change – evaluating net landscape change, best on national

scale 4) full annual cycle – working on it One big outcome of TrUST is shift from species assessment for landbirds

only to all birds – YAY!!!! –- new set of global scores (North American) for all birds will be online soon in new global score assessment database (same as PIF watchlist scores) - Well done TrUST

Next step will be to do regional assessment scores and hopefully can get a JV-scale score from those data.

TrUST and avian conservation assessment database? – JV’s were key features in plan, so hope to more fully engage JV’s in regional assessment – also want to increase capacity and interest in this database.

Avian Conservation Assessment Database: global scoring done; next steps: breeding season scoring next by BCR and then global scores for non-breeding season and then regional scores for non-breeding season (and at same time do spring and fall migration season scoring for species with good data in eBird abundance models).

Sign-up Sheet for ACAD Regional Assessment – Alaine Camfield covering Cdn portion of many BCR’s, need more regional leads. – to learn more about assessment process and mainly doing review for your BCR of expertise

Tuesday April 18 - 1pm Mountain Time Training Session for this!!!

32


ACTION ITEM: Tom to send stuff out to WWG

4:30 Meeting wrap up and fall meeting planning (Barb Bresson) The WHP and PIF Steering Committee would like to meet with us, let’s look Oct 16-20 th in Baja or San Francisco for possible dates and locations.

Action Items from the PIF WWG, Spring; (April 11-13th), Santa Fe NM Working group structure what are our working group responsibilities for

maintaining wall to wall bird conservation? How can we also have better coor. with our JV’s? Tom Will preamble for PIF SC meeting. How do we integrate and share ideas for collaboration. A discussion for the SC to have and let us know the strategy. Can we get more JV’s at our meetings (PBHJV attends regularly).

Follow up with Bob Ford on the letter from Central flyway council, is there a lack of representation from the states on the WG’s and if so how can we be more inclusive?

Nesting calendars? Ask Tanya about it and let Bob Altman know about this as well. Get Tanya to present this at the next meeting.

Have another presentation on the AKN and useful tools, how to use it for analysis etc. Add the AKN info to the Road Show template site. How can we develop an AKN for dummies.

Follow up with Tanya on next steps for the cat issue, Work with ABC and Sarah S, on the AFWA team on how we can do more in the WWG with cat issues.

International group update, how are we doing with the web page revision? FB page and linked in, student board. Add links to the notes. We will discuss updates and the “team” will get our site updated and linked to the new national PIF website.

Check out the NMACP website have Peggy add the link to the notes. R3 has developed a publication on reference conditions for P-Pine. Get a copy?

Ask Ernie Taylor. Continue the Focal species discussion with Ernie, talk to him about using Focal

species as indicators of habitat health. Hummingbird Poster is almost complete. PIF VI, Oct 30 - Nov. 3, 2017, San Jose, Costa Rica. Theme is Women in

Conservation with thematic groups (Climate Change etc., no bird group) Is there an opportunity to catalyze project centric. Edwin and Carol Bidleman will keep us posted on this as it progresses. The Avian Conservation Assessment will be focused with workshops by the Sci. team. PIF is in charge of the bird talks. Jaime will pull together a conference call to develop a strat.

33


Non-Game Tech Comm. - Colleen M and Scott S will talk before the next Non Game Mtg. to coor. any PIF/Non Game issues.

We will post the presentations that we have permissions to on the web page work with Mike.

Follow up with Bob Elner / Bob Ford for IO Congress in Vancouver, Aug 19-26, 2018.

Add the PIF SC Action Brief.

WWG committee background; we had divided out the committee member duties back in Medford 2015

Past Chair - coors. the field trips and dinner, care and feeding of the incoming chair.

Chair - coors. the agenda development, speakers, facilitates the meetings, purchases the snacks, info dissemination to WWG, info dissemination to WW, laisse with Steering Committee

Co-chair - coors. the meeting venue, hotel and meeting accommodations, webinar, conference line and takes meeting notes.

Ex. Comm .-group of 5-6 that in lieu of a co-chair assists the chair in the chair and co-chair duties.

Scott Somershoe from the FWS has graciously offered to step up to the chair position bumping me to the past chair position and allowing Jaime Stephens to finally step down entirely after 6 years of contributions!

We need a co-chair, so if you are ready to step up we do have a lot of fun pulling these meeting together. Please seriously consider participating, it takes a flock to keep this group flying as high as we have been.

We discussed reducing WWG to one meeting per year.o Geoff: agenda might be too big, but others point out that meeting could be

for a bit longer.o Barb: Only 20 people in room, so it is a lot to organize for few participants.o Several people admitted that once a year is better; hard to get permission

and time for twice a year.o Janet: If once a year, maybe have interim conference calls tailored to a

particular subject every second month. o Edwin: prefers twice per year so that meeting is a way to make things

happen and move along. Ex Comm could provide more structured/defined support to make the meetings happen.

o Scott: SE met once a year and little side group meetings

34


This is the Google drive link where the presentations from Santa Fe are housed.

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B5D SBspIcubeU015dXFPMkZZVW8

35

https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/folders/0B5DSBspIcubeU015dXFPMkZZVW8

· web viewdiscussion: how do we get the word out? do we have enough jobs to post? ... agreement...

Documents