Meeting: Midwest Coordinated Bird Monitoring Partnership Workshop (2)

Meeting: Midwest Coordinated Bird Monitoring Partnership Workshop (2)

Participants: David Beckman, TJ Benson, Tara Beveroth, Ryan Brady, Dave Buehler, Scott Chiavacci, John Curnutt, Melinda Knutson, Katie Koch, Bill Mueller, Andy Paulios, David Peitz, Lee Pfanmuller, Judy Pollock, Gareth Rowell, Sample, Greg Soulliere, Doug Stotz, Mike Ward, Tom Will

Date: September 15-16, 2010

Location: Stoney Creek Inn, Onalaska, WI

Minutes:

Wednesday, September 15, 2010

1)  State of Grassland Birds in the Midwest (TJ Benson, INHS)

a.  86% of grassland birds have negative trends since 1966; 61% are statistically significant

b.  In USFWS Region 3 (Midwest), 14 species have a negative trends since 1966

c.  Species that have enough data for trend analysis = DICK, BOBO, EAME, GRSP, NOBO, RNPH

d.  CRP likely caused a bump up in all populations in the mid 1990s (HESP success story)

e.  From 1900-1950s, species were fairly steady, and grassland birds seemed to make a successful transition from native to working landscapes. However, since the 1950s, there has been a steep decline as the agricultural landscape changes to row crops and increased human development

f.  In the lower Midwest, there has been a transition from old fields to woodlands. In Illinois, for example, new restored grasslands are in an entirely new physiographic region than they occur in historically.

g.  TJ then showed state-by-state BBS trends per species.

2)  UMRGLR Joint Venture Grassland Bird Regional Objectives (Greg Soulliere, JV Science Office)

a.  Background of Joint Venture

i.  Originally focused on NAWMP until they transitioned to all bird conservation in the late 1990s

ii. Covers BCR 12, 23, 22 primarily

iii.  Informed by Science Team

b.  Developed bird group strategies (population and habitat objectives)

i.  Identify knowledge gaps and state assumptions in modeling

ii. Link population with habitat objectives

iii.  Select JV Focal species (GRPC, HESP, EAME, UPSA, RHWO – savanna)

iv.  JV population deficit based on BBS trends, expert opinion and continued conservation planning

c.  Maintenance Objectives for grassland birds

i.  Need 6 million acres of grassland habitat, most of it in BCR 22.

ii. Grassland habitat = grass, hay, openlands as according to NLCD

d.  Restoration Objectives (similar to maintenance protection objectives since PIF calls for doubling grassland bird populations)

i.  Based on the PIF approach, which uses species specific detection correction factors.

ii. Arrive at convergence on reasonable bounds for population estimates, densities, objectives

e.  By going through the JV planning process, we know assumptions and weaknesses, but these allow us to hone in on them with research and monitoring.

f.  GOAL = density estimates for grassland birds are actually tied to management practices

g.  According to preliminary modeling exercises, important areas for grassland bird occur in IL, MO and KS (species richness maps based on focal species (HESP, USPA, EAME))

3)  Manufacturing Multitudes of Melodious Meadowlarks (Andy Paulios, WBCI)

a.  Wisconsin is translating JV goals to effective landscape design for producing source populations

b.  They are using the Bird Conservation Area (BCA) model – large core block in an open country matrix with scattered blocks

c.  Processed satellite images are really poor for identifying grasslands

d.  They are using a best professional opinion model (bottom-up approach)

e.  The key to this approach is being able to evaluate our work.

f.  WI is starting to digitize BCAs and focal areas as the foundation for evaluating their work.

g.  NRCS uses a tracking system for agricultural land cover (could be used at the statewide level))

h.  Other states have adopted the BCA model in one form or another (more detail on this later in the notes).

i.  Goal is to be able to fill in the blank – “If we want to be successful for grassland birds, then ____ is what we need to build.”

j.  Uncertainty – can BCAs really reverse BBS trends?

k.  BCAs are not mutually exclusive of CRP patches.

4)  Private Lands and Grassland Bird Conservation in the Upper Midwest (Jeff Walk, TNC)

a.  95% of the grasslands in USFWS Region 3 are in private ownership (58% of this is considered “farmland” – highly influenced by the Farm Bill)

b.  Breakdown of federal funds for grassland bird habitat:

i.  USDA Subsidies = $5.2 billion

ii. State Fish and Wildlife = $2.1 billion

iii.  Wildlife Restoration = $74 million

iv.  State Wildlife Grants = $11 million

c.  Ways to play the Farm Bill game:

i.  Legislative

ii. Administrative (DC, State Offices/Technical Committees/Working Groups, County Service Offices/Farm Service Centers)

1.  National Office Administration (DC)

a.  Create practices within programs (multi-state collaborations such as CP 38 and 33 are most effective)

b.  Determine incentives for each practice (e.g., soil rental rates, cost share, timing eligibility for sign-up)

2.  State level administration

a.  This is the level at which we can target wildlife conservation agendas

b.  State technical committees (mid- to high level staff; decision/input on state implementation, priorities and practice standards)

c.  Working groups (convened as needed for technical expertise, develop options for practice standards such as seed mixes, seeding rates, engineering specs)

iii.  NBCI has a dedicated Ag Policy specialist in DC

iv.  Melinda suggested we build a model with “what if” scenarios to assist farm bill policy makers in DC with understanding changes in grassland bird populations with changes in the farm bill (we have a lot of information and could produce a simple but effective model)

v. We need to start incorporating economics into conservation models (Doug McKenzie, NBCI Coordinator, will be talking about this at December MW PIF Symposium in Minneapolis)

5)  How are grassland birds responding to landscape factors? (Dave Sample, WDNR)

a.  Old School = Patch size is important (now we realize that this depends on landscape context and species)

b.  This evolved to area sensitivity (increase in density and probability of occurrence is positively correlated with increase in patch size). Results for grassland birds are highly variable (from one study, only 8 of 16 species showed an increased density with increasing patch size)

c.  What is a patch? To us? To grassland bird species?

d.  Landscape Effects (woody edges negatively impact and in some cases overcome positive impacts of grassland in the landscape)

e.  Patch vs. Landscape Effects (Hostile Landscape Composition leads to reduced overall density in small and large patches); patch size may be less important in “grassier” landscapes

f.  Nest success varies (sometimes small patches are bad, but in other places not so)

g.  How grassland birds respond to patch-level attributes relates to the surrounding landscape.

i.  Woody – small patch sizes bad

ii. Open – small patches not so bad

iii.  Urban – unknown?

h.  New School = Landscape Context, Scale Important

i.  Need to evaluate success of protected areas in urban landscape

ii. Does effective core size vary depending on landscape?

iii.  Target different species in agricultural vs. developed landscapes

6)  Group Discussion

a.  The HAPET BCA concept was based on GR Prairie Chickens and stepped down to define grassland bird objectives (Type 1, 2, and 3 GBCA) (Tom sent this publication to the group over email)

b.  Patch Size, Landscape Context, Regional Complexes

i.  Bird presence in good patches is unpredictable in winter grounds and varies from one year to the next

ii. Grassland birds occupy space in a way that seems to allude us (maybe we need to think of GBCAs as a complex)

iii.  Is there a one size fits all regional approach?

iv.  JV maps provide a starting point for identifying where in the region we predict to have the greatest chance of success

v. BCAs could be thought of as demo areas that function above some minimum threshold

c.  Given the way grassland birds use landscapes (in terms of space and time), it’s advantageous to take a (regional) collaborative approach

7)  Fort Campbell Grassland Bird Conservation (Dave Buehler, U of TN)

a.  1500 acre core areas in a forested landscape with small fields

b.  Amazingly, they contained all target grassland bird species except GR Prairie Chicken

c.  Shows that we need five years of data to determine source/sink dynamics because of inherent annual variability (Some species are never sources, some are always, and some vary)

d.  Fort Campbell supports sustainable populations (in terms of occupancy and demography)

8)  Synthesis of Factors Influencing Midwest Grassland Bird Demography (TJ Benson, INHS)

a.  Scott Chiavacci will be assisting TJ and Mike with this project (using published information, theses, dissertations, and raw data)

b.  Looking at Patch Size and Relative Survival in terms of:

i.  Geographic variation

ii. Landscape Context

iii.  Structure

iv.  Association with Treeless Horizons

v. Species-specific differences

vi.  Predation (spatial and temporal changes in nest predators)

vii.  Comparison with winter trends

viii.  # CRP contracts in a given area

ix.  Site fidelity (survival estimates)

c.  The ultimate goal will be to support decisions on the ground. What are the decisions being made?

i.  Land acquisition

ii. Conservation easements

iii.  Site specific management decisions

iv.  We will need to analyze these data with an eye on these decisions (and identifying potential thresholds by geographic location)

d.  What demographic data are out there?

i.  Issues of scale, variations in space and time, land cover consistency, etc.

ii. Fledgling Survival

iii.  Adult survival may be higher and juvenile survival may be lower than we assume

iv.  Is density a good predictor of habitat quality?

e.  Get datasets into the Midwest Avian Data Center!

9)  Grassland Bird Conservation in the Eastern US (Dave Buehler, U of TN)

a.  Southeast PIF (3 people) and Southeast Quail Study Group (300 people) comprise the Southeast Grassland Bird Keystone Initiative (NFWF)

b.  Northern Bobwhite Conservation Initiative (Don McKenzie is National Coordinator)

i.  Expanded to a rangewide infrastructure based on NOBO range)

ii. Midwest states signed on include IA, MO, IL, IN, OH

iii.  They have already raised millions; restoration goal of 7 million acres

iv.  Working at both legislative and landowner levels

v. Tech committees (led by hired staff positions)

1.  Mapped out focal areas (ground up approach)

2.  Set population goals for these areas. Some areas have achieved goals (grassland bird populations are off the charts; 200,000 acres of CREP in 3-4 years)

3.  Key point – the federal government is paying these people to raise quail via short-term contracts

4.  They have a full time Farm Bill liaison and have representatives on state FSA committees.

c.  We need to hitch to this star if:

i.  We have equal partnership with equal say

ii. Investments are made in practices that are truly successful for grassland birds

d.  How do you package grassland bird conservation? Lessons from NBCI:

i.  Clear objectives

ii. Clear metric of success

iii.  Maps, by county, of where we should work (gives direction to practitioners)

1.  We need to overlay quail areas with JV map to identify quail/grassland bird focus areas.

2.  Where we don’t have overlap, we’ll have to come up with another approach besides NBCI

e.  Eastern Grassland Bird Technical Committee

i.  Need to link with NBCI Tech Committee and be embedded within it

ii. We can’t sell grassland bird conservation in terms of grassland birds; need to market it in other terms (consider Pat Keyser and his work with grazing community)

iii.  UMRGLR JV, CHJV, BCR 11 (MN & IA), 12, 22, 23, 24 + Southeast individuals

iv.  Midwest Technical Subcommittee

1.  Facilitate on-going knowledge sharing

2.  Serve Grassland Bird Science Needs (of JVs, states, NBCI, etc.)

3.  Provide technical advice to volunteer groups, states, etc. on management, monitoring and restoration of grassland birds

4.  Promote grassland bird conservation

10)  Potential questions for MW Monitoring/Research of Grassland Birds

a.  Is site-level work making a difference at larger scales?

b.  Does a multi-tiered BCA approach work?

1.  Everywhere?

2.  Thresholds for tiers

3.  Spatial matrix (landscape composition and patch arrangement)

4.  Land uses

c.  Other factors that affect observed trends? (need to link with Southeast partners)

d.  Are we meeting needs of Grassland Birds that winter in the Midwest?

e.  Demographic Monitoring/Research

i.  Connectivity of populations

ii. Survival estimates

iii.  Uncertainty around limiting factors

1.  Species-specific responses to disturbance

2.  Focused, demographic studies

f.  Overall, adding large scale monitoring with smaller, focused studies will allow us to determine whether we are providing for sustainable grassland bird populations.

11)  Are “BCA” Models working? Are they in the right places?

a.  In the Midwest, most states are committing to this concept (IA, MO, WI, IL, MN, unknown IN/OH/MI)

b.  We want to compare different grassland bird management tools in different places (build a matrix and get partner buy-in)

c.  Incorporate JV map and overlay ground-up knowledge to produce focal areas

i.  Identify where we shouldn’t work because of limited predicted success

ii. Consider other objectives for productive areas outside of focal areas