2005 BBS Coordinators’
Workshop Minutes
Date: April 21, 2005
Location: joint Wilson/JFO meeting,
Meeting Organizers:
Keith Pardieck and Dave Ziolkowski
Meeting
participants:
Forty individuals participated
including coordinators representing 24 states and 5 provinces as well as representatives
from the
Acknowledgments:
We thank Richard Banks, Gregory
Jones, Regina Lanning, Susan Martell, Jay Shepard, and Marilyn Whitehead for
providing logistical support prior to and during the meeting. Friends of Patuxent, a non-profit
organization that supports PWRC research and refuge activities, provided snacks
and lunch for meeting participants.
Workshop Objectives:
The primary objectives of the
workshop were to bring state and national BBS coordinators from the
Workshop Structure:
The workshop was designed to
maximize participant involvement and input.
The day long meeting included both a morning and afternoon session each
comprised of two presentations followed by focused discussion periods. Keith and Dave acted as moderators to
facilitate discussions.
Action Items: See Appendix B for summary
of action items.
***
Meeting Minutes
Welcome and Introductions:
Keith Pardieck, Director of the
North American Breeding Bird Survey, welcomed participants to the 2005
coordinators’ workshop. Brief
self-introductions were then made by each person.
The recent addition of a new
wildlife biologist, Dave Ziolkowski, to the BBS staff was announced and a brief
welcome and introduction extended (see 2005 BBS memorandum).
Accomplishments since 2000
Meeting:
Many of these coordinators and representatives
participated in a BBS sponsored workshop 5 years ago to identify the survey’s outreach
and recruitment issues and to discuss the development of a methodology training
program. The importance of the 2000
workshop in promoting renewed progress was noted and the following
accomplishments occurring in the wake of the workshop were acknowledged:
Updates:
1) Expansion of BBS into
2) The BBS office anticipates
that the BBS program will undergo a second peer review during 2006. Specific review topics and panel members to
be decided.
3) The BBS office has contracted
the development of a new web-based data entry and management Applications. Applications are scheduled to be completed
prior to 2006 season, with limited beta testing taking place during 2005
season. Updates on progress will be
provided.
Call for General Questions,
Comments & Addendums to Agenda
1)
Coordinator
meetings should be held more often.
Appropriate time frames discussed.
A balance between resources and communication needs to be reached. Perhaps have meetings every 3 years with
smaller regional meetings held in conjunction with PIF meetings annually.
2)
Coordinators
noted that late data (post October) submitted to BBS office is never sent to
them for review after processing. Needs
to be rectified.
3)
Often route
changes requested by observers are handled directly by national office. State coordinators would like to be more
involved in process. At the very least
be sure state coordinators are sent copies of the new route maps as developed.
4) How are coordinators funded? Can we take a Survey? Generally thought to be a good idea.
5) We should let observers know that late data are not
used in current year’s analysis. Perhaps
put note on web site to that effect. For
example, “Data received after ____ will not be incorporated into trends until
the following July.”
6) Tom Will, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 3 –
MN, WI, MI, IA, IL, IN, OH) volunteered to be a regional coordinator. This is a trial position; if it works well in
Region 3 then we may enlist other regional coordinators. Tom will help facilitate communication
between potential observers and coordinators and help with BBS outreach in his
region. He will be contacting the state
coordinators later this summer to discuss ways they feel he can help them best.
7) Coordinators requested that pdf versions of route
location maps be made available on web for download and use in
publications.
Session I: Observer
Recruitment/Retention Issues
Over the last 10 years, BBS route
coverage has plateaued at about 3000 routes surveyed annually leaving over 1000
routes vacant. The BBS office has recently
been making a concerted effort to engage the conservation and wildlife
management communities to take a more active role in promoting the BBS. Partners in Flight, IAFWA, and the Bird
Conservation Alliance have all stepped up to assist with outreach and support
of the BBS in their own ways. Since BBS
approached the PIF Implementation Committee over a year ago, Terry and
colleagues on the committee have made a concerted effort to emphasize the
importance of BBS to NA landbird conservation and promote the BBS to PIF
members. Representatives from each of
these organizations were asked to speak to the group and outline ways in which
they are able to assist the BBS.
Terry Rich, USFWS PIF National Coordinator, opened the
session with a presentation entitled, “BBS, Partners in Flight (PIF) and North
American Landbird Conservation.” Terry provided an overview
of PIF’s role in avian conservation (see AUK 117:541-548 for details) and
stressed that the BBS has produced a major “ripple effect” in the conservation
community, promoting the formation of several major conservation initiatives
including PIF itself. He expressed
serious concern that the BBS has at times failed to get the recognition and
resources it deserves and suggested possible ways that PIF could direct outside
support towards the program. Possible
areas of support include:
Debbie Hahn, Migratory Bird
Coordinator - International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, gave a
brief introduction of her organization and invited coordinators to discuss with
her how IAFWA (www.iafwa.org)
could help further support for the BBS within their states.
The
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (IAFWA), founded in 1902,
represents the government agencies responsible for
Debbie
explained that one potential avenue for getting more support for the
BBS at the state level may be through the Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation
Strategy. In order to receive federal
funds through the State
Wildlife Grants program, Congress charged each state and territory
with developing a state Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy
(CWCS). The state wildlife strategies will provide an essential
foundation for the future of wildlife conservation and an opportunity
for the states, federal agencies, and other conservation partners to
strategically think about their individual and coordinated roles in
conservation efforts across the nation.
Think BBS.
Alicia
Craig, Director of the Bird Conservation Alliance, gave a brief overview of her
organization and services it provides.
Alicia also discussed the importance of recognizing volunteer psychology
in maintaining successful volunteer based efforts. The Bird Conservation Alliance (www.birdconservationalliance.org)
is a network of organizations whose focus is the conservation, study, and
observation of birds. Through the
-
Alicia graciously assisted in the development of a series of
outreach documents/templates for use by BBS coordinators. They will be distributed via email to all
coordinators and made available on the coordinators website.
-
Alicia also provided comments during the development of the
BBS brochure.
After briefly discussing
several aspects related to the management of a volunteer workforce (finding
what attracts volunteers and keeps them motivated, satisfied volunteers are the
best recruiters, opportunities are competing for a volunteer’s time, etc.),
Alicia condensed the topic to several primary volunteer motivators that she
felt important that we mind in discussions:
Discussion:
1)
There are many
sources of volunteers that state coordinators are not tapping. These include local bird clubs, nature
centers, etc. Alicia said that she would
be able to provide a state specific list for each state coordinator. This drew comments about ‘casting too wide a
net’ and ‘pulling joes off of the street’ sparking a mini-discussion about
whether we were in the business of training birders from the ground up.
2)
Should BBS reimburse
observers for their mileage? It was
noted that Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission reimburses BBS
observers $50 per route yet
3) Dave and Keith presented the BBS Outreach brochure and
discussed the desire to implement a BBS mentoring program. Basically, we would need BBS observers to act
as mentors to folks that have the desire to participate in the BBS but may
still lack the skills. Group thought
idea worth pursuing. Details to be
worked out and then participants will be solicited.
4) National Office intends to write and circulate quarterly
outreach article that is regionally or nationally based to help generate and
maintain interest in BBS. Also discussed
writing general articles that can serve as templates for state coordinators to
use and flavor with locally relevant information about birds or participants.
Following his
presentation Ted fielded several questions.
Each question posed alternative possibilities to dealing with background
noise. The first inquired about how well
remote detection (sensu Cornell’s robot recorders) would compare to BBS
observer results. Ted felt that this is
an interesting comparison to consider but offered a cautionary reminder that
microphones are not capable of recording as many dimensions as humans are
capable of perceiving. A second question
suggested that the effects of background noise could be elucidated by further comparing
routes that had not experienced increased traffic/noise with those that had. Ted described his current efforts in refining
just such an analysis and said that he hopes to have the results available
soon. The last question asked whether
Ted felt it was worth considering that efforts would be better spent training
observers to more precisely detect sounds and distances from a limited number of
‘representative birds’ as opposed to the entire avian community. The speaker agreed that this notion was very
worthy of consideration and offered that, “a mammologist would never try to
survey the whole community using only one method”.
The BBS office developed a database and web interface in
2001 to allow participants to input, store and retrieve stop coordinates and
stop descriptions. Since that time fewer
than 10% of routes have been digitized at the stop level. These data are important for several reasons:
1)
Accurate and
current stop descriptions helps ensure observers sample same locations each
year. This is especially true when a new
person takes over a route.
2)
GPS coordinates
could also be used to navigate to stops.
Once again insuring replication of sample stops through time.
3)
Geo-referencing
stops will allow more detailed spatial analysis of the data, as well as, provide
opportunities to group routes, or individual stops, in unique ways for trend
analyses. For example, forested stops
could be grouped to provide a forest habitat trend, rather than just a strictly
geographic trend.
4)
Also from an
operational standpoint, such data would help the BBS office to transition from
paper map management system to an electronic map management system.
Brenda Dale, Canadian Wildlife Service Songbird
Biologist for the Prairie region, emphasized the value of obtaining GPS
coordinates for route stop locations through a series of slides illustrating a
recent habitat level analysis using data from northern prairie routes. The presentation illustrated how much more
mileage we could get out of our analyses by incorporating a spatial/habitat
aspect. Stop coordinate data are needed
for the routes to fully integrate spatial data with BBS data.
Salient points to emerge from further discussion of the
documentation of route stops:
Postscript 6/30/2005: To assist states in the coordinate
collection effort the national office applied for and was awarded a grant to
purchase 12 GPS units. The BBS office
now has 15 units available for loan.
Session IV. BBS Bird ID Training, Assessment, and
Certification
The
BBS developed web and CD versions of a BBS Methodology Training &
Certification program that all new participants are required to complete before
they may participate in the BBS. This
discussion is to center on deciding upon whether there is a need for a similar
product that focuses on bird identification and what form it should take. Charles Francis and Linda Weir presented two
training models that are currently being used to stimulate discussion.
Charles Francis (Chief of
Migratory Bird Populations Division, Canadian Wildlife Service) provided a
brief overview. Nuthatch Software is a
CD-based avian ID training software that was originally developed for use by
Linda
Weir (NAAMP Director, USGS). NAAMP
developed a web-based frog quiz for observer training and assessment purposes (http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/frogquiz/). Linda discussed the reasoning behind the
development of the frog quiz, the purpose of the quiz, how it functions and
gave a brief demonstration. This is a
web-based tool that has a public practice/training component that anyone may
access to do self-training/self/assessment, and it has a formal
testing/assessment component that all participants in NAAMP must complete each
year.
With relatively little time remaining for
discussion of these topics, National coordinators encouraged participants to
limit conversation to the broader context of BBS need and overall
suitability. To frame the discussion,
representatives of the national office began by defining each of the three
topics. Training was described as
a program which improves the bird recognition skills of the observer by
focusing their learning on the species most likely to be encountered on their
route. Assessment is a process
that estimates the relative skills and abilities of an observer and tracks their
changes through time (e.g., improvement in ID skills, decrease in hearing
ability, etc.). Finally, certification
was defined as a one time step that acknowledges that the observer meets an
established level of minimum skills and abilities necessary to perform BBS
survey.
There are three main reasons why the
national office is pursuing these topics more aggressively at this time. 1) Observer recruitment appears to have hit a
plateau at 2200 observers sampling about 3000 routes. One
possibility is that, on average across states, we may have reached the maximum
number of BBS level skilled observers currently available in the birding
community. 2) Recent criticisms of BBS
results have focused on the paucity of measures oriented towards observer
ability and bias. In an effort to
address these concerns and maintain the integrity of the BBS database the
national office is considering the feasibility of designing and implementing a
process through which to measure observer ability. 3) As the BBS is utilized in more
conservation planning and management arenas, it is becoming more important to
have objective measures of observer skill to help validate survey results in
the face of potential litigation.
The primary emphasis of
the discussion was to explore each of the topics at the most generalized level
by working through the pros and cons of implementing measures to address each
issue.
*
Training –
PROS
+
Provides a vehicle
through which to directly generate new BBS observers.
+
Increases the
identification skills of existing observers.
+
The training would
likely be web based and so standardized, accessible anytime, and not requiring
the manpower and coordination implicit in mentoring and pier education
+
As in the NAAMP
example, this may be the best way to transition observers to an assessment or
certification program since similarly formatted programs reduce test taking
anxiety.
CONS
Would have to be
comprehensive, including the songs/calls of regional forms and local dialects, requiring
a considerable investment of time and money - resources that may be better
suited elsewhere in the BBS mission.
We don’t know
whether this training will have the impact that we hope it will. Judging distance and number of individuals
may be the more fruitful type of training.
Is it the mission
of the BBS to bring “average Joes off the street” and train them from the
ground up? Would the originators of the
survey feel this is within the scope of the project?
*
Assessment –
Documentation (good and bad)
PROS
Not covered at
the meeting; assessment would provide a
measure of change in observer ability over time which could potentially be used
as co-variables in the analysis to explain some aspects of bias.
CONS
Not a one shot
measure, requires some degree of periodic measurement
*
Certification –
PROS
+ Establishes an objective
front-end process to ensure volunteers have the minimum ID skills necessary to
run routes
+ Establishes a minimum
standard that more thoroughly validates the scientific integrity of the BBS
from a legal standpoint
+ A one time only requirement
+ Test could be mandatory for
new observers and voluntary for current observers (thereby avoiding the
potential of upsetting current observers with a test)
+ It will be forced on us
anyway in the coming years so we might as well do it now and develop it the way
we would like it to be
CONS
Introduces test anxiety
May scare off new observers
Field conditions offer more
clues to field identification than does computer based testing (e.g., relative
song volume, cadence, habitat, etc.).
Removes authority from the
state coordinator in appointing observers that they feel have the skills
necessary to run the route
An accompanying training
program may be necessary
Conclusion: It was generally agreed that the development
of a bird ID training tool should be pursued.
No consensus was reached on whether it should include an assessment or
certification component. But it was
recognized that USGS would require some sort of certification/assessment
process in the future and that any training tool that is developed in the near
future should incorporate such a feature to avoid re-inventing the wheel. Future discussions should focus on
certification versus assessment.
Appendix A. Action Items
Miscellaneous :
1) Revamp
Coordinators’ Handbook and place on web (This will not take place until new
data management system in place tentatively scheduled for June 2006.)
2)
Schedule next Coordinators’ meeting and reevaluate time frame of meetings.
3)
Coordinators noted that late data (post October) submitted to BBS office is
never sent to them for review after processing.
Needs to be rectified.
4)
Send coordinators copies of all new route maps as developed in their
state/prov/ter.
5)
Conduct funding survey of state coordinators.
6)
National office to let observers know that late data are not used in current
year’s analysis. Place note on web site
to the effect that, “Data received after (DATE) will not be incorporated into
trends until the following July.”
I. Observer Recruitment and
Retention
1)
Complete
development of BBS Power Point slide show and distribute to coordinators.
2)
National office
to continue building partnerships with conservation community.
3)
Partners in
Flight will continue to promote BBS to its constituents.
4)
Bird Conservation
Alliance developed several document templates to assist coordinators with
outreach. National office to distribute
with meeting minutes. BCA also offered
to provide each state coordinator with list of potential volunteer sources in
each state that can be tapped. Lists
available from Alicia Craig upon request.
5) Tom Will, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Region 3 –
MN, WI, MI, IA, IL, IN, OH) volunteered to be a regional coordinator. Tom will help facilitate communication
between potential observers and coordinators and help with BBS outreach in his
region. He will be contacting the state
coordinators later this summer to discuss ways they feel he can help them best.
6) National office to make pdf versions of route location
maps available on web for download and use in publications.
7)
National office
to develop and finalize mentoring program with input from coordinators.
8)
National office
to write and distribute (email) quarterly outreach article.
II. Species Detectability and the BBS
1)
BBS will continue
to follow developments in this area and adopt methods as deemed appropriate and
necessary in the future.
1)
Coordinators
agreed to take a more active role in acquiring stop coordinate and description
data. Goal is to collect these data for
all active routes by 2008.
2)
National office
to acquire GPS units to assist with effort and will continue to highlight in
newsletters. National office currently
has 15 units for loan.
3)
PA
(Dan Brauning), CO (Hugh Kingery), ID (Rex Sallabanks), and MI (Ray Adams)
volunteered as lead-in states to begin working with their observers to expedite
the effort.
4)
NH (Becky
Soumala) requested copies of all stop descriptions on file for her state. She would see that they are input into
database.
5)
The
national office will provide to each state the list of routes for which
volunteers have entered route stop descriptions online.
Session IV. BBS Bird ID Training, Assessment, and
Certification
1)
The National BBS offices to develop an an avian ID
training program.
2)
Further discussions to take place on whether program to
include certification or assessment components.
Appendix B. 2005 Coordinators’ Workshop Attendance List
|
Adams, Raymond |
|
616-381-9738 |
|
|
Brauning, Dan |
|
507-574-6938 |
dbrauning@state.pa.us |
|
Busby, Daniel |
Canadian Wildlife Service, |
506-364-5037 |
Daniel.Busby@ec.gc.ca |
|
Busby, William |
|
785-854-1530 |
|
|
Cannings, Dick |
Bird Studies |
250-496-4049 |
dickcannings@shaw.ca |
|
Craig, Alicia |
Bird Conservation |
317-251-2473 |
acraig@abcbirds.org |
|
Corman, |
|
602-789-3508 |
|
|
Dale, Brenda |
Canadian Wildlife
Service, |
780-951-8686 |
brenda.dale@ec.gc.ca |
|
DeFalco, Sharon |
|
609-259-6963 |
Sharon.DeFalco@dep.state.nj.us |
|
De Smet, Ken |
|
204-945-5439 |
kdesmet@gov.mb.ca |
|
Downes, Connie |
Canadian Wildlife Service,
National Wildlife Research Centre, |
613-998-0490 |
Connie.Downes@ec.gc.ca |
|
Falardeau, Gilles |
Environment |
418-648-3926 |
Gilles.Falardeau@ec.gc.ca |
|
Forbes, Andrew |
Audubon |
573-447-2249 |
|
|
Fox, Thomas |
HC |
304-354-7686 |
|
|
Francis, Charles |
Canadian Wildlife
Service, National Wildlife Research Centre, |
613-998-0332 |
Charles.Francis@ec.gc.ca |
|
Hahn, Debbie |
International
Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, |
202-624-8917 |
dhahn@iafwa.org |
|
Harding, Sergio |
|
804-367-0143 |
|
|
Hull, Scott |
Olentangy Wildlife Research Station, |
740-747-2525 |
|
|
Kingery, Hugh |
|
303-814-2723 |
|
|
Kleen, |
|
217-787-3515 |
|
|
Martin, Ron |
|
701-624-5241 |
|
|
Matsuoka, Steve |
USFWS, Migratory Bird Mgmt, |
907-786-3672 |
|
|
McBride, Bev |
Canadian Wildlife Service,
National Wildlife Research Centre, |
613-998-0492 |
Bev.mcbride@ec.gc.ca |
|
Miller, Edward |
1920 Harris, |
509-372-3832 |
|
|
Ortego, Brent |
|
361-576-0022 |
|
|
Palmer-Ball, Jr., Brainard |
KSNPC, |
502-573-2886 |
|
|
Pardieck, Keith |
|
301-497-5843 |
kpardieck@usgs.gov |
|
Rich, Terry |
US Fish and Wildlife Service, |
208-378-5243 |
terry_rich@fws.gov |
|
Sallabanks, Rex |
|
208-287-2754 |
|
|
Schneider, Todd |
DNR, Wildlife Resources Division, |
478-994-1438 |
todd_schneider@dnr.state.ga.us |
|
Simons, Ted |
North Carolina State Univ., Cooperative Research
Unit, Dept. of Zoology, |
919-515-2689 |
tsimons@ncsu.edu |
|
Smith, Al |
Canadian Wildlife Service, |
306-975-4091 |
Al.Smith@ec.gc.ca |
|
Smith, Charles |
|
478-994-1438 |
|
|
Suomala, Rebecca |
|
603-l798-3441 |
|
|
Tomlinson, Cris |
|
702-486-5127 |
|
|
Wagner, Steve |
|
912-525-6027 |
sjwagner@scad.edu |
|
Walker, Judy |
|
207-781-2330 |
|
|
Weir, Linda |
|
301-497-5932 |
lweir@usgs.gov |
|
Will, Tom |
USFWS, |
612-713-5362 |
Tom_will@fws.gov |
|
Ziolkowski, Dave |
|
301-497-5753 |
dziolkowski@usgs.gov |