Introduction
What are Neotropical Migratory Birds?
Why Monitor Neotropical Migratory Birds?
MONITORING FRAMEWORK
Monitoring Goals and Strategies
Scales of Monitoring
Levels of Monitoring
Physiographic Provinces
Species and Habitat Prioritization
MONITORING PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
MONITORING METHODS
Core Monitoring Methods
Breeding Bird Survey
Point Counts
Constant-Effort Mist-Netting
Nest Monitoring
Supplemental Monitoring Methods
Modified BBS Routes
Non-Random Routes
Mini-Routes
Transects
Automobile Transects
Boat Transects
Bicycle Transects
Area Searches
Breeding Bird Atlas
Christmas Bird Count
Spot-Mapping
Breeding Bird Census
Color Banding
Colony Counts
Broadcast Recorded Calls
Feeder Counts
Nest-Box Monitoring
INTEGRATED MONITORING
MONITORING TIMEFRAMES
Breeding Season
Migration
SPECIES-SPECIFIC MONITORING
Integrating Species-Specific Monitoring
OTHER MONITORING PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS
Sampling Design
Data Management
Statistical Analysis
Interpretation and Use
Housing and Dissemination
Habitat Assessment and Analysis
Training
Volunteers
Public Outreach
REFERENCES
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1. Components of the framework for integrated monitoring of neotropical
migratory landbirds in Oregon and Washington.............................................................. 5
Figure 2. How integration of data from nest-monitoring and constant-effort mist-netting
can assess the entire reproductive period....................................................................... 21
Figure 3. Interactive view of the methods and population parameters of an integrated monitoring program using the Core Monitoring Methods.................................................................. 22
Figure 4. Breeding season and migration monitoring timeframes for several methods... 26
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1. The effectiveness of several census and demographic monitoring methods............ 12
Table 2. Potential objectives of a monitoring program and the minimum number of years
needed for a method to achieve results.................................................................................. 13
Table 3. Suggested methods for monitoring species not adequately monitored by BBS........ 31
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A. Overview of Partners in Flight including the Oregon-Washington chapter.
Appendix B. Known or suspected neotropical avian migrants that breed in Oregon.
Appendix C. List of contacts and other pertinent information on monitoring and the
Oregon-Washington PIF chapter.
Appendix D. Point count standards and applications.
Appendix E. MAPS Manual.
Appendix F. BBIRD Field Protocol.
Appendix G. Methods to conduct an area search bird census.
Appendix H. Recommended methods for monitoring bird populations by counting and capture of migrants.
Appendix J. Suggested methods for monitoring species not adequately monitored by BBS.
Appendix K. Oregon-Washington PIF recommended point count data entry standards.
Appendix L. Training methods and resources for monitoring landbirds.
NEOTROPICAL MIGRATORY LANDBIRDS
IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON:
An Overview of the Development of Monitoring Programs
Introduction
In the past few years, interest and information on monitoring neotropical migratory
landbirds (hereafter NTMB) in Oregon and Washington has increased rapidly. This is largely
due to the impetus generated by the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Program and
Partners in Flight (PIF) (discussed in Appendix A). Many monitoring projects have been
initiated, most to meet specific objectives within logistical, funding, and personnel
constraints. These projects have the potential to provide a wealth of information not only
for project-specific objectives, but also for regional and national analyses directed
towards NTMB conservation. This document is intended to be a monitoring "road map" providing guidance
and direction to assist biologists and others in the development and implementation of
monitoring programs for NTMB and other small landbirds. Its principal goal is to
facilitate the collection of monitoring data in a standardized and consistent manner
across Oregon and Washington. It also facilitates PIF goals of coordination and
cooperation by providing a framework to "tie in" site-specific monitoring
efforts with other local and regional monitoring programs. In order to apply data from local monitoring projects to larger scales, there must be
common standards of compatibility. A fundamental goal of PIF is to ensure that monitoring
efforts are coordinated and consistent according to recommended protocols. Several
national workshops (Point count workshop, Beltsville, MD, 1991; Mist-netting workshop,
Point Reyes, CA, 1993; Migration monitoring workshop, Ontario, Canada, 1993) and documents
(Butcher 1992, Manley et al. 1993, Ralph et al. 1993 and 1995a, Canadian Wildlife Service
1994) on monitoring have addressed this goal. These documents are the principal sources
for information on monitoring NTMB. Indeed, Ralph et al. (1993) has been widely accepted
and utilized for its broad-based guidelines on standardization of protocols and emphasis
on integration of methods to achieve monitoring goals. Within the Oregon-Washington PIF Chapter it was felt there was need for a single-source
document to synthesize and disseminate existing information on monitoring of NTMB relative
to the diversity of species and habitats in Oregon and Washington (reviewed in Paulson
1992). It was also felt that the tremendous interest and existing NTMB monitoring
activities in Oregon and Washington needed to be focused within a regional framework to
enhance compatibility and usefulness towards goals and standards espoused by PIF at a
national level. Additionally, since approximately 70 percent of NTMB species in Oregon and
Washington are not adequately monitored by the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS)
(Andelman and Stock 1994), there was a need for recommendations on specialized monitoring
appropriate for these species. This is the first in a series of documents on monitoring NTMB in Oregon and Washington.
Subsequent documents will describe specific strategies for habitat-based monitoring
programs in each of the habitats prioritized in Andelman and Stock (1994). The level of
detail presented in this document represents a balance between a detailed description of
the topic, a brief description with extensive referencing to other reports, and inclusion
of these reports as appendices. Included as appendices are copies of protocols for several
monitoring methods and other information on monitoring that has not been widely
distributed. This does not include Ralph et al. (1993) which has been widely distributed
and referenced. For the purposes of this document, use of the word monitoring is interchangeable with
inventory and research when these activities are directed at counting (censusing)
individuals or evaluating factors involved in maintaining the stability and health of NTMB
populations. What are Neotropical Migratory Birds?
In a technical sense, NTMB in the western hemisphere are species that breed in North
America north of the tropics (Neartic Faunal Region) and winter in tropical America
(Neotropic Faunal Region) (Hagan and Johnston 1992). The lack of geographic clarity in
those boundaries lead Rappole et al. (1983) to simplify this by defining NTMB as species
whose populations (all or part) breed north of the Tropic of Cancer and winter south of
that line. This is the most widely recognized definition of a NTMB, although in the
western United States the boundary between Mexico and the United States is usually
referenced in part due to political ease of distinction but also because many NTMB
breeding in western North America winter in Mexico. In classifying species as NTMB, the generally accepted approach is to be inclusive;
that is, if any portion of a species winter range extends into northern Mexico, then it is
classified as a NTMB. Consequently, lists of NTMB include many species that are common
winter residents throughout the United States (e.g., American robin, killdeer). These
species are more appropriately termed short-distance NTMB and have been referred to as
Type "B" NTMB (Gauthreaux 1992). Type "A" or long-distance NTMB are
species that breed in North America and spend their nonbreeding period south of the United
States. This includes most species of familiar bird groups such as the flycatchers,
vireos, swallows, thrushes, warblers, and hummingbirds. In Oregon and Washington, a clear designation of a species as a NTMB is difficult
because wintering range is uncertain for many species and because the distinction between
subspecies that are resident (typically west-side subspecies) and subspecies that migrate
(typically east-side subspecies) is often unknown. The most current designation of NTMB
species in Oregon (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1993) distinguishes between
known and suspected NTMB species and subspecies (Appendix B). This has not been done for
Washington, although the list would be similar to Oregon with few exceptions. The principal group of NTMB emphasized by the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation
Program are terrestrial birds broadly defined as "nongame". NTMB in aquatic or
semi-aquatic avian groups such as shorebirds and waterfowl, are not included because
initiatives and programs for the conservation of waterfowl and shorebirds already exist
(e.g., Ducks Unlimited, Pacific Flyway Shorebird Project). This document does not address
raptors (hawks and owls) and gamebirds that are NTMB because other programs (e.g.,
Hawkwatch International Inc., Federal and State Wildlife Agencies Migratory Game Bird
Surveys) and specific monitoring protocols (e.g., mourning dove call-count survey, raptor
aerial nest surveys) address these species. Additionally, most of the protocols for
nongame NTMB discussed throughout this document are generally not effective for monitoring
raptors and game birds. Although the focus of this document is NTMB, the information presented applies to most
small landbirds, including residents. Additionally, many of the issues regarding NTMB
populations (e.g., population declines, habitat loss) are the same for resident landbirds.
Recent emphasis on NTMB conservation has recognized the need to consider all landbird
species as part of the planning process. Throughout the remainder of this document, the
term "landbird" will be used to reflect this shift in emphasis, unless
specifically referring to landbird species that migrate to the neotropics (i.e., NTMB). Why Monitor Neotropical Migratory Birds?
Birds are significant components of biological diversity in most ecosystems, and
deficiencies in the avian community may adversely affect ecosystem functions.
Consequently, monitoring the health of bird populations may be an important indicator of
overall environmental health (Dickson et al. 1979, Morrison 1986, Koskimies and Vaisanen
1991). Changes in bird populations can serve as "early warning signals" for
environmental problems. Birds are excellent environmental monitors for several reasons: 1)
many species can be monitored simultaneously with a single method and without extensive
equipment, 2) methods for monitoring are standardized and well understood, 3) they occupy
all habitat types, and 4) they can be monitored in any season. The documentation of population declines in many North American landbird species,
particularly NTMB, has fueled substantial interest in determining the causes of these
declines. Factors suggested as contributing include habitat loss/fragmentation and nest
predation/parasitism on the breeding grounds, loss/degradation of key migratory stopover
sites, and deforestation of wintering habitats (reviewed in Morse 1980, Whitcomb et al.
1981, Terborgh 1989, Finch 1991, O'Connor 1991, Sharp 1992, Moore et al. 1993, and Holmes
and Sherry 1993, Dobkin 1994). Long-term monitoring and research is necessary to identify
causative factors and priorities for management and further research. Monitoring species
and community abundance, trends, and demographic processes provides information essential
for the development of sound landbird conservation strategies. Additionally, monitoring is
used as a tool to determine the effectiveness of management actions directed towards
conservation goals. This will be an important component in the implementation of landbird
conservation strategies. Evidence of declines of NTMB is based primarily on analysis of long-term data from BBS
routes (Robbins et al. 1989a, Askins et al. 1990, Finch 1991). Few long-term research or
monitoring efforts (other than BBS) have been conducted in the western United States, and
consequently there is a considerable lack of baseline information on the status and trends
of landbirds throughout the west (see Finch 1991 and Dobkin 1994 for review), including
Oregon and Washington. Without baseline information, development of effective management
and conservation strategies is problematical. In Oregon and Washington the conservation
challenge is further exacerbated by the tremendous diversity in physiography and
associated habitats for landbirds. This increases the monitoring effort needed in terms of
species and habitats. Most state and federal natural resource agencies are legally mandated to protect
wildlife, maintain biodiversity, and/or maintain viable populations of vertebrate species.
Additionally, landbirds are encompassed under the umbrella of protection and conservation
of wildlife as dictated by legislation such as the National Forest Management Act,
National Environmental Policy Act, Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act, Migratory Bird
Treaty Act, and various state administrative rules. Another reason for monitoring landbirds is to take a proactive approach to declining
species and their conservation before the costs become prohibitive, the management options
limited, or the declines irreversible. Collecting baseline information on a species before
it is listed as threatened or endangered is considerably more cost-effective than after,
as we have seen for species such as the spotted owl and marbled murrelet. Although this document emphasizes monitoring of breeding and migratory populations of
landbirds in Oregon and Washington, an effective conservation strategy must include
cooperators outside of these boundaries, particularly in the tropics where most NTMB
overwinter. It is beyond the scope of this document to address that issue, and we are
dependent upon other entities to monitor NTMB in their tropical wintering environs.
However, interpretation of monitoring results from Oregon and Washington will indicate
when problems appear to be related to time spent outside of the bi-state area; thus,
contributing to international efforts for conservation. MONITORING FRAMEWORK
The monitoring guidelines and recommendations in this document are presented within a
multi- component framework for participation. The framework includes broad-based
integration of multiple scales and levels of monitoring with project-specific integration
of factors such as objectives, methods, habitats, and species (Figure 1). This approach
provides numerous opportunities of participation within the framework, including
participation at multiple levels. Additionally, it enhances the importance of data
collected by attaching value to that data beyond the context of any site-specific purpose.
Thus, collection of standardized data for a site-specific purpose can be utilized in a
larger ecological/geographical context to facilitate conservation of landbird species and
habitats. Information presented in the following sections establishes the sideboards and
structure of a monitoring framework for Oregon and Washington. This background information
should be used as a foundation for developing a monitoring program that is consistent with
broad-based goals and responsive to local needs. The components of the framework include
recommendations articulated at national and regional levels (e.g., goals and levels of
monitoring) with modifications for local factors that determine the environmental baseline
in Oregon and Washington (e.g., physiographic provinces, habitats, species). Monitoring Goals and Strategies
The principal goal for any landbird monitoring program in Oregon and Washington is to
collect information useful for the conservation of viable populations of landbird species.
To achieve this goal, four general strategies are emphasized by the Oregon-Washington PIF
chapter: * monitor secondary population parameters (abundance, distribution, and trends) to
provide early warnings of decline; * investigate the proximal causes of population status and trends through monitoring of
demographic processes; * determine species habitat associations and the effects of environmental changes and
human activities; and * provide training opportunities for monitoring and program development/management. Figure 1 The most essential component of any landbird monitoring program designed to support
these strategies is standardization of data collection so that the effort is repeatable
and data sets are comparable. Use of standardized protocols to meet site-specific needs
and also contribute to national or regional programs is emphasized throughout this
document. All participants in monitoring activities in Oregon and Washington are strongly
encouraged to utilize standardized protocols as described in this document or other
sources to facilitate consistency across temporal and spatial scales. Scales of Monitoring
An important step in the initiation of any monitoring project is to define the scales
of monitoring. Spatial scales may be geographic (international, national, regional,
local), ecological (physiographic province, landscape, watershed, vegetative community,
habitat, seral stage), or political/jurisdictional (national wildlife refuge, Forest
Service district, county). Biological scales may include population levels, specific
species, or the entire avian community. Temporal scales often depend upon objectives.
Population trend analysis requires numerous years of monitoring, whereas abundance or
habitat associations may require as little as one or two years. Scales of monitoring directly affect the interpretation and applicability of the data.
Some monitoring programs focus on a "broad brush" approach within a large
geographic, ecological or political spatial scale. These broad-scale extensive monitoring
programs (e.g., BBS) can detect changes in bird populations over large geographic areas,
but this occurs slowly over many years. They are ineffective at detecting changes at the
local level due to the lack of precision at that scale; thus, unable to identify when a
local population has experienced a major alteration. Site- specific or species-specific
intensive monitoring programs are effective at detecting even subtle changes in
populations at that scale, but the extrapolation of these results to a larger scale can be
suspect (Temple and Wiens 1989, Butcher 1992). Most monitoring programs cross between several different spatial scales in the data
they provide. Standardized data collection from a particular site may be used within
multiple ecological scales (e.g., habitat, landscape, physiographic province) and within
some geographic context (e.g., Pacific Northwest). There is also overlap between
biological and spatial scales since population levels for the avian community or species
are often evaluated within ecological and jurisdictional scales (e.g., species abundance
and habitat associations on a National Forest). Most monitoring programs in Oregon and Washington, other than national ones such as
BBS, focus on smaller spatial scales of site, habitat, or jurisdictional boundary.
Large-scale ecologically-based (e.g., watershed, landscape) monitoring programs are also
needed and it is important to consider collaboration among several entities to achieve
this. When possible, a determination of spatial scale should not focus on political
boundaries, but on natural boundaries (e.g., vegetative communities, habitats) selected by
birds. Consideration for monitoring within a physiographic province will be valuable since
initial discussions regarding landbird conservation strategies have focused on that scale. Levels of Monitoring
Landbird monitoring can be implemented at three broadly defined levels (Manley et al.
1993). The levels are defined in terms of the type of information provided. In general,
each succeeding level builds upon the previous one with a gradation in intensity of effort
and precision of data. However, monitoring can be initiated at any level with or without
concurrent or previous data collection at a preceding level. The levels provide a
hierarchy for participation with a common denominator in each level; the use of point
count censusing. Level 1 Monitoring: Monitoring at this level determines species occurrence
(presence/absence) and broad-scale (national/regional) population trends with little or no
habitat association. An example is the BBS and other extensive roadside point count
censusing not stratified by environmental parameters (e.g., habitat or plant community
types) and usually monitored only once each year. This type of monitoring is typically
used for species composition and trend information within political or jurisdictional
boundaries (e.g., Forest Service district, National Park). The advantage of Level 1
Monitoring is the minimum level of effort and expenditure. Disadvantages are the absence
of habitat information and 70 percent of the NTMB species in Oregon and Washington cannot
be monitored by BBS (e.g., habitat specialists, uncommon species, colonial species). Level 2 Monitoring: Monitoring at this level measures population trends and
species abundance relative to habitat characteristics or management practices. This is the
most frequently conducted monitoring in Oregon and Washington. An example is road or
off-road point count censusing stratified by habitat type or condition. This level of
monitoring includes habitat sampling multiple censusing of each point count station. A
disadvantage of Level 2 Monitoring is that it is inadequate to evaluate the cause of
population changes. Level 3 Monitoring: Monitoring at this level measures demographic parameters
(e.g., productivity, survivorship, recruitment of young) and environmental factors to
ascertain the health and viability of species and communities. Two methods used for Level
3 Monitoring are constant-effort mist-netting and nest monitoring. Monitoring at this
level is often conducted in conjunction with Level 2 Monitoring to identify factors
responsible for population changes through an evaluation of the stages of the life cycle
that are affected. Physiographic Provinces
Oregon and Washington have diverse topographic, climatic, and vegetative features which
directly affect the occurrence and distribution of landbirds. Development of conservation
strategies for landbirds has been proposed within the relatively homogeneous subdivisions
referred to as physiographic provinces. Thus, for monitoring information to be most useful
in conservation it must also be delineated within the level of physiographic province. Several delineations of physiographic provinces within the two states have been
promulgated. The one most frequently utilized is Franklin and Dyrness (1973). Others with
minor modifications in province names and/or boundaries include: Loy et al. (1976), Oregon
Natural Heritage Program (1993), and Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (1993). For
the purposes of a regional conservation/monitoring strategy for landbirds, the Franklin
and Dyrness (1973) scheme should be utilized as a basis, recognizing that modifications
may be appropriate when conservation strategies are being developed for landbirds at the
physiographic province level. The following 15 physiographic provinces are recognized by
Franklin and Dyrness (1973) with comments on differences in other schemes: * Olympic Peninsula * Puget Trough * Northern Cascades * Southern Washington Cascades * Okanogan Highlands * Columbia Basin * Blue Mountains - called Ochoco, Blue and Wallowa Mountains in ONHP (1993) * High Lava Plains * Owyhee Uplands * Basin and Range * High Cascades - replaced by East Slope Cascades in ODFW (1993) and ONHP (1993) * Western Cascades - includes West Slope and Crest of Cascades in ONHP (1993) * Willamette Valley - called Western Interior Valleys in ODFW (1993) and ONHP (1993) * Klamath Mountains - called Siskiyou Mountains in ONHP (1993) * Coast Ranges Species and Habitat Prioritization
Recognition and protection/management of declining/vulnerable species and important
habitats to maintain or enhance landbird populations in Oregon and Washington is a key
element in any conservation strategy. A previous report of the Oregon-Washington PIF
chapter prioritized NTMB species and habitats within each state for monitoring,
management, and research (Andelman and Stock 1994). The prioritization process utilized
the national PIF database (Carter and Barker 1993) with modifications to accommodate local
concerns to analyze the status of NTMB species in each state. The result of that process
is two reports (one for each state) entitled Preliminary Assessment of Management,
Research, and Monitoring Priorities for the Conservation of Neotropical Migratory
Landbirds that Breed in Oregon (or Washington) (see Appendix C for availability).
These reports provide part of the framework from which this document is derived and
supports. Specifically, the description of priority habitats for monitoring, the
designation of species requiring specialized monitoring, and recommendations on monitoring
priorities for these species were the foundation for those topics within this document. Each report summarizes and interprets existing data on status and trends of habitats
and breeding NTMB species in Oregon and Washington. Species are ranked according to a
number of factors including population trends, threats to habitat, habitat specialization,
and breeding distribution. The population status of most NTMB species is unknown; thus,
intensified and/or diversified monitoring was recommended. Habitats were prioritized based
on two factors; 1) habitats with significantly more declining NTMB species than
increasing, and 2) the vulnerability of a habitat to loss, degradation, and/or conversion
(Andelman and Stock 1994). The priority habitats designated in each state based on meeting
both criteria include: Oregon Washington riparian zones riparian zones oak woodlands oak woodlands old growth/mature conifer forest (east and west-side) dry grasslands steppe grasslands west side old-growth conifer forest shrub-steppe In addition to these priority breeding habitats, key migratory habitats should be
considered a priority based on their importance during a different stage in the life cycle
of a NTMB. However, the paucity of quantitative information on habitat utilization during
migration precludes an analytical process to identify these habitats. Additionally, most
NTMB tend to be less selective of habitats during migration and may utilize a broad array
of habitats (Hutto 1985) based on availability of forage resources (e.g., warbling vireos
feeding on caterpillars in shrub-steppe during spring migration, pers. obs.). Anecdotal
information indicates that important habitats during migration likely include riparian
(particularly west-side in spring and east-side in spring and fall), mountain
meadow/brushfield and aspen in fall, and coastal shrub in spring and fall (particularly
where associated with promontory points). MONITORING PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
Prior to initiating monitoring activities for landbirds, considerable thought should be
given to the objectives of the program. Ralph et al. (1993) presents the following
examples of important questions to ask and steps to follow before embarking on a
monitoring program: * decide the objectives and goals desired; * determine whether monitoring is the way to accomplish these; * with the goals firmly in mind, write down the questions being asked, clearly and
objectively; * determine which monitoring methods most directly answer the questions posed; * review the types of data that can be obtained from these methods, and outline how
these data will answer the questions; * outline the analytical methods that can be employed: * determine the costs, logistics, availability of personnel, and probable length of
commitment to the project; and * write a study plan and have it reviewed by a person competent in research and
statistics. It is also important to review existing data to determine the appropriateness of the
effort and how to integrate with ongoing or past projects to maximize the value of the
monitoring. The design of a monitoring program should also consider the utility of the information
it produces. Data collection should be designed to produce reliable information that can
be used to detect changes in landbird populations. However, a monitoring program needs to
do more than chart changes, it must identify "trigger points" or threshold
levels at which further action (management or research) should be taken. Trigger points
link monitoring to adaptive management and must take into account numerous factors
including environmental parameters, life history characteristics of the species, and the
precision level of the data. Trigger points can be quantitative such as the National PIF
goal of detecting a 50 percent annual population increase or decrease over 25 years with a
90 percent degree of certainty (Butcher 1992). They can also be qualitative such as the
need to implement nest monitoring if low indices of productivity from constant-effort
mist-netting are combined with high abundance of brown-headed cowbird during point count
censusing. The need for clearly focused objectives is a critical component of the design of a
monitoring project. Objectives typically "drive" decisions made on other aspects
of the monitoring program (e.g., methods, sampling design). Monitoring objectives for
landbirds include the collection of population, demographic, and habitat data. In Oregon
and Washington, landbird monitoring programs usually incorporate one or more of the
following objectives: * species occurrence - denotes the presence/absence of a species within a given area; * species distribution - the spatial extent of a species occurrence; * species richness - the total complement of species within a given area; * population trends - changes in abundance or occurrence over a period of time; * relative abundance - the number of detections per sampling area or effort which
provides an indices of population size; * frequency of occurrence - the percentage of times in which a species is detected per
sampling effort; * habitat associations - areas of high use by a species; * effect of management activities - an interpretation of the changes in relative
abundance, species composition, etc. resulting from management; * species demographics - birth rates, death rates, and immigration which are important
in understanding population dynamics and causative factors in population changes; * species phenology - the timing of activities such as breeding or migration
chronology. NOTE: Standard definitions for these and other terms used in avian conservation biology
are presented in Koford et al. (1994). Caution must be exercised in targeting multiple objectives relative to selecting
monitoring methods and interpreting results. It is important to recognize what objectives
can be achieved by a monitoring method and what method is most effective for achieving a
particular objective. For example, if the objective is to conduct the most complete
inventory of species at a particular site, an area search is more appropriate than point
count censusing. Point counts are a sampling technique and not as intensive as an area
search; thus, not as efficient in recording all the species in an area. However, if you
can be satisfied with 80-90 percent accuracy on species composition, point counts can be
highly efficient in providing data on additional objectives of abundance, trends, and
habitat associations with more independent data points and less cost per data point than
an area search. However, point count censusing does not provide information on causative
factors of population status and can be misleading as an indicator of population health or
sustainability (Gibbs and Faaborg 1990, Robinson 1992). Selection of methods to provide
demographic data (e.g., constant-effort mist-netting, nest monitoring) are necessary for
these objectives. The aforementioned example exemplifies the decision-making process that involves
balancing objectives and methods and the trade-offs that occur. Additionally, budgetary
constraints may require a compromise between statistical power of the methods and sampling
design and costs. Monitoring schemes with multiple replicates and stratified sampling
designs that are "scientifically sound" are important, but are useless if there
is a lack of resources or personnel. The realities of implementation often require that
monitoring be relatively inexpensive and easily conducted by trained employees or
volunteers. MONITORING METHODS
There is extensive literature on methodologies for monitoring terrestrial landbirds
(e.g., Ralph and Scott 1981; Verner 1985, Koskimies and Vaisanen 1991, Manuwal and Carey
1991, Bibby et al. 1992). Unfortunately, no single method is valid for the vast array of
ecologically different landbird species, and the multitude of objectives (e.g., population
trends, demographic variables, relative abundance) for monitoring. The Core Monitoring Methods for landbirds within Oregon and Washington are point count
censusing, constant-effort mist-netting, nest monitoring, and BBS routes. These have a
high priority for implementation because they can monitor a large number of species and
provide data on several population and demographic parameters. Point counts and BBS routes
are utilized for monitoring population parameters such as abundance, trends, and habitat
associations (point counts only). Constant-effort mist-netting and nest monitoring are
utilized for monitoring demographic variables such as birth rates, death rates, and
recruitment into the population. When these methods are implemented together in an
integrated approach, they can fulfill most of the aforementioned objectives necessary for
understanding and affecting our ability to conserve landbird populations. Several other
methods can be employed for either single or multi-species monitoring for specific
purposes to augment the Core Monitoring Methods. These are referred to as Supplemental
Monitoring Methods. Selection of methods for a monitoring program may necessitate compromise since most
projects will not likely have budgets and personnel to develop comprehensive monitoring
programs (e.g., all the Core Monitoring Methods and several Supplementary Monitoring
Methods). The goal of an integrated monitoring program should be to identify a suite of
methods to satisfy project objectives and effectively monitor the species or habitat of
interest. Decisions on which methods to employ must consider a number of factors. The primary
consideration is the objective(s) of the data collection. Table 1 provides an overview of
the ability of several methods to satisfy different objectives. Selection of methods must
also balance the cost and precision level of the data collected. Methods that census
populations tend to be more cost- effective, but provide no insight into the mechanisms of
population change. Methods that monitor demographic processes tend to require more effort,
but also provide better information that can be used in modelling populations (Sauer
1993). Multi-species methods, like those described in Core Monitoring Methods below, are
more likely to be cost-effective than species-specific or specialized monitoring. Method
selection must also balance the skill level of personnel, particularly the use of
volunteers, with the level of precision of data collection required by the method. The method selection process must also consider the general time frame required to
achieve results of some statistical significance for different objectives (Table 2).
Although some objectives can be achieved with one or two years of data collection,
monitoring programs should emphasize the need for long-term data due to inter-annual
variability in bird populations and the statistical requirements to achieve some
objectives (e.g., trends). The use of standardized protocols for each method is essential if the data are to be
used in analyses beyond the specific project, and contribute to the broad-scale monitoring
goal of landbird conservation. In some instances, project-specific factors (e.g.,
objectives, topography, personnel, habitat, species) may require that the methodology be
"customized" or modified to meet project needs. However, standardization is
still important and monitoring design should include if possible, compatibility at some
level with recommended protocols. The design should maintain the integrity of the
standardized protocol as much as possible even if methods are modified to accommodate
project-specific factors. Additionally, the "customized" methodology should
remain consistent over time. Ralph et al. (1993 and 1995b) provides guidelines and recommended field protocols for
the Core Monitoring Methods which have been widely accepted and utilized in a standardized
and Table 1. The effectiveness of several census and demographic monitoring methods.a CHARACTERS Index to abundance Density Survivorship (adult) Survivorship (juvenile) Productivity Recruitment Habitat relations Nest site characters Clutch size Predation/parasitism Individuals identified Breeding status known No No No No No Yes No No No No No Yes No No No No Yes No No No No Yes No No No No No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes Partly No No No Yes Partly Partly No Partly Yes No Partly Yes Yes Yes No Yes Habitat types measured Habitat specificity Rare species measured Canopy species measured Area sampled known Size of area sampled Training necessary Observer error potential Use in non-breeding Cost per data point Good Some All Partly Moderate Much High Yes Low Good Few All Yes Small Much High No High Good Many All Yes Small Moderate Moderate Yes Low Fair Some Some Partly Large Much Moderate Yes High Good Few Few Yes Small Much Moderate No High a MAP NETSf absence of species) Inventory rare species Determine species richness Determine relative abundance Determine species status and seasonality Determine population trend Determine productivity Determine individual survivorship Life history traits Habitat association or preferences Identify habitat features Determine cause of change 2-3 2-3 1-2 NP 6-10 NP NP NP 1-2 4-6 NP 1-3 1-3 1-2 1-3 4-9 NP NP NP 1-2 3-5 NP 1-3 1-3 1-3 1-3 10+ NP NP NP 1-2 3-5 NP 1-3 1-3 1-2 1-3 4-9 NP 3-5h 3-5 1-3 2-4 NP 1-3 NP 3-5 1-3 6-10 1-3 3-5 NP NP 10 2-3 NP NP NP 1-3 NP 1-2 NP 1-2 1-2 1-2 2-3 a c Each point censused a minimum of one time in a season. d Each station censused a minimum of 3 times in a season. e Each plot censused a minimum of 3 times in a season. f Most authors/programs recommend this method in conjunction with a
census of population size. g NP - not possible. h Possible when species are individually color banded. consistent manner across North America. Further specifics of the protocols are included
as Appendices D, E, and F. Examples of protocols for the Supplemental Monitoring Methods
are referenced or appendicized. In the following discussion, only the most pertinent
features of each method are emphasized as they relate to issues of relevance and
efficiency for monitoring landbirds. Core Monitoring Methods
Breeding Bird Survey (BBS):
The BBS is a continental monitoring program
coordinated and administered by the National Biological Service (NBS) and the Canadian
Wildlife Service (CWS). It is the primary source of long-term population trend monitoring.
Methods are described in Robbins et al. (1986). Censusing occurs at 50 3-minute roadside
point counts along a randomly selected route censused one time during June of each year.
Because the BBS censuses roadside habitats it is most effective in monitoring common
species and habitat generalists. Droege (1990) and Sharp (1992) summarize constraints and
limitations in analyses of BBS data including density of routes, consistency of coverage,
roadside habitat biases, observer variability, and species detectability differences. In Oregon and Washington, the first routes were established in 1968 and there are
currently 131 and 93 routes respectively. Since the program is administered on a national
level, the role of the Oregon-Washington PIF chapter is to facilitate coverage of all
routes. Routes are censused primarily by qualified volunteers. A few routes in each state
remain unassigned (mostly in eastern Oregon and Washington) and the state coordinators
listed in Appendix C can be contacted for more information. Point counts are the most cost effective and widely used means of
monitoring landbirds. The use of point counts for monitoring bird populations is
thoroughly presented in Ralph et al. (1995a). A principal advantage of point counts is the
rapid accumulation of data for relatively common species. Point count censusing is most
effective at providing an index of relative abundance, species richness, and habitat
associations. Recommendations for point count protocol are described in Ralph et al. (1993 and 1995a
[Appendix D]). Variability in habitat features and research/management goals between sites
may necessitate flexibility in design and implementation of point counts. However, point
count sampling design should be compatible at some level with recommended protocols if the
data is to be pooled and comparisons of populations made among years and sites. A
framework to integrate analyses across multiple sites can be accomplished if the sampling
design has the capability to include two data sets: 1) detections within a 5-minute count
period, and 2) detections within a 50- meter radius of the point count station (fixed
radius point count). Several large-scale (watershed, forest-wide) projects utilizing habitat-specific road
and off-road point counts have been initiated in the past two years in Oregon and
Washington by land management agencies and other entities (see Monitoring Project
Directory availability in Appendix C). Constant-effort mist-netting and banding provides
information on demographic processes of populations through indices of adult population
size, productivity, and survivorship. It is most effective in providing broad-scale
demographic data from a series of sites across a region. It is not suitable in open
habitats (e.g., grasslands, shrub-steppe of eastern Oregon and Washington) where intense
sunshine and/or high winds preclude its use. Indices of adult population size and
survivorship require a minimum of three years of capture-recapture data (Clobert et al.
1987, DeSante et al. 1993a), and four years of data are required for an estimate for
recruitment into the adult population (Pollock et al. 1990). However, information on
productivity and age and sex ratios can be obtained with one year of data. Constant-effort mist-netting is the principal technique utilized in the Monitoring
Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) program administered by The Institute for Bird
Populations. The MAPS program is a cooperative effort to operate a continent-wide network
of constant-effort mist-netting stations to provide long-term demographic data on target
landbirds species. The 12 target species for the Northwest Region (includes Oregon and
Washington) are dusky flycatcher, western flycatcher complex (cordilleran and
Pacific-slope), Swainson's thrush, American robin, warbling vireo, orange-crowned warbler,
yellow warbler, MacGillivary's warbler, Wilson's warbler, song sparrow, Lincoln's sparrow,
and Oregon "dark-eyed" junco. A review of program goals, objectives, and methods
can be found in DeSante et al. (1993a) and (1993b). The MAPS manual is included as
Appendix E. Contact persons for information on establishing a MAPS station are listed in
Appendix C. Nest searching/monitoring provides a direct and
habitat-specific measure of productivity (unlike the indices of productivity from
constant-effort mist-netting where catch source area is unknown) by determining nest
success. It also provides the only direct measure of the effects of predation and brood
parasitism on productivity. Nest monitoring and associated measurement of habitat
variables can identify specific habitat features relative to productivity (Martin and
Geupel 1993). An additional advantage is that it can provide analytical data in just one
year of monitoring. However, it is labor intensive and a minimum of 20 nests per species
should be monitored to estimate statistical differences in productivity (Hensler and
Nichols 1981). The protocol for nest monitoring as part of the BBIRD (Breeding Biology
Research and Monitoring Database) program is included as Appendix F. Contact persons for
information on establishing a BBIRD site are listed in Appendix C. Supplemental Monitoring Methods
The emphasis on standardization for Core Monitoring Methods also extends to
supplemental monitoring conducted to augment these methods. For many of the methods
discussed below, however, national protocols do not exist. Thus, utilization of data
across temporal and spatial scales is problematic. In lieu of national protocols,
information is presented on the appropriateness of the method and references are cited for
a review of how the method has been used. Droege (1992) also describes the use and
limitations of several of these methods. Two types of modified BBS routes have been utilized
primarily to sample entirely within a particular management unit/jurisdictional boundary.
The advantages of these modified routes are the freedom to select the route location and
to alter several other aspects of the protocol (e.g., the number and location of stops,
starting time, count duration) to meet your particular needs. As with BBS, caution should be used in interpretation of the data due to roadside
biases of habitats that may not be representative of the defined area (Droege 1990). If
roads are used, they should be no larger than secondary or tertiary roads (Ralph et al.
1993, Hutto et al. 1995). Additional caution is warranted in interpretation of the results
due to the potential bias from non- random sampling and from biases of roads within a
habitat compared to the interior of the same habitat with no roads (Hutto et al. 1995).
Comparison of results from these modified routes with regular BBS routes can only be done
at a cursory level (Peterjohn, pers. comm., Jan. 9, 1995). However, BBS routes are often
deficient in particular habitats and modifications of the method may satisfy abundance and
trend objectives for particular species/habitats that are otherwise not attainable by BBS. (also referred to as 900 routes); These routes follow BBS
protocol completely except the selection of route location is non-random. They are most
applicable when established within a large management unit/jurisdictional boundary (e.g.,
National Forest, National Park) to provide data on species trends within that area. The
USFWS currently stores data from non-random routes in the same manner as regular routes,
but the data is not included in BBS trend analysis due to the non-random component
(Peterjohn pers. comm., Jan. 9, 1995) These are reduced effort BBS routes (usually 15 stops, but some
have 20- 25 stops) that may be utilized to obtain trend data where work schedules or the
size of management unit/jurisdictional boundary might not be conducive to a regular BBS
route or non-random BBS route. However, the accumulation of sufficient data for trend
analysis is problematic due to reduced effort. In addition to the difference in number of
stops, mini-routes differ from regular BBS routes in that they often start at official
sunrise (rather than 1/2 hour before official sunrise like regular BBS routes) or shortly
thereafter to avoid problems associated with the "dawn chorus". Mini-routes may
be random (within the designated boundary) with systematic stops (every 1/2 mile) or
non-random with stops selected to be representative of the area. The data can be utilized
as an index of abundance (e.g., mean number of birds per stop) for a coarse comparison
with BBS trends in a region. However, the ability to monitor abundance and trends is
limited due to the small sample sizes generated by one or a few mini-routes. Mini-routes
have also been utilized to measure relative abundance in Breeding Bird Atlas blocks. These have been traditionally used in open habitats where visibility
is extensive and movement through the area is not difficult or obtrusive (i.e., walking
can be done quietly and safely without having to concentrate on footing). Transects are
best suited for large areas of relatively uniform habitat such as shrub-steppe and
grasslands. Like point counts, transects provide indices of relative abundance for common
species, but are less effective at monitoring uncommon or rare species. A bias with
transects that does not occur with point counts is the inability to exactly specify the
effort spent censusing (i.e., the time it takes to complete a transect is variable). A
review of the types of transects (e.g., line, fixed width, variable widths) and their use
is presented in Ralph and Scott (1981), Verner (1985), and Manuwal and Carey (1991). Transects are currently receiving less use as a monitoring technique, even in grassland
and shrub- steppe habitats, due to this bias and the advantages of point counts in terms
of more independent data points per effort (Geupel pers. comm., 2 August 1995). Freemark
and Rodgers (1995) and Savard and Hooper (1995) recommend using point counts rather than
transects in grassland habitat with the modification of a 100 meter radius. These are conducted by driving slowly on roads through
open habitats with good visibility (e.g., grassland, agricultural areas, some
shrub-steppe). Species monitored using this method must be easily visible and utilize
roadside habitats. Automobile transects are most frequently used for raptor surveys, but
small landbird species effectively monitored by this method include loggerhead shrike
(McConnaughey and Dobler 1994) and long-billed curlew (Morgan pers. comm., 6 Feb. 1995).
When conducting automobile transects, it is important to avoid heavily used roads and
avoid times of the day and days of the week when traffic might be greater (e.g., weekday
work traffic). These can be used to census riparian habitat if done in a slow
moving river/stream or along the edge of a lake in a canoe or rowboat where movement is
slow and noise does not interfere with detectability of birds. In addition to censusing,
boat transects can also be used 1) for reconnaissance and monitoring of colony sites of
species such as bank swallow, rough-winged swallow, and purple martin, and 2) as access
routes for censusing (point counts, transects, or area searches) in upland locations
adjacent to the river. The latter is particularly useful in areas with limited or no
access by road, and is regularly used in parts of Alaska (Andres pers. comm. 28 October
1994). These can be used on paved rural roads with relatively flat
terrain and little traffic to census for particular species. Marshall (pers. comm., 15
January 1995) used bicycle transects in the northern Willamette Valley to locate
uncommon/rare species such as vesper sparrow, horned lark, and western meadowlark. Bicycle
transects could also be used like automobile transects for landbirds such as loggerhead
shrike and long- billed curlew in eastern Oregon and Washington. An advantage over
automobile transects is the potential for hearing vocalizations to locate a bird.
Disadvantages include the distance censused is less on bicycle and it requires relatively
flat terrain. This census method is a variation of point counts and transects
in which the count duration is fixed (20 minutes), and the observer moves freely
throughout a defined area. Area searches provide standardized quantitative data that can
be used for abundance and trend analysis, while mimicking the method of birding; thus,
they have great appeal to volunteers (Ralph et al. 1993). Area searches are most effective
in well defined habitat fragments or small areas (approximately 5-20 acres depending upon
terrain, vegetation density, topography, visibility etc.) of a single habitat type. For
temporal and spatial comparisons, it is critical to establish the exact boundaries of the
site (if necessary flag or mark the boundaries). Slater (1994) discusses some factors
affecting the efficiency of the area search method. An area search can facilitate the detection of uncommon/rare species due to additional
censusing time and the freedom of movement. Thus, area searches may be particularly
effective for species- specific inventory/monitoring of uncommon or rare species (e.g.,
Altman 1994); in addition to multi-species monitoring within a defined area where species
composition and abundance information is desired. An area search is also not as
time-of-day sensitive as point counts; area searches can be done later in the morning
because of the additional time allocated to seek out and identify birds, and there is less
reliance on territorial vocalizations. For this reason, area searches are preferred over
point counts in the non-breeding season when vocalizations are reduced. A draft protocol for the area search method is included as Appendix G. The standard
method recommends three census sites within a habitat. A modification for unique habitats,
habitat fragments, or for rare/uncommon species utilizing a particular habitat would be to
conduct one area search census in each instance where these habitats occur, regardless of
the number of sites. Breeding Bird Atlas (BBA):
This method provides information on the breeding
distribution of all species of birds within a defined area (usually a state) at a
particular point in time (usually over five years). If the effort is repeated during a
different time frame (re-atlasing), it can also be used to detect changes in breeding
distributions. It is conducted by volunteers who determine the breeding status (possible,
probable, or confirmed) of species within a specified area, usually a lati-long block (one
degree of latitude by one degree of longitude). An atlas is a type of area search, but it
does not require the standardization of effort or replication that are important in area
searches and other types of monitoring. An atlas can be most useful in identifying where
uncommon or rare species are breeding (to the finest scale that the atlas employs) to
target these areas for more rigorous monitoring. Atlases may also be useful to monitor
trends for rare species on a local scale when intensive, saturation coverage can be
employed over a series of years (Robbins et al. 1989b). Most atlases provide no
information on bird abundance or habitat associations. The procedures and applications of
BBA's are described in Robbins (1990). A five-year BBA in Washington was recently
completed and a similar effort was initiated in Oregon in 1995. Information on contact
persons for these programs is presented in Appendix C. Christmas Bird Count (CBC):
Although not a breeding season method, CBC's be used
to determine population trends for some species. This may be most applicable for NTMB
species that are not adequately monitored by BBS (e.g., western bluebird, purple finch,
fox sparrow) and have wintering populations in Oregon and Washington. Butcher (1990)
provides a description of the design, implementation, and analyses of CBC's. Spot-Mapping:
This method is most widely utilized for determining species
composition and estimating densities of territorial birds in specific habitats. It is
based on plotting the location of singing males within a gridded plot to determine
breeding pairs per unit area. Spot-mapping methodology includes quantitative information
on habitat structure through annual detailed vegetation descriptions. Because it is labor
intensive, requiring at least eight visits to a site during the breeding season, it is
probably best utilized in a research project or in a high priority habitat. A description
of the method and protocols is presented in Manuwal and Carey (1991) and limitations of
the method are summarized by Oelke (1981). When used in conjunction with color banding,
spot-mapping can also be used to determine survival of adults through re-sightings of
individuals. Breeding Bird Census:
This is a national program that utilizes the spot-mapping
technique. It is administered by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology and conducted by qualified
volunteers. Only one BBC was conducted in Oregon and Washington in 1993 (Lowe 1994).
Johnston (1990) discusses limitations of the BBC and analyses of the data. Color Banding:
This method can be utilized to determine survival of individual
breeding adults, distinguish breeding birds from non-breeders, and determine the number of
breeding attempts per breeder (Nur 1993). When combined with nest monitoring, it provides
the most complete and unbiased measures of demographic parameters (Nur et al. 1995).
Additionally, it provides opportunities for behavioral observations of foraging, nesting,
territoriality, etc. for specific individuals. An advantage over constant-effort
mist-netting is the ability to estimate survivorship without having to recapture birds. A
disadvantage is that it is more labor-intensive than constant- effort mist-netting, and
best suited for research projects or for high priority areas or species. Colony Counts:
These can take on different forms depending on what is counted
(e.g., individuals, burrows, nests) and how it is counted (e.g., area search, point count,
transect). This usually depends upon the species and the size, type, and configuration of
the colony, and whether the count is an estimation from sampling or a total count. For
estimation of breeding populations, active nests/burrows should be counted because a count
of the number of individuals may include non-breeding birds. However, for species with
nests not easily visible, counts of individuals are necessary to estimate the population.
In small colonies, a total count can be made of nests or individuals. In large colonies,
censusing will likely be a sampling and extrapolation to estimate the population. Hamilton
et al. (1994) provides an example of methodologies used to estimate populations in large
colonies of tricolored blackbirds in California. This included transects during the
breeding season to census individuals and after the breeding season for counts of nests.
Another means of estimating the population of large colonies is to visually divide the
flock into manageable groups (e.g. 10, 50, or 100 birds depending on the number of birds
in the group and the size of the birds) and count the number of groups. For all colony
counts, the position of the observer relative to visibility of the colony is important. Colony counts may be more accurate for abundance and trend analyses than BBS for some
species because of the high variation in BBS data for these species (Droege 1992). This is
especially true for colonially nesting swallows and swifts (e.g., cliff swallow, bank
swallow, rough-winged swallow, black swift, purple martin). For these species, colony
counts can also be used as complementary or as a cross-check with BBS data. As part of a
monitoring program for a colonial nesting landbird, the design should incorporate protocol
for searching for new colonies and revisiting abandoned sites. This is particularly
appropriate for species where colony use may change regularly such as bank swallow and
rough-winged swallow. Colony counts may be integrated with nest box monitoring for some
species (purple martin). Methods and protocols utilized for colony counts may also be applicable for colonially
roosting species, with adjustments made for time-of-day censusing. Swifts and swallows
could be monitored by these types of counts during the breeding season or during staging
prior to migration. The disadvantage of roost and staging area counts is the reliability
of a particular site for roosting or staging. In addition, observer variability can be
very high, particularly in large flocks. Broadcast Recorded Calls (Playback Surveys):
This method is used to enhance
detectability of some species based on individuals responding to taped (or imitated)
vocalizations of conspecifics. It is most appropriate for monitoring or research on
species that are difficult to detect during censusing and readily respond to their
vocalizations. It has been particularly effective for locating and monitoring (with
standardization of technique) population abundance of woodpeckers (Goggans et al. 1987).
The effectiveness depends upon numerous factors including time of day/year, weather, order
and type of calls presented, and home range size of the species. Additionally, the window
of responsiveness may be small and must be ascertained for each species. Use of this
method for monitoring is often conducted along with a censusing method (point count or
transect) where recorded calls are broadcast at specific locations and for specific
lengths of time during the censusing. This type of point count/broadcast recorded calls
monitoring has been used for several species/programs including southwestern willow
flycatcher (Tibbits et al. 1994), Project Tanager (Cornell Lab of Ornithology), and
pileated woodpecker (Bull et. al. 1990). Broadcasting recorded calls also is frequently
used in an unstandardized manner to locate rare or secretive species such as the
yellow-billed cuckoo (Littlefield 1988) or as a means of mapping territories (Falls 1981).
Where the use of recorded calls for monitoring a species has not been validated, some
level of research on specific methodologies and standardization most appropriate for that
species should be conducted as a part of monitoring. Feeder Counts:
Project Feederwatch sponsored by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology
and Long Point Bird Observatory is used to document trends and distribution of wintering
birds. However, it is heavily weighted towards urban areas and many of the species are
also sampled well by BBS. The potential of breeding season feeder counts for monitoring
landbirds can be best utilized for monitoring hummingbirds. A similar approach is to
census hummingbirds at high use natural foraging areas around specific flowering plants.
However, the unreliability of these sites to consistently provide foraging limits the
applicability of this method. Nest-Box Monitoring:
This method can be used for monitoring nesting productivity
of secondary cavity-nesting species (e.g., western and mountain bluebird, violet-green and
tree swallow, house wren, ash-throated flycatcher, purple martin). Standards include the
need for a defined schedule of checking nest boxes and reporting information. Standards
for nest monitoring established in the BBIRD Program (Appendix F) are appropriate, as well
as standards established by Koskimies and Vaisanen (1991) in Finland. Where local ongoing
nest box programs exist, information should be sought from these programs prior to
initiating new ones. Hayward et al. (1992) discusses the implications of nest box
monitoring for use in determing population trends and response to habitat change including
costs and logistical constraints of sample size. INTEGRATED MONITORING
Integrated monitoring emphasizes the use of multiple sources of information to achieve
monitoring goals that would otherwise be unattainable from single sources. It is the means
by which multiple monitoring activities provide converging and complementary lines of
information to assess the status and health of landbird populations and facilitate PIF
goals for landbird conservation. An example of how single-site, multiple method,
integrated monitoring can provide a complete assessment of the reproductive period is
presented in Figure 2. The need for an integrated approach to monitoring bird populations (including NTMB) is
widely recognized (e.g., Temple and Wiens 1989, Baillie 1990, Nur and Geupel 1993, Ralph
et al. 1993, DeSante and George 1994). This is based on inherent limitations in the type
of information provided by a particular method, which necessitates the collection and
integration of data from multiple methods to ascertain population health and viability. An
example of the limitations of methodologies is the interpretation of censusing data.
Stable population levels based on census data do not necessarily indicate the viability of
the population to be self-sustaining (Gibbs and Faaborg 1990, Hobbs and Hanley 1990,
Robinson 1992). Some populations are "sinks" (Howe et al. 1991, Pulliam 1988)
where little or no reproduction is occurring (less than mortality), but annual immigration
can maintain stable population levels causing population problems to go undetected for
years (Martin and Conway 1994). Information on the viability and health of the population
cannot be ascertained from censusing, but can be inferred with integration of data on
demographic processes. Ideally, a monitoring program should incorporate standardized
sampling of population and demographic parameters (Figure 3) applicable across both broad
geographic regions and local microhabitats (Geupel and Nur 1993). Additionally,
species-specific monitoring or research should be integrated into the program if standard
methodologies are inadequate to monitor species of special concern or interest. The advantages of an integrated approach to monitoring landbirds include: 1) it will
increase the number and type of species monitored, 2) it will provide different types of
information on the status and health of populations, 3) it facilitates interpretation of
data (e.g., trends, abundance, productivity) across multiple scales to determine where the
data are biologically significant, 4) if results of multiple methods are in agreement, it
increases the confidence of the results, and 5) if results of multiple methods are in
disagreement, it provides a baseline for a more intensive examination of the factors
contributing to the differences, and also opportunities for improving the precision of the
data by a closer examination of the techniques and interpretation of results (Canadian
Wildlife Service 1994). When using this approach, caution must be exercised in the
integration of information. Information from multiple sources must be evaluated based on
the precision and biases of each method for providing a particular type of information.
Additionally, when analyzing information across multiple sites, the compatibility of the
data must be ascertained (e.g., consistency in protocols, similarities in environmental
conditions). An example of integrated monitoring for an administrative unit such as a Forest Service
District or a National Park is presented in Ralph et al. (1993). They recommend (in order
of priority): * coverage of any BBS route in or near the unit; * roaded point counts systematically placed and stratified by major habitats; * at least one site to measure demographic parameters (constant-effort mist-netting or
nest monitoring or both) with 9-16 point count census points within the plot; and * off-road point counts in habitats not covered by the roaded point counts. For a more broad-based approach to integrated monitoring, DeSante and George (1994)
recommend the following general strategies for monitoring western landbird populations
within an "integrated avian population monitoring system": * increased coverage of BBS routes; * implementation of a systematic program of habitat-specific, off-road surveys; * implementation of a program of intensive surveys of rare species not adequately
surveyed by standard methods; * increased and improved analyses of existing population trend data; * increased efforts to monitor primary demographic parameters through programs such as
MAPS and BBIRD; and * a concerted effort using DNA fingerprinting and increased analysis of banding
recoveries to determine wintering localities for local populations of breeding migratory
birds. Integrated monitoring is particularly valuable if site-specific objectives are to
manage landbird populations, particularly if species of special concern have been
identified (Nur and Geupel 1993). Multi-level, integrated monitoring programs are more
labor-intensive and expensive than a single- level approach, but their potential to
identify problems before a species is listed as threatened or endangered represents an
economical investment (Nur and Geupel 1993). Integrated monitoring, when conducted with the appropriate methods for addressing
objectives, will provide a much finer resolution of information than any single method
about population dynamics, indications of problems when they exist, and potential
management strategies to counter the problems. Integrated monitoring can also be valuable
to cross-check results from different methods. This is possible when more than one method
provides data on the same population parameter and levels of precision for each method can
be evaluated. Most of this work has been done with correlations of BBS or CBC data with
other techniques (e.g., Robbins and Bystrak 1974, Butcher 1986, Dunn 1986, Holmes and
Sherry 1988, Sauer et al. 1994). Integration of monitoring data on NTMB species with resident species may be especially
important to understand causes of population changes in NTMB. The interpretation of data
on residents reflects environmental changes that can be applied to a specific area, unlike
NTMB which are affected by environmental changes in multiple areas. Integration and
interpretation of monitoring data on NTMB species and resident species may indicate
whether problems are associated with the breeding or non-breeding seasons. In Oregon and Washington, integrated monitoring between multiple entities (agencies and
non- governmental organizations) with multiple methods is ongoing at several sites and is
strongly encouraged whenever feasible. These projects are mutually beneficial to the
participants and most efficient in building a database of information for use in
development of conservation strategies. An example is the Boardman Naval Weapon Systems
Training Facility in eastern Oregon, where the Department of Defense, U.S. Navy; Port of
Morrow; Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; and Point Reyes Bird Observatory are
conducting an integrated monitoring project (Morgan pers. comm., 6 Feb. 1995). The project
includes nest monitoring and point count censusing for a suite of shrub-steppe passerine
species, vegetation sampling, automobile transects for several species including
loggerhead shrike and long-billed curlew, and intensive nest searches for target species
such as loggerhead shrike and burrowing owl. Because bird populations are linked to habitat and habitat changes, integration of
landbird monitoring with habitat monitoring is essential to indicate potential causes of
population changes. However, caution is necessary when making the leap of cause and effect
from habitat changes due to the multitude of factors that can affect bird populations
(Temple and Wiens 1989, Butcher 1992). Additionally, the use of habitat quality as an
surrogate for monitoring bird populations is suspect. Habitat quality does not necessarily
correlate with bird population levels due to other factors affecting populations such as
predation/parasitism; weather; prey populations; and survival in migration and on the
wintering grounds (Van Horne 1983, Butcher 1992). The development of a standard approach to integrate quantitative analysis of population
parameters from different monitoring methods in North America is being evaluated at this
time across several levels and scales (DeSante pers. comm., 27 January 1995). Additional
work on validation of methods and statistical analyses will occur over the next few years
to lay the foundation for development of population models to conserve avian populations.
The British Trust for Ornithology has begun this process through development of population
models for species as part of its Integrated Population Monitoring Programme (Baillie
1990). The program integrates data from several monitoring methods similar to methods
employed in North America, and models are developed to describe interrelationships between
population variables (e.g., abundance) and environmental covariables (e.g., habitat). It
is not the intent of this document to describe the process used in development of the
models, but to emphasize that the appropriate data collection programs within North
America are operational and a standardized analytical process to integrate information
will likely be available in the near future. In the interim, qualitative interpretation of
data across methodologies and sites can often elucidate factors affecting the health of
landbird populations, and infer cause and effect relationships and the need for management
action. MONITORING TIMEFRAMES
The temporal scale for landbird monitoring is variable, but in general a
"long-term" approach should be considered. Inter-annual variation in bird
populations can be high (Noon et al. 1985) due to a number of factors (e.g., weather, prey
populations), thus rendering a year or two of data as potentially unrepresentative.
Although some objectives can be achieved with one or two years of data, several monitoring
methods are only effective in meeting objectives with a longer time frame. For example,
trend analysis should be done with at least 5 and preferably 10 years of data, and
survivorship based on constant-effort mist-netting requires a minimum of three years of
data (Clobert et al. 1987). Breeding Season
Monitoring landbirds during the breeding season is the highest priority because
populations are relatively stable and data on primary population parameters (e.g., birth
rate, recruitment into the population) can be collected. Butcher (1992) recommended that
80 percent of the overall monitoring effort for NTMB should be conducted during the
breeding season. In Oregon and Washington, nearly all the monitoring effort has been
directed towards the breeding season. The timing of breeding season monitoring depends upon the method and the height of
detectability (i.e., when most vocal and/or most visible) and stability (i.e., migrants
have moved through and most, if not all of breeding season population has stabilized) for
most NTMB species. Site-specific factors (e.g., latitude, elevation, seasonal progression)
will determine when most of the migrants have passed through and the avian community is
relatively stable. Ralph et al. (1993) recommends that breeding season monitoring occur during sampling
intervals of 10 days. The 10-day periods they suggest are May 1-10, May 11-20, May 21-30,
May 31-June 9, June 10-19, June 20-29, June 30-July 9, July 10-19, July 20-29, July
30-August 8, August 9- 18, and August 19-28. In Oregon and Washington, breeding season
censusing of NTMB should generally begin with the 10-day period of May 21, although at
high elevations and northern latitudes May 31 may be more appropriate. Additionally, it
may be necessary to start with the May 11 period in some areas in southern or eastern
Oregon. Censusing at point count stations, along transects, or within area search plots should
occur once per 10-day period during three or four consecutive 10-day periods after the
starting date (Figure 4). Constant-effort mist-netting according to MAPS protocol is
generally conducted once per 10- day period through the last period in August. Nest
monitoring may occur from mid-April into August depending on the location and species
monitored (early May through July is appropriate for most landbirds in Oregon and
Washington), but is not conducted according to the 10-day intervals. Species-specific
censusing may require an earlier starting time than May 1 for some species (e.g.,
loggerhead shrike), but utilization of the one visit per 10-day period recommendation will
promote consistency and facilitate spatial comparisons. Knowledge of a species breeding season phenology is essential in the establishment of
census time frames and interpretation of results. Detectability via vocalizations tends to
be highest during territory establishment and less during incubation and the nestling
period (Manuwal and Carey 1991). For many species, the periods of highest detectability
may not coincide; thus, comparisons of relative abundance must recognize potential
differences in detectability. Residents and short- distance NTMB tend to initiate nesting
early (April and May); thus, the height of detectability for these species (e.g., Hutton's vireo, American robin, purple finch) may be considerably
earlier than most NTMB. Consequently, these species may be relatively quiet during the
peak of NTMB breeding in June. Censusing in mid-May may underestimate indices of abundance
for late arriving NTMB (e.g., willow flycatcher, western wood-pewee, red-eyed vireo,
common nighthawk). Whereas, censusing in late-May may inflate indices of abundance for
these same species due to the large number of migrants passing through. Another
consideration in the interpretation of data is that early nesters may have young or
post-breeding dispersers in the population in June which would inflate indices of
abundance for these species. Daily timing of censusing can also affect indices of abundance for certain species.
Thrushes, particularly American robin and varied thrush, tend to be most vocal just before
or right at dawn (the "dawn chorus") and have reduced vocalizations throughout
the rest of the morning. Consequently, censusing in late-morning is biased by reduced
vocalizations, and may not be representative of actual population size. To avoid the bias
of the dawn chorus, censusing should start shortly after dawn (except for BBS routes which
are standardized to start 1/2 hour before sunrise). To minimize time-of-morning bias,
census times at each point count station, transect, or area search plot should be rotated
throughout the morning if multiple visits are conducted. Migration
Monitoring during migration is necessary to determine the role this stage of the life
cycle plays in survival and population stability of NTMB species. The identification of
migration routes, important stopover sites, and an understanding of migration phenology
and ecology will enhance our ability to detect and resolve problems for NTMB occurring
during migration. Butcher (1992) recommended that approximately 20 percent of the overall
monitoring effort should be directed towards migration. In the western United States, our lack of baseline data during the breeding season is
exceeded by our limited knowledge of NTMB migration. Some of the problematic factors
contributing to this include inadequacies of standard monitoring methods (e.g., point
counts) due to reduced vocalization during migration, daily variability in populations
which results in the need for intensive effort, the inability to determine source
populations of migrants, and the lack of established protocols. In response to these and other issues regarding migration monitoring, a North American
Migration Monitoring Council (MMC) was formed in 1993. A recent product from the Intensive
Sites Technical Committee is a draft document describing options and recommendations for
monitoring populations of small landbirds during migration (Hussell and Ralph 1995,
Appendix H). The principal impetus for the formation of the MMC and the development of
standardized protocols for migration monitoring is the lack of data on populations of many
species of migratory birds breeding across northern Canada and Alaska. The remoteness and
inaccessibility (lack of roads) of much of this area precludes data collection during the
breeding season by standardized census methods such as BBS routes or off-road point
counts. To monitor these populations, the MMC recommends a continental network of intensively
monitored migration stations. These stations should be located in southern Canada and the
northern United States and spatially distributed to effectively intercept all populations
of northern breeding migrants. Intensive monitoring (daily or near daily) throughout
migration has been shown to be comparable with BBS data for tracking population changes
(Hussell and Ralph 1995). The daily variability in bird populations during migration
requires such intensive monitoring. Where personnel, funding, or other constraints limit
time for migration monitoring, less intensive monitoring (e.g., 1 or 2 days a week) may be
able to track population changes if the data is pooled with several other sites in a
region. Regardless of the intensity of coverage, methodologies at less intensively
monitored sites should be similar to that at intensively monitored sites. The approach recommended by the MMC for migration monitoring of small landbirds is
deriving a "daily estimated total" (referred to as ET) from multiple monitoring
methods. This integrated approach has been successfully utilized for several years by bird
observatories in Canada (e.g., Long Point Bird Observatory) and Great Britain. The ET
should be derived from some combination of the following methods: * standardized observation of visible migration (diurnally migrating birds); * standardized censusing in a specific area or along a route; * standardized mist-netting and/or trapping; * incidental observations as a component of an estimated total; and * unstandardized mist-netting and/or trapping as a component of an estimated total. Although the use of multiple methods is recommended, project-specific circumstances may
dictate monitoring exclusively by censusing or exclusively by mist-netting/trapping.
However, the more methods utilized the more accurate the data set; and the more
standardized the methods used, the more useful the data is likely to be. The use of
multiple methods in as consistent a manner as possible attempts to incorporate the
advantages of several methods and minimize the disadvantages of any one method. This is
another example of how integrated monitoring is utilized to achieve results with greater
accuracy and applicability. A migration station should be capable of monitoring several of the species listed on
page 9 of Appendix H. Hussell and Ralph (1995) describe several other factors to consider
in site selection including; degree of use by migrants, accessibility, stability of the
site, isolation from human activities, utilization of volunteers, and long-term
commitment. Unlike breeding season monitoring which provides information on populations of
landbirds tied to local management goals, migration monitoring in Oregon and Washington
would be primarily directed towards contributing to the continental monitoring program
proposed by the MMC. Our geographic position directly south of much of western Canada, and
the abundance of coastal, mountainous, and riparian areas utilized by migrating landbirds
provides excellent opportunities for establishment of migration monitoring stations. Most
NTMB encountered during migration would be from source populations north of the Canadian
border. Migration monitoring in Oregon and Washington may also provide information on key
habitats and sites for local conservation actions. Specific locations or habitats for migration monitoring have not been designated;
however, anecdotal information indicates several habitats that are known to be high use
areas during migration. During fall migration, concentrations of NTMB often occur along
the coast or in the mountains. In the mountains, preferred stopover sites where migrants
refuel include high elevation wet meadows, brushfields, and aspen habitats. Many
post-breeding season mixed species flocks of passerines will "meadow hop" prior
to and during migration. Many of these potential sites occur along the Cascade Crest in
both states and also in the mountains of eastern Oregon and Washington where aspen groves
are more abundant. Along the coast, shrubby fields, willow groves in riparian areas, and
revegetating clearcuts often provide habitat for migrating landbirds. During spring migration, lowland deciduous riparian areas likely provide the best sites
for monitoring small landbird migration. This is particularly true for riparian habitats
in the high desert country of eastern Oregon and Washington which often serve as
"magnets" for migrating birds by providing foraging resources unavailable in
adjacent shrub-steppe. To a lesser extent, riparian watercourses in the valleys of western
Oregon (e.g., Rogue, Umpqua, Willamette) and Washington (e.g., Columbia, Lewis, Skagit)
provide the same resources during spring migration. The timing of migration is highly variable according to species, latitude, elevation,
weather patterns, etc. Spring migration tends to be of shorter duration than fall
migration due to a greater sense of "urgency" in adult birds as the breeding
season approaches. Conversely, fall migration/post-breeding dispersal tends to be more
languid and is spread out over a longer period of time. Generally, NTMB fall migration
monitoring should be conducted throughout August and September (Figure 4). Spring
migration monitoring is most effective during the last week of April through the first
three weeks of May (later in the north). Some species migrate extensively outside of these
periods (e.g., rufous hummingbird, tree and violet-green swallows, willow flycatcher in
spring; cliff swallow in fall) which would require extending the monitoring time frame for
these species. However, the time frames presented in Figure 4 represent that period of
time when most NTMB are in migration in Oregon and Washington. Information on the timing
of migration for NTMB in Oregon and Washington can be found in Jewett et al. (1953),
Gabrielson and Jewett (1970), Sharp (1992), and Gilligan et al. (1994). SPECIES-SPECIFIC MONITORING
Ideally, a monitoring program should be designed to monitor all landbird species with
equal effort. However, the reality is that even monitoring programs utilizing all the Core
Monitoring Methods will still be ineffective for monitoring some species. Multi-species
censusing methods (e.g., point counts) using standard protocols may adequately sample up
to 30 of the most common species in an area (Ralph et al. 1993). Additional information on
the demographics of about 10-15 species may be achieved with demographic monitoring. Thus,
numerous species will require monitoring supplemental to Core Monitoring Methods. The
species not likely monitored are rare/uncommon species and habitat specialists which are
usually the species with the greatest need for protection. A comprehensive monitoring
program needs to incorporate species-specific monitoring for these species.
Species-specific monitoring directed at rare/uncommon species or habitat specialists is
labor intensive, but may be important for evaluating overall environmental health because
rare species are often most susceptible to environmental changes. Monitoring protocol for
species- specific monitoring should emphasis standardization just as with multi-species
monitoring. In Oregon and Washington, approximately 70 percent of NTMB species are not adequately
monitored by BBS and require specialized monitoring (Andelman and Stock 1994). Species in
this category are often habitat specialists, rare or locally distributed, occur in
habitats not adequately sampled by roadside BBS censusing, are wide ranging with low
population densities, or unique in their ecology (e.g., colonial, nocturnal, crepuscular)
or behavior (emit infrequent vocalizations, secretive). In addition, some species may be
adequately monitored by BBS (in terms of sample size), but BBS may not be the most
effective means of monitoring abundance and trends (e.g., colonial nesting swallows and
swifts). Standardized protocols have not been developed for most of the species requiring
specialized monitoring, although there are frequently used methodologies for some of the
species (e.g., automobile transects for loggerhead shrike, broadcasting recorded calls for
woodpeckers, colony counts for bank swallows). For each NTMB species listed in Andelman and Stock (1994) as requiring specialized
monitoring, methods are suggested in Table 3 for monitoring abundance and trends during
the breeding season (and migration if appropriate). Appendix J provides additional
information on each species and the methods suggested including references relative to
monitoring the species. The methods are based on some type of censusing in suitable
habitat; thus, knowledge of the habitat preferences of the species is required for
implementation. Information on species habitat preferences can be found in a number of
sources including Jewett et al. (1953), Gabrielson and Jewett (1970), Thomas (1979), Brown
(1985), Wahl and Paulson (1987), Washington Department of Wildlife (1991), Sharp (1992),
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (1993), and Gilligan et al. (1994). The methods suggested are not based on the preference of Core Monitoring Methods over
Supplemental Monitoring Methods; but are the most likely effective Level 1 or 2 monitoring
to provide baseline information on abundance and trends. All of the species would also
benefit from monitoring of demographic parameters, particularly a determination of
productivity from nest monitoring. For some species with small populations and/or limited
distribution (e.g., tri-colored blackbird, least flycatcher, northern waterthrush), that
type of monitoring may be more applicable than censusing for abundance and trends. For most non-colonial NTMB species, some type of habitat-specific censusing (e.g.,
point count, area search, transect) is suggested. Since most of the species are relatively
uncommon, the randomness of BBS routes is ineffective and time-consuming in encountering
individuals. Data from habitat-specific, non-random censusing cannot be directly compared
with BBS data. However, these habitat-specific methods are the most efficient means of
gathering quantitative data that can be used for abundance and trend analyses within the
specified locations/habitats. In general, modified BBS routes (if roads are present), off-road point counts, or
walking transects are suggested for species occurring in the open, high desert country of
eastern Oregon and Washington (e.g., sage sparrow, sage thrasher). In the mountains and
valleys of western Oregon and Washington, area searches or point counts are usually
suggested for species with specific habitat preferences (e.g., Lincoln's sparrow, American
pipit), and road or off-road point counts for species that are more habitat generalists
(e.g., purple finch, fox sparrow). For colonial, semi-colonial, and rare/localized NTMB species, some type of
site-specific censusing (e.g., colony count, nest-box survey, feeder count) is suggested.
For these species, existing information on the location of active sites is necessary and
some level of reconnaissance to locate additional sites should be incorporated into the
methodology. Data from site-specific methods can be used for trend and abundance analyses
at the particular site, and pooled across Oregon and Washington if standardized
methodologies are employed. The species listed in Table 3 were further delineated by designating species of highest
priority for monitoring (indicated by an *). This is based on a modification of criteria
recommended in Andelman and Stock (1994) including habitat specialists in one of the
priority habitats, species Table 3. Suggested methods for monitoring species not adequately monitored by BBS.a,b ash-throated flycatcher purple finch hermit warbler* Cordilleran flycatcher* green-tailed towhee* red crossbill black-throated sparrow* fox sparrow sage sparrow* ruby-crowned kinglet Brewer's sparrow sage thrasher* blue-gray gnatcatcher mountain bluebird grasshopper sparrow* veery gray catbird red-eyed vireo American redstart marsh wren Lincoln's sparrow American pipit Western bluebird* mountain bluebird Williamson's sapsucker* common poorwill COUNTS SEARCHES COUNTS long-billed curlew* Lewis' woodpecker* loggerhead shrike* sage thrasher* sage sparrow* black-throated sparrow* grasshopper sparrow* Brewers' sparrow Vaux's swift* bobolink* least flycatcher American pipit northern waterthrush bobolink* Lincoln's sparrow marsh wren veery gray catbird red-eyed vireo Lewis' woodpecker* purple martin* white-throated swift bank swallow* rough-winged swallow bobolink* yellow-headed blackbird tri-colored blackbird* Vaux's swift* a c Walking transects are currently receiving less use as a monitoring
technique (see text). * Species of highest priority for monitoring. with limited distributions (unless peripheral to Oregon and Washington), and species
listed as species of concern. Integrating Species-Specific Monitoring
Species-specific monitoring for many of the species requiring specialized monitoring
may be impractical and financially infeasible. Some of the species occur in similar or
adjacent habitats that lend themselves to methodological or logistical efficiencies of
being monitored together. When possible, a monitoring program should try to incorporate
methods and/or logistics to monitor several of these species and maximize the productivity
of monitoring effort (e.g., Altman 1994). This can be done where several species occur in
a particular habitat (e.g., suite of species in shrub-steppe, oak/chaparral, or riparian)
or where differences in time-of-day required for monitoring allow for multiple monitoring
efforts in an area. An example of this includes four species (veery, gray catbird,
red-eyed vireo, and American redstart) associated with riparian habitat in the valleys,
foothills, and mountains of eastern Oregon and Washington forests. These species can be
monitored together by conducting roaded point counts if there is a road adjacent to
suitable riparian habitat or by conducting off-road point counts within or alongside
riparian corridors. Another example is non-random BBS routes or walking transects in
suitable sagebrush habitat for sage thrasher, sage sparrow, and Brewer's sparrow. In some
areas, gray flycatcher and loggerhead shrike could also be monitored. An example of integrating species-specific monitoring with other monitoring activities
utilizing time-of-day efficiencies includes the following: dawn censusing for common
nighthawk in forest openings or grassland habitat, followed by multi-species censusing at
point count stations in nearby forest stands, and nest searching/monitoring for the
remainder of the day at the same site. When conducting species-specific monitoring, the censusing can also be integrated with
multi- species monitoring. The skill level of personnel conducting the monitoring will
determine if this is feasible. Monitoring should be entirely for the species of interest
if less skilled personnel are used and you want to ensure concentrating time and effort on
those species. If you have skilled personnel, multi-species monitoring can be conducted in
conjunction with species-specific monitoring with no reduction in the quality of data on
the species of interest. It is essential that field personnel and program managers clearly
recognize the level of precision of the data collected (i.e., multi-species or primarily
species of interest with incidental information on other species) to ensure levels of
compatabilty with other data. OTHER MONITORING PROGRAM CONSIDERATIONS
Sampling Design
A detailed discussion of the variables and statistical considerations in designing
monitoring programs is well beyond the scope of this document. Much of this will be
addressed in subsequent documents on habitat-based monitoring strategies for specific
habitats. For this document, we introduce some of the variables and concepts to consider
when designing a monitoring program. Sources for an in-depth discussion of sampling design
include James and McCullough (1985), Neter et al. (1990), and Skalski and Robson (1992).
Some important considerations in sampling design include: * design should be driven by the questions being asked (i.e., objectives) and the
desired type (e.g., descriptive or statistical inference) of information; * the need for a biostatistician or someone skilled in statistical analyses to
incorporate statistical concerns within the constraints of funding, time, personnel, etc.; * pilot studies can be used to determine adequate sample sizes, selection of sample
points (random, stratified random, regular), and the degree of replication necessary; * attempt to include representative habitat conditions when selecting sites; if only
"good" sites are selected, the data will only be measuring declines over time as
the habitat changes; * projects that seek to examine cause and effect of management activities can be
designed by comparing data from disturbed (manipulated) and undisturbed (control) sites or
by collecting data in baseline studies prior to (pre-treatment) and after (post-treatment)
implementation of the management action. Data Management
As with sampling design, the detail that could be presented for this topic is well
beyond the purpose and scope of this document. The following discussion briefly addresses
several issues regarding data management. Additional information on this topic will be a
part of subsequent documents on habitat-specific monitoring strategies. The following are examples of basic statistical analyses
that are frequently conducted on data collected in landbird monitoring programs. It is by
no means a complete or most appropriate list, and mathematical formulas for these analyses
are not included. This information is available in biostatistical books and a recent
statistical handbook for landbird monitoring data (Nur et al. 1995). Useful statistical examinations of censusing data include: * similarities of species composition between habitats, plant communities, etc.; * species and community indices of abundance by habitat, plant community etc.; * species richness by habitat, plant community, etc.; * species frequency of occurrence by habitat, plant community, etc.; NOTE: This can be
used to detect a population change, but not the magnitude of the change like relative
abundance does. It is also unsuitable for use in methods differing in time spent sampling
each site (i.e., transects) or differing in plot size (i.e., spot-mapping) (Verner 1985).
It is not advisable as a surrogate for relative abundance (can be used as a supplement)
unless its use has substantial advantages such as attracting more observers and thereby
obtaining a larger data set (Bart and Klosiewski 1989). * comparisons of species and community abundance among different migratory strategies
(long-distance migrant, short-distance migrant, resident); * regression analyses of species and community population trends (requires at least 5
and preferably 10 or more years of data) (Geissler and Sauer 1990). NOTE: Most analyses of point count censusing data are conducted on detections within a
50 meter fixed radius of the point count circle. Beyond 50 meters, differences in
detectability between species represent a significant bias in analysis of relative
abundance between species (Ralph et al. 1993). Addition of the data set on detections
beyond 50 meters can be utilized to provide supplemental data on species composition,
habitat associations, and long-term analysis of population trends (i.e., a point count
data set with unlimited distance is similar to BBS data sets). Useful examinations of demographic data include: * indices of adult population size, adult survivorship, and post-fledgling productivity
(constant-effort mist-netting); * adult/juvenile ratios (constant-effort mist-netting); * adult sex ratios (constant-effort mist-netting); * capture and return rates (constant-effort mist-netting); * nest productivity (nest monitoring); * rates of predation and cowbird parasitism (nest monitoring); * nest success rates (nest monitoring). Useful correlations between data from different monitoring methods: * comparisons of productivity between nest monitoring (absolute) and constant-effort
mist- netting (indices); * correlations between bird abundance and various habitat variables. Nur et al. (1995) discuss statistical packages and computer software programs to assist
with analysis of monitoring data. Interpretation of data should be based on examples of
the aforementioned statistical analyses. Interpretation must also consider the precision,
accuracy, and sources of bias of a monitoring method. Bibby et al. (1992) provides an
excellent discussion of these concepts. For example, correlations between demographic and
habitat monitoring cannot absolutely determine cause due to the multitude of environmental
and human-induced factors affecting bird populations and the interactions between these
factors. Multivariate analyses are often necessary to infer probable cause/effect
situations. These inferences can be used to suggest intensified monitoring or the need for
specific research questions in controlled experiments. Butcher (1992) and Manley et al. (1993) emphasize the importance to establish
"trigger points" which are threshold levels where action should be initiated.
This may include actions to intensify the monitoring effort. For example, if the
monitoring level is of coarse resolution or low intensity, changes in population status
may trigger more intensive monitoring of the same technique or implementation of other
techniques to determine cause of the change. If the monitoring level is intensive or of a
finer resolution, changes may indicate the need for management action. Data must be accessible (except for restrictions
regarding sensitive species information) to all interested parties to maximize the
usefulness of the data in achieving monitoring and conservation goals. Data centers can
function to store, process, and analyze data; handle requests; develop manuals, etc. The need for a national and/or regional data centers for landbird monitoring data has
been acknowledged from the start of the PIF program (Butcher 1992). Currently, this does
not exist although several programmatic (MAPS, BBIRD, BBS) and regional (Klamath
Monitoring Network) data centers serve this purpose for specific types of data or
geographic areas. What is primarily lacking is a national data center for non-BBS point
count data which is the most extensive type of monitoring data. Until the establishment of
a national or regional data center, the Oregon-Washington PIF Monitoring Committee
suggests local housing (within the agency or non-governmental organization supporting the
project) of point count data in a data base or spreadsheet with standard fields for data
entry to facilitate consistency of data sets for future use. The recommended format and
data fields are provided in Appendix K. Habitat Assessment and Analysis
All landbird monitoring activities should include some method of measuring the habitat
and vegetation associated with the data points (Butcher 1992, Ralph et al. 1993). At a
minimum, each data point should be classified to a plant association or habitat type with
additional information on physical variables (e.g., elevation, aspect, slope, proximity to
water) and habitat variables. The level of detail for data collection of habitat variables
may range from general to specific and will likely be determined by time, costs, and
project objectives. Quantitative habitat data collection is essential when project
objectives require correlations between bird and habitat data. Ralph et al. (1993) recommends a general approach to habitat data collection (releve
method) based on ocular estimation of basic habitat variables such as species composition,
canopy closure, shrub and ground cover, and number of vegetative layers. This approach is
satisfactory for many monitoring projects. However, some habitat relationships may be
obscured when the habitat variables are measured at too coarse a level. For more detailed
habitat characterization, other measurement techniques should be used (e.g., James and
Shugart 1970, Noon 1981, Larson and Bock 1986, Block et al., 1987). Additionally,
project-specific objectives may dictate characterization of habitat features such as
snags, down logs, or distance to edge of habitat that require measuring techniques.
Programs such as MAPS (Appendix E) and BBIRD (Appendix F) also have program-specific
habitat evaluation protocols that are similar to James and Shugart (1970). Analyses of bird and habitat data are necessary to identify factors affecting landbird
composition and abundance, and to predict the effects of management and habitat change on
populations. Correlations between habitat variables and landbird monitoring data are
dependent upon several factors including the extent, design, and level of precision of the
data collection. Correlations between bird censusing data and habitat monitoring data can
indicate possible relationships, but in most instances, controlled local research will
likely provide the best test of specific hypotheses about the relationship between changes
in bird populations and environmental variables (Butcher 1992). Habitat monitoring on a large scale can be done using remote sensing data (Shaw and
Atkinson 1990). Ongoing research on the use of remote sensing data (e.g., SPOT, LANDSAT)
will likely improve the ability to correlate changes between birds and habitat (Butcher
1992). Training
One of the main obstacles in implementing landbird monitoring programs is the
availability of qualified personnel. The recent impetus for and expansion of avian
monitoring has exacerbated this deficiency. The need for qualified personnel, particularly
for conducting censusing methods such as point counts, is paramount when considering the
importance of accuracy and reliability of data collection from multiple sources and the
potential effects of observer variability on data analysis (Faanes and Bystrak 1981, Bart
1985, Verner and Milne 1989). Competence in bird identification and censusing protocol should be demonstrated before
data are collected. Training sessions should be utilized to facilitate this objective
(Kepler and Scott 1981, Ralph et al. 1994). These may be organized group sessions with
field and classroom training or informal one-on-one training in the field. During training
sessions, testing of observers in the field and by tapes should be conducted. Training
materials for learning bird songs and calls (tapes, CD's) are available from a number of
sources (see Appendix L pp. 23-24). Carey et al. (1990) provides descriptions of the songs
and calls of birds in Douglas-fir forests of the Pacific Northwest. Manuwal and Carey
(1991) discuss specific difficulties and problems associated with detection of species and
groups of small forest landbirds. All personnel conducting point counts should also be
tested for hearing acuity within normal ranges established by audiologists. The amount of time spent in training will vary according to the competency of the
observers to identify birds. Prior to censusing a particular site, each individual should
spend an initial day in the field becoming familiar with the species composition of the
area and particularly the local dialects. If multiple individuals are involved in the
censusing, additional time should be spent together cross-checking identifications,
distance estimations, protocol, and consistent use of data sheets. If vegetation sampling
is part of the responsibilities of the observers, field time will also be necessary to
work on identification and procedures. Training should be reinforced and performance
reevaluated periodically throughout the data collection. This is particularly important
early in the field season to check for problems at the beginning of sampling before
inaccuracies are carried too far along in the season. Participation by monitoring personnel in intensive group training sessions should be
encouraged whenever possible. An annual training session sponsored by the
Oregon-Washington PIF chapter each May provides an opportunity for formal training in a
group session. The week-long course focuses on field identification of bird songs and
calls and point count protocol. It is directed specifically toward individuals likely to
be conducting bird censusing in the near future. Information on the contact person for
this training is presented in Appendix C. Additional opportunities for intensive training in monitoring methods are also
available. Point Reyes Bird Observatory and the Redwood Sciences Laboratory offer training
sessions on multiple monitoring methods and program development, and The Institute for
Bird Populations offers training for constant-effort mist-netting. Information on contact
persons for these training opportunities is provided in Appendix C. An example of an
intensive three-week course for the Core Monitoring Methods (point counts, constant-effort
mist-netting, and nest monitoring) is provided in Appendix L. The syllabus for this course
can also be modified for less intensive training sessions. Opportunities for informal training are available at many existing monitoring stations.
The Oregon-Washington PIF Monitoring Project Directory (see availability in Appendix C) is
an excellent source for information on projects that may offer opportunities for informal
training. Although data collection priorities and standardized protocols limit some types
of participation, many monitoring programs are willing to have volunteers assist with
projects or observe monitoring activities. Volunteers
The use of volunteers is an integral part of many landbird monitoring programs. Indeed,
volunteer participation is essential for large-scale programs such as the BBS. Long-term
survival of volunteer-based monitoring programs depends on the ability of the program to
attract and maintain support from volunteers, and the willingness of managers to spend the
time necessary to run a volunteer program. The shortage of qualified personnel to conduct landbird monitoring has placed a premium
on volunteer assistance in many programs. The ability of a monitoring program to
incorporate volunteers in data collection is dependent primarily on the level of precision
required in the data collection and the extent of commitment required to conduct the work.
In order to maximize the use of volunteers in an effective and productive manner, the
following factors should be considered: * Volunteers are inexpensive, but they are not free. Effectively managing volunteers
requires an extensive amount of time and is a skill that must be learned. If your program
utilizes a large number of volunteers, formal training in volunteer management should be
considered. Alternatively, hiring of a skilled volunteer coordinator may be necessary. * A volunteers tasks should be clearly outlined in terms of the quantity (e.g., hours
per week) and quality (e.g., ability to identify birds, use computer) of work expected of
them. Be sure the level of difficulty and time commitment is appropriate for the
individual. You need to find the balance for each individual in terms of the complexity of
the work to keep it challenging, but yet not too difficult to discourage them. Try to
provide opportunities at a variety of levels for people with different skills. * When someone volunteers to help, find an appropriate task immediately or they may
find somewhere else to spend their volunteer hours. Even if its not near the field season,
try to have a small task ready to assign. * Allow volunteers to share ownership in the program by involving them in planning and
development from the beginning. They are more likely to remain committed if they have the
sense that it is "their" project also. Explain the "big picture" of
the project to them and how their work contributes to the project. Ask their advice to let
them know that they are accepted members of the team and that their opinions are
appreciated. Provide feedback of the data they collected or the work they did
periodically. * Acknowledge different personalities and recognize how these can be used effectively.
Some people like working independently and others are more attracted by the opportunity to
be part of a group. Some will jump at the chance to trek for miles in remote county.
Others feel uncomfortable about going more than a couple hundred feet off the road. * Make the work as fun as possible. Keep the work-day short and reserve some time for
play. Reward volunteer efforts to build a base for the future by honoring them with a
special event (e.g., picnic, party), publicly recognize their accomplishments with their
peers, or offer additional training where possible. Appendix C provides the names and phone numbers of individuals to contact for more
information on the utilization of volunteers in landbird monitoring. In addition to participating in an on-going project, there are a number of examples of
opportunities for volunteers to contribute to landbird monitoring. These can be done by an
individual, but would be especially effective if taken on as a project by groups such as
Audubon or Ornithological Societies. Some examples include: censusing Vaux's swift
roosting in chimneys during the breeding season and migration; counts of barn swallow
nests in barns within a defined area (e.g., County, rural community); and monitoring a
nest box trail for swallows or bluebirds. When designing these types of projects, an
emphasis on standardization of effort according to methods described elsewhere in this
document will increase the value of the data for repeatability, comparability, and
integration with other analyses. Public Outreach
Concern about NTMB populations is a shared interest with many people in the general
public. Acknowledgment and participation of the many entities and individuals interested
in landbird conservation is the basis for PIF. If monitoring, analyses, and reporting are
confined to the scientific community and not linked to the public who participate and
financially support the programs, then conservation efforts are doomed to failure. In the
current climate of "less government" the future success of landbird monitoring
efforts and PIF will be dependent largely on the degree to which the general public and
the private sector become interested and involved. This may be particularly true as
monitoring data is applied to large-scale conservation planning which will likely require
public acceptance and support. There are numerous avenues to achieve transfer of information on landbird monitoring
activities to the public. Some examples include newspaper releases, radio/TV ads, special
programs on TV shows such as Oregon Field Guide, presentations (e.g., posters, slide
shows) at public events, and demonstrations of field techniques, particularly
mist-netting. To be most effective, this type of public outreach will require coordination
with PIF Information and Education Committees and other public outreach personnel
affiliated with the various agencies and non-governmental organizations within PIF. NOTE: This section includes references from Appendix J. Allen, J.A. 1980. The ecology and behavior of the long-billed curlew in southeastern
Washington. Suppl. to J. Wildl. Manage. 44(4), Wildl. Monog. No. 73. Altman, B. 1994. An inventory/monitoring plan for breeding populations of sensitive
bird species in the Rogue Valley. Unpubl. report prepared for Oreg. Dept. of Fish and
Wildl., Central Point, Oregon. May 1994. 24 pp. Akenson, H. and Schommer, T. 1992. Upland sandpiper survey protocol for the Blue
Mountains of Oregon and Washington. Unpubl. report prepared for the Wallowa-Whitman
National Forest, November 1992. 25 pp. plus appendices. Andelman, S.J. and A. Stock. 1994. Management, research, and monitoring priorities for
the conservation of neotropical migratory landbirds that breed in Oregon /Washington (two
reports). Washington Natural Heritage Program. Washington Dept. of Natural Resources.
Olympia, Washington. Andres, B. 1994. Wildlife Biologist, USFWS, Anchorage, AK. Personal communication.
Conversation with Bob Altman, Avifauna Northwest. 28 October 1994. Askins, R.A., J.F. Lynch, and R. Greenberg. 1990. Population declines in migratory
birds in eastern North America. Current Ornithol. 7:1-57. Baillie, S.R. 1990. Integrated population monitoring of breeding birds in Britain and
Ireland. Ibis 132:151-166. Bart, J. 1985. Causes of recording errors in singing bird surveys. Wilson Bull.
97(2):161-172. Bart, J. and S.P. Klosiewski. 1989. Use of presence-absence to measure changes in avian
density. J. Wildl. Manage. 53(3):847-852. Bibby, C.J., N.D. Burgess, and D.A. Hill. 1992. Bird census techniques. Academic Press
Limited, San Diego. 257 pp. Block, W.M., L.A. Brennan, and R.J. Gutierrez. 1987. On measuring bird habitat:
influence of observer variability and sample size. Condor 89:241-251. Brigham, R.M. 1989. Roost and nest sites of common nighthawks: are gravel roofs
important? Condor 91:722-724. Brown, E.R. (ed.). 1985. Management of wildlife and fish habitats in forests of western
Oregon and Washington. USDA, For. Serv., Pacific Northwest Region, Portland. June 1985. Bull, E.L. 1995. USDA, Forest Serv., Research Wildlife Biologist, LaGrande, Oregon.
Personal communication. Telephone conversation with Bob Altman, Avifauna Northwest. 10
March 1995. Bull, E.L., R.S. Holthausen, and M.G. Henjum. 1990. Techniques for monitoring pileated
woodpeckers. USDA, For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-GTR-269. Bull, E.L. and J.E. Hohmann. 1993. The association between Vaux's swifts and old-growth
forests in northeastern Oregon. Western Birds 24:38-42. Butcher, G.S. 1986. Populations of black ducks and mallards in winter, 1950-1983.
Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv., Washington, D.C. Butcher, G.S. 1990. Audubon Christmas Bird Counts. Pp. 5-13 in J.R. Sauer and S.
Droege (eds.), Survey designs and statistical methods for the estimation of avian
population trends. USDI, Fish and Wildl. Serv., Biol. Rept. 90(1). 166 pp. Butcher, G.S. 1992. Needs Assessment: monitoring neotropical migratory birds.
Monitoring Working Group of the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Program.
Arlington, Virginia, September 4-5, 1992. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Canadian Wildlife Service. 1994. A national monitoring strategy for landbirds.
Migratory Birds Population Division, Hull, Quebec. Sept. 1994. Carey, A.B., V.E. Castellano, C. Chappell, R. Kuntz, R.W. Lundquist, B.G. Marcot, S.K.
Nelson, and P. Sullivan. 1990. Training guide for bird identification in Pacific Northwest
Douglas-fir forests. USDA, For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-GTR-260. 28 pp. Carter, M. and K. Barker. 1993. An interactive database for setting conservation
priorities for western neotropical migrants. Pp. 120-144 in D.M. Finch and P.W.
Stangel (eds.), Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. USDA, For. Serv.
Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-GTR-229. Clobert, J., J.D. Lebreton, and D. Allaine. 1987. A general approach to survival rate
estimation by recaptures or re-sightings of marked birds. Ardea 75:133-142. Conway, C.J. and T.E. Martin. 1993. Habitat suitability for Williamson's sapsuckers in
mixed- conifer forests. J. Wildl. Manage. 57(2):322-328. DeSante, D.F., K.M. Burton, and O.E. Williams. 1993a. The Monitoring Avian Productivity
and Survivorship (MAPS) Program second (1992) annual report. Bird Populations 1:1-28. DeSante, D.F., O.E. Williams, and K.M. Burton. 1993b. The Monitoring Avian Productivity
and Survivorship (MAPS) Program: overview and progress. Pp. 208-222 in D.M. Finch
and P.W. Stangel (eds.), Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. USDA, For.
Serv. Gen Tech. Rept. GTR-RM-229. DeSante, D.F. and T.L. George. 1994. Population trends in the landbirds of western
North America. Pp. 173-190 in J.R. Jehl, Jr., and N.K. Johnson (eds.), A century of
avifaunal change in western North America. Studies in Avian Biology, No. 15. DeSante, D.F. 1995. Executive Director, The Institute for Bird Populations. Personal
communication. Telephone conversation with Bob Altman, Avifauna Northwest. 27 January
1995. Dickson, J. G., R.N. Conner, R.R. Fleet, J.A. Jackson, and J.C. Kroll, eds. 1979. The
role of insectivorous birds in forest ecosystems. Academic Press, New York, NY. 381 pp. Dobkin, D.S. 1994. Conservation and management of neotropical migrant landbirds in the
Northern Rockies and Great Plains. Univ. Idaho Press, Moscow. 225 pp. Droege, S. 1990. The North American breeding bird survey. Pp. 1-4 in J.R. Sauer
and S. Droege (eds.), Survey designs and statistical methods for the estimation of avian
population trends. USDI, Fish Wildl. Serv., Biol. Rept. 90(1). 166 pp. Droege, S. 1992. Population monitoring strategy for the birds of the lower 48 United
States. Unpubl. Draft. Natl. Biol. Serv., Laurel, MD. Dunn, E.H. 1986. Feeder counts and winter bird population trends. Am. Birds 40:61-66. Faanes, C.A. and D. Bystrak. 1981. The role of observer bias in the North American
Breeding Bird Surbey. Pp. 335-359 in C.J. Ralph and J.M. Scott (eds.), Estimating
numbers of terrestrial birds. Studies in Avian Biology 6. Falls, J.B. 1981. Mapping territories with playback: an accurate census method for
songbirds. Pp. 86-91 in C.J. Ralph and J.M. Scott (eds.), Estimating numbers of
terrestrial birds. Studies in Avian Biology 6. Finch, D. 1991. Population ecology, habitat requirements, and conservation of
neotropical migratory birds. USDA, For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-GTR-205. Foerster, K.S. and C.T. Collins. 1990. Breeding distribution of the black swift in
southern California. Western Birds 21:1-9. Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dryness. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and Washington.
USDA, For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-GTR-8. 417 pp. Freemark, K. and C. Rodgers. 1995. Modification of point counts for surveying cropland
birds. Pp. 69-74 in C.J. Ralph, J.R. Sauer, and S. Droege (tech. eds.), Monitoring
bird populations by point counts. USDA, For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. PSW-GTR-149. March
1995. 187 pp. Gabrielson, I.N. and S.G. Jewett. 1970. Birds of the Pacific Northwest. Dover reprint,
New York. 650 pp. Galen, C. 1989. A preliminary assessment of the status of the Lewis' woodpecker in
Wasco County, Oregon. Oreg. Dept. of Fish and Wildl., Tech. Rept. 88-3-01. Garrison, B.A. 1991. Evaluation of experimental nesting habitat and selected aspects of
bank swallow biology on the Sacramento River, California, 1988 to 1990. USFWS, Sacramento
Field Office Final report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District, August
1991. Garrison, B.A., R.W. Schlorff, J.M. Humphrey, S.A. Laymon, and F.J. Minchny. 1989.
Population trends and management of the bank swallow on the Sacramento River, California.
Pp. 267-271 in California Riparian Systems Conference. USDA, For. Serv. Gen. Tech.
Rept. PSW-GTR-110. Gauthreaux, S.A. Jr. 1992. Preliminary list of migrants for Partners In Flight
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Program. Pp. 30 in Partners In Flight
newsletter, Winter 1992, Vol. 2, No. 1. Geissler, P.H. and J.R. Sauer. 1990. Topics in route-regression analysis. Pp. 54-57
in J.R. Sauer and S. Droege (eds.), Survey designs and statistical methods for the
estimation of avian population trends. USDI, Fish and Wildl. Serv., Biol. Rept. 90(1). 166
pp. Geupel, G.R. 1995. Terrestrial Program Director, Point Reyes Bird Observatory. Personal
communication with Bob Altman, Avifauna Northwest. 2 August 1995. Geupel, G.R. and N. Nur. 1993. Monitoring bird populations: the role of bird
observatories and non-governmental organizations. Pp. 275-279 in D. M. Finch and
P.W. Stangel (eds.), Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. USDA, For.
Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-GTR-229. Geupel. G. R. and I. Warkentin. 1995. In Press. Field methods for monitoring population
parameters of landbirds in Mexico. Proc. of Symposium for Conservation of Neotropical
Migratory Birds. Veracruz, Mexico, Nov. 1993. Edited by M. Wilson, USFWS. Gibbs, J.P. and J. Faaborg. 1990. Estimating the viability of ovenbird and Kentucky
warbler populations in forest fragments. Conserv. Biol. 4:193-196. Gilligan, J, M. Smith, D. Rodgers, and A. Contreras. 1994. Birds of Oregon: Status and
Distribution. Cinclus Publications, McMinnville. 330 pp. Goggans, R., R.D. Dixon, and C.S. Seminara. 1987. Habitat use by three-toed and
black-backed woodpeckers. USDA, Deschutes National Forest, Oreg. Dept. Fish and Wildl.,
Tech. Rept. 87-3-02. Hagan, J.M. III, and D.W. Johnston. 1992. Introduction. Pp. 1-3 in J.M Hagan III
and D.W. Johnston (eds.), Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds.
Smithsonian Institute Press, Wash., D.C. Hamilton, W.J., L. Cook, and R. Grey. 1994. Tricolored blackbird project 1994. Unpubl.
rept. submitted to the USFWS, Region 1, Portland. Hayward, G.D., R.K. Steinhorst, and P.H. Hayward. 1992. Monitoring boreal owl
populations with nest boxes: sample size and cost. J. Wildl. Manage. 56(4):777-785. Hensler, G.L. and J.D. Nichols. 1981. The mayfield method of estimating nest success: a
model, estimators, and simulation results. Wilson Bull 93:42-53. Hobbs, N.T. and T.A. Hanley. 1990. Habitat evaluation: do use/availability data reflect
carrying capacity? J. Wildl. Manage. 54:515-522. Holmes, R.T. and T.W. Sherry. 1988. Assessing population trends of New Hampshire forest
birds: local vs. regional patterns. Auk 105:756-768. Holmes, R.T. and T.W. Sherry. 1993. Are populations of neotropical migrant birds
limited in summer or winter? Implications for management. Pp. 47-57 in D.M. Finch
and P.W. Stangel (eds.), Status and management of neotropical migratory birds. USDA, For.
Serv. Gen. Tech. Rpt. RM-GTR-229. Howe, R.W., G.J. Davis, and V. Mosca. 1991. The demographic significance of
"sink" populations. Biol. Conserv. 57:239-255. Hussell, D.J.T. and C.J. Ralph. 1995. Recommended methods for monitoring bird
populations by counting and capture of migrants. Draft prepared by the Intensive Sites
Technical Committee of the Migration Monitoring Council. Sept. 24, 1995. Hutto, R.L. 1985. Seasonal changes in the habitat distribution of transient
insectivorous birds in southeastern Arizona: competition mediated? Auk 102:120-132. Hutto, R.L., S.H. Hejl, J.F. Kelley, and S.M. Pletscher. 1995. A comparison of bird
detection rates derived from on-road versus off-road point counts in northern Montana. Pp.
103- 110 in C.J. Ralph, J.R. Sauer, and S. Droege (tech. coordinators), Monitoring
bird populations by point counts. USDA, For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. PSW-GTR-149. March
1995. 187 pp. James, F.C. and H.H. Shugart, Jr. 1970. A quantitative method of habitat description.
Audubon Field Notes 24:727-736. James, F.C. and McCullough, C.E. 1985. Data analysis and the design of experiments in
ornithology. Pp. 1-63 in R.F. Johnston (ed.), Current Ornithology, Vol. 2. Plenum
Press, NY. Jewett, S.G., W.P. Taylor, W.T. Shaw, and J.W. Aldrich. 1953. Birds of Washington
State. Univ. Washington Press, Seattle. Johnston, D.W. 1990. Descriptions of surveys: Breeding Bird Censuses. Pp. 33-36 in
J.R. Sauer and S Droege (eds.), Survey designs and statistical methods for the estimation
of avian population trends. USDI, Fish and Wildl. Serv., Biol. Rept. 90(1). 166 pp. Kalcounis, M.C., R.D. Csada, and R.M. Brigham. 1992. The status and distribution of the
common poorwill in the Cypress Hills, Saskatchewan. Blue Jay 50(1):38-44 Kepler, C.B. and J.M. Scott. 1981. Reducing bird count variability by training
observers. Pp. 336-371 in C.J. Ralph and J.M. Scott (eds.), Estimating numbers of
terrestrial birds. Studies in Avian Biology 6. Koford, R.R., J.B. Dunning Jr., C.A. Ribic, and D.M. Finch. 1994. A glossary for avian
conservation biology. Wilson Bull. 106(1):121-137. Koskimies, P. and R.A. Vaisanen. 1991. Monitoring bird populations: a manual of methods
applied in Finland. Zoological Museum, Finnish Museum of Natural History, Univ. of
Helsinki. 145 pp. Larson, D.L. and C.E. Bock. 1986. Determining avian habitat preference by bird-centered
vegetation sampling. Pp. 37-43 in J. Verner, M.L. Morrison, and C.J. Ralph (eds.),
Wildlife 2000: Modeling habitat relationships of terrestrial vertebrates. Univ. Wisconsin
Press, Madison. Littlefield, C.D. 1988. Status of the California yellow-billed cuckoo in Klamath county
and eastern Oregon. Oreg. Dept. of Fish and Wildl., Tech. Rept. 89-5-01. 34 pp. Liverman, M.C. 1983. Status of the black-throated sparrow in the Alvord Basin, Harney
County, Oregon. Oreg. Dept. of Fish and Wildl., Tech. Rept. 82-5-02. Lowe, J.D. 1994. Resident Bird Counts 1993. J. Field Ornithol. 65 (Suppl.). Loy, W.G., G.S. Allan, C.P. Patton, and R.D. Plank. 1976. Atlas of Oregon. Univ. of
Oregon Books, Eugene. 251 pp. Manley, P., W.M. Block, F.R. Thompson, G.S. Butcher, C. Paige, L.H. Suring, D.S. Winn,
D. Roth, C. J. Ralph, E. Morris, C.H. Flather, and K. Byford. 1993. Guidelines for
monitoring populations of neotropical migratory birds on National Forest system lands.
Monitoring Task Group Report. USDA, For. Serv., Wash. D.C., July 1993. Manuwal, D.A. and A.B. Carey. 1991. Methods for measuring populations of small, diurnal
forest birds. USDA, For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. PNW-GTR-278. Marshall, D.B. 1995. Consulting Wildlife Biologist, Portland. Telephone conversation
with Bob Altman, Avifauna Northwest, Portland. 15 January 1995. Martin, T.E. and G.R. Geupel. 1993. Nest monitoring plots: methods for locating nests
and monitoring success. J. Field Ornithol 64(4):507-519. Martin, T.E. and C.J. Conway. 1994. BBIRD Field Protocol: Breeding Biology Research and
Monitoring Database. Montana Coop. Wildl. Res. Unit, Missoula. Nov. 11, 1994. 39 pp. McConnaughey, J. and F.C. Dobler. 1994. Project Shrike: Abundance and perch use of the
loggerhead shrike in eastern Washington, 1994. Washington Dept. of Wildlife, Ephrata. 59
pp. Milner, R.L. 1987. Status of the purple martin in southwestern Washington: results of
the 1987 survey. Unpubl. report submitted to the Washington Dept. of Wildlife, November
1987. Moore, F.R., S.A. Gauthreaux Jr., P. Kerlinger, and T.R. Simons. 1993. Pp. 58-69 in
D.M. Finch and P.W. Stangel (eds.), Status and management of neotropical migratory birds.
USDA, For. Serv. Gen Tech. Rept. RM-GTR-229. Morgan, R. 1995. Wildlife Biologist, Oregon Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Heppner.
Personal communication. Telephone conversation with Bob Altman, Avifauna Northwest. 6
February 1995. Morrison, M.L. 1986. Bird populations as indicators of environmental change. Pp.
429-451 in R.J. Johnston (ed.), Current Ornithology, Vol 3. Plenum Press, New York,
NY. 522 pp. Morrison, M.L. and E.C. Meslow. 1983. Avifauna associated with early growth vegetation
on clearcuts in the Oregon Coast Ranges. USDA, For. Serv., Res. Pap. PNW-305. 12 pp. Morse, E.S. 1980. Population limitation: breeding or wintering grounds? Pp. 505-516 in
A. Keast and E.S. Morton (eds.), Migrant birds in the neotropics: ecology, behavior,
distribution, and conservation. Smithsonian Inst. Press, Wash., D.C. Neter, J., W.Wasserman, and M.H. Kutner. 1990. Applied linear statistical models:
regression, analysis of variance, and experimental designs. Irwin Press, Homewood, Ill.
Third edition. Noon, B.R. 1981. Techniques for sampling bird habitats. Pp. 42-52 in D.E Capen
(ed.), The use of multi-variate statistics in studies of wildlife habitat. USDA, For.
Serv. Gen Tech. Rept. RM-GTR-87. 249 pp. Noon, B.R., D.K. Dawson, and J.P. Kelley. 1985. A search for stability gradients in
North American breeding bird communities. Auk 102:64-81. Nur, N. 1993. A sharper focus on songbird populations. Pp. 7 and 16 in On behalf
of songbirds. Quarterly journal of the Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Number 97, Fall 1993. Nur, N and G.R. Geupel. 1993. Evaluation of mist-netting, nest-searching, and other
methods for monitoring demographic processes in landbird populations. Pp. 237-244 in
D.M Finch and P.W. Stangel (eds.), Status and management of neotropical migratory birds.
USDA, For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rpt. RM-GTR-229. 422 pp. Nur, N., G.R. Geupel, and S.L. Jones. 1995. A statistical handbook and guide to data
analysis of standardized avian population monitoring programs (Draft). USDI, Fish and
Wildl. Serv., Denver. May, 1995. 65 pp. O'Connor, R.J. 1991. Long-term bird population studies in the United States. Ibis 133
suppl. 1:36-48. Oelke, H. 1981. Limitations of the mapping method. Pp. 114-118 in C.J. Ralph and
J.M. Scott (eds.), Estimating numbers of terrestrial birds. Studies in Avian Biology 6. Oregon Natural Heritage Program. 1993. Rare, threatened, and endangered plants and
animals of Oregon. Oreg. Natl. Heritage Prog., Portland. 80 pp. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1993. Oregon Wildlife Diversity Plan, Portland.
Pampush, G.J. 1980. Breeding chronology, habitat utilization, and nest site selection
of the long- billed curlew in north-central Oregon. MS Thesis, Oregon State Univ.,
Corvallis. 49 pp. Paulson, D.R. 1992. Northwest bird diversity: From extravagant past and changing
present to precarious future. The Northwest Environmental Journal 8:71-118. Peterjohn, B. 1995. USFWS, BBS Coordinator, Laurel, MD. Personal communication.
Telephone conversation with Bob Altman, Avifauna Northwest. January 9, 1995. Pollock, K.H., J.D. Nichols, C. Brownie, and J.E. Hines. 1990. Statistical inference
for capture- recapture experiments. Wildl. Monographs No. 107. Pulliam, H. R. 1988. Sources, sinks, and population regulation. Amer. Nat.,
132:652-661. Ralph, C.J. and J. M. Scott (eds.). 1981. Estimating numbers of terrestrial birds.
Studies in Avian Biology 6. 630 pp. Ralph, C. J., G. R. Geupel, P. Pyle, T. E. Martin, and D. F. DeSante. 1993. Handbook of
field methods for monitoring landbirds. USDA, For. Serv. Gen Tech. Rept. PSW-GTR-144. Ralph, C.J., J.R. Sauer, and S. Droege, tech. eds. 1995a. Monitoring bird populations
by point counts. USDA, For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. PSW-GTR-149. March 1995. 187 pp. Ralph, C.J., S. Droege, and J.R. Sauer. 1995b. Managing and monitoring birds using
point counts: standards and applications. Pp. 161-168 in C.J. Ralph, J.R. Sauer, and S.
Droege (tech. eds.), Monitoring bird populations by point counts. USDA, For. Serv. Gen.
Tech. Rept. PSW-GTR-149. March 1995. 187 pp. Rappole, J.H., E.S. Morton, T.E. Lovejoy, and J.L. Rous. 1983. Nearctic migrants in the
neotropics. USDI, Fish and Wildl. Serv., Wash., D.C. 656 pp. Robbins, C.S. and D. Bystrak. 1974. The winter bird survey of central Maryland, USA.
Acta Ornithol. 14:254-271. Robbins, C.S., D. Bystrak, and P.H. Geissler. 1986. The Breeding Bird Survey: its first
fifeteen years, 1965-79. U.S. Dept. Interior, Fish and Wildl. Serv. Res. Publ. 157. Robbins, C.S., J.R. Sauer, R. Greenberg, and S. Droege. 1989a. Population declines in
North American birds that migrate to the neotropics. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 86:7658-7662. Robbins, C.S., S. Droege, and J.R. Sauer. 1989b. Monitoring bird populations with
Breeding Bird Survey and atlas data. Ann. Zool. Fennici 26:297-304. Robbins, C.S. 1990. Use of breeding bird atlases to monitor population change. Pp.
18-22 in J.R. Sauer and S. Droege (eds.), Survey designs and statistical methods
for the estimation of avian population trends. USDI, Fish and Wildl. Serv., Biol. Rept.
90(1). Robinson, S.K. 1992. Population dynamics of breeding neotropical migrants in a
fragmented Illinois landscape. Pp. 408-418 in J.M. Hagan, III and D.W. Johnston
(eds.), Ecology and conservation of neotropical migrant landbirds. Smithsonian Inst.
Press, Washington, D.C. Sauer, J.R. 1993. Monitoring goals and programs of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Pp. 245-251 in D.M. Finch and P.W. Stangel (eds.), Status and management of
neotropical migratory birds. USDA, For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. RM-GTR-229. 422 pp. Sauer, J.R. and S. Droege (eds). 1990. Survey designs and statistical methods for the
estimation of avian population trends. USDI, Fish and Wildl. Ser., Biol. Rept. 90(1). 166
pp. Sauer, J.R., D.D. Dolton, and S. Droege. 1994. Mourning dove population trend estimates
from call-count and North American breeding bird surveys. J. Wildl. Manage. 58(3):506-515. Savard, J-P. L. and T.D. Hooper. 1995. Influence of survey length and radius size on
grassland bird surveys by point counts at Williams Lake, British Columbia. Pp. 57-62 in
C.J. Ralph, J.R. Sauer, and S. Droege (tech. eds.), Monitoring bird populations by point
counts. USDA, For. Serv. Gen. Tech. Rept. PSW-GTR-149. March 1995. 187 pp. Scheuring, E. 1995. Biological technician, Malheur National Wildlife Refuge. Personal
communication. Telephone conversation with Bob Altman, Avifauna Northwest, 10 March 1995. Sharp, B. 1986. Guidelines for management of the purple martin, Pacific coast
population. Sialia 8(1):9-14. Sharp, B. 1992. Neotropical migrants on National Forests in the Pacific Northwest.
Report submitted to the USDA, Forest Serv., Region 6, Portland. Shaw, D.M. and S.F. Atkinson. 1990. An introduction to the use of geographic
information systems for ornithological research. Condor 92:564-570. Skalski, J.R. and D.S. Robson. 1992. Techniques for wildlife investigations: design and
analysis of capture data. Academic Press, San Diego. Slater, P.J. 1994. Factors affecting the efficiency of the area search method of
censusing birds in open forests and woodlands. Emu 94:9-16. Temple, S.A. and J.A. Wiens. 1989. Bird populations and environmental changes: can
birds be bio-indicators? American Birds 43(2):260-270. Terborgh, J.W. 1989. Where have all the birds gone? Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton,
NJ. Thomas, J.W. (ed.). 1979. Wildlife habitats in managed forests: the Blue Mountains of
Oregon and Washington. USDA, For. Serv. Agriculture Handbook 553, Washington, D.C. Tibbits, T.J., M.K. Sogge, and S.J. Sferra. 1994. A survey protocol for the
southwestern willow flycatcher ( Empidonax trailii extimus). NBS
Colorado Plateau Research Station, Northern Arizona Univ. Tech. Rept.
NPS/NAUCPRS/NRTR-94/04. 24 pp. Van Horne, B. 1983. Density as a misleading indicator of habitat quality. J. Wildl.
Manage. 47:893-901. Verner, J. 1985. Assessment of counting techniques. Pp. 247-302 in R.F. Johnson
(ed.) Current Ornithology 2. Plenum Press, New York. Verner, J. and K. A. Milne. 1989. Coping with sources of variability when monitoring
population trends. Ann. Zool. Fennici. 26:191-200. Wahl, T.R. and D.R. Paulson. 1987. A guide to bird finding in Washington. Published by
T.R. Wahl, Bellingham, WA. 163 pp. Washington Department of Wildlife. 1991. Management recommendations for Washington's
priority habitats and species. E. Rodrick and R. Milner (tech. eds.). Wash. Dept. of
Wildl., Wildl. Manage., Fish Manage., and Habitat Manage. Divisions. Whitcomb, R.F., C.S. Robbins, J.F. Lynch, B.L. Whitcomb, M.K. Klimkiewicz, and D.
Bystrak. 1981. Effects of forest fragmentation on the avifauna of the eastern deciduous
forest. Pp. 125-205 in R.L.Burgess and D.M. Sharpe (eds.), Forest island dynamics
in man- dominated landscapes. Springer-Verlag, NY, pp. 125-205. Whittenberger, J.F. 1978. The breeding biology of an isolated bobolink population in
Oregon. The Condor 80:355-371. APPENDIX A. Overview of Partners in Flight including the Oregon-Washington chapter. In response to declines of NTMB, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation launched the
Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Program in 1990 as a domestic and international
initiative for the conservation of migratory landbirds that breed in North America and
overwinter in tropical regions. PIF is the working structure and framework of the program
within which the expertise and actions of agencies and non-governmental organizations can
be effectively coordinated. It includes representation from nearly all natural resource
agencies, and numerous non-governmental organizations including academia, conservation
groups, ornithological societies, private foundations, and relevant industries. The principal PIF goal is to conserve NTMB populations through a comprehensive and
coordinated effort built upon the foundation of cooperative "partnerships"
between the aforementioned participating entities. Monitoring plays a key role in the
facilitation of this goal. The monitoring objective of PIF is to collect information
useful in determing the status and trends of NTMB species and understanding causative
factors associated with population changes. Although this includes monitoring on the
wintering grounds, our focus in Oregon and Washington is primarily during the breeding
season, and to a lesser extent during migration. A PIF emphasis for all monitoring
efforts, irregardless of temporal or spatial limitations, is consistency and coordination
in data collection and cooperation across political and jurisdictional boundaries. The PIF program functions at three levels: national/international, regional working
groups, and state chapters. Within each level there are committees/working groups that
emphasize different aspects of NTMB conservation such as monitoring, information and
education, and management. This heiarchial approach is designed to integrate activities to
conserve NTMB across all geographic levels and political boundaries. Oregon-Washington Chapter The Oregon-Washington PIF chapter was formed in 1992 to facilitate coordination and
implementation of activities to conserve NTMB and their habitats in Oregon and Washington.
It is linked to the national PIF program through representation in the Western Working
Group. Like other PIF programs, it is based on the development of partnerships to achieve
goals. A five- year Strategic Plan is being prepared to guide the activities of the
chapter. Information on the Oregon-Washington PIF Chapter contact persons is listed in
Appendix B. Within the Oregon-Washington PIF chapter, a Monitoring Committee was formed to
facilitate coordination and implementation of monitoring activities. The committee plays a
major role in the dissemination of information on monitoring through workshops/training
(field and program development), annual preparation of a Project Directory (see Appendix B
for information on receiving a copy), and input and review of documents such as this. APPENDIX J. Suggested methods for monitoring species not adequately monitored by BBS. The species discussed below were listed in Andelman and Stock (1994) as species not
adequately monitored by BBS and requiring some type of specialized monitoring. For each
species, methods are suggested for monitoring secondary population parameters (i.e.,
abundance and population trends). For some species, more than one method is suggested
where site-specific conditions (e.g., patch size and configuration, accessibility,
presence of roads) may determine the appropriate method. Species identified with an * are designated as the highest priority for monitoring.
This is based on a modification of criteria recommended in Andelman and Stock (1994),
including habitat specialists in one of the priority habitats, species with limited
distributions (unless peripheral to Oregon and Washington), and species listed as species
of concern. NOTE: In 1993, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service nearly doubled the number of BBS
routes in Oregon and Washington. Thus, some of the species listed below may be adequately
monitored by BBS in the future with increased coverage. Species * upland sandpiper* - Akenson and Schommer (1992) recommend walking parallel transects
within occupied sites and suitable habitat; these may be conducted by one or more than one
individual; * long-billed curlew* - Pampush (1980) used walking transects through suitable habitat
by several people walking a grid; automobile transects through suitable habitat are also
used (Morgan pers. comm., 6 Feb. 1995); Allen (1980) used broadcasting of recorded calls
at 1/4 miles intervals along roads; * common nighthawk - area searches at suitable urban sites (gravel rooftops,
particularly those wholly or partially rimmed by walls or parapets [e.g., Brigham 1989]),
forest openings, or grassland/steppe habitat during active periods at dusk or dawn where
existing information or reconnaissance has indicated nesting or roosting birds; point
count censusing at regular foraging sites (often along rivers or other bodies of water)
may provide an index to abundance, but the opportunistic foraging behavior of the species
and the unreliable nature of the prey base (insects) at a particular foraging site limits
the applicability of monitoring at foraging sites; * common poorwill - broadcast recorded calls in suitable shrub-steppe, juniper-steppe,
or open pine forest habitat conducted at dusk and shortly thereafter (Kalcounis et al.
1992); * black swift* - difficult to monitor because wide ranging, not easily detectable, and
limited accessibility near some nest sites; a systematic colony count in suitable habitat
(waterfalls meeting specific criteria identified in [Foerster and Collins 1990]); counts
should be conducted after dawn or prior to dusk for up to one hour periods; * Vaux's swift* - Bull and Hohmann (1993) describe censusing swifts with transects
through stands of suitable habitat and standardized observation of potential nest trees;
communal roost counts during the breeding season and in migration at regularly used sites
(e.g. hollow trees and chimneys) may provide an index to abundance, but the reliability of
use of the site limits the applicability of this method; * white-throated swift - difficult to monitor because wide-ranging, not easily
detectable, and limited accessibility near some cliff nest sites; a systematic colony
count at suitable cliff nesting habitat is most appropriate; * hummingbirds - multi-species point counts (non specialized monitoring) in high use
areas such as revegetating clearcuts, roadsides, or meadows with extensive flowering of
plants utilized by hummingbirds may provide a sufficient sample size for analysis,
particularly for the rufous hummingbird (e.g., Morrison and Meslow 1983); feeder counts or
foraging counts at high use foraging areas around flowering plants, although the
reliability of use of these sites limits applicability; the timing of this type of
monitoring is particularly dependent upon elevation and seasonal progression due to link
with flowering of certain plants; modified BBS routes with stops at high use areas could
be utilized, although annual variability in flowering extent and timing will affect
hummingbird use; transects through known high use riparian areas may be effective for
calliope hummingbird; area searches during post-breeding dispersal or migration could be
conducted in mountain meadows/brushfields where birds concentrate; * Lewis' woodpecker* - area searches or transects in suitable oak-pine, oak woodland,
or oak-chaparrel habitat (Galen 1989); * red-naped sapsucker - potentially adequately sampled for abundance and trend analyses
with increased BBS coverage; otherwise, broadcasting recorded or imitated calls (drumming)
along road or off-road point count stations (Bull, pers. comm., 10 March 1995) in suitable
riparian, aspen, and coniferous forest habitat of eastern Oregon and Washington; * Williamson's sapsucker* - potentially adequately sampled for abundance and trend
analyses with increased BBS coverage; otherwise, readily responds to broadcasting recorded
or imitated calls (drumming) along road or off-road point count stations (Bull, pers.
comm., 10 March 1995) in suitable riparian, aspen, and coniferous forest habitat; Goggans
et al. (1987) presents information on the technique and the window of responsiveness for
black-backed and three-toed woodpeckers, and Bull et al. (1990) for pileated woodpeckers;
Bull et al. (1990) also describes specific protocol for walking transects for pileated
woodpeckers that could be utilized for Williamson's sapsucker; Conway and Martin (1993)
describe nest monitoring for Williamson's sapsucker; * loggerhead shrike* - potentially adequately sampled for abundance and trend analyses
with increased BBS coverage; otherwise, McConnaughhey and Dobler (1994) have used
automobile transects to monitor abundance; * least flycatcher - an area search of the few locations where this species is known or
likely to occur since breeding distribution is so limited; * gray flycatcher* - potentially adequately sampled for abundance and trend analyses
with increased BBS coverage; otherwise point counts along modified BBS routes in shrub-
steppe, juniper-steppe, and early successional conifer forests of eastern Oregon and
Washington; * Pacific-slope flycatcher - potentially adequately sampled for abundance and trend
analyses with increased BBS coverage; otherwise, point counts (road or off-road) in
suitable forest (deciduous and coniferous) habitats in western Oregon and Washington; * cordilleran flycatcher* - potentially adequately sampled for abundance and trend
analyses with increased BBS coverage; otherwise, point counts (road or off-road) in
suitable coniferous forest and riparian habitats in eastern Oregon and Washington; * ash-throated flycatcher - potentially adequately sampled for abundance and trend
analyses with increased BBS coverage; otherwise, point counts along modified BBS routes
may be most effective because it can be somewhat variable in its use of habitat types and
conditions; nest box monitoring may provide small scale, local monitoring of abundance and
trends; * purple martin* - in natural cavity sites (snags in forest openings, edge, or
lakes/ponds) conduct a site-specific colony count of active cavities or breeding pairs; at
artificial nesting sites, conduct nest box monitoring programs (Sharp 1986, Milner 1987);
river transects (boat) can be used for monitoring existing colonies (artificial and
natural) and as reconnaissance for identifying other locations of martin use; * bank swallow* - colony counts of individuals and/or active burrows; these can be a
total count, or a sampling of active burrows in large colonies; Garrison et al. (1989) and
Garrison (1991) describe methods and considerations utilized in quantifying bank swallow
populations; counts of individuals should be a sampling technique with some time frame or
area boundary (i.e., point count or area search); * rough-winged swallow - colony counts of individuals and/or active burrows; these can
be a total count or a sampling of active burrows in large colonies (see bank swallow); * marsh wren - point counts would be most effective in small marshes where the point
count station can be placed adjacent to the marsh, or as a sampling technique in large
marshes; area searches may be effective in moderate sized marshes where the perimeter of
the marsh can be walked; transects would only be effective if a dike or trail adjacent to
or within the marsh could be traversed; * ruby-crowned kinglet - point counts (road or off-road) in suitable high elevation
Cascades and east-side conifer forests; * blue-gray gnatcatcher - point counts (road or off-road) in suitable brushfield and
chaparral habitat of southern Oregon; * western bluebird* - nest box monitoring programs along "bluebird trails"
are likely most effective because of their extensiveness, and because of the variability
in habitat use by this species; * mountain bluebird - point counts (road or off-road) in suitable forest edge habitats
(e.g., burns, clearcuts, meadows); nest box monitoring along bluebird trails where they
exist (see western bluebird); * veery - point counts along modified BBS route if road adjacent to suitable riparian
habitat; otherwise area search or off-road point counts within riparian corridors; * gray catbird - point counts along modified BBS route if road adjacent to suitable
riparian habitat; otherwise, area search or off-road point counts within riparian
corridors; * sage thrasher* - potentially adequately sampled for abundance and trend analyses with
increased BBS coverage; otherwise, point counts along modified BBS route, or walking
transects in suitable sagebrush habitat; * American pipit - area search of suitable alpine breeding habitat; walking transect
may be appropriate if habitat is linear; * red-eyed vireo - point counts along modified BBS route if road adjacent to suitable
riparian habitat; otherwise, area search or off-road point counts within riparian
corridors or riparian forest fragments that are large and non-linear along floodplains of
larger rivers (e.g., Columbia); * hermit warbler* - potentially adequately monitored for abundance and trend analyses
with increased BBS coverage; otherwise, point counts along modified BBS route or off-road
point counts in suitable coniferous forest habitat; * American redstart - point counts along modified BBS route if road adjacent to
suitable habitat; otherwise, area search or off-road point counts within riparian
corridors; * northern waterthrush - area search in few riparian locations where this species is
known or likely to occur since breeding distribution so limited; * green-tailed towhee* - point counts along modified BBS route or off-road point counts
in early successional coniferous forest or shrub-steppe habitat; * black throated sparrow* - point counts along modified BBS route or walking transects
through suitable steppe/shrub-steppe habitat of southeastern Oregon; Liverman (1983) used
point counts in shrub-steppe and desert shrub communities of the Alvord Basin; * sage sparrow* - point counts along modified BBS route or walking transects in
suitable sagebrush habitat; * fox sparrow - potentially adequately sampled for abundance and trend analyses with
increased BBS coverage; otherwise, modified BBS route or off-road point counts in suitable
habitat of dense, brush understory in forested or riparian habitats; * grasshopper sparrow* - point counts along modified BBS route or walking transects in
grassland habitat where species is known or suspected to breed; * Lincoln's sparrow - area search within or point counts (road or off-road) adjacent to
known or suspected high elevation wet meadow breeding sites (if site is traversable, area
search is preferred); * Brewer's sparrow - potentially adequately sampled for abundance and trend analyses
with increased BBS coverage; otherwise point counts along modified BBS routes or walking
transects in suitable sagebrush habitat; * bobolink* - colony counts at known or suspected locations in suitable habitat; counts
may be an area search or walking transect depending upon size and configuration of colony;
Wittenberger (1978) and Malheur National Wildlife Refuge (Scheuring, pers. comm., 10 March
1995) used walking transects and a total count of males to index population size; * yellow-headed blackbird - colony counts at known or suspected locations in suitable
marsh habitat; counts may be an area search, point count, or transect depending upon size
and configuration of colony; e.g., for large colonies with thousands of pairs a transect
route along a dike or trail would be appropriate; point counts would only be effective in
very small colonies where the count station count be placed at the edge of the marsh or as
a sampling technique in large colonies; area search may be effective in a moderate size
colony where the perimeter of the marsh could be walked; * purple finch - potentially adequately sampled for abundance and trend analyses with
increased BBS coverage; otherwise, point counts along modified BBS routes may be most
effective because it can be variable in its use of habitat types and conditions; not
considered an NTMB in Washington; * tricolored blackbird* - colony counts at known or suspected locations in suitable
habitat; counts may be an area search, point count, or transect depending upon size and
configuration of colony; transects work well if a dike or trail runs through or alongside
the colony (Hamilton et al. 1994); point counts would only be effective in very small
colonies where the count station count be placed at the edge of the marsh or as a sampling
technique in large colonies; area search may be effective in a moderate size colony where
the perimeter of the marsh could be walked; * red crossbill - difficult to monitor due to erratic nesting season and breeding
locales seemingly dependent upon local cone crops; point counts along modified BBS route
or off-road point counts in suitable late successional conifer forest would likely be most
effective. APPENDIX C. List of contacts and other pertinent information on monitoring and the
Oregon-Washington PIF Chapter. Chapter Chairperson: Chapter Coordinator: Erick Campbell Katie Weil Bureau of Land Management Audubon Society of Portland P.O. Box 2965 5151 NW Cornell Road Portland, OR 97208 Portland, OR 97210 (503) 952-6382 (503) 294-4946 Monitoring Committee Co-Chairs: Randy Floyd Barb Kott Beak Consultants Zigzag Ranger District 317 SW Alder Street 70220 East Highway 26 Portland, OR 97204 Zigzag, OR 97049 (503) 248-9507 (503) 622-3191 ext. 687 Information and Education Committee Co-Chairs: Jennifer Devlin Jennifer Whitford Audubon Society of Portland Zigzag Ranger District 5151 NW Cornell Road 70220 East Highway 26 Portland, OR 97210 Zigzag, OR 97049 (503) 292-6726 (503) 622-3191 ext. 673 Management Committee Chair: Training Information; Oregon/Washington: Tim Cullinan Barb Kott National Audubon Society Zigzag Ranger District 421 Washington Harbor Road 70220 East Highway 26 Sequim, WA 98382 Zigzag, OR 97049 (206) 683-6257 (503) 622-3191 ext. 687 Training Information; Western US: Ken Burton Geoff Geupel/Denise Hardesty The Institute for Bird Populations Point Reyes Bird Observatory P.O. Box 1346 4990 Shoreline Highway Point Reyes Station, CA 94956 Stinson Beach, CA 94970 (415) 663-1436 (415) 868-0655 C.J. Ralph/Kim Hollinger U.S. Forest Service Redwood Sciences Laboratory 1700 Bayview Drive Arcata, CA 95521 (707) 822-3691 Information on Utilization of Volunteers: Judy Johnson Tim Cullinan Walla Walla Audubon Society National Audubon Society 209 N. Clinton 421 Washington Harbor Road Walla Walla, WA 99362 Sequim, WA 98382 (509) 525-4862 (206) 683-6257 Copies of the Species and Habitat Prioritization Reports or Monitoring Project
Directory: Christina Carter Bureau of Land Management P.O. Box 2965 Portland, OR 97208 (503) 952-6067 Breeding Bird Survey Routes: Harry Nehls Ed Miller Oregon State Coordinator Washington State Coordinator 2736 SE 20th 1920 Harris Portland, OR 97202 Richland, WA 99352 (503) 233-3976 (509) 373-3138 Oregon Breeding Bird Atlas: Washington Breeding Bird Atlas: Paul Adamus Phil Mattocks 6028 NW Burgundy Drive 915 E. Third Avenue Corvallis, OR 97330 Ellensburg, WA 98926 (503) 745-5625 1-800-440-5454 for reports of breeding birds in Oregon. Individuals interested in establishing a MAPS station should contact Ken Burton or Dave
DeSante at The Institute for Bird Populations (415) 663-1436. Individuals interested in establishing a BBIRD site should contact Courtney Conway or
Tom Martin at the University of Montana (406) 243-5372.
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
VARIABLES AND
CENSUS
DEMOGRAPHIC
POINT COUNT
SPOT MAP
AREA SEARCH
MIST NETS
NEST MONITOR
Variables Measured
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Partly
General Characters
All
Some
Most
Some
Few
OBJECTIVES
METHOD
SINGLE POINT COUNTc
REPEAT POINT COUNTd
AREA SEARCHe
SPOT
MIST
NEST MONITORf
Inventory (presence/
1
1
1
1
1
NPg
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
POINT COUNTS
NEST-BOX MONITORING
gray flycatcher* Pacific-slope
flycatcher
purple martin*
BROADCASTING CALLS
red-naped sapsucker
FEEDER
hummingbirds
TRANSECTSc
AREA
COLONY
upland sandpiper*
common nighthawk
black swift*
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)
(Return to Table of Contents)