Based on a proposal funded by the USGS Biological Resources Division and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and on discussion among colleagues from North America

NARMS Steering Committee
C/O Kirk Bates, Raptor Research Center, Boise State University,
970 Lusk St. Boise, ID 83706 USA
kbates@boisestate.edu  

Abstract

The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center (FRESC) - Snake River Field Station (SRFS) and Boise State University (BSU) have received funds to collaborate with North American colleagues to continue developing a strategy for monitoring raptors from throughout North America to n. Mexico. This development continues work begun jointly by USGS staff at the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (PWRC), SRFS, and BSU. The scope of work addressed includes: 1) evaluate the literature and existing data bases for methods and data useful for monitoring raptors; 2) identify inadequacies for monitoring by species, geographic areas, and season (breeding, migration, winter); 3) describe existing procedures for overcoming inadequacies; 4) recommend development of necessary procedures; 5) provide a Strategy for long-term monitoring of the status and trends of raptor numbers. The Strategy will be a synthesis of how to use existing and new procedures to monitor each species. The effort to be implemented in a final strategy can be prioritized further by species and with consideration of cost required to conduct recommended procedures.

Introduction

Development of the continental strategy was initiated in July 1996 during the North American Raptor Monitoring Workshop (Workshop) in Boise, Idaho. The purpose of the Workshop was to address the need of various Dept. of the Interior bureaus for practical ways to determine the status and trends of raptor species. Representatives from Canada and Mexico participated. The purpose of the work described herein is to continue development of the strategy.

Recent reviews of the literature (Fuller et al. 1995, Fuller 1996, Kirk and Hyslop 1998) and evaluations and analyses of databases (e.g., Workshop Participants 1997, Fuller and Bates 1999) reveal that for many raptor species there are few data available for consistent, statistical evaluation of the status and trends of raptor populations based on regional or continental scales. The local studies that do provide consistent information usually are representative of too small an area to be generalized to populations, or have not been conducted in a way(s) that is compatible with analyses and interpretations traditionally used to monitor on a broader scale.

The Workshop was convened with support from National Biological Service (now USGS) Inventory and Monitoring Division, the Raptor Research and Technical Assistance Center (now the SRFS) and the Raptor Research Center (RRC) of BSU. During the workshop, participants endorsed the need for a continental strategy and organized a program to develop the strategy. In the months following the workshop we completed a Workshop report and organized three committees for developing the species accounts: one for monitoring nesting populations, one for wintering populations, and for the migration periods (Workshop Participants 1997).

After the Workshop, we established an e-mail discussion group called Raptrend, and had about 50 correspondents who, in varying ways and extents, contributed to the strategy. However, most contributions to the strategy were not assignments, rather most persons simply volunteered some time. Of the 32 species then proposed for the strategy, we had volunteers for 10. Except for 3 persons at SRFS and BSU and Loren Ayres at the University of Wyoming, no one had provided information on paper. However, recent work by others has made available information that will be useful for the strategy (e.g., Lewis and Gould 2000, Lehman et al. 1998, Fuller and Bates 1999, Kennedy and Andersen 1999).

About 12 persons met during the October 1998 Raptor Research Foundation (RRF) meeting. It was acknowledged that little had been accomplished. We decided to consider some other approaches to assembling the required information and agreed to gather at the next RRF meeting (November 1999) to present some example species accounts. SRFS and RRC proposed to work with PWRC and FWS to provide the leadership and funding that will allow timely completion of a strategy. J. Bednarz and J. Smith organized the next gathering as part of the RRF Meeting hosted in La Paz, Mexico. Our strategy will be the basis for raptor monitoring. This effort will provide BRD, FWS, and other U.S.A. bureaus, and Canadian and Mexican collaborators with comprehensive, up-to-date information with which to decide on the type and extent of effort to devote to raptor monitoring. Those efforts can be based on sampling, field, and analytical methods that provide the best assurance that the results will meet the stated needs of research and management users.

Objectives for Developing the Strategy

1) work with PWRC and FWS and other colleagues to establish criteria with which to evaluate the literature and existing data bases;

2) establish a format in which to present evaluations on a species by species basis;

3) ensure that there are person(s) to provide information for the species to be evaluated, considering that much is a volunteer effort and only limited funds are available;

4) evaluate the literature and existing data bases for methods and data useful for monitoring diurnal raptors and some owls that can be surveyed during daylight;

5) identify inadequacies for monitoring by species, geographic areas, and season;

6) describe existing procedures for overcoming inadequacies;

7) recommend development of new procedures needed to provide monitoring information;

8) provide a strategy for long-term monitoring of the status and trends of raptor numbers.

The emphasis of this effort is broad scale monitoring, at the continental and at the flyway levels. As such, the Strategy will not focus on local survey or monitoring efforts (e.g., at the scale of a park or forest). However, we should reference those local efforts using sound field procedures and addressing statistically based objectives that are relative to monitoring in general. Expansion of use of such methods might be a way to monitor a certain species in a larger area or in a certain season. Also, persons turning to the Strategy to learn about monitoring might find the more local methods applicable to their needs, and thus would have some references to turn to for more details. Similarly, the Strategy does not emphasize monitoring by use of demographic parameters (e.g., survival, productivity, recruitment), but we should note when this approach has been productive for understanding raptor population dynamics, and monitoring per se. Currently, it is thought that applying a demographic approach to continental raptor monitoring would be too costly and time-consuming. However, this approach provides much more information that can be revealing about the causes of a change in the status of a population. Therefore, we believe references to such work should be readily available to anyone considering implementing monitoring or using the results of monitoring.

Goals for the Strategy include incorporating, supplementing, or complementing existing monitoring programs and to work in collaboration with those programs whenever possible. The Strategy should provide a basis for geo-referencing all monitoring data. To the maximum extent possible the sampling designs and data collection should be compatible among geographic scales so data can be pooled.  The data should be recorded in a way that facilitates their management and use. The data should be managed in an electronic format(s) and be readily available to persons wanting to use them.

A Steering Committee has been formed to help ensure adequate representation from Canada, Mexico, and the U.S.A., and from various disciplines relevant to developing the Strategy. That committee comprises:  

Methodology

The primary methods for developing the strategy involve establishing evaluation criteria, reviewing the literature and identifying potentially useful data, application of those criteria to the literature and to results from existing databases, interpreting the evaluations and the results of the analyses, and synthesizing the interpretations for development of recommendations. These methods will be applied by the contributors to the strategy. It will be the responsibility of the Steering Committee to ensure that contributions meet criteria and are complete, and are organized in a manner that facilitates use of material for integration and synthesis. This will be accomplished by applying the criteria for evaluations of existing methods and databases, by documenting the evaluations in a standard format, and presenting the strategy in a form based on an outline.

Criteria have been established through discussion among BRD and FWS staff, then presentation and discussion of those criteria among persons attending the 1999 and 2000 RRF gatherings and by the collaborators. The BRD and FWS staff review modifications based on the discussions. The starting point for criteria were those proposed on a statistical basis at the 1996 Workshop:

Ensure the ability to detect a 50% reduction in the count or index over a 25-year period with alpha = 0.10 and beta = 0.20.  Lewis and Gould (2000) provide discussion material about the use of such criteria as applied to the counts of migrant raptors, and that material is a useful focus for further consideration.

No other basic statistical criteria have been proposed. The other general criteria are completeness of monitoring data from geographic areas that are representative of the species’ distributions, and extent and quality of monitoring of the species during each of the 3 seasons (breeding, migration, and wintering).

The review of the literature will center on use of the SRFS-RRC Raptor Information System (RIS). The RIS comprises about 35,000 articles, reprints, and books. These largely are devoted to raptors and include many unpublished reports that have information about raptor survey results. You may access the RIS at  <http://ris.wr.usgs.gov>, where there are instructions for searching for material by keywords, author, etc. All references in the RIS are filed in the R.R. Olendorff Memorial Library in the SRFS-RRC building on the BSU campus. We can accommodate a limited number of requests for copies of material not readily available in libraries.

The results of reviews and analyses must be organized for presentation and to facilitate synthesis. The organization scheme resulting from the Workshop was for Chairpersons and teams to present material based on the seasons (breeding, migration, and wintering), within which most surveys can be categorized. Because this approach had not been productive, collaborators considered a species account approach that could be undertaken by 1 or more individuals. The species account format has been accepted. Examples of this were presented at the October 1999 gathering. The basic form for the species approach that  has been adopted (Section 2) is by L. Ayers, P. Schempf , and S. Anderson. The species accounts must include monitoring through the seasons (breeding, migration, and winter) and by thoroughness of effort across the species’ distribution in North America.  

An outline for the Strategy (Section 4) has been based largely on the results of the 1996 Workshop.

There are existing data sets to which new analyses can be applied for the purpose of assessing their usefulness for monitoring. Several persons have done recent analyses; for example Bill Gould and Sandy Lewis (Lewis and Gould 2000) studied counts of migrating raptors, and John Sauer ran trend analyses of raptor counts from the BBS that M. Fuller presented in La Paz. Sam Droege and John Sauer plan analyses of Christmas Bird Counts. We encourage each contributor to do additional analyses that might reveal the utility of existing data or that of new survey and analytical procedures. Contributors are expected to provide a critique of the usefulness of existing survey results and recommend data sets that can be considered for the Strategy.

The avenues for the dissemination of information about the development of the Strategy among contributors is the list server Raptrend ( raptrend@rana.er.usgs.gov), the website: <http://srfs.wr.usgs.gov/research/narms1.htm>, and the Workshop at the 2001 Raptor Research Foundation Meeting.

Terminology

Toward achieving consistent use of terms and phrases throughout the species accounts and Strategy in general, use “traditional” terms and their well-established , common definitions. Refer to Ralph (1981) and Koford et al. (1994) as a basis for terms and definitions. If you must deviate from these sources or use a term or phrase in a different context, then define how you use it the first time it appears in your writing. For example, we envision that most often in the Strategy, the word “population” will refer to a group of coexisting (conspecific) individuals delineated by geographic area, rather than by the traditional genetic (interbreeding) criterion.

Anticipated Results

The species account section of the Strategy will include details to support conclusions about how well each species currently is monitored, by what methods, in what areas, and at what season of the year. The integration of information will reveal situations in which groups of species are well monitored by a given method (e.g., BBS), and in a certain area(s) (e.g., eastern USA), and by season. The synthesis will provide recommendations about how to best monitor a species and groups of species. For example: "Red-tailed hawks are well monitored by the BBS, hawk counts in the mid-west and east, and by CBCs; no additional monitoring is required." Or, "prairie falcons are well monitored in a few locales during the breeding season, but more sample sites are required, and road transects (detailed methodology will have been referenced or described previously) should be implemented in representative areas of their winter range. These road transects also can be used to monitor rough-legged hawks and ...during the winter season in the mid-west and western regions".

The major result of this development will be a North American Raptor Monitoring Strategy that identifies the best, or combination of the several best monitoring techniques for each species. The Strategy will include recommendations for improvements in data collection, sampling, and analyses. It is likely that implementation by government bureaus and cooperators of a final strategy will reflect considerations of funding and species status (e.g., Threatened, Endangered). If the organizations that sponsor raptor monitoring want our involvement beyond the submission of the Strategy, we will be pleased to consider it.

The Strategy will be provided as a co-edited report to PWRC and FWS. The content will be written and presented in a manner suitable for distribution as a bureau report or journal monograph. All authors of accounts and major sections that have met the established criteria for the Strategy will be listed with their account/section.

Wildlife and land managers will be able to use the report as a basis for deciding what long-term monitoring to undertake. Furthermore, the evaluations of current information and the new analyses will provide conclusions about the current status and trends of many species. For some species, the Strategy will alert managers and policy makers to the paucity of available information, and the need for new survey and monitoring methods. Results of this effort will be for the North American continent through northern Mexico.

Literature Cited

Fuller, M.R., C.J. Henny, P. Bohall Wood. 1995. Raptors. Pages 65-69 in E.T. LaRoe, G.S. Farris, C.E. Puckett, P.D. Doran, and M.J. Mac, eds. Our living resources: a report to the nation on the distribution, abundance, and health of U.S. plants, animals, and ecosystems. United States Department of the Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, District of Columbia. 530pp.

Fuller, M.R. 1996. Forest raptor population trends in North America. Pages 167-208 in R.M. DeGraaf (Ed.). Conservation of faunal diversity in forested landscapes. Chapman Hall, New York.

Fuller, M.R., and K. Bates. 1999. An evaluation of migrant hawk counts from North America: magnitude of counts accumulated, disposition of data, and their utility for indices for monitoring populations. Report form the USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center - Snake River Field Station to the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Maryland. 31pp. + 80pp Appendices.

Kennedy, P.L. and D.E. Andersen. 1999. Research and monitoring plan for northern goshawks (Accipiter gentilis atricapillus) in the western Great Lakes region. Minnesota Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, St. Paul, Minnesota. 83pp.

Kirk, D.A., and C. Hyslop. 1998. Population status and trends in Canadian raptors: a review. Biological Conservation 83:91-118.

Koford, R.R., J.B. Dunning, Jr., C.A. Ribic, and D.M. Finch. 1994. A glossary for avian conservation biology. Wilson Bull.106:121-137.

Lehman, R.N., L.B. Carpenter, K. Steenhof, and M.N. Kochert. 1998. Assessing relative abundance and reproductive success of shrubsteppe raptors. J. Field Ornithol. 67: 680-690.

Lewis, S.A. and W.R. Gould. 2000. Survey effort effects on power to detect trends in raptor migration counts. Wildlife Soc. Bull. 28:317 –329

Ralph, C.J. 1981. Terminology used in estimating numbers of birds. Pp. 577-578 in Estimating numbers of terrestrial birds (C.J. Ralph and J.M. Scott, eds.). Stud. Avian Biol. 6.

Workshop Participants. 1997. Report of a workshop to develop a North American raptor monitoring strategy.

Schedule - The completion date is December 2006:

Sep.1999 Begin; discuss criteria, species information format, & Strategy outline with BRD & FWS staff, and agree on those to be presented on the web and at the RRF meeting in Nov.

Nov.1999 Present criteria, format and outline at RRF meeting, and discuss suggested changes with attendees. Solicit participation. Summarize discussions and correspondence about criteria, etc., and submit suggested changes to BRD & FWS staff.

Dec.1999 Discuss changes and develop final criteria, format, and outline.

Jan. 2000 Continue soliciting additional contributors.

Feb. 2000 Based on contributions and current bureau needs, agree on final assignments for the species to be covered in the Strategy.

Mar. 2000 Begin assembling material for species, integration, & synthesis: correspond & coordinate with contributors; begin "in-house" species accounts; begin integrated overview of existing information by season & by survey method & existing data bases. Provide data from existing data bases to those who will do new analyses. BBS data are available at the website <http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/bbs.html>.

Sep. 2000 Summarize, report, & discuss progress to date with BRD & FWS staff.

Fall 2000 Gather as many contributors as possible at RRF meeting to present & discuss work to date, suggest modifications:

            2000 Raptor Research Foundation Meeting, NARMS Workshop, Thursday, 9  November 2000, Jonesboro, Arkansas (<http://www.clt.astate.edu/jbednarz/rrf>).

Dec. 2000 Summarize reports & suggestions from contributors for BRD & FWS staff and make necessary modifications. Call for final accounts.

Jan. 2001 Begin draft integration and synthesis.

Mar. 2001 Discuss material for draft of final report.

Apr. 2001 Continue collecting species accounts integration and synthesis.

Fall 2001 RRF symposium for contributors= reports of material and discussion of the integration and synthesis.

Nov. 2001-Dec.2002 Revision of drafts species accounts, continue collecting accounts.

Fall 2002 RRF Meeting - summary of issues.

2003-2006 Continue species accounts, draft final reports.

Return to NARMS