The Ornithological Council is pleased to provide the Waterbird Society with an overview of our activities over the past year.  Presented below are highlights, followed by details, of our major activities and accomplishments. This report is not intended to be comprehensive, but rather to give you an idea of the types of things we do on behalf of ornithology and birds, and how we do it.  Those wishing more information on any of the activities covered in this report should contact Ellen Paul at epaul@concentric.net.

As always, we thank the Waterbird Society for its continuing support of the Ornithological Council. We also thank the WS representatives on the OC Board - Mike Erwin and Jeff Spendelow - for their invaluable advice and guidance.

David E. Blockstein, Ph.D.
Chairman and AOU Representative to the Ornithological Council

Ellen Paul
Executive Director

Highlights (a summary of the year's activities; details follow, starting on page 4)

Services to the ornithological community

Representing ornithology to decision makers - permit issues
• Several U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service permit issues took priority in 2001 - 2002. Among them were: the new National Wildlife Refuge System compatibility and appropriate use regulations and policies; the revision of the regulations on scientific collecting; and the pending rehabilitation regulations. In addition, we pressed for issuance of the final general conservation permit, the development of salvage permits, for the revival of the permits reform team and for the establishment of a federal advisory committee on permit issues. (see item 1a)
• 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 addition, OC has been working with USGS on the issue of band supply and improvements to Band Manager. (see item 1b)
• OC intensified efforts to persuade the USDA/APHIS to clarify its import/transport regulations pertaining to bird specimens and tissues. (see item 1c)
• The OC submitted comments to the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA) regarding import procedures for animal tissue and specimens; NASDA was preparing a report on the USDA’s import procedures for the safeguarding of animal health. (see item 1d)

Representing ornithology to decision makers - animal welfare issues
• At the request of the Canadian Council on Animal Care, OC reviewed the CCAC’s draft Animal Care guidelines pertaining to research involving birds. (see item 2a)
• The National Institutes of Health, Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare issued a revision of its IACUC (Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee) Guidebook  that incorporated most of the comments and material provided by the Ornithological Council. (see item 2b)
• As a result of OC’s outreach to the IACUCs across the country, OC has been consulted by a number of IACUC members and organizations providing instruction to IACUCs. (see item 2c)
• OC supported a provision in the 2002 Farm Bill that enacted into law the USDA’s determination that rats, mice, and birds should be excluded from the Animal Welfare Act. (see item 2d)

Representing ornithology to decision makers - research capacity and funding issues
• OC continues to work for improved funding for ornithological research and for the most effective use of the available funding. (see item 3a)
• OC Chair David Blockstein assisted in the effort to seek funding for completion of the Caribbean and Mexican portions of the Waterbird Conservation Plan. (see item 3b)
• For a second year, OC has offered comments at the USGS Listening Session and has used this opportunity to champion the development of an ornithological agenda that meets the needs of conservation planning and implementation efforts. (see item 3c)
• OC participated in the development of the Department of the Interior’s strategic plan (see item 3d)
• OC has monitored closely the implementation of President Bush’s management agenda and other administration efforts that have threatened to eliminate of research positions (see item 3e).
• In December, OC was instrumental in helping to persuade the Bush Administration to drop its plan to transfer base funding for the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center to the National Science Foundation (see item 3f)
• Upon learning that the U.S. Agency for International Development planned to terminate funding for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation’s Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation grants program, OC organized an effort to try to persuade USAID to reverse this decision (see item 3g)
• OC has asked the Department of the Interior to provide the U.S. Bird Banding Lab with sufficient funding to secure an adequate supply of bird bands (see item 3h)
• OC has asked the Bird Banding Lab to make changes to Band Manager to allow for more accurate reporting of location data and band replacement numbers and to disseminate information to banders regarding specimen salvage procedures and West Nile Virus (see item 3i)

Information services to and communication with the ornithological community
• A fact sheet on the potential risk of West Nile Virus to researchers is in preparation (see item 4a)
• OC commissioned an expert in FCC regulation of radio frequency assignment to prepare a fact sheet on radio frequency assignments for wildlife telemetry within the US and near and across the Mexican and Canadian borders; it is now has under review by the OC Board (see item 4b)
• OC continues to disseminate information to the ornithological community via its website - BIRDNET - on a variety of listservs, and in the ornithological newsletter (see item 4c)
•OC receives many inquiries and requests for assistance from individual ornithologists, usually pertaining to problems with permits or Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, but also on a wide variety of subjects (see item 4d)
• The Portuguese translation of Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research has been completed and posted on BIRDNET; a French translation of Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research is planned (see item 4e)

Workshops and symposia
• OC convened a symposium at the 2002 Partners in Flight meeting, to focus on new opportunities in bird conservation research (see item 5a)
• OC presented a workshop at the North American Ornithological Conference (September 2002) on the effect of the new National Wildlife Refuge System regulations on ornithological research and opportunities for ornithological research on the refuges (see item 5b)

Facilitating the policy efforts of the OC member societies and individual ornithologists
• OC coordinated the development of joint resolutions for the North American Ornithological Conference (see item 6a)
• OC 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
• 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 (now Society for the Conservation and Study of Caribbean Birds) to train ornithologists and to engage in avian conservation activities (see item 7a)
• OC is considering a request from Partners in Flight to re-form and help coordinate the Partners in Flight Research Working Group  (see item 7b)

Providing scientific information about birds

To government agencies and other decision-makers
• A bibliography on aircraft overflight was provided to the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (see item 8a)
• Comments were submitted regarding logistical barriers to implementation of the USFWS proposed management plan for Double-crested Cormorants (see item 8b)

To conservation organizations and the general public
• OC and the National Council for Science and the Environment organized and co-hosted a meeting with National Park Service Director Fran Mainella (see item 8c)
• OC responds to numerous requests for information on a variety of issues (see item 8d)
• 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 8e)

Organizational news
• Three new Board members join OC
• Changes to OC bylaws
• Annual budget, FY02-03

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 embarked on a project to work with USFWS Research Coordinator Reid Goforth (now retired; we continue to work with Barry Stieglitz, Deputy Chief Division of Conservation Planning & Policy for the Division of Refuges, Terry Sexson of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Paul Dresler of the U.S. Geological Survey) 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) that 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 compatibility policy, the appropriate use regulations - which have not yet been finalized - and the partnership between the refuges and non-government researchers were the subject of a roundtable discussion convened by OC at the North American Ornithological Conference in September. A fact sheet on research on the refuges, based in large part on that roundtable, will be published by the Ornithological Council.

In addition, OC plans to conduct a survey of ornithologists regarding their experiences with research on the refuges. A survey expert has submitted a proposal, which has been accepted by the OC Board. The survey is intended to help us determine the nature and extent of problems encountered by scientists who would like to undertake research projects on the refuges. Insofar as the problems may be as much perceived as real, the survey will assess the extent to which this is the case. If there is a real problem, the survey will also help us isolate any specific kinds of research, specific regions, or specific refuges that are particularly problematic.

Other scientific societies have been invited to participate in and provide financial support, including the American Institute of Biological Sciences, which has agreed to contribute $1,000, the Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology ($500) and the Botanical Society of America ($500). The Society of Wetland Scientists plans to discuss the invitation in November and it is anticipated that this organization will also participate. In addition, OC is seeking matching funds from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.

Scientific collecting permits - For six 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 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 shortage 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. In a letter dated 13 September 2002, the USFWS stated that it hoped to publish the proposed regulatory changes in 2003.

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 may not be 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.

Permits reform team - In June 2000, the USFWS established a permits reform team to address a variety of permit issues. OC Executive Director Ellen Paul spoke at the first and only meeting of the reform team. In February 2002, Ellen Paul met with Peter Thomas, the newly-appointed chief of the CITES Office of Management Authority; Thomas also heads the reform team. She sought a commitment from Thomas and the other agency officials who attended the meeting for rapid completion of the pending regulatory changes described above. She also asked that, in addition to the individual permit revisions, the 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. There appears to be no realistic chance that these pending matters will be expedited because the workload in these offices continues to increase without a corresponding increase in staff size. Nonetheless, OC  feels it is appropriate and necessary to continue to press for reform and for more timely completion of proposed reforms and has repeatedly brought the matter of staffing shortages and reform delays to the attention of the Department of the Interior officials (see next item).

In that we have not seen our concerns addressed by either the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the Department of the Interior, we met with House Resources committee staff and plan to meet with Senate Environment and Public Works committee staff to discuss the situation. These committees have oversight responsibility for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and can take measures to address problems of this nature.

In late June, the Division of Migratory Bird Management informed OC that the reform team had completed its vision statement – “Leaving a Lasting Legacy.”  That document was published in September and provided to  the OC.  We made it available to ornithologists, pending posting on the USFWS website.

Federal advisory committee - OC also continues to press the USFWS to establish a Federal Advisory Committee on permits, in order to give the regulated community an opportunity to provide continued oversight and input to the permitting divisions of the agency. This was a key topic of discussion when OC Executive Director Ellen Paul meet with Permits Reform Team leader Peter Thomas and other permit officials in February. Although the USFWS has always been receptive to OC’s requests for meetings and has always listened to our concerns about permit issues, OC continues to believe that a formal advisory committee might be useful in improving ongoing communication with the USFWS and would likely be more effective than having individual organizations working independently and communicating with the USFWS on an ad hoc basis. In June, OC asked Department of the Interior officials to consider the request for an advisory committee and submitted a suggested charter in the hope that it might expedite a decision. Their 13 September 2002 response stated that it would not do so, saying that it would be counterproductive to spend limited resources to charter an advisory group.

USFWS staffing levels - Because the delays in permit reform seem to result from staffing shortages, OC has made a concerted effort to bring the situation to the attention of Department of the Interior officials, including ornithologist Jim Tate, who serves as Science Advisor to the Secretary of the Interior and to Lynn Scarlett, Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management, and Budget. Although requests for staffing increases would ordinarily emanate from the agency, the new director for the USFWS, Steve Williams, took office only in January 2002. The delays in Dr. Williams’ appointment are likely making it difficult for every issue to receive his full consideration before the FY04 budget submissions are due to the Department of the Interior. Rather than run the risk that another year will go by before the USFWS can address this staffing shortage in its budget submission, we brought the matter directly to the Department of the Interior officials to urge them to increase funding and staffing for the USFWS offices responsible for permit policies.

1b) Proposed changes in banding policies go back to the drawing board as a result of OC’s diligence

OC has 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 (communicated in the May 2000 “Third Letter to Banders”) 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 they communicated these proposed policies 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 attempted to arrange with the North American Banding Council and other interested organizations. As this effort did not succeed, OC has asked the  Department of the Interior to include banding permit issues in the scope of a Federal Advisory Committee on permit issues. The Department of the Interior has declined to establish a Federal Advisory Committee on Permits, but has stated that the banding permit policies are now undergoing review by the USFWS Division of Migratory Bird Management and will be promulgated in accordance with the requirements of the Administrative Procedure Act.

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, OC  investigated 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. Some of the recommendations could lead to heightened scrutiny, which, in the absence of better training, could exacerbate problems for scientists. However, the report recommends better training and better risk analyses, which could actually reduce barriers to the import of specimens. The report incorporated OC’s comments in the appendix, so USDA regulators will be aware of our concerns. 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 then asked OC to review its draft guidelines for birds. These comments were submitted to the CCAC in June 2002.

We had previously offered the CCAC the opportunity to use Guidelines in its entirely at no cost to the CCAC, in part because the CCAC would be required to provide a French translation and also because we hoped to make it available to and used by all biologists who might choose to work with birds but who might not consider themselves ornithologists and who would not necessarily join an ornithological society. We also wanted to make it available to and have it used by Animal Care Committees in Canada. In June, we re-extended that offer because of concern that the 6-page guide proposed by the CCAC was too cursory. It provided insufficient information for biologists working with live birds and for Animal Care Committee assessing projects involving live birds to make an informed judgment. We are awaiting a response from the CCAC.

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

In 1992, the National Institutes of Health Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW; then known as the Office of Protection from Research Risk) and the Applied Research Ethics National Association (ARENA) jointly published a guidebook for Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees (IACUCs).

In 1999, the Ornithological Council learned that OLAW and ARENA were planning to revise this document. In that the Ornithological Council had a number of concerns about the text, we asked to be permitted to submit comments and suggest revisions and new text. During preparation of the original guidebook, not one of the 40 authors or eight editors was a field biologist, and there was no indication that the authors and editors had consulted field biologists. The text on field studies reflected the lack of understanding of field biology.

Editor Marky Pitts, the Director of the Animal Subjects Program at UC San Diego, and Nelson Garnett, NIH-OLAW director, welcomed our comments and input, which were submitted in September 1999. However, when a draft revision was released for comment, we found that little change had been made in response to our concerns. We submitted a second set of comments in July 2000.

On 12 March 2002, the Office of Laboratory Animal Welfare (OLAW) and Applied Research Ethics National Association (ARENA)  announced the publication of the 2nd edition of the ARENA/OLAW Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee Guidebook. We were pleased to note that the new text was significantly improved and incorporated most of the comments and materials submitted by the OC.

Specifically, the section on field studies, which gave us so much concern in the original publication is vastly improved. It acknowledges that the USFWS permitting system is primarily responsible for population-level effects and says that the IACUC may rely on the judgment of the permitting agency as to population issues. Unfortunately, it neglects to mention that under the Animal Welfare Act, field studies are exempt from IACUC protocol review.  The definition of field study in the AWA regulations [as one that does not harm the animal, does not involve invasive procedures, and that does not materially alter the behavior of the animal] is so broad - especially because these terms are not defined - that for all practical purposes, most field studies do not meet the tests for exemption from IACUC review. Nonetheless, it would have been desirable to have the guidebook that is relied upon by IACUCs at least explain the current law.

The appendix listing federal permit requirements for wildlife biology, submitted by the OC, has been included. This is significant because IACUC members often do not realize that population-level effects, if any, of wildlife research, is subject to these myriad permitting laws. Although the IACUCs are charged with implementation of the Animal Welfare Act and Public Health Service Extension Act, these laws focus on the treatment of individual animals, not on population level effects. Therefore, an IACUC that denies protocol approval, or requires modifications, based on concerns about population-level effects, may actually be overriding a decision by a federal permitting agency that the population-level effects are acceptable.

Some of the specific text suggested by OC was not included. We are particularly concerned that the text did not include suggested language pointing out the substantial difference between studies using animals as test subjects and studies of wild animals in their natural setting.   This distinction is critical, because the underlying premises of the Animal Welfare Act - to reduce the number of live animals or use animal substitutes whenever possible - lead to judgments that are inapplicable to the study of wildlife. For instance, the assessment under the Animal Welfare Act would question whether repeated studies are necessary. However, with wildlife studies, studies and experiments may need to be repeated to determine the effect of abiotic variables, such as climactic conditions, over which the field investigator has no control. Repeated studies are also needed to detect changes over time. Long-term ecological and biological research, as well as research on long-lived species, is essential to our understanding of the natural world, so studies and experiments may involve capture and treatment of the same individuals for many years. Inclusion of this text might have helped IACUCs to understand the basic principals of field biology.

However, given that we started with a group of people who hadn’t even thought to consult with field biologists, it was extraordinary that they even accepted our comments and gave our suggestions serious consideration.  The material that was not included discussed the
differences between lab and field studies, and the differences between animals as test subjects (e.g. biomedical studies) and the study of animals themselves. The basic and deeply-entrenched animal welfare principles of “reduce/find substitutes” are so inapposite to wildlife biology that it would be unlikely that such a discussion would be published. However, OC’s participation in this revision has opened a discussion with the animal welfare organizations that may someday result in a recognition of the different purposes and assumptions underlying field and wildlife biology, and, in turn, policies that reflect those differences.

2c) 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.

2d) 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 included an amendment by Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) to amend the Animal Welfare Act to definitively exclude rats, mice, and birds. The OC supported this amendment, which became law in May 2002.

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 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.

OC continues to work 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 million in grant funding available under the Neotropical Migratory Bird Treaty Act (NMBTA). Specifically, we suggested that the Divisions of International Conservation and Migratory Bird Management be involved in the grant selection process, because of the expertise of their staff in bird conservation needs for all taxa throughout the Western Hemisphere and understanding of and appreciation for a variety of conservation projects. We were gratified to learn that the USFWS had indeed included these individuals in the review process. We analyzed the awards data and were pleased to find an absence of any bias for or against any taxa, region, country, or project type. In a letter to USFWS Director Steve Williams, we congratulated the USFWS for the excellent results of the first year of grant funding under the NMBTA.

OC also 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. At this time, the USFWS has not established the advisory committee, but OC will continue to monitor the situation and will continue to encourage the service to have a committee knowledgeable about all taxa, countries, and project types covered by the NMBTA.

3b) Waterbird Conservation Plan

OC Chair David Blockstein assisted in the effort to find funding for completion and implementation of the Waterbird Conservation Plan in the Caribbean and Mexico. Blockstein has identified funding sources and arranging for meetings between Waterbird Conservation Plan leaders and representatives of funding agencies.

3c) OC  participation in USGS Listening Session

Executive Director Ellen Paul and Chairman David Blockstein 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 to correct 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 comments on ways to achieve a balance between data acquisition and information management, regional studies, fundamental research, and international interests. OC suggested that  the 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 fill the need for a scientifically-sensible ecosystem- or landscape-level monitoring scheme for major groups of taxa. 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 Chair David Blockstein and OC Executive Director  Ellen Paul took part in stakeholder meetings convened by 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. Blockstein and Paul participated in a  session that focused on the preservation and restoration of natural resources; Blockstein also participated in the session on resource use and recreation. Ultimately, DOI will use the input and resulting strategic plan to shape its FY2004 budget request.

3e) Potential effect of President’s Management Agenda on federal research scientists

In August 2001, President Bush issued a management agenda that calls for “competitive sourcing” of a wide range of federal jobs and functions. Every agency is required to determine which functions should be subject to this competitive process. It is not yet clear whether scientific research positions and laboratories will be subject to the competitive sourcing process, but given the significant number of ornithologists who are employed by the USGS, Forest Service, and other federal agencies, OC is very concerned about the potential effect of the management agenda on ornithologists and ornithological research. We are monitoring the situation closely, and will register a protest if it appears that scientists and research labs will be subject to this directive.

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

In late December, OC  learned 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), the  Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI), and the Smithsonian Astrophysics Lab 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, when the President’s Budget Request was released, we learned that OMB had in fact withdrawn these proposals.

3g)  Leading the effort to try to persuade USAID to continue funding the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) Neotropical Migratory Bird grants program

In late March, OC learned that USAID had decided to terminate funding for the NFWF Neotropical Migratory Bird grants program. As representatives of 10 scientific ornithological societies in North America and the Caribbean - including the Society for Caribbean Ornithology and CIPAMEX - OC is very concerned about this decision. This program has been a mainstay of bird conservation in Central and South America and the Caribbean and is widely regarded as a model of successful, partnership-based conservation. It has generated a significant amount of funding from its conservation partners. More importantly, it has helped develop in-country capacity, including support for research and training – such as Chan Robbin’s project in Guatemala to train students and professionals in  bird identification and sampling techniques. However, there is still significant work to be done. To try to persuade USAID to reverse this decision,  OC notified colleagues in a wide variety of ornithological and conservation organizations of the decision and asked for their support. At an April 18 meeting, USAID officials made it clear that it was very unlikely that the decision would be reversed. However, it was also apparent that there were other opportunities for bird conservation funding from USAID, and this information was shared with NFWF.

3h) Working for funding to improve band supplies

For the past two years, OC has been asking the U.S. Geological Survey to ensure that the U.S. Bird Banding Lab (BBL) has enough funding to provide an adequate supply of bird bands of all types. Having learned that the BBL had resolved its problems finding reliable sources of bands but was still short of sufficient funding, the OC has asked the Department of the Interior to provide one-time funding to the BBL to purchase a two-year supply of bird bands. We have learned that the chronic shortage of band supplies has more to do with timing than with quantities ordered. The federal budget cycle is such that by the time the orders are placed by the U.S. Bird Banding Lab for the bands that will be needed for the following year, the supplies on hand are critically low. If demand exceeds what was anticipated for the current year, as it often does, the Bird Banding Lab cannot provide the requested bands. If the Bird Banding Lab is given sufficient funding to order a two-year supply, there will always be a surplus on-hand to meet any unanticipated demand.

We pointed out to the Department of the Interior the critical importance of bands to scientific research involving birds, noting that the data generated in studies that require bird bands - and this is most ornithological research, migration monitoring, waterfowl management and harvest limits, and other monitoring efforts - is invaluable to the Department of the Interior in carrying out its statutory mandates to properly manage and conserve bird populations. Most of these data are generated by non-government researchers and banders. For the small price of bands, the Department is afforded very substantial amounts of data that it could not afford to generate on its own.

In response, the Department of the Interior provided the BBL an additional $208,000 to place five large orders for aluminum bands. This order is anticipated to satisfy current demands and provide a small reserve.

We’ve also asked the Department of the Interior to direct the BBL to secure a second source of supply. We’ve pointed out that it is not sufficient to have a single supplier, as a machine failure or illness of the individual who owns this company and makes the bands could result in a shortage of bands.

In addition, this individual does not have the capacity to make hard metal bands. The USGS states that this individual will develop the capacity to make hard metal bands in 2003, but we have urged the USGS to find another source of hard metal bands, rather than rely on the possible supply of hard metal bands from this individual sometime in the next 15 months.

3i) Other Bird Banding Lab issues – improving Band Manager; information to be disseminated to banders regarding West Nile Virus and bird salvage procedures

We’ve asked the USGS to work with the BBL to amend Band Manager to (a) allow for the input of both one-minute blocks and lat-longs and (b) to allow for the input of replacement band numbers.

Finally, we’ve asked the BBL to include information on bird salvage and the risks of West Nile Virus to researchers in its next Memo to All Banders.

Information services to and communication with the ornithological community

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

 In recent months, the OC has become aware of questions concerning the potential risk of WNV 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 USDA APHIS National Wildlife Research 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 WNV, has agreed to write this fact sheet for OC.

4b) Wildlife radio telemetry frequency assignments and coordination

Last year, Fred Cooke (President-elect of AOU) and Sean Boyd (Canadian Wildlife Service) asked OC to look into the issue of the assignment of frequencies for radio-tracking of wildlife for projects near or across the Canadian and Mexican borders. Subsequently, another ornithologist called to ask how to get a frequency assignment. These questions proved difficult to answer, so OC contacted an expert in FCC regulation of wireless communication. He determined that  most of the transmitters used for wildlife telemetry are "illegal" in the sense that they aren't using the section of the spectrum reserved for that purpose and the manufacturers aren't obtaining permission to use other frequencies. The issue of frequency coordination is important, because no researcher wants to lose data or interfere with someone else's study. As to the near-border/cross-border issue, if the manufacturers aren't getting assigned frequencies from the coordinators, then there is no coordination and there is a real likelihood of overlap. Therefore, OC commissioned a fact sheet from this expert to explain the current regulations, alerting researchers to the need for licensed frequencies, and explaining that if the frequency isn't authorized, it needs to be FCC certified. The fact sheet has been completed and will be reviewed by the OC Board. Publication is anticipated by November 2002.

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 James Van Remsen and hosted by the Louisiana State University) (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:

-    the inspirational story of George Divoky’s dedication and ingenuity in pursuing the scientific study of birds, as described in the New York Times on 6 January 2002
-    endangered species listings, recovery plans, downlistings, de-listings and management plans, incidental take permits, and critical habitat designations
-    the long-awaited forest planning regulations
-    a petition to the Commission on Environmental Cooperation alleging that under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service should not be allowing logging without MBTA permits
-    information about funding availability, including the North American Wetlands Conservation Act grants, the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act grants, Cannon/National Park fellowships,  and a variety of other funding sources
-    the National Park Service online database of research needs
-    a plan by the USDA to control Red-winged Blackbirds in order to protect sunflower crops
-    the appointment of ornithologist Jim Tate as Science Advisor to the Secretary of the Interior
-    National Forest roadless area policy
-    progress on enactment of the Conservation and Reinvestment Act (CARA)
-    job announcements

4d) Assistance to individuals

OC receives many inquiries and  requests for assistance from individual ornithologists, usually pertaining to problems with permits or Institutional Animal Care and Use Committees, but also on a wide variety of subjects. Examples of the kind of individual assistance OC provides include:

-    Housing standards for birds in research facilities
-    A detailed analysis of the status of legal protection for the Northern Goshawk for a conservation assessment
-    Contacting 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; species involved include the Blue-fronted Amazon, Spectacled Eider, Short-tailed Albatross, Piping Plover, Sage Grouse, Red-cockaded Woodpecker, Florida Scrub Jay, Mexican Spotted Owl
-    Detailed information was provided to Ian Nisbett and Jeff Spendelow regarding permit and animal welfare issues involved in the use of radio transmitters

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

OC commissioned a Portuguese translation of Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research that 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. In September 2002, the OC Board decided to undertake a review of the entire document to identify sections in need of revision or supplementation. It is anticipated that the next edition will be published in a looseleaf format to allow for periodic revision of pages or sections without the need for costly re-printing of the entire document.

Workshops and symposia

5a) Partners in Flight invited OC to convene a symposium at the 2002 PIF meeting, to focus on new opportunities in bird conservation research. Topics covered at this March meeting included: 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.

5b) At the North American Ornithological Conference – OC organized a workshop on the impacts of the new National Wildlife Refuge System regulations on ornithological research and opportunities for ornithological research on the refuges. The speakers were 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 -  Kimberly Smith, meeting co-chair for the North American Ornithological Conference, asked OC to coordinate the joint resolution process for the North American Ornithological Conference. Resolutions on lead shot, West Nile Virus research, sagebrush ecosystem research, science in the implementation of the Endangered Species Act, and scientific exchange with Cuba were considered by the participating societies.

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 draft 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. Note that a communications glitch precluded full participation by the Waterbird Society in that the Waterbird Society did not have sufficient time to review the final document before it was submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, it was submitted only on behalf of the AOU. In the future, we will take measures to ensure that problems of this nature do not recur.

Other services to ornithologists and member societies

7a) 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 (now Society for the Conservation and Study of Caribbean Birds) 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 for the Conservation and Study of Caribbean Birds, as well as other ornithologists who work in these regions, the following projects have been agreed upon and are in progress:

-    Agreement was reached with the Wilson Ornithological Society to translate the forthcoming WOS Laboratory Manual into Spanish, using funding from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grant awarded to OC

-    Translation of the North American Banding Council banding manuals is underway

-    OC drafted Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws for the Society for the Conservation and Study of Caribbean Birds
-    Funds were provided to CIPAMEX and the SCSCB for travel costs associated with the NAOC
-    OC will survey its member societies to determine how the OC and its member societies could best help facilitate ornithology in Central and South America and the Caribbean. This will help us determine the best uses for the funds remaining from the existing grant and help us plan for future grant applications. It  will also help us determine if our member societies are interested in working with one another or with us on these projects.

7b) Partners in Flight (PIF) Research Working Group

PIF National Coordinator Terry Rich and PIF Monitoring Working Group co-chair C.J. Ralph and have suggested that OC  re-form and help coordinate the Partners in Flight Research Working Group (PIFRWG), which, under the leadership of Peter Vickery and Terese Donovan, has fulfilled its original mission. OC Executive Director Ellen Paul has been discussing the potential new role of the PIFRWG with Vickery and other members and will continue to do so at the Partners in Flight meeting. The OC Board is considering this proposal, which is more fully described in a memo prepared by Ellen Paul, available upon request (to epaul@concentric.net).

Providing scientific information about birds

To government agencies and other decision-makers

8a) Aircraft overflight noise
A bibliography was compiled at the request of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy regarding the effects of aircraft overflights on birds.
8b) Double-crested Cormorant Draft Environmental Impact Statement - In the course of assisting the AOU Conservation Committee prepare its analysis of the scientific underpinnings of the cormorant management plan, OC became increasingly concerned about the fact that whatever plan was ultimately chosen, the USFWS did not have the capacity to implement and monitor the plan properly. The basis for this concern was the inability of the USFWS to obtain complete and  accurate data on the level of take under the existing depredation order, the limited staff size, the lack of funding for monitoring, and other logistical barriers to adequate monitoring, assessment, and adjustment of the take permitted under the proposed plan. With the approval of the OC Board, OC submitted its own comments, limited to these issues.

To conservation organizations and the general public

8c) Ornithological Council and National Council for Science and the Environment host meeting with National Park Service Director Frank Mainella - - OC Chair David Blockstein, Executive Director Ellen Paul and several other members of the OC Board, including WS representative Jeff Spendelow,  met with National Park Service director Fran Mainella on 26 October 2001. The meeting, which was organized by OC and NCSE for the Coalition for Science-based Land Management, gave Mainella an opportunity to meet with representatives of the many scientific and conservation organizations that promote the use of science-based natural resource and land management decisions. Mainella acknowledged NPS’ commitment to science in and for the parks, as expressed in the NPS Natural Resource Challenge [http://www1.nature.nps.gov/challenge/NRC.htm], which is based in part upon the premise that “management of the national parks is improved through a greater reliance on scientific knowledge.” Mike Soukup, NPS Associate Director for Natural Resources reported on progress in implementing the Natural Resource Challenge, including a new National Parks Ecological Research Fellowship Program [http://www.nationalparks.org/npf/programs/natural/fellowship.htm], intended to encourage and support outstanding post?doctoral research in basic ecological sciences related to the flora of the parks. Mainella accepted a resolution from the Cooper Ornithological Society and a letter from the Ornithological Council commending the NPS for its progress in implementing several programs and projects that welcome scientific research in the parks and that give scientists an opportunity to contribute their knowledge to park management. The commendations lauded the on-line permit application system developed by the NPS [http://science.nature.nps.gov/servlet/Prmt_PubIndex]. Since 1 January 2001, some 2700 research permit applications were filed on-line and over 2100 of them have already been processed. Although not typical, one application was processed in 45 minutes! Loran Fraser, NPS Program Analyst, reported on Rethinking the National Parks for the 21st Century (a new report from the National Parks Advisory Board [http://www.nps.gov/policy/futurereport.htm] Gary Machlis, NPS Chief Social Scientist, reported on the development of the Cooperative Ecosystem Study Units [http://www.cesu.org/cesu/]. These units - which comprise partnerships of universities, federal research agencies such as the U.S. Geological Survey, federal land management agencies including the NPS and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and non-governmental organizations - serve to provide high-quality science, usable knowledge for resource managers, responsive technical assistance, continuing education, and cost-effective research programs.

8d) OC responded to information requests on a variety of issues, including:

-    the effect of noise and overflights of model airplanes on nesting birds
-    laws and regulations pertaining to mute swans
-    birds and fireworks
-    various society resolutions

8e) Bird Issue Briefs
Dennis Paulson has prepared an issue brief on scientific collecting; it is now in the editing process. It will be reviewed by other ornithologists who collect birds and by the OC Board before it is released.

Organizational News

New Board members
This year, OC has welcomed three new board members - Mauricio Cervantes Ábrego, who is the new president of CIPAMEX and José Manuel Galindo Jaramillo, who is the new secretary of CIPAMEX; Anthony White replaced Bill Belton as a representative from the Society for the Conservation and Study of Caribbean Birds.

Change in OC Bylaws - OC’s bylaws were changed to permit the Board members to vote by e-mail in order to make decisions and conduct the business of the organization. This change was necessitated by the fact that Board members, due to academic schedules, research schedules, and travel costs,  often find it difficult to attend meetings.