North American Breeding Bird Survey
Strategic Planning Workshop
November 15-16, 2005
MEETING MINUTES AND
PRODUCTS
Location:
Meeting Organizers:
Keith Pardieck and Dave
Ziolkowski, Jr.
Meeting Facilitators:
Karen Buehler (Day 1)
Tom Will (Day 2)
Meeting participants:
Eighteen individuals
participated including representatives from the U.S. and Canadian national BBS
offices, Mexican National Commission for the Knowledge and Use of Biodiversity,
Canadian Wildlife Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological
Survey, Georgia Department of Natural Resources, New Mexico Department of Game
and Fish, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, North Carolina State University,
North American Bird Conservation Initiative, and Partners in Flight. See
Appendix A for a complete list of participants and contact information.
Acknowledgments:
We thank all of the
participants for their attendance and service at the meeting and extend special
thanks to Tom Will for graciously accepting the challenge of facilitating on
the second day.
Workshop Objectives:
Evaluate and prioritize the
needs and goals of the BBS program as identified by the Peer Review report, BBS
program managers and the avian conservation community. Prepare a 5-year strategic planning document
for the BBS program that:
1) prioritizes and determines relative resource
requirements to the pending peer review recommendations and other identified
issues,
2) identifies the issues of greatest import to the BBS
program over the next 5 years, and
3) outlines a strategy, timeline, and resource needs for
accomplishing each 5-year goal.
See Appendix B for collective list of individual
participant goals and objectives.
Workshop Structure:
Facilitated discussions and
break-out groups designed to distill, capture, and prioritize the key
scientific and operational issues facing the BBS.
BBS VISION
A collective visioning
exercise was performed primarily as a preamble to developing a mission
statement. Each participant was asked to
envision: Where the BBS should be 5 years from now? How would the success be measured? Who would recognize the success? Participants then broke into four teams to
further develop these visions. The group
did not consolidate a collective vision statement due to time constraints and
doubts as to need, since the BBS is a tool not an organization. However, a vision statement could be written
using the elements captured by the four teams.
See Appendix C for a listing of vision themes and
elements captured by each team.
BBS PROGRAM
Participants developed a mission
statement by collectively considering the following guidelines:
1) what does the BBS do,
2) who does it do it for /
or with whom,
3) what is the benefit or
value of BBS products
A facilitated whole group
discussion resulted in the following BBS mission statement:
“We provide scientifically credible measures
of the status and trends of North American bird populations at continental and regional
scales to inform and assess* biologically
sound conservation and management actions*.”
* Note: Continued discussion
centered on whether to add the words “assess” and “actions” to the finished
statement. There appeared to be
tentative agreement to retain both.
BBS SCIENTIFIC GOALS
A combination of facilitated
whole group discussion and break-out group work yielded three primary
scientific goals of the BBS.
Participants were given the opportunity to identify two priorities each.
Numbers in parentheses indicate total priority
votes. Bulleted items beneath each goal
indicate discussion items and were not necessarily agreed upon by the entire
group.
1. (17) Estimate Population Change
— using annual indices that also capture annual
variation in bird numbers
— at the scale of a BCR or higher
— for individual species and for defined clusters of
species (environmental indicators, species richness, community guilds, “state
of the birds” reporting?)
— with specified resolution (power to detect 50%
decline over 20 years) and accuracy (80%)
2. (11) Provide Data for Model-based
Conservation Planning
— models that associate bird populations with
environmental features (e.g. habitat, climate, habitat change?)
— resolution of the causes underlying bird population
variation
— combine BBS counts with habitat and other spatially
explicit data to increase interpretation and application of BBS data)
— resolve species/habitat associations (species
densities by habitat and landscape)
3. (3) Estimate Species Population Size (for setting population goals)
— provide the data and address the detection and bias
issues that enable BBS to be used for this purpose
— provide acceptable range of accuracy for population
estimates
SCALE OF BBS FOCUS
As a subtopic in the above exercise, participants
were given an opportunity to identify the geographic scale that the BBS most
appropriately addresses. Participants
were nearly evenly divided between the regional scale (i.e., BCR; 6 votes) and
the continental scale (5 votes), with several participants encouraging equal
emphasis on both (4 votes).
ISSUES FACING THE BBS
An evaluation of the results
of the preceding exercises identified several themes that capture the issues
currently facing the BBS (list follows). In consideration of the limited meeting time
remaining, the group conservatively agreed to single out one theme for initial
consideration that warranted the most discussion.
Total individual votes indicated by the numbers in
parentheses.
I) Enhancing
Data Quality for Science (14)
II) Enhancing
Data Use (1)
III)
Building and Maintaining Support (3)
The first theme was selected
and subsequently sub-divided into four topic areas, each further discussed by
specific break-out groups:
Ia) Enhancing
Geographic coverage
Ib) Increasing
Observer Quality
Ic) Addressing
Habitat Bias Issues
Id) Addressing
Bias in Detection Probability
The break-out groups additionally
recommended strategies for addressing each of the goals within the four topic
areas.
After reformation of the
entire participant group, participants split into two break-out groups to
further tackle Issues II and III. Each
break-out group again further fleshed out the issues and proposed recommended
strategies.
BREAK-OUT GROUP RESULTS
I. ENHANCING DATA QUALITY FOR
SCIENCE
Areas to be addressed:
-
Expansion into
-
Filling gaps within
current BBS coverage area ( e.g. northern fringe of
-
Habitat gaps (high
mountains; native grasslands) – not addressed by this group
Strategies:
STRATEGIES 1-3 BEST ADDRESSED BY A SINGLE
INTEGRATED STUDY/ANALYSIS
? - Find ways to run at least 1 route/degree
block throughout continental coverage area.
[This recommendation requires long-term action and high resources. Need guidance from trend analysts &
modelers on importance of even coverage, relative to items below.]
1. Do new analysis of precision of trends at
“continental” scale (current U.S. & Canada BBS coverage area) to develop
more detailed advice on number of routes needed within BCR or continent to meet
precision target for each species at each of these scales. (Assume precision target is that of Bart et
al. 2005.) Provide guidance on
minimum/maximum N routes/degree block that are needed to meet precision
targets. (I.e. – maybe no value of
adding after you have a certain number/block.)
Need to consider effect of uneven coverage within BCR – what guidelines
should there be for min/max n routes/degree block.
2. In the short term (i.e., before analysis done),
develop interim guidelines for regional coordinators for
3. Analyze current BBS data based on sub-set of stops
(e.g. first 20) to examine effect on trend and precision. Examine effects of uneven geographical
distribution of short routes. Develop
recommendations for length of routes for Mexican program and appropriateness of
mini-routes in far north.
4. Hold a meeting to develop a preliminary strategy for
expanding BBS into
5. Conduct a study in which routes are run by observer
and recordings are made simultaneously, which are later counted by a different
observer, with objective of recommending whether recording is a useful means of
covering routes where no observers are available.
Group Ib: Increasing Observer Quality - Recruitment
Issues
See Appendix D for further details of the group’s considerations
Format: * Goals
Strategies (5-Year Priority)
OBSERVERS &
DATA QUALITY
Explore
*Hearing loss
affecting data quality and can it be mitigated with hearing aides?
Subsample observers and
evaluate (High)
*Are personal
skill changes (sensu ID ability) affecting data quality?
Subsample observers and
evaluate (Low)
*Does equipment
availability affect data quality (especially consider
Subsample observers and
explore correlations w/ equipment (Med)
*Do increasing
ID abilities in the observer community as a whole affect data credibility?
Explore correlations with
‘changes in the birding community’ (Med)
*Does observer
experience on the route affect data quality?
Subsample observers and
explore correlations w/ experience (High)
Related to above - Observer turnover (how useful are short term
observers?)
Establish
Training-(
Skills
-Identification skills
Online
Mentoring program
-Field skills (individual counts, recording data, etc.)
Online
Mentoring
program
Certification - minimum observer quality
standards.
Identification skills (Low)
Online skills test
In the field (i.e., w/ coordinator, mentor, etc.)
Methodology (Largely Complete)
Translate into Spanish (High)
Assessment -
Hearing ability (Low)
Regular hearing
evaluations
Skills (
Regular evaluation
- regular
online skills testing
- regular
in the field (i.e., w/ coordinator, mentor, etc.)
OBSERVER RECRUITMENT & RETENTION
The two priorities ranked
highest above, hearing loss issues and observer route experience/turnover
issues, are directly related to two observer attrition and recruitment issues.
Explore
*Is retaining skilled
observers as important as new recruitment - can
observer longevity in the BBS be extended
with the use of hearing aides?
*Short-term observers (e.g.,
field techs, college students, etc.) are available for many
routes but are currently discriminated
against - do they provide more value in
our goal of filling all existing routes
than they cost in data quality?
*Skilled observers are
available for recruitment in areas where routes are covered – can
we
create new routes for these folks even though that means uneven route
dispersion
across the state?
*What is the likelihood of
filling routes in border BCR’s of
Group Ic: Addressing Habitat Bias Issues
On-road v. Off-road. -- This is a major criticism of
BBS.
General
-- Additional testing of roads as attractants or repellents for different
species.
Consider
prioritizing by habitats based on groups of taxa most in need of conservation
Consider
road density, road type, land-use intensity in vicinity
Should
we have a road condition co-variate – has profile or definition ‘secondary
roads changed over time.
How
is traffic being incorporated into data.
How does this overlap with observer bias and hearing issues.
Priority -- High
·
Form group that sets up studies; could habitat
working group be peer-review panel to evaluate proposed studies and criteria
for studies and RFPs, and priorities for next steps, guidance on this
issue. Focused and limited feasible
studies – initiate 3 within next 5 years?
Routes v. Habitat Coverage
General
Coverage
uneven? How do we address at Continental
level – it’s a habitat issue.
Lawlor
paper in 2004 examined route coverage relative to habitat coverage. Will additional routes correct this, or
should other methods be used. Resolution
of land cover layers is very important.
How
can NLCD (or other mapping re-GAP) be used coincident with BBS to inform
analyses with current mapping that tracks land changes, resulting in analyses
that show what is given up in terms of birds with land conversion.
Is radar an opportunity to look at on-road off-road
issues.
Priority -- High
·
Evaluate what Lawlor and O’Conner. Finish
General
Inform
habitat modeling and change over time in habitats
Especially
to examine routes from one end to the other.
And changes such as developments at specific stops – can be analyzed
later.
Areal extent – is it 400 m radius
around stop? Species specific, but
Priority -- High
·
Canvass country to see where we stand, with level
·
Within 5 years, GPS &/or geo – locate all stops
(In some habitats assume ˝ mile stops throughout, e.g. in ag areas?
Strategies
·
National
initiative coordinated by States or state groups
·
Need to set
standard for volunteers? Within 25 m of
GPS point? Emphasize importance of
location. Incorporate into training.
·
Ortho-photo
quads or Google maps for people to mark on, in lieu of GPS.
·
Strike deal with
Google
·
Map coordinator
position on BBS or other USGS staff, contract out to get those digitized?
·
Go through NBII
·
Photo overlays
also provide some habitat information
·
NBII – locator
for all monitoring activities; develop a tool for users to add points for their
routes.
·
Reconsider in 5
years habitat information
·
BBL?
Other stop-level information to be collected?
·
Don’t
over-burden volunteers.
Co-variates of population change
General
To
what degree could BBS incorporate co-variates into trend analysis: disease,
weather cycles, annual effects v. long-term gross land-cover changes.
Priority -- Low
Acknowledge importance of some
variables driving annual population change, including weather. Study whether or not it is useful to
incorporate annual co-variates that might influence changes in bird populations
Develop Library of Models
Priority – Medium
·
Have the habitat group evaluate models and coordinate
spatial analyses available to research community and conservation managers.
Group Id: Addressing Bias in Detection Probability
See Appendix E for further details of the group’s
considerations.
Strategies to deal with
detectability effects
•
e.g. running routes twice
•
“removal” method approaches
–
running routes twice (or multiple times)
–
double observer effects
–
(Note: requires framework to receive data into system)
3. Support (ongoing) research into factors that
influence detectability:
-
e.g. playback experiments (e.g. Ted Simons research)
-
work with microphones and recordings
-
include evaluating observers and observer training
-
Implementation
-- Develop a working group to prepare an
experimental design or call for proposals (could be external, e.g. to NSF)
-- Collaboration of operational and research
people
-- Use results of estimation to model potential
impacts on trend/population change estimates (i.e. to determine whether it
really matters)
-- 2-year post-doc $85k, operations $40k
ADDITIONAL SCIENCE ISSUES DEEMED IMPORTANT BUT NOT
COVERED BY BREAKOUTS:
*** Route replacement
issues—need further study.
** What to do about requests
for alternate routes? Need resolution
and standard policy.
II. ENHANCING DATA USE
Philosophy: don’t limit
people from doing what they want (but make sure they are aware of limitations)
Recommendations:
- allow users to easily
analyse multiple species when they do this!
- perhaps could get some
NBII funding to help do some of this
MEDIUM: 2 – better integrate
web presence of BBS summaries (e.g.
HIGH: 3 – Encourage/explore
modeling approaches that integrate BBS data with other sources of data (e.g.
refuge data, point count data) in analyses.
- ensure that point level
data are available along with coordinates
- Detectability and observer
effects will help to enhance this
HIGH: 4 – Continue to
practice high quality data management practices:
(still need to prioritize within this)
- flexible data base design
-
HIGH: annual review of metadata to ensure complete and up-to-date as
possible. Formal review of metadata.
-
HIGH: keep metadata on changes in routes over time (starting now).
-
-
allow volunteer entry of point level data
-
HIGH: make stop coordinate (lat/long) information more readily available
-
MEDIUM: species-name issues (scientific names, changes in taxonomy)
-
HIGH: complete a stand-alone program for data entry for users who don’t want
to use web page to enhance amount of
internet-based data entry.
-
MEDIUM: ability to display locations data to enhance editing (and many other
things).
Allow editing of stop location data – can probably be done with some
expertise.
-
MEDIUM: make .pdf files of individual routes available on web
-
(some can take advantage of BBL expertise)
HIGH: 5 – BBS should
encourage others to develop higher level of interpretation of trends: web site
summarizes state of birds e.g., what is the meaning of trends.
- Greg Butcher: is
interested in doing something with Audubon
- RSPB/BTO state of birds
report.
- (fits within Build and
Maintain Support)
HIGH: 6 – Encourage new
approaches to analyses to enhance reliability of results, particularly for
looking at annual indices (e.g. by making hierarchical models operational) to
better understand non-linear population change.
Suggestion:
- Develop a comprehensive
(e.g. 20-page) users guide to the BBS for what it is, how it works, how to
analyse the data, what are the limitations, differences in analysis methods
among sites …, functioning like the PIF handbook.
- BBS office has a number of
other idea to enhance outreach:
-
e.g. Powerpoint presentations
III.
Participation
How do you recruit?
From State coordinators – through their network.
Not all State coordinators are equally functional.
OR-WA PIF and other PIF coordinators. Connections within bird
conservation/birding community. Audubon.
“Conservation through Birding”
Agencies – IAFWA – Reiterate message from USGS to directors
of agencies.
CONABIO – the database compilers in
connection. Perhaps
could provide some funding for coordination, training,
perhaps in steps (north, mid, south) over 20 years.
Is there group ownership in running routes. Biggest thing with State
Coordinators is in connections they have with the birding
communities.
Problem with organizations is the problem of volunteer
turn-over. For routes not
being run regularly,
could have birding clubs send teams of two, which would
include a trainee.
Master Birder – Course for people to learn about ecology
and natural history….
In
Foundered because of lack of expertise to teach kids the
upper levels of training
– needed naturalist or birding clubs to take this on.
Mentoring hugely important.
Personal Anecdotes
Rewards. Web-based
gratification
Priority – Yep
Funding
Prioritiy – Ultra High and major purpose of document
from this group
Prioritization of tasks/priorities
identified within each topic area
Topic areas are: Enhancing
Geographic Coverage, Increasing Observer Quality, Habitat Bias Issues,
Addressing Bias in Detection Probability, Enhancing Data Use, and Building and
Maintaining the Support Network. During
break-out groups strategies were prioritized within topic areas. This exercise allowed group members to
prioritize items relative to each other.
Each workshop participant was given seven votes with only one vote per
item permitted.
(Number of votes in parenthesis; science sub-group
after dash)