Developing the Midwest Nocturnal Bird Monitoring Program

MIDWEST BIRD CONSERVATION AND MONITORING WORKSHOP

Developing the Midwest Nocturnal Bird Monitoring Program – 2012 Workshop Summary

WORKSHOP COORDINATORS

Michael J. Monfils

Michigan Natural Features Inventory, Michigan State University Extension

Thomas J. Benson

Illinois Natural History Survey, University of Illinois

Ryan Brady

Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Wildlife Management

Katherine E. Koch

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Birds

INTRODUCTION

Surveys for nocturnal birds have been ongoing for several years at state and regional levels to better understand trends in abundance and distribution. Partners from state, regional, and national levels have been communicating via an informal Midwest Nocturnal Bird Monitoring Working Group to better coordinate our efforts. Although great progress has been made toward a regional nocturnal bird monitoring program, substantial work remains to define our vision, identify conservation priorities, develop clear monitoring objectives, and define the steps remaining to reach our goal and objectives.

The Midwest Bird Conservation and Monitoring Workshop held July 31 – August 2, 2012 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, provided a good venue for partners to continue discussions regarding a Midwest Nocturnal Bird Monitoring Program. An afternoon workshop was held during the meeting on August 1, 2012 with the following goal for participants:Using The Northeast Bird Monitoring Handbook and results of a regional analysis, develop clear objectives, articulate essential components of a regional monitoring program, and outline next steps for advancing nocturnal bird monitoring in 2013. Nine people attended the workshop in person or via teleconference (see Appendix A). The workshop was broken into two sessions, with the first focusing on an update and discussion of an analysis of nightjar and owl survey data collected in the Midwest and Northeast, and the second session targetedtowards developing a vision for a Midwest Nocturnal Bird Monitoring Program (see Appendix B for workshop agenda).

Lambert et al. (2009) identified 10 steps to successful bird conservation through improved monitoring in The Northeast Bird Monitoring Handbook. Because the authors of the handbook provided a clear plan to developing an avian monitoring program, we used their 10-step process to guide much of our discussion:

1.Establish a clear purpose.

2.Determine whether an existing program or protocol meets your needs.

3.Assemble a team of collaborators with complementary interests and skills.

4.Summarize the relationship of target populations to other ecosystem elements, processes

and stressors (build a conceptual model).

5.Develop a statistically robust approach to sampling and data analysis.

6.Design and pilot standardized field protocols that minimize error and bias.

7.Identify or develop a data management system.

8.Implement the monitoring program.

9.Present results in a format that supports sound management and conservation decisions.

10.Evaluate and adjust management and monitoring to make better bird conservation

decisions.

Given the limited amount of time available during the workshop, we focused most of our discussion on a subset of the 10 steps (1, 4, 7, and 9) we felt were critical to moving a regional program forward. We have addressed step 3 by developing the informal Midwest Nocturnal Bird Monitoring Working Group, which includes individuals with expertise related to nocturnal birds from throughout the U.S. and Canada. Steps 2, 5, 6, and 8 focus on issue related to the identification and implementation of a statistically sound survey methodology and sample design. These issues are largely being addressed by an ongoing study of the Illinois Natural History Survey using survey data from the Midwest and Northeast U.S. Step 10 relates to adaptive management – using information gained from monitoring to evaluate and adjust management decisions. This step will require future discussion, because linkages between existing monitoring and land management decisions have not been established but will be vital to a successful program.

WORKSHOP RESULTS

Session 1 (Results of Multi-partner Data Analysis Project)

Dr. T.J. Benson (Illinois Natural History Survey [INHS]) presented preliminary results of Eastern Whip-poor-will and owl occupancy analyses conducted to evaluate the survey protocol currently being implemented in the U.S. His research suggests the protocol works well for some species (e.g., Whip-poor-will, Barred Owl), but is not sufficient for others (e.g., Great Horned Owl, Eastern Screech-Owl). The survey methods would likely be suitable for Eastern Screech-Owl if broadcasts were added. Specific methodologies and targeted surveys would be needed to evaluate the status of Common Nighthawk and rare owl species. Dr. Benson also summarized plans for remaining analyses, such as investigating associations between occupancy and surrounding land cover. Additional analyses will be completed once partners provide geospatial information for survey routes. Once analyses are completed, he will provide recommendations for possible changes to protocol.

Session 2 (Developing a Vision for Coordinated Conservation and Monitoring)

The session began with Mike Monfils summarizing work completed by the Midwest Nocturnal Bird Monitoring Working Group toward the 10 steps to successful bird conservation (see Appendix C). He suggested prioritizing workshop conversations around steps 1, 4, 7, and 9, and provided several questions for each step highlighting areas in need of further discussion. Participants agreed with the suggested approach to the visioning session, and the sections below summarize discussion regarding each step.

Step 1 – Establish a clear purpose

Much of our visioning discussion centered on this essential first step. Participants highlighted many knowledge gaps relating to nightjar and owl status, trends, habitat use, response to management, and detectability. From this discussion, we developed the following “wish list” of general monitoring/research needs:

Owls:

Annually track trends in abundance and distribution over broad scales (BCR, state, region).
Evaluate status of rare species (e.g. Endangered and Threatened Species, Species of Greatest Conservation Need) via surveys at periodic (3-5+ year) intervals.
Determine factors influencing detectability of owls.

Nightjars:

Annually track trends in abundance and distribution over broad scales (BCR, state, region).
Investigate causes of apparent declines in some species (e.g. Eastern Whip-poor-will, Common Nighthawk).
Develop landscape suitability models and best management practices for Eastern Whip-poor-wills.

Clearly, all of the above cannot be accomplished through one monitoring program, so we further discussed prioritizing this list to what we believed to be most important and could be accomplished using the current survey (or something similar). Participants generally agreed that two monitoring priorities are most important at this time: (1) track trends in abundance and distribution of nocturnal birds (i.e., surveillance monitoring)at the BCR level or broader; and (2) investigate reasons for declines in Whip-poor-will. Specific objectives will need to be developed around these priority monitoring needs.

Step 3 – Assemble a team of collaborators with complementary interests and skills

We briefly discussed whether we felt the current working group is sufficient to move the program forward. Participants were comfortable continuing to work under the existing informal work group, which includes many partners working on nocturnal bird monitoring in Midwest and other parts of the U.S. and Canada.

Step 4 – Summarize the relationship of target populations to other ecosystem elements, processes

and stressors

We discussed the value in developing conceptual models for priority species. Given the priorities identified under our Step 1 discussion, we felt developing a conceptual model for Eastern Whip-poor-will would be valuable. Developing a conceptual model will help us determine what is known about the species, identify knowledge gaps, and ascertain possible reasons for declines. The working group committed to developing an Eastern Whip-poor-will model in the coming year.

Step 7 – Identify or develop a data management system

We discussed options for a nocturnal bird data management system and all agreed the Midwest Avian Data Center (MWADC) will be the best repository for nightjar and owl data. Partners in the Midwest Nocturnal Bird Monitoring Working Groupare currently using a consistent spreadsheet for data entry, but this may not be the best format for analysis or transfer into MWADC. We will finalize a spreadsheet format based on input from INHS and MWADC developers. We also identified the need to develop a plan for annual transfer of data to MWADC, including deadlines, roles/responsibilities, and key contacts for partner organizations.

Step 9 – Present results in a format that supports sound management and conservation decisions

We had substantial discussion about the information needs of various stakeholders involved with nocturnal bird conservation. Participants provided input on particular products of greatest value to conservationists. Two general types of products were identified as most important at this time: (1) develop materials to inform status assessments (e.g., distribution maps, abundance trends); and (2) develop maps of predicted distribution and abundance for priority species to assist conservation planning (e.g., maps produced by Joint Ventures for bird conservation strategies).

NEXT STEPS

Based on our discussions, we developed the following list of next steps to keep the Midwest Nocturnal Bird Monitoring Program moving over the next year:

Prepare a brief summary of workshop results (this document).
Have partners send geospatial information for their survey sites to INHS to allow for analyses of landscape habitat associations.
Hold a working group conference call in early fall to gather feedback from other

members not in attendance and to develop a work plan.

Develop specific objectives for the two monitoring priorities identified.
Develop a conceptual model for Eastern Whip-poor-will.
Finalize format for data entry and develop a process for data transfer to MWADC.
Continue working through the 10-step process for each monitoring objective.

LITERATURE CITED

Lambert, J. D., T. P. Hodgman, E. J. Laurent, G. L. Brewer, M. J. Iliff, and R. Dettmers. 2009.

The Northeast Bird Monitoring Handbook. American Bird Conservancy. The Plains, VA. 32

pp.

Appendix A. Participants in the Midwest nocturnal bird monitoring workshop held 1 August 2012 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin.

Name / Affiliation / Email Address
T.J. Benson / Illinois Natural History Survey /
Tara Beveroth / Illinois Natural History Survey /
Ryan Brady / Wisconsin DNR /
Jean Favara / Missouri River Bird Observatory/St. Louis Audubon /
Bob Fisher / Bird Conservation Network /
Katie Koch / USFWS /
Mike Monfils / Michigan Natural Features Inventory /
Lee Pfannmueller / Audubon Minnesota /
Rich Staffen / Wisconsin DNR /

Appendix B. Agenda for Developing the Midwest Nocturnal Bird Monitoring Program Workshop held in Milwaukee, Wisconsin 2012.

Appendix C. Handout provided during the workshop summarizing work completed to date by the Midwest Nocturnal Bird Monitoring Working Group toward the 10 steps to successful bird conservation. Questions highlighting areas in need of further discussion were also included.

10 Steps to Successful Bird Conservation – How are we doing and where do we go next?

Below is a list of the 10 Steps to Successful Bird Conservation, as described in the Northeast Bird Monitoring Handbook. A brief synopsis of our efforts toward each step is provided, as well as additional questions to facilitate further discussion where needed.

1.Establish a clear purpose.

We have made progress at defining the problem and setting broad monitoring objectives (e.g., track trends in distribution/abundance). Please review the monitoring objectives listed in the MidwestNocturnalBirdMonitoringProgram document (Koch 2010).

Are the existing monitoring objectives for the Midwest program sufficient?

Should we have separate objectives for nightjars and owls?

Is other information needed to make informed conservation, management, or policy decisions related to nocturnal birds?

2.Determine whether an existing program or protocol meets your needs.

We are using standardized protocols for nightjar surveys and have made progress toward coordinating owl survey methods. Analyses being conducted by the Illinois Natural History Survey (INHS) will inform decisions regarding survey protocols.

3.Assemble a team of collaborators with complementary interests and skills.

The Midwest Nocturnal Bird Monitoring Working Group has been meeting regularly to coordinate survey efforts. This is an informal working group and we have not determined if active members possess the necessary skills/resources to successfully implement a Midwest monitoring program.

Does the current working group membership posses the skills and/or resources needed to fully implement a Midwest program?

Should we encourage other individuals to become involved?
Do we need to more formally define roles and responsibilities of group members (e.g., state vs. regional roles)?

4.Summarize the relationship of target populations to other ecosystem elements, processes, and

stressors.

Life history information is available for these species in various sources (e.g., Birds of North America, breeding bird atlases), but conceptual models have not been developed to illustrate expected responses by nocturnal birds to changes in environmental conditions/management. Step 4 includes the development of conceptual models to depict relationships among ecosystem elements and help identify the response variables and covariates to be monitored.

Should we develop conceptual models for target species/groups to inform conservation and monitoring design?

What response measures do we intend to measure (e.g., occupancy, relative abundance/density)?

Are there additional covariates (e.g., environmental, habitat) that we should be collecting?

5.Develop a statistically robust approach to sampling and data analysis.

Analyses being conducted by INHS will help the working group evaluate the survey protocols and sample designs being implemented within the region.

6.Design and pilot standardized field protocols that minimize error and bias.

Nightjar and owl surveys conducted over the last several years are providing pilot data for the INHS to evaluate the survey protocol. The INHS project will allow the working group to evaluate potential sources of bias in the survey protocol, account for imperfect detection of target species, and determine if any changes to survey methods or sample design are needed.

7.Identify or develop a data management system.

The Midwest working group has discussed using the Midwest Avian Data Center (MWADC) as a repository for nocturnal bird monitoring data. However, much more discussion is needed to formalize a process for data transfer from state programs.

Are all working group members supportive of using MWADC as our data repository?

What is needed to begin transferring data to MWADC (e.g., standardized spreadsheet format, user access)?

What should the process be for transferring data from individual programs to MWADC (e.g., annual deadlines, guidelines)?
Who are the key contacts and what are their responsibilities (e.g., state vs. regional)?

8.Implement the monitoring program.

Several states within the region are already implementing nocturnal bird surveys; however, more work is needed to coordinate our efforts, especially as additional other states begin surveys and/or changes are made to survey protocols or sampling designs.

9.Present results in a format that supports sound management and conservation decisions.

Outside of the ongoing INHS project, little work has been done at the regional level to analyze data and communicate the results in a manner that facilitates nocturnal bird conservation. We need to determine what products are needed by managers/decision-makers, which may require input from professionals outside the working group.

What information is needed by managers/decision-makers to facilitate nocturnal bird conservation?

Do we need to get feedback from outside the working group?

Are there specific products we want to produce (e.g., reports/publications, GIS data layers, MWADC analysis tools)?

10.Evaluate and adjust management and monitoring to make better bird conservation decisions.

We need to build connections between conservation actions and nocturnal bird monitoring before this step can occur. As these connections are developed, we can periodically revisit our conceptual models and assumptions, adapt management actions as needed, and adjust monitoring efforts if critical information is lacking.