Management and Conservation of Secretive Marshbirds: Priority Needs at Multiple Scales

13- 15 December 2011

Five Rivers Delta Resource Center, Spanish Fort, AL

Meeting Report

Purposes of the Meeting

  • Articulate and organize the most pressing conservation needs of secretive marshbirds and identify the priority actions to ensure the long-term persistence of secretive marshbirds and their habitat in North America.
  • Explore where and how monitoring activities shouldinform these decisions, building upon a decade-old effort to develop a standardized protocol, survey design, and data management system.
  • Commence drafting of a business plan that comprehensively presents this information and provides a detailed prospectus for the needs agreed to be the most immediate and urgent.

Participants, Presentations, Discussions

We convened a facilitated workshop with 30 invited participants selectedto represent the suite of secretive marshbird conservation stakeholders (Appendix A). One of the initial presentations summarized the responses from a recent request for input on marshbird monitoring activities and needs. This consultation revealed a diverse community of stakeholders with varied mandates, information needs, and capacities to manage and monitor marshbird species of interest with a great willingness for collaboration. It revealed a growing involvement in marshbird monitoring in the past ten years, especially with the development of the breeding-season protocol (Conway 2011) and piloting of a sampling design (Johnson et al. 2009). It also revealed that the information needs that should be driving the monitoring efforts had yet to be comprehensively cataloged, integrated and prioritized (hence the need for this workshop). A second introductory presentation focused on the results of a three year (2008-2011) pilot project (led by Mark Seamans, USFWS) to test the survey design (Johnson et al. 2009). Key findings illustrated that the proposed design and the standardized protocol are compatible, produce reasonable results, and seem to be infinitely flexible for stratification at varying scales, addressing hypotheses, etc. Stratifications were important and held promise for different reasons (public vs. private; high quality vs. general), and conservation issues identified by stakeholders should drive the stratification. Logistics were a challenge, but it doesn’t appear that great sample sizes will be needed to get relatively precise estimates for the more common species. However, for the rarest and possibly highest conservation concern species (e.g., Yellow, Black and King Rails, Clapper Rail subspecies), the design as piloted may not produce much useful information. (Peer reviewed publications on these findings are due in late 2012).

The tone of the workshop was then set by a series of presentations on existing or proposed projects related to marshbird management and associated monitoring efforts:

  • Recovery of the Yuma clapper rail: Adapting a monitoring program so that it informs management (Dr. Courtney Conway). This effort illustrated how practical application of a standardized monitoring protocol and well-developed sampling design informed management for a federally listed species. Lessons from this effort included the following:1) surveyor training is KEY, 2) annual updates must be provided to keep people engaged and sustain effort, 3) recommended management practices (i.e., prescribed burning) requires dedication, 4) having a research-focused coordinator was KEY, and 5) objectives were clear.
  • Northeast States Saltmarsh Habitat and Avian Research Program(SHARP)(Dr. Greg Shriver). SHARP initially started in Bird Conservation Region (BCR) 30 to study saltmarsh obligates and secretive marshbirds. SHARP was able to leverage additional resources and expand beyond the initial scope because it used a standardized sampling frame and engaged an existing partnership base.
  • Prairie and Parkland Marsh Monitoring Program (Dr. Kiel Drake). Bird Studies Canada is using a modified version of the standardized breeding-season protocol (Conway 2011)to develop decision-support system models that inform habitat management and acquisition. In prairie Canada, successful marshbird conservation will likely hinge upon improving measures to conserve wetlands, and the adoption of land use practices that promote diverse assemblages of wetland and wet meadow habitats.
  • Linking wetland management decisions to habitat use and nesting efforts of secretive marsh birds in Missouri (Dr. Doreen Mengel). Using secretive marshbirds as indicators of habitat quality, the Missouri Department of Conservation intends to better understand how management actions and disturbance affect wetland distribution across the landscape. This project will include migratory stages in marshbird annual cycles and determine trade-offs with other taxa.
  • Integrating Marsh Bird Management and Monitoring in the Upper Midwest(Dr. Mark Seamans). Using atheoretical example based on pilot data and likely conservation priorities, Markrevealed the potential benefits of integrating objectives (linking hypotheses among projects) in a particular part of the country as follows: 1) an effort is more efficient and cheaper, with possibly more insightful inference, if additional ancillary data are available; and 2) this approach helps increase support for single projects by identifying other uses of data and results. Mark did point out that coordination is critical to ensuring consistent data collection and maintaining integration of these layers as part of an integrated monitoring effort.

The selection of presentations was intended to provide examples of the diversity of management needs and demonstrate that monitoring could be carefully designed to address specific conservation decisions. Earlier national/continental marshbird workshops (1998 and 2006) emphasized the need for estimates of abundance, distribution and population trends. While these are still fundamental needs, the paradigm urged by the Steering Committee inthis workshop wasto pursue the acquisition of this information within an explicit decision-based framework, focusing on more immediate and pressing needs of managers and policy-makers. This emphasis on decision-support monitoring does not deny the importance of estimating population trends, but it includes trend estimates as products rather than a driver of investment or design. Moreover, we used a ‘quilt’ analogy for describing the envisioned framework for marshbird management and monitoring, arguing that informing the multitude of issues occurring at several spatial and temporal scales could not effectively be addressed by a ‘blanket’ approach. Rather, management issues could be viewed as “quilt squares” of unique circumstances that required unique effort, but which could be brought together systematically (as in a quilt) by virtue of shared elements (shared species and wetland management approaches, standard field methods, hierarchical sampling designs, data management, etc.).

With this paradigm and analogy in mind, participants broke into discussion groups to rapidly review and articulate the most significant conservation and management needs of marshbirds – specifying the following key components: 1) description (geographic area, species), 2) management decisions to be informed, by whom and frequency, 3) sampling needs, logistics, cost, 4) relationships to existing/developing field efforts, 5) proposed implementation schedule, and 6) feasibility of sustaining the effort. Six rapid-prototyping discussion groups were formed at the meeting; three to examine the issue of marsh habitat management within a large geographic area (Upper Midwest US / Great Lakes / Prairies; Tidal Marshes of Atlantic and Gulf Coast; West of the Rockies) and three focused on species or population management topics (harvest management of hunted species, generally; King Rail and Clapper Rail conservation, specifically). Despite the emphasis on breeding season in recent protocol and design testing, the groups were instructed to consider conservation needs during all seasons; they were also reminded that monitoring was not necessarily the most effective tool to address a conservation need.

Meeting Products

The product of the discussion groups is a matrix, which contains the first draft of a list of top conservation needs for secretive marshbirds (see Appendix B), with accompanying explanation of management questions and recommendations for addressing them. Participants agreed that this matrix, completed by invited stakeholders, would be a powerful tool for planning and garnering support for marshbird conservation. By laying out the array of needs and potential courses of action, administrators and funders would have the context to decide on commitment of funds or staff. Additionally, this matrix will aid integration across “squares” so that our quilt acts like a blanket even if not created like one.

The preliminary matrix allowed participants at the meeting to propose a small set of particular management issues needing the most immediate investment. The following three issues were selected for detailed consideration and treatment in the near-term (with specific individuals identified as leads):

  • Evaluation of Management treatments – Wetland prescriptions for the benefit of all wetland birds. Many wetland habitats are primarily managed to benefit waterfowl species and likely also host secretive marshbirds at different points of their annual cycle. Future monitoring should evaluate specific marsh management practices (e.g., seasonal drawdowns, invasive plant removal, and prescribed burning) in terms of their abilities to support secretive marshbird species. (Courtney Conway, Laurel Barnhill, Tim Jones, Mike Rabe, and Mark Seamans)
  • Habitat-specific densities of wintering Yellow Rail and Black Rail. We currently know very little about the vegetative communities (and management and succession conditions within those communities) that provide critical wintering habitat for these two species. Lacking this knowledge prevents managers and policy makers from planning and implementing efforts to ensure the long-term persistence of these two rare birds. (Courtney Conway, Mark Woodrey, and Troy Wilson)
  • Reversing declines in the Midwest populations of King Rail. King rail populations have experienced precipitous declines throughout the migratory portion of the species’ range, especially in the Midwest. Future monitoring efforts should focus on king rail response to large-scale wetland restoration and management (importance of disturbance and invasive species control) activities throughout the Midwest. (Dave Krementz, Mark Seamans, Tom Cooper, and Sammy King)

While the participants agreed that these three issues are of paramount importance, this short list is not meant to preclude or discourage investment in other management needs by groups of stakeholders. However, we urge that conservation start by addressing the above three needs first, andefforts to address other needs should be addressed in conjunction with the three priority issues where possible.For example, the breakout group that discussed monitoring needs for harvested marshbirds agreed that harvest should not be the primary reason for monitoring marshbirds. They believed that supporting these other priorities would still allow the calculation of population estimates for harvested species at an acceptable level of precision to better inform harvest management. Additionally, the need for States to describe distribution and abundance of marshbirds within their borders as a commitment to State Wildlife Action Plans could also be built into the management treatments issue above.

Next Steps Timeline

  • 31 January 2012: Circulate Summit report to broader stakeholder community and request review of List of Top Marshbird Conservation Needs (Appendix B).
  • 29 February 2012: Individuals will complete detailed write-ups for the selected issues requiring immediate investment, and further stakeholder input into the matrix associated with Top Marshbird Conservation Needs will be requested.
  • 30 March 2012: First draft of Business Plan will be completed. In addition to the matrix of Top Marshbird Conservation Needs, with expanded discussion of selected issues, this will include a discussion of roles and responsibilities of key stakeholder groups, including coordination, quantification of existing and possible investments, and aStrengths Weakness Opportunities Threats (SWOT) analysis.
  • End of June 2012: Business Plan completed and ready for sharing with programmatic managers in key stakeholder groups.
  • Meanwhile during all of this, we will also (1) seek funding for key management actions (if such actions are proposed) and monitoring; and (2) seek support from stakeholders to help with efforts to pursue the three priority issues (or others if they prefer to support those).

Appendix A:List of workshop participants (alphabetical by last name).

2011 Marshbird Workshop Participants. (photo credit: Dan Petit)

Name / Affiliation / Email
Laurel Barnhill / USFWSNational Wildlife Refuge System Inventory and Monitoring Program /
Courtney Conway / USGS Idaho Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit /
Tom Cooper / USFWS Eastern Webless Specialist /
Gary Costanzo / Atlantic Flyway(Virginia) /
Steve DeMaso / Gulf Coast Joint Venture /
Kiel Drake / Bird Studies Canada /
Chris Dwyer / USFWSMigratory Birds (Northeast Region) /
Katie Koch / USFWS Migratory Birds (Midwest Region) /
David Krementz / Mississippi Flyway and Arkansas Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit /
Paul Link / Mississippi Flyway (Louisiana) /
Corey Mason / Central Flyway (Texas) /
Sumner Matteson / Mississippi Flyway (Wisconsin) /
Doreen Mengel / State Agency (Missouri Department of Conservation) /
Colleen Moulton / Pacific Flyway (Idaho) /
Lee O’Brien / USFWSNational Wildlife Refuge System Inventory and Monitoring Program /
Andrea Orabona / Central Flyway (Wyoming) /
John Ozard / Atlantic Flyway (New York) /
Dan Petit / Facilitator /
Mike Rabe / Pacific Flyway (Arizona) /
Mark Seamans / USFWS Western Webless Specialist /
Greg Shriver / University of Delaware and SHARP Project /
Eric Soehren / State Agency (Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources) /
Greg Soulliere / Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture /
Tim Jones / Atlantic Coast Joint Venture /
Jennifer Wheeler / USFWS National Waterbird Coordinator /
Troy Wilson / USFWS Migratory Birds (Southeast Region) /
Mark Wimer / USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center /
Mark Woodrey / Mississippi State University /

Appendix B. List of Top Marshbird Conservation Needs identified by discussion groups at workshop

Population Issues (Workshop focused on King Rail and Clapper Rail conservation specifically, and harvest management of hunted species, Yellow Rail and Black Rail generally).

  • Yellow Rail*
  • Population Viability
  • What is the current population estimate for Yellow Rails?
  • Where are their core breeding and wintering area locations?
  • What are the specific linkages between breeding and wintering areas?

*We lacked sufficient expertise on Yellow Rails at this workshop and invite input from species experts to better articulate top conservation needs.

  • Black Rail**
  • Population Viability
  • What is the current population estimate for Black Rails?
  • Where are their core breeding and wintering area locations?
  • What are the specific linkages between breeding and wintering areas?
  • Climate Change
  • What are the effects of sea-level rise on Black Rail population viability?

**We lacked sufficient expertise on Black Rails at this workshop and invite input from species experts to better articulate top conservation needs.

  • King Rail
  • Habitat Management
  • What are the effects of current wetland management of large marshes on public lands on King Rails?
  • How important (if at all) are large private wetlands and their management to the distribution and occurrence of King Rails?
  • How, where, and to what extent can early successional vegetation management be integrated into current wildlife management practices to benefit breeding King Rails?
  • Population Viability
  • What sampling design can complement existing state marshbird monitoring to increase the likelihood of determining the distribution and range of King Rail populations? [Current random, stratified sampling often excludes sites where KIRA have been known to occur.]
  • What is the population viability for the Atlantic Coast Population?
  • What is the population viability for the Upper Midwest Population?
  • What is the effect of harvest on the population viability of Upper Midwest and Atlantic Coast?
  • Clapper Rail
  • Climate Change
  • What are the effects of sea-level rise on Clapper Rail population viability?
  • Contaminants
  • What are the effects of contaminants on Clapper Rail demography?
  • Habitat Needs and Management
  • How does landscape context and increased development affect Clapper Rail habitat quality?
  • What are the effects of habitat loss or conversion on Clapper Rail viability?
  • What are the habitat associations for Clapper Rails?
  • What are the effects of open water marsh management / mosquito control on Clapper Rail vital rates?
  • What are the effects of restoring grid ditched marsh on Clapper Rail vital rates?
  • Harvest
  • What is the geographic variation in Clapper Rail vital rates?
  • What is the origin of harvested marsh birds?
  • Endangered Subspecies
  • What are the effects of feral cats on Light-footed Clapper Rails?
  • What are the effects of marsh burning on Yuma Clapper Rail habitat quality?
  • What are the effects of mowing and control of marsh succession on Yuma Clapper Rail habitat quality?
  • What are the effects of non-native invasive vegetation control programs on Light-footed Clapper Rails?
  • What are the effects of the captive breeding program on Light-footed Clapper Rails?
  • What are the effects of wetland creation / restoration on Yuma Clapper Rail habitat quality?
  • Harvest Management of Hunted Species
  • How can we improve Harvest Information Program (HIP) harvest estimates?
  • How does harvest relate to population size?
  • What is the origin of harvested marsh birds?

Regional Habitat Management Issues (Workshop focused on three large areas: Upper Midwest US / Great Lakes / Prairies; Tidal Marshes of Atlantic and Gulf Coast; West of the Rockies)

  • Tidal Marshes of Atlantic and Gulf Coasts
  • Climate Change
  • What are the effects of salinity changes on marsh birds?
  • What is the effect of sea-level rise on abundance and distribution of marsh birds?
  • Habitat Quality
  • How does landscape context and increased development affect tidal marsh bird habitat quality?
  • How has / will habitat loss or conversion effected tidal marsh bird viability?
  • What are the habitat associations for tidal marsh birds?
  • Habitat Management
  • What are the effects of open water marsh management / mosquito control on tidal marsh bird vital rates?
  • What are the effects of restoring grid ditched marsh on tidal marsh bird vital rates?
  • What are the effects of water allocation on marsh bird habitat availability?
  • Upper Midwest (US) / Great Lakes / Prairie Region
  • Climate Change
  • How will climate change affect the habitat availability and quality for marsh birds?
  • King Rail-specific
  • Are King Rails limited by a lack of wetland connectivity in the far north?
  • What are the habitat associations of King Rail and how much can we increase them across the landscape?
  • Habitat Management
  • How do disturbance activities affect marsh birds?
  • How has invasion of early successional wet meadows and emergent marsh by non-native plants affect marsh bird populations?
  • What is the effect of wetland management on secretive marsh birds? How do these effects differ geographically?
  • Habitat Needs
  • How can we acquire better distribution and abundance information to refine the delivery of habitat programs (i.e., easements, JV DSTs)?
  • West of the Rockies
  • Conservation Planning
  • How can we acquire distribution and abundance information to address State planning needs?
  • How do we prioritize which wetlands to purchase to maintain marsh bird population viability on the landscape?
  • Habitat Management
  • How can we integrate water allocation with marsh bird habitat conservation?
  • How does multiple use management (i.e. grazing, haying) effect marsh birds?
  • What are the best designs and implementation techniques for vegetation restoration and creation?
  • What are the effects of disturbances from adjacent land development on marsh birds?
  • What are the effects of non-native invasive vegetation control programs on marsh birds?
  • What is the effect of wetland management on secretive marsh birds? How do these effects differ geographically?