SEARCH · USGS Science

Results for “Partners in Flight Technical Series”

Search indexed USGS publications on groundwater, aquifers, geologic maps, mineral resources and earthquakes. Explore source records by subject and place.

SourceResearch connectionFrom yearThrough year

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

USGS2005

The five elements process: Designing optimal landscapes to meet bird conservation objectives

In February 2004 at Port Aransas, Texas, Partners in Flight (PIF) and representatives from the other NABCI bird initiative met to discuss the process of stepping down PIF continental population objectives (Rich et al. 2004) to regional and local scales. Participants also discussed rolling up local population estimates and targets to assess the feasibility of the landscape changes necessary to meet continental objectives. Since the process of stepping-down/rolling-up population objectives shifts focus from identifying priority species to formulating quantitative estimates of how much habitat was needed, where, and by when the Port Aransas group called the stepping-down/rolling-up process a??stepping forward.a?? Participants agreed that stepping forward objectives was the beginning of an inevitably iterative dialog necessary to evaluate the assumptions of PIF population estimates and objectives as well as the methods used to monitor local implementation. To facilitate the translation of continental population objectives into biologically sound, measurable regional and local population-based habitat targets the Port Aransas group recommended a process no commonly referred to as the Five Elements Processa?|

Partners in Flight Technical Series↗

USGS2006

Making connections for bird conservation: linking states, provinces & territories to important wintering and breeding grounds

To effectively conserve migratory landbirds, we need to be involved in conservation beyond our political borders. This has been a central tenet of Partners in Flight (PIF) since the initiative began in 1990 with a focus on Nearctic-Neotropical migrants. Implementation of this concept has also been fundamental to the success of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (e.g., NAWMP 2004). Actions by individual states, provinces and territories are key to the success of PIF efforts at the continental scale, and great progress has been made in recent years though various initiatives. Currently, U.S. state Wildlife Action Plans are outlining a vast array of actions to benefit priority species. However, it is also very important to take action in regions that support these same species at the other end of their migratory movements, to ensure effective protection year-round (Rappole et al. 1983, Webster and Marra 2005, Elliott et al. 2005). For instance, conservation action is needed on the wintering grounds for many birds that breed in Canada and the U.S. but spend a large portion of their annual cycle in Mexico, the West Indies, Central and/or South America. In this document we use maps to summarize migratory connections between individual U.S. states, Canadian provinces & territories and the regions that support the same birds at the other end of migration. The maps give a general picture of where birds go, providing a starting point for targeting action. With this information in hand, decision-makers can explore partnerships and mechanism that would help further conservation action outside their bordersa?|

Partners in Flight Technical Series↗

USGS2005

High priority needs for range-wide monitoring of North American landbirds

This document is an extension of work done for the Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004). The Continental Plan reviewed conservation status of the 448 native landbird species that regularly breed in the United States and Canada. Two groups of species were identified as having high conservation importance: the PIF Watch List, made up of species for which there is conservation concern, and Stewardship Spices that are particularly characteristic of regional avifaunas. In addition, continental scale monitoring needs were identified for all species. Here we extend the monitoring needs aspect of the Plan, providing additional detail and suggesting the best means of filling the gaps in broad-scale, long-term trend monitoring. This analysis and report was compiled by the Partners in Flight (PIF) Science Committee as a contribution to current work by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative to assess the status of bird population monitoring in North America and to make recommendations for improvements.

Partners in Flight Technical Series↗

USGS2007

Applying radar technology to migratory bird conservation and management: Strengthening and expanding a collaborative

Executive Summary Understanding the factors affecting migratory bird and bat populations during all three phases of their life cycle—breeding, nonbreeding, and migration—is critical to species conservation planning. This includes the need for information about these species’ responses to natural challenges, as well as information about the effects of human activities and structures. Habitats and other resources critical to migrants during passage and stopover are being destroyed, degraded, and threatened by human activities. Birds and bats are also uniquely susceptible to human use of the airspace. Wind turbines, communication and power transmission towers, and other tall structures, known to cause bird and bat mortality, are being erected or proposed in increasing numbers across the country. In addition, the potential for bird/aircraft collisions poses human safety threats. Management and regulatory agencies, conservation organizations, and industry currently lack the information they need to meet their missions and statutory responsibilities. The biological data available from various radar technologies offer a unique opportunity to learn more about the spatiotemporal distribution patterns, flight characteristics, and habitat use of “aero-fauna.” Recognizing the opportunities presented by radar technologies, the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and university partners collaborated first on individual projects and then in a broader, informal “collaborative” to coordinate their radar-related research and work together to develop the suite of products needed for conservation of birds and bats. Having produced two summary documents (Sojda and others, 2005; Ruth and others, 2005), the next objective was to convene a workshop for researchers, management and regulatory agencies, and other interested parties. The focus of this initial workshop was on strengthening the existing USGS-USFWS-university partnership and expanding the “collaborative” to include new Federal agency partners. The subject matter was centered on discussing available technologies, appropriate applications, management-related needs, and ways to strengthen collaborative research and conservation efforts. The workshop opened with presentations about the history of the “radar collaborative,” a description of the workshop objectives and focuses, and a summary of resource management and regulatory needs. Scientific presentations describing current research projects or subjects followed, given by USGS scientists, as well as scientists from other Federal agencies, academia, conservation and ornithological organizations, and a private contracting firm. Presenters addressed a wide variety of management issues including siting of wind-power facilities, bird/aircraft collisions, effects of hurricanes Katrina and Rita on bird migration, bird use of Conservation Reserve Program land, defining bird migration patterns at a broad regional scale, and associating migrant birds with their stopover habitats. Presentations described a variety of radar technologies including NEXRAD weather surveillance radar, modified mobile marine radar, military tracking radar, pencil beam radar, and dual polarization radar, as well as complementary techniques and analysis methods such as acoustic monitoring, thermal imaging, artificial intelligence, and individual-based modeling. Key issues, themes, and questions identified during the open discussions that followed fell into five main categories: (1) agency needs and challenges; (2) radar technology and applications—technical questions and issues; (3) tools and resources for managers and researchers; (4) standardization of protocols; and (5) collaborative opportunities. Participants identified the following management, regulatory, or business issues facing them which may be addressed with radar technologies: tall structures; wind turbines; identification and protection of key habitats; assessment of management activities; and bird/aircraft strikes. Participants frequently expressed the need for specific information about which radar technologies are best used for answering particular questions. User groups emphasized the importance of clear, defensible scientific information on which they can base their activities. In turn, researchers emphasized their need for clearly defined, specific questions from managers so that they can design and conduct the required research. Discussions about technical issues requiring further research and collaboration included target identity, ground-truthing, linking migrants to habitat, and standardized protocols for applied research. Workshop participants identified and endorsed a series of seven action items that would promote collaboration and begin to address key issues identified at the workshop: Action Item #1 : Establish a working subgroup to address large-scale surveillance radar standardization issues. Action Item #2 : Establish a working subgroup to address small-scale radar standardization issues. Action Item #3 : Bring management and regulatory agencies together to identify the three most important information needs for each key management issue relating to radar technologies. Action Item #4 : Develop Fact Sheet(s) to provide information about radar technology applications to migratory bird and bat conservation issues. Action Item #5 : Create a “radar collaborative” Website to provide information about radar biology applications, contacts, publications, and so forth. Action Item #6 : Formalize and expand the USGS-USFWS “radar collaborative.” Action Item #7 : Advance basic research, such as target identity and validation, which will support and improve our abilities to apply radar technologies to conservation objectives. There was considerable interest in expanding the “radar collaborative” to include those agencies, organizations, and industries represented at the workshop. It was felt that the publication of the workshop proceedings, implementation of action items, and additional future meetings or workshops will be crucial in strengthening the “radar collaborative” effort and promoting the use of these valuable technologies for conserving migratory species.

Open-File Report↗