Meeting: Midwest Migration Monitoring Network

Meeting: Midwest Migration Monitoring Network

Participants: Katie Koch, Ralph Grundel, Noel Cutright, Anna Peterson, Sumner Matteson, Dave Ewert, Eileen Kirsch, Dana Ripper, Mark Shieldcastle, Ethan Duke, Mikaela Howie, Tom Will

Date: 03 October 2012

Agenda

• Review the summary report from our August meeting
• Decide upon network objectives and direction
• Identify next steps, interim structure for the network, and assign task leads (i.e., a work plan) for the coming year

1) Review of Summary Report from August Working Group Meeting

1. Dave thought this was a really good summary and wants to share some thoughts from the NAOC later in our discussion.
2. Tom compiled notes taken during the August workshop. The presentations will also provide a much more coherent summary of the thought process and should be posted to the Midwest CBM Website.
3. We still need to get notes or other slides that accompany influence diagrams before the summary is finalized.
4. Workshop participants effectively identified three working groups within the network.
5. Tom also shared Anna’s report as an example of how to summarize where we are with each of the three working groups that emerged from the workshop.
6. Tom also shared a compilation of research and information needs from previous meetings. This wasn’t really used during the August workshop, but it might be useful for each working group as they plan for projects and next steps. We shouldn’t necessarily tie ourselves down to these alone.
7. The way we approached this topic in the workshop was really in line with the 10-step process outlined in the Northeast Bird Monitoring Handbook. We really captured thought processes with the influence diagrams, and developing objectives hierarchies will lend a lot of coherence to this endeavor. It also helps us understand our monitoring in the context of conservation action.

 ACTION: Anna, Mark and Wayne to get accompanying notes to influence diagrams (a paragraph as a minimum) to Tom ASAP.

 ACTION: Katie to post workshop presentations to the working group page.

2) Updates from the NAOC – Dave Ewert and Tom Will

1. Migration was an incredible focus at the meeting (especially connectivity and the use of geolocators, banding data, and other tools).
2. The Northeast Regional Migration Monitoring Network (http://sbe.umaine.edu/avian/MigrationMonitoring.html) is working to identify stopover sites along the gulf of Maine and Canada (extends down the Atlantic Coast to Rhode Island). This could be a potential model for us to consider within the Stopover Habitat Working Group.
3. University of western Ontario has been using a variety of techniques to look at bird and bat movement around the Great Lakes.
4. In Illinois, they placed stationary geolocators in different habitats to understand error and bias associated with that technique. This will help us refine data quality in using these techniques to understand connectivity among migratory populations.
5. The Bird Banding Lab has approved the trial use of geolocators on Golden-winged Warblers. We’ll likely see tremendous advances in the next few years to understand migratory pathways and connections between breeding and non-breeding populations. Geolocators are also being put on Kirtland’s Warblers on a trial basis.
6. Tom will be going to the Northeast Bird Conservation conference in Plymouth, MA and plans to attend a talk about migration monitoring along the northern Atlantic Coast (it could be the same project Dave mentioned).

 ACTION: Dave to follow up with presenters at the NAOC, send contact information and report back to the Network. Tom will also try to sit down and visit with the Atlantic Coast coordinators in Plymouth.

3) Identify next steps, interim structure for the network, and assign task leads (i.e., a work plan) for the coming year

1. We need to find out how other similar efforts are structured, funded, etc. to serve as a model for how we proceed.
2. Northeast Regional Migration Monitoring Network – 12 partner organizations, but no mention about how they’re funded.
3. There is a lot of interest in the Upper Midwest and Great Lakes, and we have a lot of people actively working in this field.
4. Sumner is in the process of setting up some sessions in Wisconsin to determine best monitoring approaches for monitoring migrants along Lake Superior and Michigan coasts.
5. Mark Shieldcastle has done some work to summarize our resource capacity for migration monitoring to date. He would like to introduce some degree of standardization among migration monitoring activities.
6. Tom reminded all of us to keep the concept of why we’re monitoring in mind before we select protocols.
7. Anna – we are all really busy and involved in different facets of migration. We need to think comprehensively about the Midwest as a whole.
8. There are many different paths to take and priorities to focus on.
9. Should one of our priorities be to get a person funded to lead this effort? Synthesize data that are out there, document existing and potential capacity, etc.
10. Noel was also going to suggest we get someone hired half- or full-time to provide directed coordination to this issue.
11. Dave also concurs that we really need a coordinator to make progress. We should learn a lot from the Northeast Regional Migration Monitoring Network.
12. Tom – is there any source or resources that spring to mind that we should engage for funding a coordinator position?
13. Foundations in the Midwest – some of them will continue to fund a project for multiple years if they see progress is being made (this would have to be administered by an organization). Ideally, we would want a permanent position.
14. Matching corporate funding? Would energy companies support this to inform wind energy siting?
15. All the agencies and many NGOs are really strapped.
16. Consider GLRI or GLFWRA (submitting a proposal through the agencies)
17. GLRI allocates so much $ to USGS and USFWS, and these are allocated around the Great Lakes. We could send a proposal up to the people within these organizations to try and get funds allocated towards a coordinator.
18. Having three desired future conditions and influence diagrams provide good justification for developing a proposal for an initiative/network lead to coordinate these efforts. We should have something ready to go and shop around.
19. Dave – what if we write a job description, with some prioritization in it, and the components of the job description include components/deliverables at 1, 2 and 3 years?
20. American Bird Conservancy and NFWF are possibilities – Tom to talk to them
21. This will need to be more than a job description – emphasize why we need a position, why we need someone to work on this. Brief, clear, and directed document that outlines need, best path to get there, and position description for meeting that stated need.
22. Anna - First priority – get someone hired. Then this person could identify knowledge gaps within three priorities and bring those needs to the monitoring network.
23. AOU and COS are having a joint meeting in Chicago in August 2013. Should this group promote an organized session to identify the state of knowledge or how to go about setting up a monitoring network? Call for symposia went out last week; they are due 11/16/2012. (No decision was made on this topic at this time)
24. Anna’s graphic that shows the importance of the Midwest to the boreal ecosystem should be part of that justification.
25. Anna – UMRGLR JV has been interested in this topic. The RFP is already out, and proposals are due November 9. The group voted in favor of submitting the proposal first to them (and to other opportunities as they become available).

 ACTION: Sumner to follow up with Mark Shieldcastle about his recommendations for standardizing migration monitoring approaches.

 ACTION: Tom will talk about this need with ABC and NFWF and report back to the group.

 ACTION: Noel Cutright (lead), Dave Ewert, Ralph Grundel, and Anna Peterson will draft a proposal in the next two weeks and seek Network review and comment before submitting it.

 ACTION: Katie will send Noel copies of all previous meeting notes and documents from this working group.

4) Other Updates

1. Dave Ewert got funding from UMGL LCC to identify attributes of stopover sites along Great Lakes. The next phase is to design a web portal to make their products (and related information) available. They are also working in a review paper of stopover site work in the Midwest. Dave may elicit feedback from us as he works on this.
2. Tom Will – Travis Longcore et al. just published a paper on bird collisions with communication towers (plusOne); they are also analyzing population impacts on individual species (target journal = Conservation Biology).
3. Loss, Marra, and Will are about ready to submit a paper on the annual mortality to birds from wind installations (due for review in one month).
4. Tom already sent these papers out to the group 
5. USFWS is planning to produce a multi-state habitat conservation plan on the effects of wind energy development on birds and bats.
6. Grosbeaks Galore workshop coming up on October 13 to help landowners create an oasis for migratory birds on their properties in Wisconsin. They also have a website for the Wisconsin Stopover Initiative (

1