NONGAME BIRDS OF MANAGEMENT CONCERN - THE 1995 LIST

THE EVALUATION PROCESS

Because of the variety of factors affecting bird population status, and our limited knowledge of bird population trends (e.g., only about one-half of the species breeding in the United States are adequately monitored), a five-step process was used to identify species of concern. The five steps include:

1. a modified group decision-making exercise (Delphi; see Caughlin and Armour 1992)),
2. a review of Breeding Survey data,
3. a review of Audubon Christmas Bird Count data,
4. a review of Partners in Flight prioritized regional lists, and
5. a review of the "candidate" list.

This effort focuses on those species of birds that are:

1. protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (USFWS 1985);
2. regularly found in the continental U.S., Hawaiian Islands, Puerto Rico, or the U.S. Virgin Islands;
3. regular breeders or winter residents in one of the above geographical areas;
4. not currently hunted for sport under provisions established by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; and
5. not Federally listed as Endangered or Threatened throughout their U.S. range.

Delphi. This is an attempt to harvest the collective wisdom of a selected subset of "experts" on bird distribution and abundance. Delphi is an appropriate data-gathering tool when definitive or quantitative information on a subject is unavailable, a situation that pertains to the status of many bird populations. The Delphi exercise was conducted in three phases:

(a)Phase I. This exercise was initiated by compiling a list of approximately 545 species of migratory nongame birds known to breed in the continental United States. In March 1992, this list--plus supplementary information--was provided to 10 USFWS biologists with extensive knowledge of bird distribution and abundance. These biologists were asked to review the list and to rank each species according to their perceived degree of concern for the welfare of the species. The results of this preliminary evaluation were compiled in September 1992 (USFWS 1992).

(b)Phase II. A tabular summary of the results of Phase 1--together with supporting information on national trends from the Breeding Bird Survey, a synopsis of 12 National Audubon Society "Blue Lists" (1972-1982 and 1986; Tate 1986), and the status of "candidates" for Endangered or Threatened species listing--was provided to 52 Regional Editors of American Birds (a journal of the National Audubon Society), and to the USFWS's 7 Regional Migratory Nongame Bird Coordinators (RMNBCs) in July 1993. Collectively, these individuals possess a wealth of knowledge on the distribution and abundance of North American birds. Participants were given four choices for indicating their degree of concern for the welfare of each species: None, Low, Moderate, High. They were instructed to base their evaluations on personal knowledge, personal communications with others, information gleaned from the literature, information on short- and long-term population trends when available, and other information provided. For species that they rated Moderate or High concern, participants were asked to indicate the reason(s) for their concern. Their choices were (a) negative Breeding Bird Survey trend, (b) apparent population decline or range retraction (a subjective evaluation that may or may not be supported by Breeding Bird Survey trends) , (c) small population and/or restricted range, (d) restricted or vulnerable habitat, or (e) specific threats (participants were asked to specify habitat loss, human disturbance, contaminants--including pesticides, or other). Most of the RMNBCs consulted with other experts in their regions (i.e., State nongame programs, university researchers, etc.), and the results of these consultations are reflected in their evaluation forms. Completed evaluation forms were received from 40 individuals (Appendix A), a response rate of 67%.

(c)Phase III. In response to a concern expressed by the RMNBCs that certain outlying geographical areas (i.e., Alaska, Hawaii, and Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands) had not been adequately surveyed by the Delphi exercise, special evaluation forms were developed for each of these areas. Except for the species listed, the forms were identical to those used in Phase II. The forms were sent to selected groups of area "experts" identified by the RMNBCs in October 1994. Twenty completed evaluation forms were received from 21 individuals (Appendix A). The distribution of Delphi scores from Phases II and III was tabulated, and median values calculated, for each species by USFWS Regions (Appendix) and other geographical areas.

Other Data Sources.Procedures followed in reviewing the Breeding Bird Survey, the Audubon Christmas Bird Count, the Partners in Flight prioritized regional lists, and the "candidate" list are discussed in the next section.