1. Introduction
  2. What are Neotropical Migratory Birds?
  3. Why Monitor Neotropical Migratory Birds?
  5. Monitoring Goals and Strategies
  6. Scales of Monitoring
  7. Levels of Monitoring
  8. Physiographic Provinces
  9. Species and Habitat Prioritization
  12. Core Monitoring Methods
  13. Breeding Bird Survey
  14. Point Counts
  15. Constant-Effort Mist-Netting
  16. Nest Monitoring
  17. Supplemental Monitoring Methods
  18. Modified BBS Routes
  19. Non-Random Routes
  20. Mini-Routes
  21. Transects
  22. Automobile Transects
  23. Boat Transects
  24. Bicycle Transects
  25. Area Searches
  26. Breeding Bird Atlas
  27. Christmas Bird Count
  28. Spot-Mapping
  29. Breeding Bird Census
  30. Color Banding
  31. Colony Counts
  32. Broadcast Recorded Calls
  33. Feeder Counts
  34. Nest-Box Monitoring
  37. Breeding Season
  38. Migration
  40. Integrating Species-Specific Monitoring
  42. Sampling Design
  43. Data Management
  44. Statistical Analysis
  45. Interpretation and Use
  46. Housing and Dissemination
  47. Habitat Assessment and Analysis
  48. Training
  49. Volunteers
  50. Public Outreach




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




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



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.



An Overview of the Development of Monitoring Programs

(Return to Table of Contents)

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?
(Return to Table of Contents)

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?
(Return to Table of Contents)

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.

(Return to Table of Contents)

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
(Return to Table of Contents)

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
(Return to Table of Contents)

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
(Return to Table of Contents)

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
(Return to Table of Contents)

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
(Return to Table of Contents)

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


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).

(Return to Table of Contents)

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.

(Return to Table of Contents)

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



Variables Measured

Index to abundance


Survivorship (adult)

Survivorship (juvenile)



Habitat relations

Nest site characters

Clutch size


Individuals identified

Breeding status known





























































General Characters

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



















































a Table from Butcher (1992) and Ralph et al. (1993). Table 2. Potential objectives of a monitoring program and the minimum number of years needed for a method to achieve results.a,b





Inventory (presence/

absence of species)

Inventory rare species

Determine species


Determine relative


Determine species

status and seasonality

Determine population


Determine productivity

Determine individual


Life history traits

Habitat association

or preferences

Identify habitat features

Determine cause of










































































a Table from Geupel and Warkentin (1995) and Nur et al. (1995). b The actual number of years is dependent on study design and will vary considerably depending on sample size (e.g. number of census stations, detection or capture rates, or number of nests found). We assume that the priorities of the monitoring program reflect local or site specific needs.

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
(Return to Table of Contents)

Breeding Bird Survey (BBS):
(Return to Table of Contents)

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:
(Return to Table of Contents)

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:
(Return to Table of Contents)

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 Monitoring:
(Return to Table of Contents)

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
(Return to Table of Contents)

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.

Modified BBS Routes:
(Return to Table of Contents)

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.

Non-Random Routes:
(Return to Table of Contents)

(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)

(Return to Table of Contents)

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.

(Return to Table of Contents)

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.

Automobile Transects:
(Return to Table of Contents)

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).

Boat Transects:
(Return to Table of Contents)

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).

Bicycle Transects:
(Return to Table of Contents)

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.

Area Searches:
(Return to Table of Contents)

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):
(Return to Table of Contents)

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):
(Return to Table of Contents)

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.

(Return to Table of Contents)

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:
(Return to Table of Contents)

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:
(Return to Table of Contents)

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:
(Return to Table of Contents)

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):
(Return to Table of Contents)

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:
(Return to Table of Contents)

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:
(Return to Table of Contents)

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.

(Return to Table of Contents)

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.

(Return to Table of Contents)

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
(Return to Table of Contents)

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.

(Return to Table of Contents)

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).

(Return to Table of Contents)

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

gray flycatcher* Pacific-slope flycatcher

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

purple martin*

Western bluebird*

mountain bluebird

red-naped sapsucker

Williamson's sapsucker*

common poorwill







upland sandpiper*

long-billed curlew*

Lewis' woodpecker*

loggerhead shrike*

sage thrasher*

sage sparrow*

black-throated sparrow*

grasshopper sparrow*

Brewers' sparrow

Vaux's swift*


common nighthawk

least flycatcher

American pipit

northern waterthrush


Lincoln's sparrow

marsh wren


gray catbird

red-eyed vireo

Lewis' woodpecker*

black swift*

purple martin*

white-throated swift

bank swallow*

rough-winged swallow


yellow-headed blackbird

tri-colored blackbird*

Vaux's swift*

a Species listed in Andelman and Stock (1994). b Some species are listed under multiple methods; site-specific conditions will determine the appropriate method (see discussion in Appendix J).

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
(Return to Table of Contents)

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.

(Return to Table of Contents)

Sampling Design
(Return to Table of Contents)

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
(Return to Table of Contents)

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.

Statistical Analysis:
(Return to Table of Contents)

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 and Use:
(Return to Table of Contents)

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.

Housing and Dissemination:
(Return to Table of Contents)

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
(Return to Table of Contents)

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).

(Return to Table of Contents)

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.

(Return to Table of Contents)

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
(Return to Table of Contents)

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.

(Return to Table of Contents)

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.


* 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.