**The Intermountain West**

**Coordinated Bird Monitoring Project**

Jon Bart and Ann Manning, 7 February 2006

(*NOTE: The permanent IWCBM web site address is given in this document
but at present \[4 Mar 2006\] the web site is still under development;
it may be found at http://iwcbm.dev3.fsr.com*/)

**Contents**

[Abstract 1](#abstract)

[Introduction 1](#introduction)

[Aquatic Bird Survey 3](#aquatic-bird-survey)

[Landbird Survey 4](#landbird-survey)

[Bird-habitat Models 5](#bird-habitat-models)

[Data Management 6](#data-management)

[Literature Cited 7](#literature-cited)

# Abstract

The Intermountain West Coordinated Bird Monitoring (IW CBM) Project is
designed to increase the efficiency of bird monitoring efforts in the
intermountain west through improved coordination. Participants include
most of the States, federal agencies, and bird observatories on the
Intermountain West. This document describes goal and current status of
the project and is updated frequently. More information is available at
<http://greatbasin.nbii.gov/wwg_docs.htm>[.]{.underline} The project
includes four modules: aquatic bird surveys, terrestrial bird surveys,
bird-habitat models, and data management.

# Introduction

Monitoring programs -- whether long-term to assess status and trends or
short-term, conducted as part of a management program -- play a key role
in avian conservation. The recently completed State Wildlife Action
Plans highlight this need; the 11 Plans for Intermountain States contain
commitments to monitor bird populations (Altman et al. 2006). Population
targets for bird conservation are also becoming more important and will
lead to increased pressure to obtain accurate estimates of current
population size and to implement programs to provide reliable
information on progress towards achieving the targets. Thus monitoring
programs for birds have always been a critical component of avian
conservation programs, but their importance is even greater now due to
recent events.

Despite the importance of rigorous monitoring programs, many efforts at
present are incomplete and uncoordinated and thus are of much less value
to managers than they might be (Bart 2005a). We are addressing this
problem in the Intermountain West Coordinated Bird Monitoring (IW CBM)
Project. The IW CBM Project is a cooperative effort to assist State and
federal agencies in the intermountain west (Fig. 1) by increasing the
efficiency of their bird monitoring efforts. Funding is provided by the
Intermountain West Joint Venture, the Department of Defense, the Great
Basin Information Project of the USGS NBII program, and the USGS Forest
and Rangeland Ecosystem Science Center. In-kind contributions are being
made by the many organizations.

Fig. 1. Study area for the IW CBM Project, border of the IWJV, and Bird
Conservation Sub-regions.

![](media/image1.jpeg){width="4.190972222222222in"
height="2.9319444444444445in"}

The vision for this project is

> *A comprehensive, efficient bird monitoring program in the
> Intermountain West that helps people manage and conserve birds and the
> environments on which they depend.*

Project goals include

1.  Improve the efficiency of existing bird surveys.

2.  Determine whether new bird surveys are needed.

3.  Provide guidelines for bird surveys and assurance that survey
    results will be accepted by other biologists and in judicial
    proceedings.

4.  Improve our ability to determine the effects on birds of changes in
    their environment

5.  Facilitate undertaking regional conservation programs.

At present work is proceeding on four modules: aquatic bird surveys,
terrestrial bird surveys, bird-habitat models, and data management. In
this report, we define the objective for each module and describe
progress to date. This report will be revised frequently to present a
current account of accomplishments and needed next steps.

# Aquatic Bird Survey

Numerous surveys of aquatic areas are carried out in the intermountain
west but there is no program to bring the results together at present.
Both the regional shorebird plan (Oring et al. 2001) and the regional
waterbird plan (Ivey and Herziger 2005) recommended that improved
surveys be designed. The shorebird and waterbirds initiatives have both
adopted accuracy targets for trend estimation (Brown et al. 2001,
(Kushlan et al. 2002). The objective of this module is to initiate a
comprehensive aquatic birds survey program for the Intermountain West to
implement the recommendations in the regional aquatic bird plans and
achieve the accuracy targets for trend estimation adopted at the
continental level..

A sampling plan has been designed for the aquatic bird survey. It
includes strata, "designated sites," and "matrix strata" (Fig. 2).
Designated sites are relatively small sites (e.g., a National Wildlife
Refuge) important for aquatic birds. Detailed procedures have been
developed for describing designated sites and matrix strata (Bart et al.
2005). Matrix strata are larger regions, also important for aquatic
birds but in which the density is lower. Lists of designated sites and
matrix strata throughout the IW have been compiled along with
information about existing or recent surveys. A westwide GIS layer of
aquatic habitats is being prepared. It will be used to design the
aquatic surveys at each designated site and matrix strata and to
determine the sampled areas so that survey results can be aggregated.
Plans are being made to contact numerous groups around the IW to
determine their willingness to participate in an IW Aquatic Birds
Survey.

> Fig. 2. Bird monitoring sub-regions, designated sites, and matrix
> strata for the aquatic bird survey.

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="4.872916666666667in"
height="3.3402777777777777in"}

# Landbird Survey

The landbird initiative has adopted an accuracy target for monitoring
population size (Rich et al. 2004) which is similar to the target
adopted by the shorebird initiative. Several good programs exist to
collect largely landbird data, for example the Breeding Bird Survey,
Christmas Counts, the Nevada Bird Count, the Idaho Bird Inventory and
Survey, the Northern Region Landbird Monitoring Program, the programs
coordinated by the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, and Utah's survey of
riparian birds. These programs provide a foundation for designing an
integrated program that would cover the entire IW. Initiating such a
program is the goal of this portion of the IW CBM Project. Guidelines
for designing such a program were provided by Bart et al. (2004).

Data have been obtained from the BBS program, RMBO, GBBO, and the Avian
Science Center. Core variables have been defined and extracted, and a
single data base with all of this data has been created (Fig. 3). We are
thus able easily to analyze all the data simultaneously to assess
current coverage, identify gaps, and propose a comprehensive program
that would cover the entire IW. A meeting to discuss design of such a
program is being planned.

> Fig. 3. Terrestrial bird surveys in the IW CBM project area (surveys
> in Utah not included).

![](media/image3.jpeg){width="5.9944444444444445in"
height="4.198611111111111in"}

# Bird-habitat Models

The objective for this module is developing a series of models that
improve our ability to predict bird abundance and effects on birds of
changes in their environment. These models will help managers predict
species and numbers of individuals that will be affected, positively or
negatively, by proposed projects. For example, applicants for funding
from NRCS or under the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA)
will be better able to assess how their proposed project will affect
birds, information that is required and is of increasing importance in
ranking proposals. Similarly, a Forest Service or BLM biologist will be
better able to estimate current populations throughout their District or
Resource Area and assess how proposed changes to harvest or grazing
regimes will affect birds. The program will work at any scale and will
predict both current populations and populations after habitats change
in a specified way. If information on current populations is available,
then the program will use this information in predicting future
populations (Table 1).

> Table 1. Example of predictions that would be made using the bird
> habitat models. User supplies the location of the project, the habitat
> information, and, optionally, the pre-project bird numbers. Program
> uses the internally-stored bird-habitat models to predict the missing
> bird information.

A. Habitat information

  ------------- ------------- --------------- ----------------- -----------
  Habitat       Condition     Hectares                          

                              Pre-project     Post-project      Change

  Sagebrush     Poor          1500            100               -1400

                Good          200             1600              +1400

  Grassland     Poor          1000            200               -800

                Good          300             1100              +800
  ------------- ------------- --------------- ----------------- -----------

B. Predicted bird numbers

  ----------------------------- -------------- ---------------- ----------
                                Pairs of                        
                                breeding birds                  

  Species                       Pre-project    Post-project     Change

  Brewer\'s Sparrow             15             35               20

  Sage Sparrow                  5              10               5

  Sage Thrasher                 7              20               13

  Black-throated Sparrow        8              15               7
  ----------------------------- -------------- ---------------- ----------

It was mentioned above that several large data sets on landbird
abundance have been collected and integrated into a single database.
Habitat data from the USGS Land Use/Land Cover (LULC) GIS layer and from
a new layer prepared at the USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science
Center have been extracted for each of the survey points. We thus have
the ability to produce models that predict bird population based on
habitat information. A meeting is being planned at which species experts
will produce these models. Statistical assistance is being sought from a
statistician at Cornell University who will probably also attend the
meeting.

# Data Management

The objective of this module is to create a data management system to
assist program managers in data entry, storage, retrieval and analysis
and in sharing their data with others to the extent that they wish to.

We are using the "distributed, federated approach," pioneered for bird
data by the Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology (CLO), and our database
will be an implementation of the CLO's Avian Knowledge Network. This
approach recognizes that many States, bird observatories, and other
groups that collect bird monitoring data need to maintain their own data
and decide how to release it to others. Thus, storing bird survey data
solely in a central repository is not feasible. Instead, in the
distributed, federated approach, each group that wishes to maintains
their own data. They build their data bases according to their own
needs, they handle data input including error checking, and they decide
what data to make available to others, on what schedule, and with what
restrictions. This is the "distributed" part of the approach.

The "federated" part involves the user community agreeing on
"categories" of data and "core variables" for each category. Categories
might include point counts and plot surveys, banding data, atlas data,
and so on. Each category should be sufficiently different from every
other category that it is easier to handle the data sets by keeping them
distinct rather than by trying to define a set of core variables that
would encompass different categories. Some professional judgment will be
needed in defining the categories. For each category, the user community
must agree on a set of core variables, with exact definitions including
format specifications (e.g., what format to use for dates). These
definitions should conform to Federal Geospatial Data Committee (FGDC)
standards so that they can be queried using tools that FGDC cooperators
have prepared (e.g., the NBII Clearinghouse Gateway). Some programs
become "data providers" by agreeing to supply a portion of their data to
be collected in a single file for analysis. Using tools that we or
others provide, a user can select a category of data, specify what
subset of the full data set they wish to analyze (e.g., shorebirds
recorded during July-September in BCR 16), and then gain access to the
data, meeting their specifications, from all providers. Various modules
will be prepared to assist in display and analysis of the data.

The Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology and collaborators have proposed
core variables for plot and point count data. They call their schema the
"Bird Monitoring Data Exchange" (BMDE). They are working on a web-based
tool that will contact each data provider and obtain whatever data they
are willing to provide. Once the web-based tool becomes operational, the
Lab will use it to acquire data and store it in a data warehouse
available to all. Full development of this approach, however, will take
months and perhaps more than a year. While waiting for completion of
this work, we will acquire data directly (e.g., by e-mail or an ftp
site) from collaborations in the intermountain west and store it in a
local warehouse on the USGS Forest and Rangeland Ecosystem Science web
site.

# Literature Cited

Altman, R., D. Casey, and J. Bart. 2006. Bird monitoring priorities in
the new State Wildlife Assistance Plans. Submitted to Great Basin Birds.

Bart, J. 2003 Developing a coordinated bird monitoring program for the
Intermountain West. Great Basin Birds 6:56-62.

Bart, J. 2005a. Monitoring the abundance of bird populations. Auk.
122:15-25.

Bart J. Guidelines for designing short-term bird monitoring programs.
2005b. Pp. 985-992 in C. J. Ralph and T. D. Rich, editors. Bird
Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings
of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference. 2002 March
20-24; Asilomar, California; Volume 2. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191.
Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest Service, U.S.
Department of Agriculture; 643 p.

Bart, J., A. Manning, S. Thomas, and C. Wightman. 2005. Preparation of
regional shorebird monitoring plans. Pp. 902-906 in C. J. Ralph and T.
D. Rich, editors. Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in
the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight
Conference. 2002 March 20-24; Asilomar, California; Volume 2. Gen. Tech.
Rep. PSW-GTR-191. Albany, CA: Pacific Southwest Research Station, Forest
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture; 643 p.

Bart, J., K.P. Burnham, E.A. Dunn, C.M. Frances and C.J. Ralph. 2004.
Goals and strategies for estimating trends in landbird abundance.
Journal of Wildlife Management 68:611-626.

Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill (editors). 2001. United
States Shorebird Conservation Plan, 2^nd^ edition. Manomet Center for
Conservation Sciences, Manomet, Massachusetts, USA.

Ivey, G. and Herzeberger. (IW waterbird plan)

Kushlan, J.A., M.J. Steinkamp, K.C. Parsons, J. Capp, M.A. Cruz, M.
Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R.M. Erwin, S.
Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips,
J.E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002.
Waterbird Conservation for the Americas: The North American Waterbird
Conservation Plan, Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.

Oring, L. et al. (IW shorebird plan)

Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, M.S.W.
Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, E.H. Dunn, W.C. Hunter, E.E.
Inigo-Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M. Martell, A.O. Punjabi, D.N. Pashley,
K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, and T.C. Will. 2004. Partners
in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Laboratory
of Ornithology, Ithaca, N.Y.