|
PROCEEDINGS OF THE NORAC SIXTH Techniques | Uses of Data | Field Problems | Publishing | Proceedings contents list STANDARD TECHNIQUES Sub Committees created to work on these topics; will work by e-mail, report to this group, after input to full NORAC list. Recommended Methods for Collection of Abundance Indices
Species Specific Atlasing Strategies and Standards
There are two issues to address: the best way to sample and the best way to interpret observations. We need a Web document with a list of species, including species for which standard methods work, and other species for which special techniques needed, and provide species-by-species recommendations Recommended Methods for Collection of Habitat Data & Recommended Method for Recording Fieldworker Effort
Maps (Rick West)
Hugh Kingery: It is important to retain all confirmation data, not just the highest code PROPOSAL FROM LARRY MASTER OF TNC Would like NORAC to adopt a standard form for reporting rare species, and has provided a heritage program form for consideration. Todd Schneider: The heritage form is complicated for some people to use. We use a species verification form with location identified on a photocopy of the quad map, and the staff goes through those and transfers the information to heritage forms if warranted. Betty Anderson: The Massachusetts Heritage Program has a similar form but it is simpler to fill out, and includes the signature of the observer for legal documentation, and how many years of experience the observer has with the species in question. Philip Unitt: San Diego County uses daily field forms and daily field maps. This form is overkill. Concern was expressed about the lack of bird identification information on the Heritage form. It is more plant oriented than animal. CONSENSUS TO ADD TO RECOMMENDED PROCEDURES Each atlas project should use (as all have to date) a form for "asterisked species" (i.e. species that are state endangered or threatened, or species of special concern). It is very important that precise location information is collected (verbal site description, ownership of land if known, attached photocopy of map with location circled). Biological information about what was observed, and the code indicated is of primary importance of course. Signature of the observer is desirable, if possible, along with the observer’s years of experience with the species. After review by the Regional Coordinator, form should be submitted to the state or provincial Heritage Program. If further details or forms are needed, the Regional Coordinator should fill them out to avoid overwhelming the atlas volunteer. back to top | proceedings contents list Joan Walsh: The NJ wetlands conservation law is very strong; the Atlas data is important in protecting habitat, particularly threatened and endangered species. It has also been used in Birds of North America accounts, and the New York Bight project. Consultants often request it for development projects. NJ charged consultants for atlas data, and provided it free to government agencies and NGOs. Hugh Kingery: Colorado is giving their data to TNC, the Colorado Bird Observatory, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, and the Audubon Society of Greater Denver Mike Cadman: Ontario gave their database to the Heritage Program, and they handle requests for information. Kathleen Anderson: Massachusetts Heritage has atlas data, but releases site information with a large buffer (i.e., a species is located somewhere within a given diameter radius) Atlas data has been directly applied for many conservation purposes, town resource inventories, etc. Concerns were expressed about misuse of data by consultants for developers, but the consensus was that as long as the information is available to both sides, there is not much to be done about it. It is just like any other scientific publication. Environmental organizations are just as likely to misuse data at one extreme as developers are at the other. Doug Kibbe: If a consultant is relying on atlas data, he or she isn't doing the client any good and isn't saying anything the state doesn't already know. Atlas data is collected at such a large scale, that it is useless at the site scale, and developers really need site-specific data. Charles Francis: If we are heading for Internet availability, we are heading for completely free access. Federal funding may require public access, and atlas data shouldn't be considered an income source. Charlie Smith: If any federal money is used in the atlas, the information is public. It must be made available without fee to anyone requesting it. Rick West: The process of atlas projects is a very important conservation and education tool, because participants become more aware of the needs of breeding birds, and their habitat associations. The generation of predictive models at fine scales can be an important use of atlas data. Atlas data can be extremely useful to state and federal agencies in environmental review. Excellent and inclusive article on the uses of atlas data: Bird Study 44:129-145; 1998 (British Trust for Ornithology publication) Doug Gross: Concerned about backlash from people who won't provide data on rare species if it is being publicized everywhere, because of birders abusing the situation or falconers using it to locate nests and remove nestlings. Concern was expressed about wide access to data collected on private lands: NJ directed in their handbook not to trespass on posted private lands without written permission; only one field worker was turned away. Posting was not a problem in NJ: all interesting open land is in public ownership, because of the population density. Ticks were more of a problem than posting; fear of Lyme disease kept people on the roads. Ontario gave all their data to public agencies. Some states said that they had provided all their rare species data to The Heritage Program, but it had not yet been entered in their database. NJ’s has not been added in 7 years! NY data use has changed completely, DEC says. Rare species data is with the Heritage Program. Used to get several thousand requests per year. Now data is wide open, except for species vulnerable to collecting, anyone can get it from the Web. Stressed importance of getting data out to developers while they are in the planning stages, and can more easily steer away from sensitive areas. What about keeping secret locations of rare, threatened, or endangered species? Atlas volunteers won’t give the data if they fear it will threaten the species. NY: when a field worker deliberately misled the DEC about the location of a rattlesnake den, it resulted in the den’s destruction because the DEC thought it was 1 mile from its actual location. Could have protected it if they had known. Best to have the data open and available. Can a species be found if people with bad intent know only that it is within a 10 sq. Mile block? Some thought yes, easily, and some thought no. No consensus on this. Doug Kibbe: Atlas data is useless for site analysis; not specific enough. Only a poor environmental consultant would buy it. Possible to charge for interpretation perhaps. Rick West; atlasing is a conservation and education tool; results in a more aware public and a higher appreciation of habitat. Every 20 years we get the next generation. Essential for an informed public. Sally Sutcliffe: remember the overall purpose is to conserve birds and their habitat! Personal contacts with land owners or managers when rare species are found can be extremely valuable, circumventing Heritage data management problems. These relationships are very important to local conservation. Papers have been published recently on the use of atlas data for studying fragmentation on a broad scale and to address other landscape ecology questions. Bob Miller distributed a list of the uses of NY’s Atlas Data, dated 1/25/99, reproduced below:
back to top | proceedings contents list SPECIAL FIELD PROBLEMS Chair: Rick West There are a number of problem species that deserve special attention and instructions. E.g.,
DISCUSSION
PUBLISHING THE ATLAS Chair: Joan Walsh Publishing is the first thing to talk about when planning an atlas! Most of the participants had published or were in the process of publishing their books. It may be only one way of presenting the data, but it gets the information in the hands of the public and is popular with atlasers. John Zimmerman updated us on the Kansas atlas, to be published by the University Press of Kansas projected in Dec. 2000. No data on abundance is to be included, for reasons stated earlier and more. They used BBS data to show mean relative abundance by stratum. 204 species. He is one of the two authors. There is a two-page spread for each species. The write-ups will be primarily concerned with biogeographic reasons for distribution patterns. Multiple authors versus one or two: can work either way; Ontario had good experience with multiple authors (Of 80 authors, 70 were fine.) Some editors, in retrospect, would have liked to have one author, themselves. With some atlases, one person wrote certain sections of each account t: ie Joan did all status descriptions for the NJ book. One person did all the habitat write-ups in the Delaware book. "Bird police problems" - state record committees sometimes make it difficult by delaying or worse reversing decisions. Colorado paid people to write accounts or provided authors with a free atlas. Each author had to do 5 accounts. They budgeted for 1500 copies, and sold 1800 advance copies, which upped numbers to be printed considerably. The publisher needed to have all publication money in advance, so they wound up self-publishing, and now have $25,000 in the bank for the next atlas. Delaware and New Jersey will both do their books as state bird books, with the Atlas data part of the book. Delaware has never had a state bird book. Did mini-routes, will present data in book. Self publishing: NJ highly recommends it. Keep control of the book, and it moves much faster. They used Bob Berman (719-634-7736) and Cindy Lippincott as publication managers and recommend them highly: easy to work with and efficient. Hugh Kingery agrees for Colorado, several echoed: we raise the money and pay for it anyway with University presses, and they delay the project and throw obstacles in our paths. Many steps: bird police, reviewers, copy editors, page layout. Allow plenty of time to get it out. Most people are using ArcView for map production. One university publisher said they can save $5000-$10,000 if the layout is provided in Quark. Joan Walsh: It is important to spend money on good technical and copy editors, rather than on layout. John Ozard: The format of the book is also important. back to top | proceedings contents list The NORAC website is hosted and maintained by Bird Studies Canada |
