Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the 

Bird Banding Laboratory

Circular 1320

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
EXPLANATION

Central Asian-Indian flyway

East Asian-Australian flyway

West Asia-East Africa flyway

Central Pacific flyway

Mississippi Americas flyway

East Atlantic flyway

Black Sea-Mediterranean flyway

Pacific Americas flyway

Atlantic Americas flyway

Source: USGS Alaska Science Center

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service

Cover photographs

courtesy of:

John Tautin 

(U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service)

John Tautin 

(U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service)

Source: U.S. Geological 

Survey

Bill Ferensen
Report of the Federal Advisory Committee 

on the Bird Banding Laboratory

By Susan D. Haseltine, Paul R. Schmidt, Bradley D. Bales, David N. Bonter, 

David F. DeSante, Paul F. Doherty, Charles M. Francis, Paul T. Green, 

Lesley-Anne Howes, Daniel L. James, J. Jasper Lament, Richard A. Lancia, 

Ellen I. Paul, C. John Ralph, John G. Rogers, and Richard E. Young

Prepared in cooperation with The Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, 

National Flyway Council, Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, The Institute for 

Bird Populations, Colorado State University, Canadian Wildlife Service, National 

Audubon Society, Ducks Unlimited, The Wildlife Society, The Ornithological 

Council, North American Banding Council, The Conservation Fund, U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service, and Pheasants Forever

Circular 1320

U.S. Department of the Interior

U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Department of the Interior

DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Secretary

U.S. Geological Survey

Mark D. Myers, Director

U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia: 2008

For product and ordering information:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov/pubprod

Telephone: 1-888-ASK-USGS

For more information on the USGS—the Federal source for science about the Earth, its natural and living resources, 

natural hazards, and the environment:

World Wide Web: http://www.usgs.gov

Telephone: 1–888–ASK–USGS

Any use of trade, product, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the 

U.S. Government.

Although this report is in the public domain, permission must be secured from the individual copyright owners to 

reproduce any copyrighted materials contained within this report.

Suggested citation:

Haseltine, S.D., Schmidt, P.R., Bales, B.D., Bonter, D.N., DeSante, D.F., Doherty, P.F., Francis, C.M., Green, P.T., 

Howes, Lesley-Anne, James, D.L., Lament, J.J., Lancia, R.A., Paul, E.I., Ralph, C.J., Rogers, J.G., and Young, R.E., 

2008, Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Bird Banding Laboratory: U.S. Geological Survey, 

Circular 1320, 19 p.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

United States. Federal Advisory Committee on the Bird Banding Laboratory. 

Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Bird Banding Laboratory 

/ by Susan D. Haseltine [et al.]

p. cm. (Circular 1320)

ISBN 978-1-4113-2032-1

1. Bird Banding Laboratory (U.S.) 2. Bird banding—United States. I. Haseltine, Susan D. 

II. Geological Survey (U.S.) III. Title.

QL677.5U65 2007

598.072’073–dc22 2007049526
iii

Contents

Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................1

Background and Introduction......................................................................................................................3

The Value of Bird Banding............................................................................................................................6

The Role of the BBL in the North American Bird Banding Program.....................................................6

Vision, Mission, and Goals for the Bird Banding Laboratory..................................................................6

Vision.......................................................................................................................................................7

Mission ...................................................................................................................................................7

Goals .......................................................................................................................................................7

Achieving the Goals..............................................................................................................................7

Goal 1: Facilitate the Identification of Individual Birds Through Marking..........................8

Goal 2: Create Automated, Electronic Systems that Efficiently Verify, Accept, 

Store, and Manage Data Associated with Individually Marked Birds................10

Goal 3: Facilitate Access to and Use of Data from Marked Birds for Science 

and Conservation .........................................................................................................12

Goal 4: Administer Permits in an Efficient, Timely, and Modern Manner, and Use 

Them to Ensure that Bird Welfare and Data Quality Remain Top Priorities .......13

Goal 5: Work Closely with National and International Partners to Achieve the 

Mission of the BBL.......................................................................................................14

Goal 6: Manage the BBL in an Efficient, Cost-Effective Manner to Maximize Use 

of Available Resources................................................................................................15

Reference Cited............................................................................................................................................16

Glossary.........................................................................................................................................................17

Appendix 1. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms...................................................................................19

Tables

 1. Committee membership...................................................................................................................4

 2. Date, location, and purpose of committee and subcommittee meetings................................5

Executive Summary

In the fall of 2005, the Directors of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS) determined that to ensure that the Bird Banding Laboratory (BBL) of the 

USGS maintains and continues its important support of conservation and management of birds, it 

should be guided by a clear vision for the future. In order to carry out this task, they impaneled a 

fourteen-member Federal Advisory Committee (FAC) on the Bird Banding Laboratory. It was made 

up of representatives of the broad bird-banding community, public and private, and was cochaired 

by a senior representative from each agency. The Committee met four times and a writing subgroup 

met three times over the course of its work.

The Committee identified a new vision and mission for the BBL and identified six goals that it 

believes should be integral to the development of a strategic plan to achieve them. Those goals are:

1. Facilitate the identification of individual birds through marking.

2. Create automated, electronic systems that efficiently verify, accept, store, and manage data 

associated with individually marked birds.

3. Facilitate access to and use of data from marked birds for science, conservation, and 

management.

4. Administer permits in an efficient, timely, and modern manner, and use them to ensure that bird 

welfare and data quality remain top priorities.

5. Work closely with national and international partners to achieve the mission of the BBL.

6. Manage the BBL in an efficient, cost-effective manner to maximize use of available resources.

Most of the report is structured around these goals.

The Committee made 2 programmatic recommendations and identified 23 objectives and 58 

specific recommendations. The programmatic recommendations are: (1) that the primary role of the 

BBL is and should continue to be to support the use of banding and banding data by researchers and 

managers engaged in science, conservation, and management of birds, and not to play a lead role in 

original research; and (2) that the BBL be managed nationally by USGS headquarters as a research 

and operational support unit and provided with the resources appropriate to its national and international functions and responsibilities; it should continue to be located physically at the Patuxent 

Wildlife Research Center (PWRC).

In order to achieve its vision and mission, the Committee believes that the BBL must work 

towards achieving all of the recommendations in this report. Nevertheless, it identified five objectives that stand out as high priority, and they are as follows:

•	 Objective 1.1—to ensure a continuing, adequate supply of high-quality, Federally issued 

numeric bands of required sizes, materials, and types; 

•	 Objective 2.1—to improve mechanisms for verifying, accepting, storing, and managing birdbanding data; 

•	 Objective 2.3—to accommodate recapture data; 

•	 Objective 4.1—to ensure through the permitting process that banders know how to safely 

handle birds, collect data accurately, and maintain birds in humane and healthful conditions; 

and 

•	 Objective 5.3—to encourage the development of banding programs in Latin America and the 

Caribbean.

Finally, this Committee believes that the BBL will be well served if it continues to support a 

Federal Advisory Committee, composed similarly to this one, to continue offering guidance and 

direction from the broad bird-banding community.

Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the 

Bird Banding Laboratory

By Susan D. Haseltine, Paul R. Schmidt, Bradley D. Bales,1 David N. Bonter,2 David F. DeSante,3 Paul F. 

Doherty,4 Charles M. Francis,5 Paul T. Green,6 Lesley-Anne Howes,7 Daniel L. James, J. Jasper Lament,8

Richard A. Lancia,9 Ellen I. Paul,10 C. John Ralph,11 John G. Rogers,12 and Richard E. Young13

Background and Introduction

The first bird banded in North America was in 1902. 

By 1909, the American Bird Banding Association had been 

formed to organize and assist the growing numbers of banders. In 1920, the U.S. Bureau of Biological Survey assumed 

responsibility for coordination of bird banding. Then in 1923, 

an international partnership was established with Canada to 

form the North American Bird Banding Program (NABBP). 

The Bird Banding Laboratory (BBL) at the U.S. Geological 

Survey (USGS) Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (PWRC) in 

Laurel, Maryland, administers the NABBP today in conjunction with the Bird Banding Office (BBO), Canadian Wildlife 

Service, Environment Canada in Ottawa, Ontario.

Over the years, the organizational position of the BBL 

has changed. In 1940, the BBL came under the newly formed 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). In 1993, the FWS 

Research Region was moved to the Department of the Interior’s newly established National Biological Survey (NBS). 

In October 1996, the NBS was transferred intact to the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) as the Biological Resources 

Discipline (BRD) where it remains today. The BBL is currently administered by the Patuxent Wildlife Research Center 

of the Eastern Region of USGS.

Through time, as bird-banding methods and standards 

have evolved, as new technologies have developed, as the 

demand for analysis and need for banding data have changed, 

and as the administration of the BBL has changed, management has commissioned a number of formal and informal 

reviews of BBL activities. The most significant of these was 

initiated in 1995, under the newly created NBS. A panel led 

by Paul Buckley, with broad representation from the banding 

community in both the U.S. and Canada, was established to 

review the BBL’s activities. The report reviewed the value of 

the NABBP and presented recommendations to the BBL to 

advance its direction, management, and operations. The panel 

submitted its report to the PWRC Director in 1997. Subsequently, a synopsis of the report was published (Buckley and 

others, 1998).

The BBL has made substantial progress in implementing many of the recommendations of the Buckley report 

while progress on others has been slower. The BBL has made 

significant changes in its operations, including enhancements 

in band quality and supply, improvements in data management 

and delivery, as well as in its personnel. International interest 

in banding and coordination of banding has increased and the 

number of banders and requests for banding information continues to grow. At the same time, the BBL continues to work 

within the constraints of a static budget.

In light of these issues, the Directors of the USGS 

and the FWS determined that it was in their mutual interest 

to ensure the BBL was guided by a clear vision for the future. 

The Directors requested that the Secretary of the Department of the Interior establish a Federal Advisory Committee 

(table 1) composed of representatives from the broad birdbanding community, from both public and private sectors, to 

define a vision for the BBL and to identify priority actions 

that should be taken to ensure BBL excellence into the 

21st century.

1

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies/National Flyway Council.

2

Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology.

3

The Institute for Bird Populations.

4

Colorado State University.

5

Canadian Wildlife Service.

6

National Audubon Society.

7

Canadian Wildlife Service (ad hoc representative for Charles M. Francis).

8

Ducks Unlimited.

9

The Wildlife Society.

10The Ornithological Council.

11North American Banding Council.

12The Conservation Fund (facilitator/process manager).

13Pheasants Forever.
4 Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Bird Banding Laboratory

The Charter for the Committee was as follows:

“The Committee will develop a clear, concise report 

defining a vision for the BBL over the next 10 to 15 

years, and recommend priority actions that should 

be taken to address the needs of the regulatory 

agencies, bird conservation, research, and banding communities to ensure BBL excellence into the 

21st century. More specifically, the Committee will 

address, at a minimum, the following topics:

1. Bands and banding techniques, technologies, and sources;

2. Data and information acquisition, interpretation, analysis, 

use, management, and delivery;

3. Integration of a research component into the operational 

aspects of the Laboratory;

4. Opportunities to expand the utility of existing information to better address the needs of researchers, managers, 

regulators, and policymakers;

5. National and international partnerships, including the 

scope of an expansion (including the 1-800 telephone 

number for reporting band recoveries) of the cooperative 

international program to Mexico, Central America, and 

South America;

6. Enhancement of fiscal resources and human capabilities; 

and

7. The appropriate roles of the public and private sectors in 

future BBL planning, advice, and guidance.”

Table 1. Committee membership.

Bradley D. Bales

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies/ 

National Flyway Council

David N. Bonter

Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology

David F. DeSante

The Institute for Bird Populations 

Paul F. Doherty 

Colorado State University

Charles M. Francis

Canadian Wildlife Service 

Paul T. Green

National Audubon Society

Susan D. Haseltine, Co-Chair

U.S. Geological Survey

Lesley-Anne Howes

Canadian Wildlife Service

Ad hoc representative for Charles M. Francis 

Daniel L. James

U.S. Geological Survey

Designated Federal Official

J. Jasper Lament

Ducks Unlimited

Richard A. Lancia

The Wildlife Society

Ellen I. Paul

The Ornithological Council

C. John Ralph

North American Banding Council

John G. Rogers

The Conservation Fund

Facilitator/process manager

Paul R. Schmidt, Co-Chair

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Richard E. Young

Pheasants Forever

Photograph courtesy of Jim Greer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Photographs courtesy of Phil Thorpe and John Tautin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Background and Introduction 5

The Committee and its writing subcommittee met a number of times during the process (table 2). All meetings of the 

full Committee were open to the public. Various USGS and 

FWS staff supplied briefing materials and made themselves 

available to the Committee as its work proceeded.

Source: Cape May Raptor Banding Project.

Table 2. Date, location, and purpose of Committee and 

subcommittee meetings.

Date Location Purpose

November 29–30, 20051 Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, Md. Initial briefing, identification of issues

March 22–23, 20061 Ducks Unlimited, Memphis, Tenn. Development of issues

April 10–11, 20062 The Conservation Fund, Chapel Hill, N.C. Preparation of draft report

June 13–14, 20061 Ducks Unlimited, Rancho Cordova, Calif. Review of draft report

July 26–27, 20062 USGS, Reston, Va. Review and incorporate Committee comments into next 

draft

September 12–13, 20062 USGS, Seattle, Wash. Prepare Committee review of draft #2

November 7–8, 20061 Hillsboro, Oreg. Review of final draft

1

 Full Committee.

2

 Writing subcommittee.
6 Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Bird Banding Laboratory

The Value of Bird Banding

The basic justification for individual marking of birds, 

whether using standard metal bands or alternative technologies, is to provide data for scientific research into bird populations and for the conservation and management of those 

populations. Some of the uses that have been made, and types 

of data gathered through individual marking of birds, include:

•	 Tracking movements of birds—For example, migration routes, rates and timing of migration, and linkages 

between breeding and wintering ground.

•	 Delineating populations—For example, determining 

whether populations are separate or mixing, tracking 

range expansions, and measuring dispersal within and 

among populations.

•	 Estimating demographic parameters of birds—For 

example, age-dependent annual survival rates, recruitment rates, and productivity indices.

•	 Aiding ecological and behavioral research requiring individual recognition—For example, estimating 

territory size, habitat selection, dominance hierarchies, 

molt patterns, or parasite burdens of individuals; 

and examining importance of migrant stopover areas 

through individual stopover times and weight gains.

•	 Monitoring populations and individuals—For 

example, estimating population sizes through markrecapture models, estimating population trends, and 

monitoring endangered or threatened species.

These data have been used, both directly and indirectly, 

to conserve and manage birds. The following are but a few 

examples of management programs that benefit from banding 

data:

•	 Game bird management—For example, delimiting 

flyways, estimating harvest pressure by geographic 

region, modeling the impact of hunting on demography, and estimating impacts of changing hunting 

regulations.

•	 Songbird management—Determining linkages 

between wintering and breeding grounds, identifying 

potential causes of population declines through demographic studies, and habitat modeling.

•	 Protection of endangered species—Tracking individuals of rare species to determine habitat requirements, 

identifying wintering grounds, and estimating effectiveness of conservation actions.

•	 Wildlife diseases—Understanding bird movements to 

track and (or) model the spread of diseases that affect 

both wildlife and humans, such as Avian Influenza, 

West Nile Virus, or tick-borne diseases such as Lyme 

disease.

•	 Climate change—Measuring and modeling changes 

in phenology and demography in relation to climate as 

indicators of environmental impacts.

•	 Building public support for bird conservation—

Education programs involving banding have introduced 

tens of thousands of people to birds, thus reinforcing 

stewardship responsibilities.

Many of these uses of banding data are based on analyses 

drawing from many different projects, often going far beyond 

the goals originally envisioned by the banders collecting the 

data. These uses can only be realized if the data are collected 

accurately using appropriate protocols; if they are well managed in a central location; and if they are made available to 

analysts and researchers. This will help ensure that the data 

can be used and the results published.

The Role of the BBL in the North 

American Bird Banding Program

Prior to recommending a specific mission, vision, 

and goals for the BBL, the Committee considered the most 

appropriate role of the BBL in the overall North American 

Bird Banding Program. Of particular concern for the BBL 

is whether or not it should have a role in conducting original 

research and analysis of bird-banding data. The PWRC, within 

which the BBL is housed, has a primary research role; however, thousands of scientists throughout North America regularly use bird-banding data as part of their research or management programs, either in their own programs or through 

analyzing data collected by others. There is a large community 

of users, both within government and in the research community at large, with expertise in the design and analysis of banding data. Although the Committee recognizes a continuing 

need for research using banding data, the Committee believes 

it is not an appropriate use of the BBL’s limited resources for 

it to play a primary role in this research at this time.

The NABBP is one of the larger and more complex 

banding programs in the world, in terms of geographic scope, 

numbers of banders, number of birds banded, and extent of 

computerization of data. The BBL is vital to the success of the 

NABBP, and must be careful not to engage in activities that 

could diminish support of this important program.

Vision, Mission, and Goals for the Bird 

Banding Laboratory

The Committee discussed the current and future vision 

and mission for the BBL, as well as appropriate goals to 

achieve them. The general themes that carried through all the 

discussions are that the BBL must remain a world-class organization and to do so it must reflect the current state of the art 
Vision, Mission, and Goals for the BBL 7

in understanding, evaluating, and recommending methods of 

recognizing individually marked birds. The Committee identified a set of core values that it believes will assist the BBL as 

it enters the next phase of its role in bird conservation. Those 

values are the following: scientific knowledge about birds; 

bird conservation; bird welfare; quality data; customer service; 

and efficient management and operations.

The BBL must also ensure that both legal and ethical 

issues related to handling and marking birds are considered. 

From a legal perspective, there are specific obligations under 

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and associated regulations 

related to the permitting as well as handling of migratory 

birds. It must also follow other relevant Federal and State laws 

and regulations. Issues related to both handling of birds and 

use of data collected by others for scientific analysis impact 

the operation of the BBL from an ethical perspective.

The mission and vision articulated below are not entirely 

new, but they are intended to reflect these values, and provide 

a clear focus for the BBL to move forward.

Vision

“To enable a world-class bird-marking program in North America that informs avian 

conservation, management, and science 

with high-quality data and is well integrated 

with other programs in the Western Hemisphere.”

Mission

“To facilitate and encourage the collection, 

management, storage, and dissemination of 

information from marked birds to further 

bird conservation, management, and sci- ence.”

Goals

While the Committee has not written a strategic plan 

for the BBL, it has identified a series of goals that it believes 

should be integral to the development of such a plan to help 

achieve the mission and vision. These goals are also used to 

structure the majority of the recommendations in this report, 

as follows: 

1. Facilitate the identification of individual birds through 

marking.

2. Create automated, electronic systems that efficiently 

verify, accept, store, and manage data associated with 

individually marked birds.

3. Facilitate access to and use of data from marked birds for 

science and conservation.

4. Administer permits in an efficient, timely, and modern 

manner, and use them to ensure that bird welfare and data 

quality remain top priorities.

5. Work closely with national and international partners to 

achieve the mission of the BBL. 

6. Manage the BBL in an efficient, cost-effective manner to 

maximize use of available resources.

Achieving the Goals

The Committee identified specific objectives and recommendations that it believes will help the BBL to achieve its 

goals. In particular, less emphasis is placed on activities that 

the BBL is already undertaking well; these remain important 

and should be considered in a strategic plan. Instead, the focus 

here is on areas of concentration that require new or enhanced 

action for the BBL to move towards the future. Although the 

Committee has identified a larger number of specific objectives and recommendations within some of the goals that 

follow than within others, it 

believes that the BBL must 

work towards achieving all of 

the goals listed in this report 

in order to achieve its mission. 

Within each of these goals, 

there is some variation in the 

priority of the individual objectives and actions. The Committee has given suggestions for priorities at the level of objectives. Those objectives that the Committee feels are of highest 

priority are designated by the word “HIGH.” Nevertheless, 

those objectives not so designated remain important to the 

ability of the BBL to accomplish its role in bird conservation. 

The BBL should not play a lead role in original research. 

The BBL can best leverage its limited resources by assuring: 

an uncompromised and reliable source for bands; a stable 

repository for band data that provides for its long-term availability through the exercise of sound data management practices; and that it serves as a source for sound technical advice 

on banding techniques, technologies, and study designs. 

Rather than the BBL carrying out its own research program, 

the Committee encourages the BBL to play a significantly 

greater role than at present in encouraging more and better use 

of bird-marking data. This is discussed further under Goal 3 

below.

The Committee strongly recommends that the primary 

role of the BBL is, and should continue to be, to support the 

use of banding and banding data by other researchers and 

managers engaged in the science, conservation, and management of birds.

Photograph courtesy of Don Des Jardin. 
8 Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Bird Banding Laboratory

Goal 1: Facilitate the identification of individual 

birds through marking.

Central to the role of the BBL is the service of facilitating the use of markers to identify individual birds. Generally, 

this is done with the assignment of Federally issued metal 

bird bands. Some research projects require that birds be 

marked with auxiliary markers that facilitate identification of 

birds from a distance; in some cases these markers may only 

identify particular groups or cohorts of birds. The BBL plays 

a critical role in coordinating the assignment of unique and 

repetitive markers to birds.

Objective 1.1: Ensure a continuing adequate supply of high-quality 

Federally issued numeric bird bands of required sizes, materials, 

and types. HIGH

Projects that use banding rely on an adequate and timely 

supply of appropriate, high-quality bands. Interruptions in 

band supply can compromise research objectives. Low-quality 

bands result in loss of bands from the marked birds and can 

affect reporting rates and increase errors in encounter data.

Recommendation 1.1.a. Develop procedures to ensure that an 

adequate supply of high-quality bands of all types, materials, and 

sizes can be maintained in a timely manner and at a reasonable 

cost. These should include greater diversification of band suppliers, and development of in-house quality controls through random 

checks of bands.

Recommendation 1.1.b. Establish processes to determine the need 

for new band types and sizes, and ensure that appropriate band 

types are both available and used for each species (for example, 

ensure that hard-metal bands are available and used on species 

that regularly outlive aluminum bands, and that appropriate bands 

are available for birds that frequent salt-water environments).

Objective 1.2: Facilitate coordination of auxiliary markers.

Use of auxiliary markers is increasing in North America 

and will likely continue to increase into the future. Their use 

can be a valuable tool for enhancing the quantity and quality of data obtained through marking birds. However, unlike 

standard numbered metal bands, most auxiliary markers are 

not unique; thus, it is essential to facilitate coordination among 

projects to ensure that markers are not repeated across projects 

in geographic areas where the projects overlap.

Recommendation 1.2.a. Ensure effective coordination of the use 

of auxiliary markers amongst banders—regionally, nationally, and 

internationally—within the Americas. Develop tools, such as Web 

sites and Web-based databases, where projects can be registered 

to facilitate coordination. The tools should allow users (banders, 

public reporters, researchers, wildlife managers, and BBL staff) to 

independently send and retrieve information. As much as possible, 

implement through delegation to partners with expertise in particular bird groups, with BBL providing oversight for the resolution of 

disputes or other problems as required.

Recommendation 1.2.b. Require that all auxiliary marker data 

submitted to the BBL be in a format that can be incorporated into 

the BBL database so that the BBL can build an accurate, complete 

database. There are some species for which auxiliary marking is the 

primary and most effective way of collecting information. For these 

birds it is essential that the data be submitted in a specified format.

Recommendation 1.2.c. With regard to encounters of auxiliary 

markers, the BBL should: (1) emphasize maximum automation with 

little or no direct staff involvement, (2) focus on putting reporters 

directly in touch with banders to transfer and receive information, 

and (3) require large-scale marking projects (at a minimum) to 

assume responsibility for managing and coordinating their encounter data and (or) commit resources (for a Web developer) to BBL 

to offset costs incurred for these activities. To accomplish this, the 

BBL should: (1) provide a communication mechanism for information to be submitted by, and be available to, reporters of auxiliary 

marking encounters (“sightings”); (2) develop tools, such as Web 

sites, list servers, and Web-based databases, where auxiliary 

marker projects are registered, and reporters can be directed to 

file their sightings and obtain information about marked birds; and 

(3) design systems to accept all sightings of auxiliary-marked birds 

from the public and provide some level of feedback to the reporter, 

regardless of bander and (or) BBL interest.

Photograph courtesy of Fritz Knopf (U.S. Geological Survey). 
Vision, Mission, and Goals for the BBL 9

Recommendation 1.2.d. Ensure banders and BBL can receive 

auxiliary-marking encounter information. Report to banders those 

auxiliary marker encounters that can be unambiguously linked 

with a unique band number and for which the bander who placed 

the auxiliary marker has an interest in knowing of public sightings. Encounters of markers that are not linked with a unique band 

number, or even to a specific bander, should be made available for 

consideration on a Web site or list server.

Objective 1.3: Accommodate new methods and technologies for 

marking birds.

Novel methods of marking birds are continually being 

developed, including new types of auxiliary markers; new 

types of unique markers, such as passive transponders or individual identification through DNA; and improved automated 

tracking methods, such as radio and satellite transmitters. 

Ongoing research also leads to increased understanding of the 

potential impacts of different markers on birds and of which 

types are most suitable for each species. New markers have the 

potential to greatly enhance the quality and quantity of data 

that can be obtained on marked birds; therefore, the BBL must 

be flexible and prepared to deal with permitting, coordinating, 

and capturing data from these new types of markers.

Recommendation 1.3.a. Remain cognizant of the development of 

new bird-marking techniques and technologies, including appropriate evaluation of their impact on bird welfare, and ensure that 

information on their safe use is accessible and appropriately disseminated.

Recommendation 1.3.b. Build capacity to store data from nonstandard bird markers, including data collected by automated means, 

such as satellite transmitters, if such centralized data storage is not 

otherwise available. Emphasis should be placed on data that may 

contribute to the management and conservation of birds through 

integration or coordination across projects.

Objective 1.4: Encourage development of new methods for capturing and marking birds in ways that improve bird welfare.

Recommendation 1.4.a. Develop appropriate guidelines that encourage banders to evaluate and develop new and innovative methods 

for capturing and marking birds. Encourage submission of reports 

on injuries or mortalities related to new methods, with clarification 

that banders will not risk permit revocation or suspension if mortalities or injuries occur, provided that appropriate guidelines are 

followed. However, restrict the use of capture methods or markers 

based on potential impacts only when those impacts are serious, 

long lasting or permanent, well documented, and unequivocal.

Recommendation 1.4.b. Develop mechanisms, potentially through 

partners, to gather information from banders on bird welfare issues 

associated with particular capture or marking methods.

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
10 Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Bird Banding Laboratory

Goal 2: Create automated, electronic systems 

that efficiently verify, accept, store, and manage 

data associated with individually marked birds.

The BBL has a critical role in storing and maintaining 

data on marked birds, particularly to facilitate coordination 

between banders and others who may later encounter the 

marked birds, as well as to ensure that the data are available 

for later analysis. The BBL should work towards increasing 

the types and amounts of data that are being gathered and 

stored, at the same time that it increases the efficiency of data 

collection and storage to reduce overall costs.

Objective 2.1: Improve mechanisms for verifying, accepting, storing, 

and managing bird banding data. HIGH

Recommendation 2.1.a. Improve the efficiency of submitting 

banding schedules through use of appropriate Internet technology, and an automated system to vet submitted data for accuracy. 

This should include flags in the database that indicate the level to 

which data have been vetted, as well as user-friendly automated 

procedures to communicate with banders regarding questionable 

data and to receive input from banders. Inform banders that they 

have the primary responsibility for verifying data, initially through 

programs provided to banders (for example, Band Manager, Bandit, 

or MAPSPROG), and then subsequently through responding to 

automated reports from the banding office. Minimize the need for 

personal interaction between BBL staff and banders regarding 

questionable data.

Recommendation 2.1.b. Accept location information, including GPS 

data, to a higher level of precision than currently required by the 

BBL. The BBL should always require that the cooperator report the 

actual level of precision of the location data.

Recommendation 2.1.c. Collect and store auxiliary marker data, 

including appropriate metadata describing the types of markers 

used.

Recommendation 2.1.d. Ensure that all digital data, including 

archived data, are maintained in an appropriate, up-to-date format 

so that they will not be lost as technology changes.

Recommendation 2.1.e. Allow for flexible timing of submission of 

banding schedules as appropriate to meet the needs of the BBL and 

banders.

Recommendation 2.1.f. Build the capacity to store data from 

nonstandard bird markers, including data collected by automated 

means, such as satellite transmitters, if such centralized storage 

is not otherwise available. Emphasis should be placed on data 

that may contribute to the management and conservation of birds 

through integration or coordination across projects.

Objective 2.2: Develop appropriate systems to store and maintain 

metadata associated with banding data.

Metadata are data that provide further explanations for 

data within a database, and are essential for researchers to 

determine appropriate ways to use and analyze the data and to 

interpret the results. In the context of banding data, these can 

be considered at two levels. One is at the level of individual 

banding records for which metadata are necessary to explain 

the different types of codes that are used (for example, the 

types of auxiliary markers used, the level of precision of the 

location information, and so on). For standard fields, such as 

age, sex, or status codes, such information is already available 

(for example, in the North American Banding Manual), but 

not necessarily in the format required to meet international 

metadata standards. The second level of metadata relates to 

the context of banding data and the program under which they 

were collected. These could include descriptions of protocols 

and objectives of programs (ranging from large-scale cooperative programs, such as MAPS or waterfowl banding, to individual research projects), as well as information on banding 

effort and techniques, habitat around the banding station, and 

so on. Both types of metadata are necessary to ensure appropriate and effective use of banding data. 

Recommendation 2.2.a. Use FGDC (Federal Geographic Data Committee) metadata standards, as appropriate, for all metadata associated with banding records.

Recommendation 2.2.b. Consult with appropriate experts to 

determine the types of metadata about the context of banding (for 

example, project objectives, methods, effort, and so on) that could 

and should be stored centrally and how they should be recorded.

Recommendation 2.2.c. Develop a system to accommodate the 

metadata recommended in 2.2.b by providing training and educational materials and user-friendly tools for metadata submission in 

order to encourage banders to submit such data. 

Objective 2.3: Accommodate recapture data. HIGH

Recapture data are valuable for estimating survival and 

other population parameters, such as dispersal rates, especially 

for songbirds for which very few recovery data are typically 

available. However, since the early 1960s, the BBL has discouraged submission of recapture data, particularly those from 

the same location as the original banding. As a result, very few 

such data are stored, and those that are available are atypical 

(for example, extreme longevity records) and not suitable for 

most analyses. There has been some recent discussion about 

whether the BBL should be selective in receiving recapture 

data, focusing on the highest quality datasets. However, the 

Committee believes that the BBL should work toward the 

BBL database serving as a repository for all recapture data that 

banders wish to submit. In order to most effectively accomplish this objective, the BBL will initially have to prioritize 

which data will be submitted and give guidance to banders as 

experience is gained in this realm.
Vision, Mission, and Goals for the BBL 11

Recommendation 2.3.a. Develop an automated system for submitting, vetting, and accepting all recapture data into the BBL 

database, and encourage all banders to submit recapture data, 

including historical data, through this system, unless it is already 

being submitted through another program such as MAPS. Concurrently, require banders to submit metadata associated with the 

recapture programs under which those recaptures were recorded 

(again, unless it is already being reported), as recapture data without associated metadata are of questionable value and can easily 

be misused.

Objective 2.4: Create an archive for storing voluntarily submitted 

ancillary and associated data.

Banders collect a variety of data at the time of banding and encounter, including information such as fat scores, 

biometrics, molt information, breeding condition, and so 

on. Ancillary data can be useful for verifying core data (for 

example, determination of age and sex) as well as for researching many issues relevant to bird conservation and management 

(for example, determining the quality of stopover locations 

based on rates of gain in body weight, estimating conditiondependent survival rates, studying changes in breeding phenology in relation to climate change, and so on). Other banding 

programs collect such ancillary data. Because there is no other 

central data storage repository in North America, these data 

are often lost.

Recommendation 2.4.a. Develop automated systems for submission, 

vetting, and acceptance of voluntarily submitted ancillary data (and 

associated metadata, including information on data quality control), 

noting that the responsibility for data quality control resides with 

the bander. Remind banders that these data will be available to the 

public.

Objective 2.5: Continue to improve the efficiency of methods for 

receiving encounter information to enhance the quality of information received and reduce the costs of processing encounters, while 

encouraging greater reporting.

Recommendation 2.5.a. Develop and promote Web-based, automated reporting of band recovery data, with appropriate checks to 

ensure that all required data are submitted, and provide immediate 

feedback to the person reporting the band. Offer finders the option 

of an electronic or paper “Certificate of Appreciation.”

Recommendation 2.5.b. Begin to include a Web address on bands 

to enhance Web-based automated reporting of recovery. Promote 

Web reporting to reduce errors and costs; however, in the near 

term, continue to support the use of toll-free numbers for reporting bands. Investigate the costs and benefits of an automated 

telephone system to capture data using touch-tone technology 

that could simultaneously handle English, French, and Spanish, to 

reduce the costs of processing calls.

Objective 2.6: Ensure the preservation and eventual computerization of historical (nondigitized) banding data currently stored at the 

BBL.

Most original banding records prior to 1955, as well as 

various other historical data, are recorded on paper or microfiche only. The preservation of these records is high priority; 

however, digitizing all of the details was considered by the 

Committee to be a relatively low priority for the BBL, unless 

additional resources become available for this purpose.

Recommendation 2.6.a. Arrange immediately for proper physical 

storage of the original records (in consultation with the National 

Archives and Records Administration) to ensure that they are 

adequately protected and do not deteriorate.

Recommendation 2.6.b. Investigate appropriate ways of making 

these data available digitally in the future, considering options such 

as digitizing the data through the BBL (perhaps in a cost-sharing 

program with interested users), or scanning the records as images 

so that they can be distributed to interested third parties to capture 

digitally.

Photograph courtesy of Randy Ritter.
12 Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Bird Banding Laboratory

Goal 3: Facilitate access to and use of data from 

marked birds for science and conservation.

To achieve its mission, the BBL must not only support 

banders and gather data, but also encourage the use of banding 

data for science and conservation. The BBL can do this most 

effectively by encouraging appropriate project design and data 

collection methods, by ensuring that banding data are readily 

available, and by promoting the use of appropriate data analysis methods. The BBL can play a significant role as a liaison 

between managers who require answers to particular questions, scientists with expertise in project design, field workers, 

and data analysts. The objectives and subsequent recommendations that follow might best be accommodated through the 

development of a comprehensive data management strategy.

Objective 3.1: Develop a Web-based, user-friendly system to 

provide full and open access to all banding data and information, 

except where such information may be of a sensitive nature (for 

example, exact locations of endangered species), along with appropriate guidelines for use of the data.

The BBL currently spends a significant amount of staff 

time filling data requests. These data could now be provided 

automatically online at a much lower cost. This would both 

free up BBL resources and encourage greater use of the data. 

An ongoing concern relates to protecting the proprietary interests of banders in the data that they have gathered. While these 

data are subject to release under the Freedom of Information 

Act, the rights of scientists who collected these data need to be 

protected. The most appropriate means of doing this appears 

to be through encouraging adoption of appropriate guidelines 

as a scientific code of ethics.

Recommendation 3.1.a. Develop a Web-based, user-friendly 

interface to allow for public retrieval of bird-banding data. All data, 

including recent data, should be available, with the exception that 

locations for biologically or commercially sensitive species should 

be limited to province or state. The database should be updated 

at regular intervals (once or a few times per year) but not continuously, so that the download is dated. Use methods such as a 

password-based login, with an e-mail-based verification, to gather 

information on who is downloading data.

Recommendation 3.1.b. Develop a system to notify banders when 

their data are accessed so they have the ability to contact the 

person who downloaded the data.

Recommendation 3.1.c. In consultation with banders and users of 

banding data, review and revise the current policy for use of banding data, and require all data users to agree to this policy. The BBL 

should also encourage the adoption of this policy by ornithological 

societies and scientific journals as part of their scientific code of 

ethics.

Objective 3.2: Encourage development, adoption, and sharing of 

best practices related to project design, data collection, and data 

analysis for banding projects.

Recommendation 3.2.a. Maintain an up-to-date Web site with 

resource information (including links to other Web sites) on 

best practices for data collection and data analysis. Encourage 

researchers to provide information for such a Web page. Ensure 

that users downloading data are aware of these approaches and 

methods.

Recommendation 3.2.b. Provide a technical assistance function 

within the BBL to advise banders and researchers on best practices 

in project design, field data collection, and data analysis when 

requested.

Objective 3.3: Encourage development of tools to make better use of 

banding data.

Recommendation 3.3.a. Work with partners to develop Web-based 

visualization tools that could be hosted on the BBL Web site to allow 

better use of banding data (for example, interactive Web-based 

mapping of band recovery data). 

Photograph courtesy of John Tautin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
Vision, Mission, and Goals for the BBL 13

Objective 4.2: Streamline the permit application process to reduce 

costs and increase efficiency.

Recommendation 4.2.a. Develop a streamlined, online application 

system, including online submission of information on qualifications 

and letters of recommendation. 

Recommendation 4.2.b. Issue permits for 3 years, and require 

all banders to actively renew their permits. As a prerequisite for 

renewal, demand up-to-date submission of all required banding 

data (for example, schedules).

Recommendation 4.2.c. Establish, if feasible, a link with the Law 

Enforcement Management Information System (LEMIS) to determine if an applicant has been found guilty of a violation of a Federal 

wildlife law and use this information as a factor in determining 

whether or not to issue a permit.

Objective 4.3: Update regulations, policies, and guidance using 

best practices (including providing opportunity for public notice and 

comment) and clearly communicate the regulations, policies, and 

guidance to the community in writing.

Recommendation 4.3.a. Identify regulatory gaps (for example, use of 

radio and satellite transmitters, PIT tags, and issuing of subpermits) 

and revise regulations as needed. Regulations should allow the BBL 

to issue banding permits authorizing the taking of blood, feather, 

and cloacal samples.

Recommendation 4.3.b. Review and revise the North American 

Banding Manual to ensure that it clearly includes information on all 

policies, guidance, and regulations relevant to banding.

Objective 4.4: Ensure consistency in written regulations, policies, 

and practices regarding revocation and suspension decisions.

The Federal regulations (50 CFR 13.27 and 13.28) 

specify a number of reasons for revocation of banding permits, 

but these are not currently reflected in BBL’s written policies 

or practices.

Recommendation 4.4.a. Develop and implement policies for revocation and suspension of permits that reflect the current regulations 

and that protect the proprietary interests of banders, while ensuring 

that banders follow best practices.

Recommendation 4.4.b. If feasible, use available information on 

convictions of violations of wildlife laws to inform revocation and 

suspension decisions.

Goal 4: Administer permits in an efficient, 

timely, and modern manner, and use them to 

ensure that bird welfare and data quality remain 

top priorities.

The permit program should be designed and carried out 

to protect birds covered by Federal statutes and to enhance 

research and management efforts. It should assure that birds 

are captured and marked in an ethical and safe manner. BBL 

has a regulatory responsibility (50 CFR 13.41) to ensure that 

any wildlife possessed under a banding permit be “maintained 

under humane and healthful conditions.” The permit system 

must be efficiently administered and be consistent with legal 

regulations. The program should encourage new applicants to 

become associated with other organized efforts to band birds 

in order to prevent the proliferation of permit applications.

Objective 4.1: Without significantly increasing the number of master 

permits, base the decision on whether or not to issue master or 

subpermits on evidence that the applicant has the skills and knowledge to capture and handle birds of the requested species safely, to 

collect appropriate data (including age and sex) for those species, 

and to submit data timely and accurately to the BBL. HIGH

Recommendation 4.1.a. Ensure, through the permitting process, 

that applicants know how to safely handle birds, maintain birds in 

humane and healthful conditions, and collect data accurately.

Recommendation 4.1.b. Use a variety of tools to evaluate the qualifications of the bander, including the following: 

•	 Recommendations of people who have worked with the bander

•	 Information on experience handling birds and numbers of birds 

handled

•	 Evidence of bander training

•	 Information provided by the applicant

•	 Online testing

•	 Demonstrated proficiency at identifying the birds to be banded

Recommendation 4.1.c. Develop an online, self-administered test to 

ensure that banders applying for permits are aware of and understand relevant regulations, animal welfare concerns, the banders’ 

Code of Ethics, methods for coding and recording data, and other 

matters that do not require physically handling a bird. 

Recommendation 4.1.d. Use the permit renewal process to ensure 

that banders continue to be aware of current banding standards 

and practices, perhaps through updated Web-based testing, or 

completion of a questionnaire or checklist. 

Recommendation 4.1.e. Require brief summaries of proposed banding projects, but do not use these to decide whether or not to grant 

a permit. Instead summaries should be used to:

•	 Provide appropriate advice, if requested by the applicant, on project 

design or marking technologies to enhance the scientific data that 

will result from their project, including encouraging participation in 

organized, cooperative programs such as MAPS

•	 Determine likely band requirements

•	 Ensure that the applicant has the necessary knowledge and skills to 

safely handle those species identified in the project summary 

Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
14 Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Bird Banding Laboratory

Goal 5: Work closely with national and 

international partners to achieve the mission 

of the BBL.

The BBL can benefit from working closely with others to 

achieve its mission and to become more effective and efficient. 

The primary role of the BBL is to provide support to banders and users of banding data. Conversely, others can help the 

BBL to operate more efficiently and effectively. Some of the 

important elements of the banding program fall to partners. 

In turn, the BBL helps partners meet their own bird research, 

conservation, management, and training goals. Some BBL 

partnerships, such as those with the Canadian Bird Banding 

Office and Federal and State Government agencies, are structured by formal agreements. Other partnerships, such as those 

with other banding management programs, NGOs, universities, and private contractors, are less formal.

Objective 5.1: Work with partners to achieve shared goals and 

leverage available resources.

Recommendation 5.1a. Involve partners in the creation of products 

and tools to meet the needs of the BBL and the partners and to 

deliver BBL messages.

Recommendation 5.1.b. Maintain active interactions with banding 

schemes and organizations elsewhere in the world, such as 

EURING, AFRING, and the IOC standing committee on bird ringing, and develop schemes in Latin America and the Caribbean to 

exchange and share experiences, expertise, and products. 

Recommendation 5.1.c. Work with partners to identify key materials 

that promote ethics and bird welfare and proper capture, handling, 

and banding techniques for distribution by BBL. Use MTABs, the 

BBL Web site, permitting processes, workshops, and other communication tools.

Recommendation 5.1.d. Seek opportunities to augment BBL staff 

and resources through partnerships that further BBL’s mission.

Recommendation 5.1.e. Where appropriate, use formal agreements, 

reviewed and updated from time to time, to document intra- and 

intergovernmental partnerships and to define clear roles and 

responsibilities.

Objective 5.2: Develop and implement a process that involves 

partners in advising the BBL. 

Recommendation 5.2.a. Maintain and strengthen relationships with 

key Federal partners (for example, FWS).

Recommendation 5.2.b. Maintain a FAC composed similarly to but 

not necessarily the same as the current one, to monitor and advise 

the BBL on implementation of the recommendations of this report, 

and to maintain and enhance communication with and relationships 

between the BBL and its partners, stakeholders, and the broader 

bird-banding community.

Recommendation 5.2.c. Establish and maintain an open-door policy 

for partners and stakeholders. Consult to the extent possible with 

affected partners and stakeholders while making major operational 

decisions.

Recommendation 5.2.d. Provide for BBL presence at key partner 

and stakeholder meetings.

Objective 5.3: Encourage development of banding programs in Latin 

America and the Caribbean. HIGH

Many birds that breed in the U.S. and Canada migrate to 

Mexico, the Caribbean, Central America, or South America 

during the nonbreeding season. Recent evidence from largescale landbird monitoring programs suggests that population 

declines of Nearctic-Neotropical migratory landbird species appear to be driven primarily by factors that operate on 

the wintering grounds of these species and that affect the 

over-wintering survival and subsequent annual survival of 

young and adult birds. It is critical, therefore, that efforts 

be undertaken to assess the quality of wintering habitat for 

these species and to formulate management and conservation 

strategies for them 

that are based on 

conserving and 

restoring highquality wintering 

habitat. Information on these birds 

gathered during the 

nonbreeding season 

through banding 

programs can contribute directly to understanding their ecology and benefit banding programs in the U.S. and Canada. 

Similarly, conservation and management activities in Latin 

America will directly impact these “North American” birds, 

and, therefore, should be informed by best available data.

Recommendation 5.3.a. Play a central role in building capacity for 

bird-banding programs elsewhere in the Western Hemisphere. The 

BBL should be flexible in helping to develop Latin American and 

Caribbean banding schemes that are appropriate for the partners 

and feasible for the BBL, considering options ranging from independent schemes that exchange data, to expanding the NABBP 

to include additional countries with agreements similar to that 

between Canada and the U.S.

Recommendation 5.3.b. Allow the use of U.S. Federal bands on 

resident as well as migratory birds for projects within the American 

Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) checklist area, in consultation with the 

affected countries, subject to the same terms and conditions as 

are currently applied to projects banding migratory birds in these 

countries with U.S. bands. Specifically, the bander must qualify for 

and possess a permit in the U.S. or Canada, and must obtain appropriate permits to capture and handle birds in the country where 

banding will take place. The BBL must modify its database to be 

able to receive, process, and store data on these resident birds (but 

without investing heavily in data-vetting procedures).

Photo courtesy of Don Des Jardin.
Vision, Mission, and Goals for the BBL 15

process to recoup band costs) and cost efficiencies (reduced 

staff costs due to online reporting and modernization efforts). 

While BBL is not in the business of generating fiscal profit per 

se, it still must be “profitable” in terms of meeting its mission 

and satisfying its customers in the most efficient and costeffective way. 

The analysis must look beyond pure fiscal accounting 

and acknowledge that the beneficiaries of the banding program 

reside throughout government (at regional, State, and Federal 

levels), as well as outside 

government. It should 

include in its analysis 

recognition of the benefits 

of the banding program as 

a whole to Federal agencies (who currently fund 

the program), including 

both direct benefits (for 

example, government 

use of banding data for 

waterfowl management) 

and indirect benefits (for 

example, use of banding 

data by partners to guide 

on-the-ground conservation programs). It must 

also identify the contributors to the program, including the huge in-kind contributions 

by banders and researchers of their time and resources for 

data acquisition and data analysis. The business plan should 

identify ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 

the operation by guiding efforts towards gathering the most 

valuable data.

Objective 6.3: Ensure that the workforce at the BBL continues to 

meet the needs of an evolving organization. 

Recommendation 6.3.a. Develop a staffing plan that recognizes the 

changing workforce needs of the BBL over time, as increased automation reduces the need for clerical staff but increases the need for 

more highly trained staff, such as computer programmers to maintain and develop systems, and biologists to develop standards and 

procedures and to serve as liaison between banders, data analysts, 

and conservation practitioners.

This plan should consider both optimal uses of existing 

personnel (including options such as retraining or redeployment), as well as guidelines for recruiting new personnel. This 

will ensure that all staff contribute effectively and continue 

to feel an integral part of the BBL team. Other options to be 

considered include seeking services from other USGS units or 

DOI agencies for short-term, time-limited tasks, and combining resources with the BRD’s Biological Informatics Office 

and (or) the USGS’ Geospatial Information Office (GIO) for 

tasks such as data management functions.

Goal 6: Manage the BBL in an efficient, 

cost-effective manner to maximize use of 

available resources.

The BBL is a key component of the North American Bird 

Banding Program, leveraging vast resources from bird banders 

across the continent to obtain data that benefit Federal Government mandates to conserve and protect birds. The program 

generates tremendous value for bird conservation, but at the 

same time it must operate within clear fiscal constraints, and 

ensure that it delivers value for money.

The Committee believes that the organizational location 

of the BBL within the Eastern Region of USGS may impact its 

effectiveness. Currently, the BBL is situated within a science 

center (PWRC) within a region (Eastern). However, it functions as a national organization, charged with supporting other 

DOI Bureaus, as well as States, universities, and international 

partners. 

Committee Recommendations: The Committee recognizes that FWS is a major client of the BBL and has much 

expertise and overlap with BBL operations and that it could be 

argued that FWS is a logical administrative home for the BBL. 

Nevertheless, the BBL should be managed with a national 

perspective by USGS BRD Headquarters as a research and 

operational support unit, and be provided with appropriate 

resources to successfully address the scope of its functions. 

It should continue to be physically located at the PWRC to 

facilitate critical interactions with expertise in avian research 

and monitoring. 

Objective 6.1: Ensure that all components of the program are delivered in the most efficient and cost-effective manner.

Recommendation 6.1.a. Continue to identify ways to improve the 

efficiency and effectiveness of BBL operations by looking at opportunities to outsource noncore functions.

Recommendation 6.1.b. Work towards automation of BBL datahandling tasks to the highest extent possible, including passing 

responsibility for many tasks, such as data checking and data entry, 

to users. Specific areas for improvements are suggested elsewhere 

in the document. Priority for implementation should be determined 

based on an assessment of current staff time requirements and on 

areas where maximum gains in efficiency can be obtained.

Objective 6.2: Maintain or enhance the financial foundation of the 

BBL to ensure that it can continue to meet its mandate. 

Recommendation 6.2.a. Develop a business plan for the BBL that 

considers all costs and benefits of the program, while recognizing 

the primary mandate of the Department of Interior for the conservation of migratory birds. 

This business plan is intended to be used by the BBL as 

a vehicle to reexamine the flow of fiscal and human resources 

to achieve mission requirements. The plan should identify current levels of funding and costs and projected future funding 

and costs. The plan should also include an analysis of potential 

future revenue sources (fee for obtaining banding permits and 

Photo courtesy of John Tautin, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
16 Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Bird Banding Laboratory

Reference Cited

Buckley, P.A., Francis, C.M., Blancher, P., DeSante, D.F., 

Robbins, C.S., Smith, G., and Cannell, P., 1998, The North 

American Bird Banding Program—Into the 21st Century: 

Journal of Field Ornithology, v. 69, no. 4, p. 511–529.

Photograph courtesy of Jenny Bryant, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Glossary 17

Glossary 

A

ancillary data All data about an individually marked bird, 

other than those currently required by the U.S. Bird Banding 

Laboratory and the Canadian Bird Banding Office. (Current 

data reporting requirements are: master permit number, name 

of master permittee, banding locations, band number, color 

marker code, alpha code, species number, age, sex, region, 

latitude and longitude, location suffix, and date of banding.) 

Examples include the following: fat scores and muscle development scores; biometrics (for example, wing, tarsus, and tail 

length, body mass); molt patterns (information used to determine age and sex), feather condition, and external parasites; 

breeding condition codes (for example, degree of development 

of a brood patch or cloacal protuberance); skull pneumatization (an indicator of age, based on the degree of development 

of the two layers of bone); genetic information; and stable 

isotopes (biochemical information, obtained from feathers, 

about the origin of food and other materials ingested by a bird, 

by comparison of the isotope ratios of various elements in the 

feathers to the isotope ratios found at different regions of the 

planet).

American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU) Checklist 

Area Includes North and Central America from the North 

Pole to the boundary of Panama and Colombia, including the 

adjacent islands under the jurisdiction of the included nations; 

the Hawaiian Islands; Clipperton Island; Bermuda; The West 

Indies, including the Bahama Islands, the Greater Antilles, and 

Leeward and Windward Islands in the Lesser Antilles (ending with Grenada); and Swan, Providencia, and San Andrés 

Islands in the Gulf of Mexico. Greenland is not included in the 

coverage of the Seventh Edition of the Checklist, although it 

was included in earlier editions and will be in the next edition.

AOU number The 4-digit numeric code used to identify 

species within the computer databases. The AOU no longer 

assigns numbers to species (this practice was discontinued 

in 1998), with the result that the BBL is now responsible for 

modifying numbers as the AOU checklist changes, particularly 

with the addition of species.

associated data All data, other than data about an individually marked bird, collected in the course of the project that 

involved banding the bird. Examples include weather, vegetation or other habitat conditions, or capture effort. Some associated data could potentially be captured through metadata.

auxiliary marker Any marker other than a uniquely numbered metal band issued by a banding office. These markers, 

which may include color bands, patagial markers, neck collars, 

radio transmitters, satellite transmitters, or small microchips 

called passive integrated transponder (PIT) tags, can be valuable for identifying birds without recapturing them. There is a 

need to avoid duplication of auxiliary markers across projects 

if duplication results in geographic overlap.

B

Bandit A computer banding data entry and verification program developed by the BBL. 

band sizes Federally issued bands of appropriate size for a 

particular species. 

band types Federally issued bands of appropriate style for a 

particular species. Specific aspects of band type include composition of metal and closure method.

D 

data verification The process of determining that data 

reported to the BBL are accurate. 

E

encounter Resighting, recapture, or recovery of a marked 

bird, alive or dead, subsequent to the initial banding. Encounters may be repeats (same 10-minute block where the bird was 

banded, in the same season) or returns (same 10-minute block 

where the bird was banded, in a subsequent season). 

F

Federally issued bands The metal bands issued by the U.S. 

Bird Banding Laboratory to permittees in the United States 

and Canada, each bearing a unique number. 

L

local An age code indicating that the bird was banded when 

incapable of flight (that is, a nestling or a fledgling). The location of birds banded as locals is of potential concern in relation 

to the release of data, as it could increase the risk of take or 

disturbance for commercially valuable species (for example, 

falcons) or sensitive species, such as species at risk.

M

MAPSPROG A computer data entry and verification program 

developed by the Institute for Bird Populations.

marking technologies In addition to traditional physical 

markers, birds can now be identified with radio or satellite 

transmitters, PIT tags, or individual genetic data. Other technologies are likely to be developed in the future. 

Source: U.S. Geological Survey.
18 Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Bird Banding Laboratory

Metadata Standards, FGDC Metadata Standards Metadata 

comprise descriptive information about datasets. This information helps the data user to know if the data are appropriate 

to answer a particular question. In the case of banding data, 

for instance, the metadata might include the purpose for a 

particular banding effort or the manner in which the birds 

were captured. The USGS has established a set of standards 

for geographical data, via the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC). The FGDC has developed not only metadata 

standards for geographical information, but has also developed 

a standard process for developing metadata standards. References in this report to FGDC Metadata Standards pertain to 

geographical information as well as to the standard process for 

developing metadata standards.

R

recapture A previously marked bird is caught again. If the 

recapture occurs within the same 10-minute block where the 

bird was banded during the same season, it is considered a 

“repeat.” In subsequent seasons, it is considered a “return.” If 

the recapture occurs outside the 10-minute block where the 

bird was banded, it is considered a “foreign recapture.”

recovery A previously marked bird is killed or found dead, 

and the band number and associated information is reported to 

the BBL, either by letter, by telephone, or electronically. 

resighting An encounter of a live, previously marked bird 

during which the bird is not physically recaptured. It is generally accomplished by visually recording an auxiliary marker, 

and also by remotely reading a band number.

Source: U.S. Geological Survey.
Appendix 1 19

GPS Global Positioning System

IOC International Ornithological Congress

LEMIS Law Enforcement Management Information

System (FWS)

MAPS Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship

MTAB Memorandum to All Banders

NABBP North American Bird Banding Program

NBS National Biological Survey (Department of 

the Interior)

NGO nongovernmental organization

PIT passive integrated transponder

PWRC Patuxent Wildlife Research Center (USGS)

USGS U.S. Geological Survey (Department of

 the Interior)

Appendix 1. List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 

AFRING African Waterbird Ringing Scheme

AOU American Ornithologists’ Union

BBL Bird Banding Laboratory (USGS)

BBO Bird Banding Office (Canadian Wildlife Service)

BRD Biological Resources Discipline (USGS)

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

DNA deoxyribonucleic acid

EURING European Union for Bird Ringing

FAC Federal Advisory Committee

FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

GIO Geospatial Information Office (USGS)
Manuscript approved for publication October 10, 2007.

Prepared by the Reston and Columbus Publishing Service Centers.

Edited by Marilyn A. Billone.

Design and layout by Rosemary S. Stenback.

For more information concerning this report, please contact 

Daniel L. James, U.S. Geological Survey, 301 National Center, 

Reston, VA 20192, dan_james@usgs.gov.

Haseltine and others—Report of the Federal Advisory Committee on the Bird Banding Laboratory—U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1320

Printed on recycled paper