National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Program Center

Landbird Monitoring Protocol

Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring Network

Natural Resource Report NPS/GLKN/NRR—2010/225
ON THE COVER

Common Yellowthroat, Geothlypis trichas.

Photo by: Sam Smyrk, National Park Service/Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring Network
Landbird Monitoring Protocol

Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring Network

Natural Resource Report NPS/GLKN/NRR—2010/225

Prepared by

Ted Gostomski1, Melinda Knutson2, Nicholas P. Danz3, Bill Route1, and Todd W. Sutherland2

1

National Park Service

Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring Program

2800 Lakeshore Drive East, Suite D

Ashland, Wisconsin 54806

2

U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 3

Biological Monitoring Team

2630 Fanta Reed Road

La Crosse, Wisconsin 54603

3

Department of Natural Sciences

University of Wisconsin-Superior

132 McCaskill Hall

Superior, Wisconsin 54880

July 2010

U.S. Department of the Interior

National Park Service

Natural Resource Program Center

Fort Collins, Colorado
ii

The National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center publishes a range of reports that 

address natural resource topics of interest and applicability to a broad audience in the National 

Park Service and others in natural resource management, including scientists, conservation and 

environmental constituencies, and the public.

The Natural Resource Report Series is used to disseminate high-priority, current natural resource 

management information with managerial application. The series targets a general, diverse 

audience, and may contain NPS policy considerations or address sensitive issues of management 

applicability.

All manuscripts in the series receive the appropriate level of peer review to ensure that the 

information is scientifically credible, technically accurate, appropriately written for the intended 

audience, and designed and published in a professional manner. This report received informal 

peer review by subject-matter experts who were not directly involved in the collection, analysis, 

or reporting of the data.

Views, statements, findings, conclusions, recommendations, and data in this report do not 

necessarily reflect views and policies of the National Park Service, U.S. Department of the 

Interior. Mention of trade names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement or 

recommendation for use by the U.S. Government.

This report is available from the Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring Network 

(http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/glkn/) and the Natural Resource Publications 

Management website (http://www.nature.nps.gov/publications/NRPM).

Please cite this publication as:

Gostomski, T., M. Knutson, N. P. Danz, B. Route, and T. W. Sutherland. 2010. Landbird 

monitoring protocol, Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring Network. Natural Resource Report 

NPS/GLKN/NRR—2010/225. National Park Service, Fort Collins, Colorado.

NPS 920/104611, July 2010
iii

Contents

Page

Tables.............................................................................................................................................. v

Abstract......................................................................................................................................... vii

Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................ ix

Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1

Rationale for Monitoring Landbird Populations ..........................................................................1

History of Landbird Monitoring in Great Lakes Network Parks..................................................2

Basic Approach.............................................................................................................................4

Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 5

Sampling Design............................................................................................................................. 7

The Target Population ..................................................................................................................7

Spatial and Temporal Allocation of Samples...............................................................................8

Field Methods ................................................................................................................................. 9

Field Season Preparations, Field Schedule, and Equipment Setup ..............................................9

Sampling Methods........................................................................................................................9

Habitat Monitoring .....................................................................................................................10

Data Management, Analysis, and Reporting ................................................................................ 13

Database Design .........................................................................................................................13

Data Analysis..............................................................................................................................13

Reporting ....................................................................................................................................14

Analysis and Synthesis Reports............................................................................................ 15

Protocol Review Reports ...................................................................................................... 15

Scientific Journal Articles, Book Chapters, Symposia, Meetings, and Workshops............. 15

Personnel Requirements and Training.......................................................................................... 17

Roles and Responsibilities..........................................................................................................17

Park Coordinator................................................................................................................... 17

Network Program Manager................................................................................................... 17

Qualifications and Training........................................................................................................17

Operational Requirements ............................................................................................................ 19

Annual Workload and Field Schedule........................................................................................19

Facility and Equipment Needs....................................................................................................19

Startup Costs and Budget ...........................................................................................................19

Procedure for Revising and Archiving Previous Versions of the Protocol ................................19

Literature Cited ............................................................................................................................. 21

Appendix. Index to Standard Operating Procedures..................................................................... 23

v

Tables

Page

Table 1. Summary of landbird monitoring programs in Great Lakes Network parks. ................... 3

Table 2. Format of a budget to estimate the costs of conducting an annual landbird 

monitoring program in one park unit............................................................................................ 19

vii

Abstract

The Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring Program worked with the nine national park units in 

the Great Lakes Network to identify indicators (called Vital Signs) important to protecting the 

most important natural resources in the region. Landbird Communities is one of the Vital Signs 

that ranked highly for the nine parks. Landbird monitoring is used by many land management 

agencies and organizations because of its relatively easy implementation and low cost. The Great 

Lakes I&M Program worked with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Regions 3 and 5; the 

Natural Resources Research Institute at the University of Minnesota Duluth; the Cofrin Center 

for Biological Diversity at the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay; and the Northeast Temperate 

Network to develop this standardized protocol that we hope will facilitate data comparisons 

across a broad swath of the northern United States. More locally, this protocol was developed to 

standardize data collection across the nine parks of the Great Lakes Network (GLKN), many of 

whom have been collecting such data for more than ten years. This standardized protocol, 

implemented across the Great Lakes Network parks, will allow for regional comparisons while 

still giving parks the freedom to analyze and identify trends within their boundaries.

ix

Acknowledgements

Our thanks go to the many people who were involved in the creation of this protocol, particularly

Melinda Knutson, Nick Danz, and Todd Sutherland, who helped prepare earlier drafts. Review 

and helpful comments were provided by Ryan Brady, Peggy Burkman, Alex Egan, Joan Elias, 

Dave Ewert, Michael Hamas, Tania Homayoun, Melinda Knutson, Katie Koch, Robin 

Maercklein, Mark Martell, Gerald Niemi, Brandon Seitz, and Debbie Waters. We thank all of 

them for helping to make this a much better protocol as a result of their time and attention.

1

Introduction

The purpose of the National Park Service Inventory and Monitoring (NPS I&M) Program is to 

identify and monitor ecological indicators (referred to as “Vital Signs”) of park ecosystem 

health. Vital Signs are a select group of attributes that are particularly rich in information needed 

for understanding and managing NPS areas. Twenty-one Vital Signs, including Bird 

Communities, were selected by the resource managers of the nine Great Lakes Network (GLKN) 

parks. This protocol and the attached standard operating procedures (SOPs) provide the basis and 

specific methods for monitoring breeding landbird communities in the Great Lakes Network 

parks. 

Rationale for Monitoring Landbird Populations

Landbird monitoring is used by a number of land management agencies and organizations in part 

because of its low cost and relatively easy implementation. Additionally, multi-agency groups 

focused on landbird monitoring are working to clarify objectives, coordinate monitoring efforts, 

and identify information gaps in North America (Pashley et al. 2000; Bart and Ralph 2005; Hutto 

and Ralph 2005).

The nine national parks in the Great Lakes Network provide important breeding and nesting 

habitat for migratory and resident birds. The variety of aquatic habitats (including the Great 

Lakes themselves) and the complexity of terrestrial landscapes (e.g., sand dunes, old fields, 

temperate hardwoods, and southern boreal forest) found in the GLKN parks provide ideal 

habitats that are protected from extensive human development and subsequent fragmentation. 

For these reasons, landbird monitoring can serve as an early warning sign of habitat degradation 

in the parks, but landbird monitoring is also important from an ecological perspective for the 

following reasons: 

1. Birds account for high biotic diversity in a given area, and they contribute to seed dispersal 

and the control of pest populations. Alternatively, they are also disease vectors and spread 

exotic plants and animals. 

2. Some corridors (e.g., Mississippi and St. Croix rivers and Great Lakes shorelines) act as 

major flyways so that measures of bird use can represent species abundance across large 

regions. 

3. Birds are mid- to high-level organisms that bioaccumulate toxins and heavy metals in 

measurable quantities.

Also, relative to park management:

1. Birds are of high interest to the public, and 

2. Several species are threatened, endangered, or otherwise of special concern, particularly 

species of wetlands and open sand beaches, neotropical migrants, and grassland birds.

Finally, bird monitoring is ideal because it is feasible for parks; standard methods exist, there are 

abundant baseline datasets, and equipment needs are minimal.
2

History of Landbird Monitoring in Great Lakes Network Parks

Seven of the nine GLKN parks have established landbird monitoring programs: Apostle Islands

National Lakeshore (APIS), Grand Portage National Monument (GRPO), Indiana Dunes

National Lakeshore (INDU), Isle Royale National Park (ISRO), St. Croix National Scenic 

Riverway (SACN), Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore (SLBE), and Voyageurs National 

Park (VOYA) (Table 1). The Mississippi National River and Recreation Area (MISS) is 

surveyed by volunteers through the Minnesota Audubon Society, and Pictured Rocks National 

Lakeshore (PIRO) will develop a landbird monitoring program based on this protocol.

Each of the existing landbird monitoring programs in GLKN parks collect data during the 

breeding season (usually June to early July) through the use of point counts (Ralph et al. 1993: p. 

30). However, Minnesota Audubon’s monitoring at MISS occurs during the migratory period 

between April and May, with two surveys run in early June (M. Martell, Minnesota Audubon 

Society, personal communication). Lind et al. (2005) reviewed the existing park protocols and 

presented a brief description of each park’s objectives, cumulative years of data collection, 

overall sampling design, number of survey points, and data collection procedures (Table 1). As 

part of their review, power analyses were performed on the existing data to determine whether 

trends could be reliably detected over time. They found that most park monitoring programs 

provide sufficient data to detect significant trends in common species over relatively short 

timeframes (10 to 15 years). However, the authors recommended some changes to enhance the 

reliability, repeatability, statistical power, and regional consistency of the protocols. In most 

cases, the existing protocols could be easily revised and new, more rigorous standards adopted in 

the field.

The need for a standardized protocol for monitoring landbirds in the Great Lakes region was 

identified by Howe et al. (1997), who subsequently offered a model that could be used. Three of 

the six parks currently conducting landbird monitoring (APIS, GRPO, and VOYA) would 

require only minor adjustments to be in full compliance with Howe et al.’s protocol. The other 

three parks (ISRO, SACN, and INDU) would require some procedural changes including 

additional data collection. Implementing a standardized landbird monitoring protocol for GLKN 

parks will streamline monitoring plans for park biologists; help ensure that data can be shared 

among other federal land managers (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service) 

and non-federal partners; and will ensure the data have value for future meta-analyses, such as 

assessing regional or national status and trends, or examining habitat relationships at large spatial 

scales. 
3

Table 1. Summary of landbird monitoring programs in Great Lakes Network parks.

Park

Year 

Established

No. of 

Points Objectives

Apostle Islands 

National 

Lakeshore

1990 106

1) monitor long-term trends of avian populations that breed 

within the lakeshore; 

2) describe important breeding bird habitats within the 

lakeshore including how various species are using them;

3) place the Apostle Islands in a regional context by 

determining what the park is providing to nesting species; and

4) make data available for comparative use by other 

established breeding bird surveys, particularly those being 

conducted within the Lake Superior region.

Grand Portage 

National 

Monument

1999 38

1) determine relative abundance among spp., within habitats 

and the region; 

2) contribute to a regional picture of breeding bird 

success/failure; and

3) track abundance trends.

Indiana Dunes 

National 

Lakeshore

1993 50

1) long-term assessment of presence/absence and major 

changes in population sizes and species diversity, and 

2) contribute to the national breeding bird database.

Isle Royale 

National Park 1994 130

1) measure composition and general size of populations over 

time,

2) make general comparisons from year to year, and

3) compare results with regional/national datasets.

Mississippi

National River 

and Recreation 

Area

1) identify land bird species present in the Mississippi River 

Twin Cities Important Bird Area (IBA); 

2) determine which species are using the IBA habitats during 

what time periods (i.e., spring migration, breeding, fall 

migration, over-wintering); 

3) estimate relative abundances of various land bird species in 

the IBA across time; and

4) in the long-term, monitor trends in land bird species in the 

IBA.

St. Croix National 

Scenic Riverway 1982 50

1) determine distribution and range and the changes over time 

for individual species both within the park and regionally,

2) construct clear abundance categories for bird watching and 

checklist information,

3) contribute to regional population trend information, and

4) analyze within-park species trends, however gross the scale.
4

Table 1. Summary of landbird monitoring programs in Great Lakes Network parks (continued).

Park

Year 

Established

No. of 

Points Objectives

Sleeping Bear 

Dunes National 

Lakeshore

2004 40

1) determine presence and abundance of bird species nesting 

in designated habitat types, 

2) make population comparisons from year to year, and

3) provide information for checklists and breeding bird 

databases.

Voyageurs 

National Park 1995 80

1) conduct long-term monitoring of bird species breeding within 

the park and determine species trend information;

2) make data available for comparative use by other 

established breeding bird surveys, particularly those being 

conducted in northeast Minnesota and the western Great Lakes 

basin;

3) describe important breeding bird habitats within the park and 

show how various species are using them;

4) use the breeding bird data to help interpret the breeding birds 

of the park to neighbors, visitors and staff.

Basic Approach

We have explicitly stated the goals and objectives for landbird monitoring at each park and 

prepared a written protocol and SOPs that are as consistent as possible with Howe et al. (1997)

and with NPS protocol standards (Oakley et al. 2003). To a great degree, the methods we 

prescribe are compatible with current efforts at GLKN parks, so historical data sets can be 

maintained. However, each of the current park protocols will need to be revised to incorporate 

the criteria of Howe et al. (1997) and also to meet standards set by the NPS Inventory and 

Monitoring Program. Network staff will work with park staff to develop and/or revise park 

protocols and databases and provide training tools to park-based observers. Those observers will 

conduct fieldwork and/or work closely with volunteers who assist the parks in this effort. The 

Network will then summarize and analyze the data and report on the results to park resource 

management staff.

The locations of existing sampling points will be documented using GIS, and where possible we 

will examine potential biases in the habitats sampled and their proximity to natural features and 

human developments. Recommendations for changes and/or appropriate qualifying statements 

for future analysis and use of the data are included in this protocol. Certifying survey participants 

(both NPS staff and volunteers) in the identification of landbirds will be accomplished through a 

web-based testing procedure, which is being developed (as of Fall 2008) in collaboration with 

several agencies and hosted by the University of Wisconsin – Green Bay. The web site will 

provide bird species lists from previous park surveys and will incorporate bird song recordings 

collected at GLKN parks.
5

Goals and Objectives

The overall goal of this protocol is to improve the consistency, comparability, quality, and access 

to landbird monitoring data being collected each year by Network parks, and to periodically 

analyze these data and report the findings to park managers. To accomplish this, we will:

1. Develop and use a standardized sampling method that is flexible enough to fit the unique 

sampling challenges at each park but still yield data that are comparable across parks and 

can be integrated at regional and national levels.

2. Develop and integrate quality control measures such as training and certification for 

observers.

3. Provide a Network-wide database for storage and retrieval of data.

4. Disseminate information to partners and other interested parties. (This may be done by 

the individual parks or by the Network, but any release of data by the Network will be 

subject to approval by the affected park(s).)

Within the parameters of these objectives, we have developed specific questions that we hope to 

address under this monitoring protocol. These include:

1. What are the long-term trends in population indices for key landbird birds or suites 

of birds? 

We do not intend to directly estimate the abundance of landbirds, but knowledge of 

population trends is important to species conservation and for directing future 

management decisions.

2. How do indices of population trends and habitat associations in the parks compare 

to those from other monitoring programs in the region? 

Such comparison is important for understanding the parks’ contribution to regional 

diversity. Several existing monitoring programs (e.g., national forests, North American

Breeding Bird Survey) can be used for regional comparisons of trends and habitat 

associations when it is scientifically valid to do so.

3. What are the habitat associations of observed landbird species? 

Some bird species are closely associated with specific habitat types during the breeding 

season and their presence or absence may be helpful in evaluating environmental 

conditions.

7

Sampling Design

The primary purpose of the sampling design for a monitoring program is to establish the rules for 

selecting study sites, the schedule of revisits to sites, and the approach for making inferences to 

the target population. The rules and processes for collecting data at the selected study sites is 

termed response design and is the focus of SOP #5.

The Target Population

One of the essential components of a sampling design is a clear identification of the target 

population, (i.e., the ecological resource about which information is wanted). For landbird 

monitoring programs, the target population is often a continuous area with boundaries, as in 

forested lands within a national park. Statistical surveys use probabilistic methods to select 

sampling sites that are representative of the target population. For continuous areas, using 

probabilistic methods means first defining a list of all points that could be selected (i.e., the 

sampling frame) and then selecting sites in a systematic or random manner so that all sites have a 

known, non-zero chance of being included in the sample (Cochran 1965). There is often 

incomplete knowledge of the spatial location, size, or numbers of sampling units in the 

population, which creates practical difficulties in developing an accurate sampling frame and 

representative sample. Incorporating randomization in the design minimizes the influence of bias 

– a systematic difference between the sample and the population. Inferences from the sample to 

the entire population can be made through the use of sampling theory and statistics (Cochran 

1965).

Non-random sampling designs can also be useful, but sampling theory cannot be relied upon, to 

assess the degree to which the sample is different from the target population (Cochran 1965). 

Many of the GLKN landbird monitoring programs were initiated in the 1990s and have been 

collecting important data since. During the sampling design of these programs, standardized 

design protocols were implemented to varying degrees to minimize bias and maximize statistical 

reliability (Hanowski and Niemi 1995, Howe et al. 1997), but the target population may not have 

been clearly identified and probabilistic sampling methods may not have been completely 

employed. For example, many programs use point counts along trails that are stratified by habitat 

type, but it is unknown how the specific trails were selected or whether there were some areas 

that were excluded from consideration. Additionally, if points were strategically placed in 

interior habitat areas (avoiding edges), as is sometimes done to document bird-habitat 

relationships (Hanowski and Niemi 1995), then the sampled population may not include edge 

habitats or edge-associated bird species. Thus, it is sometimes not clear what the intended 

domain of statistical inference was or whether the sample is in fact representative. This is not to 

say that the monitoring information is not useful, however. Indeed, the information may be very 

meaningful if accompanied by qualifying statements that lay out guidelines for interpretation and 

inference. Given the financial resources of GLKN, it is desirable to adopt and build upon these 

existing efforts while increasing statistical reliability rather than employing new sampling 

designs. In this way, we can maintain historical and regional continuity that these datasets 

provide. 
8

Spatial and Temporal Allocation of Samples

Sampling designs should strive to achieve spatial balance by spreading sites geographically 

throughout the population of interest to avoid bias that may arise from a clumped sample 

(Stevens and Olsen 2004). All of the existing monitoring programs in the Network explicitly 

considered the geographic distribution of samples during sampling design. Four programs (APIS, 

GRPO, ISRO, VOYA) sample primarily along trails, while SACN samples along rivers, and 

INDU surveys along roadsides. Three Network programs are located in federal wilderness areas 

(APIS, ISRO, VOYA). All Network programs exceeded the minimum recommended distance of 

250 m between points to avoid double-counting of individual birds (Ralph et al. 1995). Five of 

the six existing programs visit points annually, while SACN is the only program that employs 

visits to sites in alternate years. 

Lind et al. (2005) carried out retrospective power analyses for six existing Network programs 

and found that all programs had sufficient power to detect a 5% change in abundance of common 

species over moderate time frames (10-15 years). For less abundant or rare species, sufficient 

statistical power to detect a trend will require more years of monitoring. Although Lind et al.

(2005) did not evaluate the number of samples required for a specified level of power, they 

concluded that most parks had a sufficient number of survey stations. Thompson et al. (2002) 

found that 100-300 surveys stations were adequate for monitoring on the spatial scale of a 

national forest (at least twice the size of most of the GLKN parks) over a 10-year period.
9

Field Methods

Field Season Preparations, Field Schedule, and Equipment Setup

Depending on availability and existing protocols for individual parks, surveys will be conducted 

by either a single observer/recorder or by a two-person crew consisting of one observer, who 

conducts the actual survey, and one recorder, who records the detections of the observer on 

standardized data sheets. It is important that only one person be designated as the observer and 

that the second person, if available, only records the data. It is possible to carry out this protocol 

with just one person doing the observing and recording, but it may be more difficult. In addition, 

observers working alone in the field present some safety considerations. 

The following are some tasks that need to be completed by the Resource Management Specialist 

(RMS) or their designee (“Park Coordinator”) for each park prior to conducting surveys:

1. If new monitoring points need to be selected, select a sampling design using SOP #1 

before the field season begins (we recommend at least six months) and consult a qualified 

statistician to verify that the sampling design will meet the defined management and 

monitoring objectives, given the specifics of the study area. 

2. Review the pre-season tasks described in SOP #2 and ensure observers are hired and 

adequately trained (SOP #3). Training is particularly important each year, as the 

misidentification of a species is perhaps the most serious error that can be made during a 

bird count. Misidentification is more serious than errors in estimating distances or 

double-counting a bird.

3. The Park Coordinator should schedule sampling dates and organize logistics at least two 

months before the start of each field season. This is important, particularly for ensuring 

transportation to sampling plots that require logistical support (i.e., boat transportation). 

Unpredictable weather and other logistics necessitate maintaining some flexibility in 

scheduling the sequence and duration of sampling trips. Locations in the southern Great 

Lakes (MISS, INDU) may have earlier breeding phenology, so sampling may begin in 

those locations earlier.

4. Review this entire protocol, including all of the SOPs, with all survey crew members 

before the field season. 

5. All of the equipment and supplies listed in SOP #2 should be organized and made ready. 

Ensure that sufficient copies of the field data forms (found in SOP #5) are available on 

“Rite-in-the-Rain”® paper.

Sampling Methods

Sampling locations should be permanently marked as allowed for by individual park policies. 

Observers may need to use a GPS unit (refer to SOP #4) when returning to previously marked 

sample points, but crews should always have a map and compass as well.

When possible, bird survey crew members should arrive at the park a few days before the first 

day of sampling to familiarize themselves with the area and the birds present and to complete 

any mandatory onsite training. The Park Coordinator will determine beginning and ending dates 

for surveys. 
10

Standard Operating Procedure #5 provides details on how to conduct variable circular plot 

(VCP) counts during the breeding season and for filling in data forms. In summary, counts are 

conducted during the early morning hours, beginning 30 minutes before sunrise and finishing no 

later than four hours after sunrise. Counts are up to 10 minutes in duration. Birds flushed from 

the plot when approached by the observer will be recorded once the count is started, which is one 

minute after the observer is at plot center. New bird observations are listed each minute up to 10 

minutes. Recording observations at one-minute intervals allows for comparisons to be made with 

other regional and national surveys that conduct point counts <10 minutes in duration. This will 

also be useful for analysis of detection probabilities and the potential inclusion of adjustments of 

bird detection among years (Etterson et al. 2009).

A small timer is placed on the clipboard and observations are recorded to the whole minute (e.g., 

minute 1, minute 2). Individual birds are recorded only once (the first time they are heard), not in 

each time interval they are heard. Observers/recorders note the name of the bird using 

standardized four-letter AOU codes (see Appendix A of SOP #5), the time (minute interval), the 

detection type (seen, heard, flyover), and the bird’s distance from the point center. Distance 

estimates are recorded as one of the following: 0-50, 51-100, and >100 m from the point center.

At the end of each point count, observers and recorders are to complete the data forms before 

moving on to the next point. Observers should be able to complete an average of 10-12 points 

per day in good weather and with favorable walking conditions. Points located along off-trail 

transects will take longer, averaging six-to-eight points completed per day, depending on 

walking conditions and the ability to locate points.

Before leaving the field each day, data sheets are checked for completeness and readability. All 

information pertinent to the plots sampled that day is recorded to avoid repeating or skipping 

sampling plots. The Park Coordinator is responsible for the safekeeping and organization of the 

data sheets, and for ensuring that data are entered into the database.

Habitat Monitoring

One objective of landbird monitoring is to assess how bird communities respond to changes in 

landscape structure and vegetation (Ralph et al. 1993: pp.30, 37). Fire, windstorms, disease, and 

insects play an important role in shaping the structure and composition of vegetation 

communities. By influencing the composition and successional stages of plant communities, 

these natural disturbances are important in structuring the composition of animal communities

(Matsuoka et al. 2001). Large-scale changes in vegetation are likely to have cascading effects on 

avian communities. Therefore, an important component of the landbird monitoring program is to

document any coarse change in vegetation so that it can be associated to indices of bird 

abundance (Ralph et al. 1993: p. 37).

Not all GLKN parks are correlating birds with habitat. For those that are, it is up to the Park 

Coordinator to select an appropriate habitat monitoring protocol, based on the specific objectives 

of the park’s bird monitoring program. In some situations, vegetation data are being collected by 

another agency or another field crew for another purpose. It may be possible, depending upon 

objectives, to co-locate bird sampling sites with vegetation sampling sites to maximize 

efficiency. At a minimum, the Park Coordinator should develop a list of vegetation communities 
11

present on the monitoring plots, using the USGS National Land Cover Database (see SOP #6, 

Appendix A). More advanced programs may want to also use the National Vegetation 

Classification System (NVCS, http://www.natureserve.org/explorer/classeco.htm).

13

Data Management, Analysis, and Reporting

Database Design

Landbird data will be entered into a Network-specific database that is being developed as part of 

the ArcIMS web site. When it is completed, information entered in the ArcIMS database will be 

automatically uploaded to the USGS Breeding Bird Survey database. 

The USGS Bird Point Count Database accommodates bird point counts and transect and area 

search methods, and it is open to any agency or organization that chooses to contribute data. The 

database has recently been upgraded to improve the recording of metadata, including information 

about objectives, sampling design, sampling frame, point groupings (habitat or management 

unit), and target season. Simple summary reports are also available with plans to expand 

reporting and download capabilities in the future. USGS adheres to federal requirements for data 

quality and integrity. See SOP #8 for details regarding data entry, verification, editing, metadata 

procedures, and archival procedures. 

Parks will maintain files of the hard-copy data sheets, while the Network office will only keep 

data in the electronic format.

Data Analysis

The primary aim of data analysis is to provide reliable answers to the questions in the monitoring 

program objectives. The chosen analytical steps will follow naturally from the objectives and 

sampling design, although there may be multiple statistical or analytical techniques that are 

appropriate. For the GLKN parks, the overall objectives are to evaluate bird population trends. 

There is a wealth of information in the scientific literature about the reliable analysis of point 

count data (Sauer and Droege 1990, Ralph et al. 1995, Nur et al. 1999, Etterson et al. 2009), so it 

is possible to devise a way to account for particular differences among parks. Standard Operating 

Procedure #9 includes greater detail about recommended statistical approaches for the analysis of 

trends and habitat associations. 

Two primary analytical issues should be considered regardless of the statistical methods chosen:

1) Sources of variability – in addition to true variability of bird abundance in space 

or time, many additional factors can directly influence the number of birds 

observed during a point count survey. These include, among other things, wind, 

rain, time of day, and observer differences. While the 10-minute VCP protocol 

has features built-in to minimize many of these sources of variability, their 

potential influence will be incorporated into analyses done at the Network level

and will periodically be investigated explicitly in cooperation with parks.

2) The index assumption – the point count is a method for surveying rather than 

completely enumerating all birds in an area (i.e., a census). Thus, the raw number 

of observations recorded during a point count is not a measure of density. For 

trend analysis, the goal is often to make conclusions about the trend of the entire 

population through time even though the entire population is not censused. If the 

raw counts of birds are a constant proportion of true population size, it may be 
14

possible to use unadjusted counts as an index of the population. However, if the 

chance of observing a bird is not constant through time or between habitats – that 

is, if there is heterogeneity in the detection probability – then the raw counts will 

not be an unbiased index of population size. Similarly for bird-habitat 

associations, detectability may not be constant across habitat types, which may 

confound the true habitat responses of birds (Etterson et al. 2009). The VCP 

survey protocol (SOP #5) will allow analysis and incorporation of detection 

probabilities using both distance-based approaches (Buckland et al. 1993) and 

time-removal methods (Farnsworth et al. 2002). At this time, we recommend 

periodic evaluation of detection probabilities using both distance and timeremoval approaches to evaluate detection probabilities. 

There will be a combination of annual and periodic analyses that achieve different objectives; see 

SOP #9 for specific details. Annual analyses will summarize information on the status of the bird 

populations and communities, including tables, graphs, maps, and figures that summarize species 

observations, community composition, and richness across individual parks. More in-depth 

analyses of population trends and habitat associations will be conducted approximately every 

three years using appropriate statistical methods. Statistical methods for trend analysis will be 

primarily regression-based approaches to model the relationship between population size, or an

index thereof, and time. A wider variety of options exist for analyzing habitat associations, 

including regression, ordination, analysis of variance (ANOVA), indicator value analysis, and 

classification and regression trees. Habitat analyses may use predictors summarized on varying 

spatial scales, such as micro-scale vegetation measurements or land-use in larger spatial buffers. 

Periodic assessments of bird population change in relation to changes in vegetation structure and 

composition will provide insight into the relationships among ecosystem components, and 

improve our understanding of breeding bird-habitat relationships and the effects of large scale 

perturbations.

Reporting

A primary goal of the NPS I&M Program is to ensure that the results and knowledge gleaned are 

shared with all appropriate parties, especially the parks and their natural resource managers. 

However, the Network’s role in the landbird monitoring program is limited to facilitating the 

development of standardized methods, providing quality assurance/quality control to the 

Network dataset, and facilitating the periodic inter-park comparisons. Therefore, the Park 

Coordinators are responsible for protocol implementation, data management, quality 

assurance/quality control, and summary and analysis for their park’s data on an annual basis. The 

Network Landbird Monitoring Program Manager will assist the parks with these tasks in any 

way possible and will serve as the communications conduit for the parks as required by the 

national I&M Program.

While the Network primarily addresses concerns of the parks, its monitoring program has the 

potential to serve a much broader community. For example, monitoring projects can provide a 

starting point for external scientific research (especially to establish cause-effect relationships)

and can provide insights for adaptive management on other public lands. The Network is also 

accountable to multiple organizations within the federal government, including the national NPS 

I&M Program and the U.S. Congress. To provide accountability and to meet the requests of all 
15

parties, we will provide multiple types of reports and communications. These are described in 

more detail in SOP #10 and include the following:

Analysis and Synthesis Reports

Periodically (ca. every 3 years), analysis and synthesis reports will be written to document 

population trends and habitat associations. These reports will be written according to the format 

and standards of the National Park Service Natural Resource Technical Reports and will include 

complete documentation of statistical methods used and interpretation of results. These reports 

may also include retrospective power analysis to determine the effectiveness of the monitoring 

program. 

Protocol Review Reports

These will also be completed periodically for the purpose of evaluating operational procedures 

and results and determining if changes are needed. 

Scientific Journal Articles, Book Chapters, Symposia, Meetings, and Workshops

These additional forms of reporting are encouraged by the Great Lakes I&M Program to 

document advances in scientific knowledge, to increase communication among park biologists 

and scientists, and to identify emerging issues.

17

Personnel Requirements and Training

Roles and Responsibilities

Park Coordinator

The Park Coordinator (PC) duties will vary depending on his/her supervisor and other parkspecific factors. In general, the PC will (or contract with others to): (1) train observers, (2) 

implement the study protocol in the field, (3) supervise data entry and quality assurance, (4)

analyze the data, and (5) report results. The PC supervises biological technicians and other field 

crew members. Depending upon the scale of the monitoring effort, one or more field crew 

leaders may be hired and will report to the PC. Because of the need for a high level of training 

and consistency in implementing the protocol, the PC will oversee the hiring and training of the 

field crews and, when possible, will be one of the persons conducting at least some of the point

counts annually. 

The PC will delegate to the appropriate staff functions such as preparing all field gear and data 

collection equipment, supplies, and data forms for the field season; entering field data into the 

database; and cleaning, repairing, and storing field equipment. The PC is responsible for 

ensuring that data entry and proofing procedures meet quality standards.

Typically, the PC is responsible for data collection, data entry, data verification and validation, 

as well as data summary, analysis, and reporting. The PC is also responsible for the safekeeping 

and organization of the data sheets, and ensuring that data are entered into the database.

Network Program Manager

The Great Lakes Network Landbird Monitoring Program Manager (Network Program Manager)

is responsible for facilitating the multi-year summary and analyses of data collected by all of the 

participating parks. The Great Lakes Network office is responsible for designing the Network 

database and for data archiving, security, and dissemination. The Network Program Manager and 

Network Data Manager work with park PCs to develop data entry forms and other database 

features, and to automate report generation. The Network office is responsible for ensuring that 

adequate QA/QC procedures are built into the database management system and that appropriate 

data handling procedures are followed.

Qualifications and Training

Standard Operating Procedure #3 provides details on hiring and training all personnel associated 

with the landbird monitoring program. Observer bias is a major source of variability in trend 

analyses of bird populations (Sauer et al. 1994; Kendall et al. 1996), so competent observers are

the essential element in collecting credible, high-quality data on birds. Further, it is best to have 

the same observer(s) conduct the point counts each year to ensure consistency. 

Training has been shown to improve the ability of observers to detect birds (McLaren and 

Cadman 1999). Recordings of birds in the study area, especially for the less common or 

unexpected species, should be provided to observers. Good hearing ability and knowledge of 

bird songs and calls is essential because many birds, particularly in forested habitats, are detected 

by sound only. Observers must be capable of identifying by sight and sound ≥90% of the birds 
18

likely to be encountered. Additionally, volunteers must be proficient at estimating abundance of 

birds detected and their horizontal distance from the observer. Volunteers must also be capable 

of hiking 40 km (20 mi) over variable terrain (depending on park and transect route) and arriving 

at their first survey point by 0500 hrs.

At a minimum, observers should be certified for identifying birds by sight and sound using the 

Western Great Lakes States Birder Certification web site (www.uwgb.edu/birds/certification/ 

index-1.htm). Observers can undergo practice sessions on the site and/or use a tape or CD that 

has songs and calls of the park’s target bird species (lists are provided on the web site or should

be provided by the Park Coordinator). All observers should be certified as a Level 2 observer for 

the habitats appropriate for each park, and observers should be re-certified annually. In addition, 

each observer should become acquainted with the distance categories by marking off an area 

with a 100 m tape measure and spending time listening for birds and placing them in the correct 

distance categories. Laser rangefinders will be provided to aid observers in measuring distances 

during survey periods.

Cooperative or contractual agreements with bird observatories or Audubon clubs are possible 

sources of staff or volunteers with bird identification and other skills. The Network Program 

Manager will identify and enlist the services (through in-kind support or contract) of a 

statistician or quantitative ecologist to help with data analysis and reporting.
19

Operational Requirements

Annual Workload and Field Schedule

The sampling period for breeding birds will be defined by the Park Coordinator to coincide with 

the peak in breeding activities of landbirds in their area. In most parks of the Great Lakes region 

this will be during the month of June. Two-person field crews are strongly advised, although one 

person could conduct the field sampling. When two-person crews are used, it is important that 

only one person makes all observations and the second person records the data. This is to reduce 

the sampling bias that might occur with two observers. The time required for completing 

sampling depends on the number and location of points. Crews should strive to complete 8-to-12

points each field day.

Facility and Equipment Needs

The nature of bird survey work does not require special facilities beyond normal office space and 

equipment storage needs. Standard Operating Procedure #2 contains a list of the equipment 

needed by survey crews.

Startup Costs and Budget 

Personnel expenses for field work should be based on two-person crews to conduct the field 

work and a GS-5 or GS-7 biological technician to assist the Park Coordinator with preparations 

for the field season, training, field work, data entry, and data analysis. Field costs will vary 

depending on logistics. Table 2 provides a budget format for estimating costs associated with 

conducting a landbird monitoring program in one park. Travel costs include travel to field 

sampling sites and per diem. Startup cost includes the purchase of equipment and supplies, as 

well as maintenance and or replacement of equipment shared among multiple projects (e.g., GPS 

units, cameras).

Table 2. Format of a budget to estimate the costs of conducting an annual landbird 

monitoring program in one park unit.

Estimated Costs Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 TOTAL

Salaries and Contracts $ $ $ $

Travel (including field work) $ $ $ $

Equipment $ $ $ $

Supplies $ $ $ $

Total $ $ $ $

Procedure for Revising and Archiving Previous Versions of the Protocol

Over time, it is expected that revisions to both the Protocol Narrative and to specific Standard 

Operating Procedures will be necessary. Careful documentation of changes to the protocol and a 

library of previous protocol versions are essential for maintaining consistency in data collection 

and for appropriate treatment of the data during data summary and analysis.

Standard Operating Procedure #11 outlines the steps for changing either the Protocol Narrative 

or the SOPs. Each SOP contains a SOP Revision History Log that explains the changes and 
20

assigns a new version number to the revised SOP. The new version of the SOP and/or Protocol 

Narrative is then archived in a Protocol Library. We plan to cooperate with the Natural Resource 

Monitoring Partnership (http://biology.usgs.gov/status_trends/nrmp/MonitoringPartnership.htm) 

by recording the protocol on that public website.

The rationale for dividing a sampling protocol into a Protocol Narrative with supporting SOPs is 

based on the following:

• The Protocol Narrative is a general overview of the protocol that gives the history and 

justification for doing the work and an overview of the sampling methods, but it does not 

provide all of the procedural details. The Protocol Narrative will only be revised if major 

changes are made to the protocol.

• The SOPs are specific step-by-step instructions for performing a given task. They are 

expected to be revised more frequently than the Protocol Narrative. 

• In most cases, when a SOP is revised, it is not necessary to revise the Protocol Narrative to 

reflect the specific changes made to the SOP.

• All versions of the Protocol Narrative and SOPs will be archived in a Protocol Library.
21

Literature Cited

Bart, J., and C. J. Ralph. 2005. The need for a North American coordinated bird monitoring 

program. Pages 982-984 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, Volume 2. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191. USDA 

Forest Service, Albany, CA.

Buckland S. T., K. P. Burnham, D. R. Anderson, and J. L. Laake. 1993. Density Estimation 

Using Distance Sampling. Chapman and Hall, London.

Cochran, W. G. 1965. Sampling Techniques. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.

Etterson, M. A., G. J. Niemi, and N. P. Danz. 2009. Estimating the effects of detection 

heterogeneity and overdispersion on trends estimated from avian point counts. Ecological 

Applications 19:2049-2066

Farnsworth, G. L., K. H. Pollock, J. D. Nichols, T. R. Simons, J. E. Hines, and J. R. Sauer. 2002. 

A removal model for estimating detection probabilities from point-count surveys. Auk

119:414-25.

Hanowski, J. M., and G. J. Niemi. 1995. Experimental design considerations for establishing an 

off-road, habitat specific bird monitoring program using point counts. Pages 125-130 in C. J. 

Ralph, J. R. Sauer, and S. Droege, editors, Monitoring bird populations by point counts. 

General Technical Report PSW-GTR-149. USDA Forest Service, Albany, CA.

Howe, R. W., G. J. Niemi, S. J. Lewis, and D. A. Welsh. 1997. A standard method for 

monitoring songbird populations in the Great Lakes region. Passenger Pigeon 59:183-94.

Hutto, R. L., and C. J. Ralph. 2005. Introduction – regional monitoring programs. Pages 924-925 

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, Volume 2. 

General Technical Report PSW-GTR-191. USDA Forest Service, Albany, CA.

Kendall, W. L., B. G. Peterjohn, and J. R. Sauer. 1996. First-time observer effects in the North 

American breeding bird survey. Auk 113:823-829.

Lind, J., N. Danz, and J. Hanowski. 2005. Analysis of landbird monitoring data for national 

parks in the Great Lakes Network. Great Lakes Network Report GLKN/2005/08. National 

Park Service, Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring Network Office, Ashland, WI.

Matsuoka, S. M., C. M. Handel, and D. R. Ruthrauff. 2001. Densities of breeding birds and 

changes in vegetation in an Alaskan boreal forest following a massive disturbance by spruce 

beetles. Canadian Journal of Zoology 79:1678-90.
22

Nur, N., S. L. Jones, and G. Geupel. 1999. A statistical guide to data analysis of avian 

monitoring programs. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, BTPR6001-1999.

Oakley, K. L., L. P. Thomas, and S. G. Fancy. 2003. Guidelines for long-term monitoring 

protocols. Wildlife Society Bulletin 31:1000–03. 

(www1.nature.nps.gov/im/units/ucbn/Documents/references/Oakley_2003_

ProtocolGuidelines.pdf)

Pashley, D. N., C. J. Beardmore, J. A. Fitzgerald, R. P. Ford, W. C. Hunter, M. S. Morrison, and 

K. V. Rosenberg. 2000. Partners in Flight: Conservation of the landbirds of the United States. 

American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, VA.

Ralph, C. J., G. R. Geupel, P. Pyle, T. E. Martin, and D. F. DeSante, editors. 1993. Handbook of 

field methods for monitoring landbirds. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-144. USDA 

Forest Service, Albany, CA.

Ralph, C. J., S. Droege, and J. R. Sauer, editors. 1995. Monitoring bird populations by point 

counts. General Technical Report PSW-GTR-149. USDA Forest Service, Albany, CA.

Route, B., and J. Elias, editors. 2007. Long-term ecological monitoring plan, Great Lakes 

Inventory and Monitoring Network. Natural Resource Report NPS/GLKN/NRR––2007/001. 

National Park Service, Fort Collins, CO.

Sauer, J. R., and S. Droege, editors. 1990. Survey designs and statistical methods for the 

estimation avian population trends. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Biological Report 90(1).

Sauer, J. R., B. G. Peterjohn, and W. A. Link. 1994. Observer differences in the North American 

Breeding Bird Survey. Auk 111:50-62.

Sauer, J. R., J. E. Hines, and J. Fallon. 2005. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, results 

and analysis 1966-2005. Version 6.2.2006. USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, 

MD. (http://www.mbr-pwrc.usgs.gov/bbs/).

Stevens, Jr., D. L., and A. R. Olsen. 2004. Spatially balanced sampling of natural resources. 

Journal of the American Statistical Association 99:262-78.

Thompson, F. R., D. E. Burhans, and B. Root. 2002. Effects of point count protocol on bird 

abundance and variability estimates and power to detect population trends. Journal of Field 

Ornithology 73:141-50.

Van Zoeren, A. 2004. Sleeping Bear Dunes breeding bird survey protocol. Unpublished 

document. Sleeping Bear Dunes National Lakeshore Resource Management files, Empire, 

MI.
23

Appendix. Index to Standard Operating Procedures

Eleven standard operating procedures (SOPs) provide thorough details for carrying out the 

landbird monitoring program. Because each SOP is a relatively large document and because all 

the SOPs are dynamic and can change more frequently than this protocol narrative, they are not 

included here. Readers interested in the more complex details of landbird monitoring can find the 

SOPs on the Great Lakes Inventory and Monitoring Network website -

http://science.nature.nps.gov/im/units/GLKN/monitor/landbird/landbird.cfm.

SOP 1. Sample Designs

SOP 2. Before the Field Season

SOP 3. Hiring and Training Observers

SOP 4. Using GPS to Locate and Mark Sampling Points

SOP 5. Conducting the Bird Point Count

SOP 6. Vegetation Monitoring

SOP 7. After the Field Season

SOP 8. Data Management – IN DEVELOPMENT

SOP 9. Data Analysis – IN DEVELOPMENT

SOP 10. Reporting

SOP 11. Revising the Protocol

The Department of the Interior protects and manages the nation’s natural resources and cultural heritage; provides scientific and 

other information about those resources; and honors its special responsibilities to American Indians, Alaska Natives, and 

affiliated Island Communities.

NPS 920/104611, July 2010
National Park Service

U.S. Department of the Interior

Natural Resource Program Center

1201 Oakridge Drive, Suite 150

Fort Collins, CO 80525

www.nature.nps.gov

EXPERIENCE YOUR AMERICATM