REPORT FROM THE ORNITHOLOGICAL COUNCIL

Facilitating the policy efforts of the OC member societies and individual ornithologists

• OC has been asked to coordinate the development of joint resolution for the North American Ornithological Conference (see item 6a )

• OC has facilitated the AOU and Waterbird Society conservation committees’ review of the Double-Crested Cormorant management plan (see item 6b )

Other services to ornithologists and member societies

• Organizing the biannual meeting of the Society for Caribbean Ornithology was one of the major efforts of the Ornithological Council in 2001 (see item 7a )

• Helping to develop the capacity of member societies and ornithology in the Caribbean and in Central and South America - With a second grant from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, OC will undertake a variety of small projects to help develop the capacity of CIPAMEX and the Society of Caribbean Ornithology to train ornithologists and to engage in avian conservation activities (see item 7b )

Providing scientific information about birds

To government agencies and other decision-makers

• OC coordinated the peer review process for research proposals submitted to the Communications Tower Working Group (see item 8a )

• A bibliography on aircraft overflight was provided to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (see item 8b )

To conservation organizations and the general public

• OC responds to numerous requests for information on a variety of issues (see item 8c )

• The Bird Issue Brief on endocrine disruptors was completed and has been posted on BIRDNET; a new bird issue brief on scientific collecting is in preparation (see item 8d )

Organizational news

• Two new Board members join OC

• New contractual arrangement made with OC Executive Director

• Changes to OC bylaws

• Annual budget, FY01-02

Detailed accounts

Services to the ornithological community

Representing ornithology to decision makers - permit issues

1a) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit issues

•National Wildlife Refuge System compatibility and appropriate use regulations - Under the 1998 National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was required to codify its policies on the appropriate uses of the refuges. By law, there are six priority uses, all involving wildlife-dependent public activities such as hunting and wildlife viewing. The appropriate use regulations, of course, would affect the ability of scientists to obtain permission to conduct research on the refuges. Therefore, OC carefully assessed the proposed regulations and filed comments to the USFWS, expressing concern that the regulations would, in fact, pose an undue barrier to research on the refuges. We suggested several changes that would remove these barriers, and also stressed that, “The goal, in our view, should be to establish a strong partnership between the NWRS and the research community.”

To reach this goal, OC has embarked on a project to work with USFWS Research Coordinator Reid Goforth and the Division of Refuges to develop a partnership between the USFWS and the academic research community. We have been working together to develop ways to bring much-needed researchers to the wildlife refuges. In particular, we are looking for ways to remove the very substantial barriers that the compatibility and appropriate use regulations pose. Ideas under consideration include a cooperative agreement between the researcher and the refuge that would entail technical assistance and/or information transfer to the refuge. Should the researcher enter into such an agreement, then the research would be tantamount to research management activity (the standard that applies to refuge?identified research conducted by government scientists) which would then bypass the burdensome regulations. Another possibility would entail involvement by the research community with the refuges on an ongoing basis, or what might be called “adopt-a-refuge.” Some refuges have established relationships with local universities, and, not surprisingly, researchers affiliated with those universities seem to have ready access to the refuges for their research projects. This could be in the form of occasional seminars, a consultation process, or other outreach by researchers to refuges in their area.

These USFWS appropriate use regulations - which have not yet been finalized - and the partnership between the refuges and non-government researchers will be the subject of a roundtable discussion convened by OC at the North American Ornithological Conference in September.

Note: OC Chair David Blockstein and Executive Director Ellen Paul will be meeting with Peter Thomas, the newly-appointed chief of the CITES Office of Management Authority later this month. Thomas also heads the USFWS Permits Reform Team, which has apparently been dormant for several years. Also expected to attend the meeting are the permits specialists from the Division of Migratory Bird Management. We intend to seek a commitment from these agency officials for rapid completion of the pending regulatory changes described below . We also plan to ask that, on addition to the individual permit revisions, that the Permits Reform Team -which was intended to undertake an agency-wide review of the permitting system - be given a work schedule and specific expectations for results.

• Scientific collecting permits - For years, OC has been discussing changes to the scientific collecting permit regulations with the USFWS. Led by Dick Banks, one of OC’s founders and esteemed advisor to the OC Board, and Executive Director Ellen Paul, OC has provided the USFWS with information about the value of scientific collecting and the lack of population-level effects of this activity with USFWS permit specialists. Apparently, the only barrier to the revision of the scientific collecting permit regulation is the staffing shorting in the USFWS Division of Migratory Bird Management. That office has twice listed the revision of this regulation on its regulatory agenda for 2001, but apparently has yet to actually draft the revision.

• Rehabilitation regulations - Until now, bird rehabilitation permits were issued under the general permit provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act regulations, with extensive permit conditions attached to each permit. In late 2001, the USFWS issued a proposed rehabilitation permit regulation. OC has commented on this proposed regulation, suggesting that the permit holders be required to donate dead birds and bird parts to museums.

• General conservation permits - this regulation has been pending since 1998. OC submitted comments on the scoping notice and on the proposed regulation. OC has persistently urged the USFWS to finalize and implement this regulation, which is intended to streamline the permit process for conservation and research projects that require multiple permits.

• Salvage regulations - the USFWS has never issued regulations governing the salvage of dead birds. As a result, there is concern on the part of the museum community that many dead birds are not salvaged, or are not donated to research institutions and teaching collections. OC has urged the USFWS to promulgate regulations for salvage. We have proposed some procedures and safeguards that would allow for individuals without permits to salvage dead birds and donate them to permit holders or institutions exempt from permit requirements. The Service has an informal policy (dated 1991) to this effect, but by failing to formalize and make public the policy, it is not effective. OC has offered to work with the Service to develop a salvage policy that serves to protect migratory birds against illegal collection while encouraging the lawful use of salvaged birds for valuable research.

• Permanent, ongoing permits advisory team needed - OC also continues to press the USFWS to establish a Federal Advisory Committee on permits, to give the regulated community an opportunity to provide continued oversight and input to the permitting divisions of the agency. This will be a key topic of discussion when OC Chair David Blockstein and Executive Director Ellen Paul meet with Thomas and other permitting officials later this month.

1b) Proposed changes in banding policies go back to the drawing board as a result of OC’s diligence - OC succeeded in persuading the U.S. Geological Survey and the U.S. Bird Banding Lab (BBL) that the BBL’s proposed changes to banding policies were in need of serious reconsideration. In April, the BBL advised us that they realized that they could have been far more effective in the way we communicated these to banders. They also recognized that an in-depth review of the merits of the proposed changes was warranted. Saying that, “we are now considering a number of both elucidatory and substantive changes in our proposals or preliminary decisions on permitting policies and procedures,” the BBL advised us that the changes that might be made would need internal review and review by the USFWS, and that where necessary, the proposed changes would be made available for public comment in accordance with legal requirements. OC also asked the BBL to establish a Federal Advisory Committee, but the BBL declined to do so. They instead suggested an informal system of meetings with constituent groups, which the OC is trying to arrange with the North American Banding Council and other interested organizations.

1c) USDA/APHIS import/transport regulations - In response to requests from ornithologists who import bird specimens and tissues and who are increasingly confronting a bewildering, fluctuating, and inconsistent array of requirements, OCinvestigated the USDA import regulations pertaining to bird specimens and tissues. Among the questions OC asked the USDA to consider are whether the potential presence of Newcastle virus in specimens and tissues imported for research purposes poses any threat to the domestic poultry industry, whether procedures can be adjusted to reflect whatever minimal risk importation and research activities actually pose, and whether the forms, inspections, and other procedures can be combined and streamlined. The response we received from the USDA Import Export Administration (IMEX) in June confirmed our impression that the policies were not commensurate with the risk posed, that they were outdated (some of the documents dated to 1972), and that they were not published or otherwise accessible to the regulated community. To follow-up, we requested a meeting with IMEX staff, but due to the outbreak of hoof-and-mouth disease and the understandable pressure on the IMEX staff resulting from this situation, we chose to cancel that meeting. However, we are now enlisting the aid of the USDA Regulatory Analysis and Development staff in trying to persuade IMEX to review its policies and procedures with regard to the import of bird specimens and tissues.

1d) Import procedures for animal tissues and specimens - The USDA commissioned the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) to prepare a report on the USDA’s import procedures for the safeguarding of animal health. Concerned that NASDA might not realize how these procedures affect the import of research specimens and would not have any information pertaining to the nature and extent of this activity, OC submitted comments to NASDA. The comments were based on information and expertise provided by curators of ornithological collections and others who import specimens and tissue for research purposes. The report was recently completed but it is not known how USDA will make use of it. OC continues to monitor developments in this area, especially given that last year’s outbreaks of BSE and hoof-and-mouth disease, together with the threat of bioterrorism, are likely to lead to heightened scrutiny of imported animal material.

Representing ornithology to decision makers - animal welfare issues

2a) Canadian Council on Animal Care

The Canadian Council on Animal Care (CCAC) asked the Ornithological Council to review its draft revision of the Council’s Animal Care guidelines. After consultation with a number of ornithologists and with reference to OC’s own Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research, OC submitted comments to the CCAC in September. The CCAC has released a second draft for comment and OC is now reviewing that second draft to determine if a second set of comments is needed. Also, the CCAC chose to draft taxon-specific guidelines separately from the general provisions. OC is now reviewing the section pertaining to birds.

2b) Euthanasia methods

In 1999, OC learned that the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) was planning to revise its euthanasia guidelines. These guidelines have been a source of difficulty for ornithologists who use thoracic compression when collecting bird specimens. Although the review process was not open to public comment, OC requested and received permission from the AVMA to submit information about thoracic compression. A statement was prepared with the assistance of a dozen ornithologists who use this method. It was submitted to the AVMA for consideration. In March 2001, the new guidelines were issued and OC was pleased to find that AVMA now expressly lists thoracic compression as "conditionally acceptable." In the 1993 guidelines, it was not listed as conditionally acceptable or unacceptable. Along with numerous other methods, it was covered only by a statement that, "Failure to list or recommend a means of euthanasia in this report does not categorically condemn its use. There may occasionally be special circumstances or situations in which other means may be acceptable." There was also a statement saying that, "In general, physical methods are recommended for use only after other acceptable means have been excluded; in sedated or unconscious animals when practical; and when scientifically or clinically justified. Consequently, the panel considers all physical methods, except microwave irradiation, conditionally acceptable." However, because thoracic compression was not discussed or included on the list of conditionally acceptable methods, IACUCs were regarding it as unacceptable. It is hoped that the clarity of the new guidelines will result in less conflict between researchers and IACUCS.

2c) Review of proposed revised text of the ARENA Guidebook for IACUCs

The Applied Research Ethics National Association (ARENA), together with the National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare, publishes a guidebook for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees. Last year, OC learned that this guidebook was to be revised and offered to write text pertaining to wildlife biology. The original text was both inaccurate and inadequate and no wildlife biologists had served as authors, editors or reviewers. After submitting comments and suggested text last year, OC asked to review the revisions before publication of the new edition. OC reviewed those revisions and found that they suffered from the same deficiencies as the original text and, in fact, new errors had been added. OC continues to work with the editor to try to improve the text on wildlife biology. In addition, the editors requested that OC write an appendix outlining federal and state permitting requirements for field investigations involving live animals. That material was submitted in September 2001. ARENA has not yet issued the revised Guidebook.

2d) Establishing ties with and providing information to institutional animal care and use committees - Our efforts to educate Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs) and serve as an information resource for IACUCs seems to be bearing fruit:

• We have been asked to provide order forms for Guidelines to the Use of Birds in Research for the IACUC 101 courses offered by the National Institutes of Health.

• Several IACUC members have contacted us with questions about ornithological research and requests for Guidelines.

2e) Regulation of birds under the Animal Welfare Act

Following the settlement of a lawsuit to compel the inclusion of rats, mice, and birds in Animal Welfare Act implementation, the U.S. Department of Agriculture planned to publish proposed regulations pertaining to these taxa. However, the Congress, through the agriculture appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2001, prohibited the USDA from developing the regulation in 2001. An effort by biomedical research organizations to have that ban continued in 2002 failed, but the Senate version of the Farm Bill includes an amendment by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) to amend the Animal Welfare Act to definitively exclude rats, mice, and birds. Should this provision survive the conference committee that will reconcile differences in the House and Senate versions of the bill, the issue will be resolved. If not, the USDA is likely to propose new regulations in 2002. As always, OC will monitor the situation and should it prove necessary, will comment on any proposed regulations that involve birds.

Representing ornithology to decision makers - research capacity and funding issues

Federal funding for ornithological research

3a) OC was instrumental in persuading the U.S. Geological Survey to seek funding for a major new bird research initiative for fiscal year 2002. Ken Williams, who heads the Cooperative Research Units at the USGS Biological Resources Division, wrote a proposal identifying research needed to implement the Bird Conservation Plans that form the basis of NABCI's on-the-ground conservation program. Although USGS Director Chip Groat did in fact seek funding for a major bird research initiative in FY02, the administration’s budget request did not include this initiative. The re-ordering of federal budget priorities following the September 11 attacks precluded any possibility of new funding for FY03, but we plan to try again for FY04.

As a member of the Coalition for Science-based Land Management, OC works to champion appropriations for biological research and, in particular, ornithological research. OC Chair David Blockstein and Executive Director Ellen Paul attend budget briefings by the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, National Science Foundation and other agencies, prepare written testimony for Congressional appropriations committees, and call upon individual members of the appropriations committee to promote increased funding for biological research.

OC has also suggested to the Department of Interior ways to make the most effective use of the $3.5 million in grant funding available under the Neotropical Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The USFWS has already published a request for proposals for the grant fund, which will be allotted to both conservation projects and research. OC has proposed a list of names of ornithologists and bird conservation experts in the Caribbean and in Central and South America as possible members of the grant fund’s advisory committee.

3b) Waterbird Conservation Plan

OC Chair David Blockstein has played a pivotal role in the effort to find funding for completion and implementation of the Waterbird Conservation Plan in the Caribbean and Mexico. By identifying funding sources and arranging for meetings between Waterbird Conservation Plan leaders and representatives of funding agencies, Blockstein has helped assure that Caribbean and Mexican participation will be successful.

3c) OC participation in USGS Listening Session - Both Executive Director Ellen Paul and Chairman David Blockstein (in his capacity as Senior Scientist for the National Council for Science and the Environment) participated in a “listening session” held by the U.S. Geological Survey USGS). The purpose of the session, which was the second held by the USGS, was to “ensure that the power of USGS science is directed to meet the needs of our partners and customers.” OC’s interest in this process stems from the fact that USGS scientists conduct a very substantial part of the basic and applied ornithological research and other research relevant to avian conservation. It has been estimated that USGS spends $15 million annually on ornithological research. However, there is a need to improve the way USGS identifies and prioritizes research needs, and a disconnect between this research and the research needs of bird conservation and management programs. Participants were asked for their views on the mission of USGS in meeting societal needs for science, and for comment on ways to achieve a balance between data acquisition and information management, regional studies, fundamental research, and international interests? OC suggested thatthe USGS should provide scientific leadership and direction. The USGS can help to set a research agenda. Instead of addressing research needs on an ad hoc, piecemeal basis, which inevitably leads to gaps, researchers should work from an agreed-upon agenda of research needed for proper management and conservation of resources. OC also suggested that USGS could make an invaluable contribution to resource management and conservation by helping to develop taxon- and habitat- specific monitoring protocols, standard data recording and analytical methods. And, as identified in an assessment jointly conducted by OC and the USGS Patuxent Wildlife Research Center several years ago, USGS could fille the need for an ecosystem- or landscape-level monitoring scheme for major groups of taxa that makes scientific sense. We pointed out to USGS that, “The limited amount of on-the-ground level monitoring capability has to be strategically deployed to be sure that there are no critical gaps in geographic or taxonomic coverage.”

3d) OC participation in development of Department of Interior Strategic Planning - OC Executive Director Ellen Paul took part in a two-day stakeholder meeting convened by P. Lynn Scarlett, Department of Interior Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, to help develop DOI’s strategic plan. Prior to this time, DOI strategic planning comprised a collection of bureau and agency strategic plans. Now, DOI intends to develop its own strategic plan, consistent with Secretary Gale Norton’s “Four C’s” – conservation through communication, cooperation, and consultation. This session – one of six – focused on the preservation and restoration of natural resources, although it also touched on resource use and recreation, which are the themes of future meetings. Ultimately, DOI will use the input and resulting strategic plan to shape its FY2004 budget request.

3e) Averting disclosure of the Smithsonian’s Conservation and Research Center and Migratory Bird Center - In late April, without warning, the Smithsonian decided to close the Conservation and Research Center (CRC) in Front Royal, Virginia. The move would have jeopardized valuable ornithological research, including a long-term study of Kentucky Warblers, research on the Micronesian Kingfisher and Guam Rail (both extinct in the wild), the Bali Mynah, Hawaii’an Crow, and other threatened and endangered species. Closure of the Migratory Bird Center would have terminated the leading research program on birds in coffeeplantations, along with research on shade cacao, forest fragmentation, and a variety of conservation and education programs for neotropical migratory birds. The reaction from OC was swift and strong. We immediately drafted a letter of protest to all members of the Smithsonian Boards of Regents and the congressional committees charged with oversight of the Smithsonian, and to the House and Senate Appropriations subcommittees on Interior (which provide federal funding to the Smithsonian). The protests of the scientific, conservation, and zoo communities succeeded in persuading Smithsonian Secretary Lawrence Small to withdraw the plan, atleast for now. He continues to pursue his plan to reorganize the scientific research enterprise at the Smithsonian. However, the reaction to the secretive manner in which these plans were being made forced him to appoint a scientific advisory commission (which includes AIBS Board member Marvalee Wake). AIBS has been asked to consider calling for Secretary Small’s resignation. The Public Policy Review Committee is studying the issue, in order to prepare a recommendation for the Board. They are scrutinizing outside reviews of the Natural History Museum, a response from the NMNH, a taped interview with SI and NMNH officials and research staff, and other documents.

3f) Warding off proposed transfer of Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, Smithsonian Environmental Research Center

In late December, OClearned that the Office of Management and Budget had proposed to take the federal funding that provides base support for the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center (SERC) and theSmithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) and assign it to NSF. Concerned about the effect that these transfers would have on ornithological and other research at these centers, OC led an effort to persuade OMB to reverse these decisions and to engage in a more careful, deliberative process. Shortly before the end of the year, we learned that OMB was reconsidering this decision, and would probably not transfer the Smithsonian funding to NSF after all. In early February, we learned that OMB had in fact withdrawn these proposals.

Information services to and communication with the ornithological community

4a) Fact sheet on West Nile Virus (WAV)

In recent months, the Ornithological Council has become aware of questions concerning the potential risk of WAV to researchers. We would like to provide our members with the most current, accurate information on this subject. Recently, we have fielded several questions, and have come to realize that there is no single source of complete and up?to?date information. It is our hope that by providing this information, researchers and their universities can make informed decisions about what preventive measures, if any, they should be taking. In some cases, universities are requiring field ornithologists to wear protective clothing in the field (which can make it difficult to handle live birds and may also raise unnecessary alarm should a member of the public happen upon the research site). In at least one case, a researcher has elected to stop holding field demonstrations for his classes and may stop conducting field research. We have asked Robert G. McLean, director of the USGS National Wildlife Health Center, to compile a fact sheet that we can distribute to ornithologists, addressing:

1.the extent of the known risk

2.the state of the research

3.the strategies to address IACUC/university concerns with regard to researcher and student safety.

Dr. McLean, a leading researcher on WAV, has agreed to write this fact sheet for OC.

4b) Wildlife radio telemetry frequency assignments and coordination

OC has fielded a number of questions about radio frequency assignments for wildlife telemetry, both within the United States and near or across the Canadian and Mexican borders. Until now, these questions have been answered on an individual basis. We are now contemplating an effort to put together a fact sheet for ornithologists

4c) OC disseminates information to the ornithological community via its website - BIRDNET - and on a variety of listservs, including its own OCNET (managed by Irene Pepperberg and hosted by the University of Maryland), Ornith-L (managed by Jeanette Bider and hosted by the University of Arkansas), WORGNET (managed by Chuck Banks and hosted by the Smithsonian), and NEOORN (managed by Van Remsen and hosted by the University of Louisiana) (see instructions for subscribing at the end of this report). OC also publishes a column in the Ornithological Newsletter.

In the past year, OC has used these outlets to keep ornithologists informed about:

-Housing standards for birds in research facilities

- An detailed analysis of the status of legal protection for the Northern Goshawk for a conservation assessment

- OC also contacts individual ornithologists regarding information pertinent to their research interests. In most cases, these notices pertain to endangered and threatened species, but a wide range of topics are covered. For instance, information about federal management actions pertaining to various species was posted on ornithology listserves and sent to ornithologists who study those species or have been involved in their management, including Blue-fronted Amazon, Spectacled Eider, Short-tailed Albatross, Piping Plover, Sage Grouse, Red-cockaded Woodpecker, Florida Scrub Jay, Mexican Spotted Owl

4e) Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research

• The Portuguese translation of Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research has been completed and posted on BIRDNET.

• OC began to plan for eventual translation of Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research into French

Workshops and symposia

5a) Cooper Ornithological Society, April 2001 - At the request of the COS,OC convened a symposium on “Recent legislation, regulation, and litigation affecting avian conservation and ornithological research” for the COS 2001 annual meeting. Panels of experts discussed the following subjects: Migratory Bird Treaty Act: does it apply to the federal government? does it apply to timber sales and logging? The possible impacts of the MBTA Executive Order signed by President Clinton and the petition pending before the Commission on Environmental Cooperation to compel the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to implement the MBTA so as to reduce bird mortality associated with logging; Endangered Species: the status of litigation pertaining to various bird species; the self-imposed USFWS moratorium on listing activities; Other developments - the SWANCC case (the demise of the Clean Water Act “migratory bird rule”); the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act; the Freedom of Information Act and the release of data pertaining to endangered, threatened and rare species including protections afforded by the 1998 Omnibus National Parks Management Act and the two recent District Court cases interpreting that statute; and Regulation of ornithology - an overview of changes in the Animal Welfare Act regulations (inclusion of birds, definition of distress, change in definition of field study); pending MBTA permit changes (permit fees, collecting permits); National Park Service permit procedures, new website; Bird Banding Lab changes in policy, procedure; General conservation permits.

5b) Partners in Flight invited OC to convene a symposium at the 2002 PIF meeting, to focus on new opportunities in bird conservation research. Topics to be covered at this March meeting include: the Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Units; Science for Conservation - a USGS Workshop to Identify Research Priorities; Using the Breeding Biology Research and Monitoring Database (BBRD) for Bird Conservation; and the USGS Proposal to Meet the Science Needs of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative. The session will also include a discussion of the revival of the Partners in Flight Research Working Group.

5c) North American Ornithological Conference OC’s proposal for a workshop on the effect of the new National Wildlife Refuge System regulations on ornithological research and opportunities for ornithological research on the refuges has been accepted. The speakers are representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, including the author of the compatibility and appropriate use regulations and the research coordinator for the USFWS. In addition to discussing the possible effects of these regulations on research, we will also explore ways to develop a partnership between researchers and the refuges.

Facilitating the policy efforts of the OC member societies and individual ornithologists

6a) Resolutions - At the request of COS Resolutions Committee Chair Mark Sogge, OC drafted two resolutions for consideration at the COS Annual Meeting. OC has also been asked to coordinate the joint resolution process for the North American Ornithological Conference.

6b) Review of Double-crested Cormorant management plan - OC was asked to assist the AOU and Waterbird Society conservation committees in organizing a panel to review the Double-Crested Cormorant management plan, which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service released for comment in December. Our efforts included filing a Freedom of Information Act request seeking data on the level of take of Double?crested Cormorants under existing permits and depredation orders, providing the panel members with background information, including symposia proceedings, a recent status assessment, a compendium of research papers published by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, and a precis of previous federal efforts to address the cormorant issue. In addition, OC provided information about the resources available for the monitoring and assessment that would be needed under the management plan.

Other services to ornithologists and member societies

7a) Organizing the Society for Caribbean Ornithology 2001 meeting - In OC’s grant proposal to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, we planned to assist the SCO in planning the 2001 meeting, which was to focus on capacity building. As originally envisioned, OC was to offer several workshops on topics such as funding, communicating with public policy officials and private decision makers, and building organizational capacity for effective bird conservation programs. In late August of 2000, immediately after the grant award, we contacted SCO leadership to ask about the workshop topics that would be of interest for the meeting that was to be held the following July. In early November, we learned that there had been little planning or fund-raising for the meeting, and that there was a possibility that the meeting would not take place. SCO leadership asked OC to assist with the planning and fund-raising. In as much as there could be no workshops if a meeting did not take place, OC agreed to undertake the planning and fund-raising for the SCO meeting. The workload for the activity relative to the SCO meeting increased substantially beyond what was originally contemplated, leaving little time for the other planned activities. OC’s efforts included virtually every facet of the organization of an international meeting, including helping to determine the dates; communicating with the local host committee on a wide variety of details relative to accomodations, transportation, and logistics; coordinating the submission and translation of abstracts and the preparation of a program; scheduling; obtaining and providing information needed by U.S. citizens to comply with U.S. law relative to travel to Cuba; writing grant proposals for funding; preparing and distributing registration materials; all aspects of financial management; and, of course, arranging for the workshops that were originally the sole activity relevant to the SCO meeting. OC arranged for and coordinated three workshops, which were identified as priority topics by the SCO leadership and the local host committee:

a) GIS and remote sensing (presented by The Nature Conservancy)

b) Identifying grant-worthy projects (presented by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation)

c) Identification and coordination of research and conservation efforts for neotropical migratory birds throughout the Caribbean (led by Hiram Gonzalez and Leo Douglas)

7b) Helping to develop the capacity of member societies and ornithology in the Caribbean and in Central and South America

OC has been awarded a second grant by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of International Affairs Western Hemisphere program for work with CIPAMEX and the Society for Caribbean Ornithology and other ornithologists in Central and South America to help enhance the capacity of ornithologists in those countries as to both ornithological research and bird conservation . After consultation with the leaders of CIPAMEX and the Society of Caribbean Ornithology, as well as other ornithologists who work in these regions, the following projects have been agreed upon and are in progress:

February 2002