Topic: Planned changes at the Bird Banding Laboratory
Background: In 1998, the Bird Banding Laboratory (BBL)commissioned a panel to examine its philosophy and practices. The panel produced the "Buckley Report." (available at http://www.pwrc.nbs.gov/nabbp21.htm). Following the completion of that report, BBL formed six task forces to look at each of six issues in more depth. The recommendations of these task forces were reviewed by an implementation team, which decided on changes to be made to BBL practice and procedure. On 24 September 1998, BBL sent a letter to banders, explaining these planned changes and asking for comments. [See also http://www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET/OC/experthelp/BBL3.html for the BBL's third letter to banders and OC's response to that letter].
The Ornithological Council filed preliminary comments , but would still like to hear from all banders and ornithologists regarding these planned changes.
Update:
The Bird Banding Laboratory
responded to OC's letter on 1 July 1999.
U.S.G.S. - Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
Bird Banding Laboratory
12100 Beech Forest Road STE-4037
Laurel, MD 20708-4037
September 24, 1998
Dear Bander:
As you know, the review of the North American Bird Banding program has been completed. The review panel's final report and recommendations, The North American Bird Banding Program: Into the 21st Century, was announced in MTAB 82. The Report can be accessed electronically at http://www.pwrc.usgs.gov/nabbpcvr.htm, or a hard copy can be obtained from The Bird Banding Laboratory (BBL). An interagency Implementation Team comprised of senior level officials was established to consider recommendations from the Report and to guide improvements to the banding program and operations of the BBL.
To start the improvement process, the Implementation Team identified six priority areas in which to focus efforts. They were: Data Release Policy, Permit Policies and Procedures, Electronic Data Management, Recapture/Resighting Data, Ancillary Data, and Location Data. The Team then appointed six Task Forces to refine panel recommendations in these focal areas, and to develop specific plans for implementation. The Team, in consultation with BBL, considers the Task Force recommendations relative to the review panel's Report, and to agency needs, policies and resources. The Team then makes final decisions for BBL to implement and communicate to banders. We are at this latter stage for most focal areas, and herein we wish to begin communicating results to you, starting with Data Release Policy.
The Data Release Task Force was charged with developing a contemporary policy on the release and use of banding data for the U.S. and Canada. Many aspects of data release were considered and extensively discussed: past and current policy, banders' proprietary interests, federal interests of both the U.S. and Canada, professional ethics and courtesy, data for endangered and threatened species, potential differences in dissemination of game and nongame data, and improved methods for notifying banders when their banded birds have been encountered and reported to BBL. And significantly, the Task Force considered new opportunities for data management afforded by computer technology. The Task Force also consulted the US Department of Interior for legal guidance on the relevance of the U.S. Federal Freedom of Information (FOIA) and Privacy Acts to federal databases.
The Implementation Team accepted the Data Release Task Force's recommendations, and the following policies are established. These changes and policies are effective immediately, or as soon as technological developments permit their implementation, but no later than October, 2000.
Policy-Release of Banding Data: The law (FOIA) requires that we furnish banding data to anyone who may request them. Full and open release and use of banding and encounter data will be our policy. Banding and encounter data will be made available to users as soon as possible after being entered into the BBL databases. Databases will be updated at least quarterly and more often if feasible. Data will be made available over the Internet as soon as practical, but no later than October 1, 2000. Banding records will be provided in summary format; encounter records will consist of the full banding record plus the encounter data. Individual banding records will not be directly accessible through the Internet, but will be made available from BBL upon special request.
Full release of banding data is in keeping with the requirement of making most information from federal agencies as available to the public as possible. This open data policy is established, because banding and encounter data have been contributed by many cooperators at considerable public expense, and because we hope that maximum use of banding data will benefit migratory bird conservation and the ornithological community.
We plan to make the data easy to access, retrieve, and summarize over the Internet by developing appropriate relational database tools and utilities to assist users. BBL and Canadian Bird Banding Office (BBO) staff will also be available to advise people on obtaining and using banding data. Data will continue to be supplied free of charge. BBL and BBO will strive to maintain the highest accuracy feasible in all data sets through data editing and correction. We will encourage users of the data to notify us of potential errors so that we may research those records and correct them as needed.
Policy-Proprietary Interests of Banders: An open, full release policy with easy access to data naturally raises concerns about the proprietary interests of banders who collected the data. While we cannot withhold data to protect the interests of individual banders, we are committed to actively promoting professional courtesy, ethics and the highest scientific integrity in the use of banding data collected by others. To this end, we invite your participation in the development of voluntary guidelines for the use of banding data. Please send comments or ideas regarding what should be included in guidelines to Kathy Klimkiewicz (Kathy_Klimkiewicz@usgs.gov) at BBL by November 15, 1998. BBO is consulting Canadian banders on the same matter, and their input will be included in the guidelines as well. We are also inviting the full and active support of the North American Banding Council (NABC) in developing voluntary guidelines for the use of banding data.
Once we have your input, we will finalize the guidelines,
and convey them to you and to data requestors. We will also convey
them to the major ornithological and wildlife journal editors, as
well as to scientific and professional societies, and conservation
agencies. We will explain the guidelines and their relation to our
policies on data release, and we will encourage these entities to
ensure that banding data are fairly, professionally and ethically used
in their publications and reports. The role of both individual banders
and these external entities is critical, because the BBL and BBO do not
have authority to police professional ethics regarding the use and reporting
of scientific data. This should be done through peer review
processes controlled by the broader
scientific and conservation communities through the monitoring
of publications and the application of peer pressure as appropriate and
necessary.
In addition to developing guidelines for the use of banding data, we will develop new, expedient (electronic) procedures to send data promptly to banders when recoveries of their birds are reported. This will help assure that the bander sees his or her noteworthy recoveries first.
Policy-Bander Names and Addresses: We envision that the guidelines will strongly encourage data users to acknowledge the banders who collected the data, and to contact banders who may be reasonably expected to retain a proprietary interest in the data (and thus, might want the opportunity to influence how their data are used, or to assist in the interpretation of them). To facilitate such contacts, BBL will make permittee names, addresses, and e-mail addresses publicly available. As with the banding data, this information is in the public domain and subject to release under FOIA in the U.S. BBL will develop a database of permittee names and addresses, and make it accessible over the Internet linked via permit number to the banding database which, as discussed above, will also be accessible over the Internet. Only willing banders will have their names and addresses included in the Internet database. At an appropriate time, we will contact banders (both active and inactive) for permission to list their names and addresses on the Internet. After this initial survey, we will incorporate this query into the permit renewal process and the application for new permits. We encourage all banders to have their names and addresses listed in our Internet database. Easy accessibility to bander names and addresses will promote ethical use of banding data.
Policy-Protection of Sensitive Species: Another common concern is protecting the nesting sites of threatened, endangered or otherwise sensitive species, especially raptors. Banding location data for sensitive species will be suppressed in the Internet database. Persons wanting exact banding locations for sensitive species will be directed to contact the appropriate banding office. Exact location data may be released routinely by BBL and BBO to federal, state or provincial agencies for management purposes. Others will be required to formally request the data. Under provisions of FOIA, BBL ultimately must furnish the data, but it is hoped that requiring a formal request will provide an opportunity to negotiate proper and ethical use of the data. BBO will handle requests involving Canadian data in coordination with BBL and in compliance with Canadian regulations.
Thank you for taking time to consider our new policies regarding the release and use of banding data. We think that they are well founded and match contemporary needs and opportunities. Very soon we will be communicating results from other Task Force deliberations. We look forward to working with you to improve operations of the BBL and the broader North American bird banding program.
Sincerely,
John Tautin
Chief, Bird Banding Laboratory
Comments by the Ornithological Council:
17 December 1998
John Tautin
Section Chief, Bird Banding Laboratory
US Geological Survey
Patuxent Wildlife Research Center
12100 Beech Forest Road STE-4037
Laurel, MD 20708-4037
Dear John,
Betty Anne and I would like to thank you and Marshall for meeting with us to review the implementation of the "Buckley Report" - The North American Bird Banding Program: Into the 21st Century. It was refreshing to hear such positive, encouraging news about the new technologies underway and we were very impressed with the fact that implementation has been moving forward so rapidly. The task force reports you sent subsequently provided additional insights.
Although we like most of the changes being put forth, we do have some concerns that we would like to express to you. We encourage BBL to solicit outside advice on some of these issues, perhaps by way of a committee of banders and researchers. We are very concerned that BBL has not sought the continued input of the ornithologists, banders, and managers who will be affected by implementation of the Buckley Report and other decisions made by the BBL. Although we did review the Report in draft form, the recommendations made in the Report were not nearly so specific as the plans developed by the six task forces.
Our primary concern relates to the nearly unlimited, easy access to banding data that would result if the BBL puts all data on the World Wide Web (the "Web"). The Buckley report recommends computer modernization that permits the storage of all data in on-line relational databases. It wasn't clear that the public would have nearly limitless access to that database. In fact, we have heard from one member of the Buckley panel that they did not suggest having an open-access database on the Web. He further stated that many of the panel members would see potential problems in doing so. While we recognize that the BBL has no obligation to enforce the professional ethics regarding the use of data collected by someone else, the personal interaction between BBL staff and researchers requesting the data at least assured that a reminder of that standard would be relayed to everyone who requested data. The use of the Web to provide banding data eliminates that one safeguard that exists by virtue of the personal contact. A standard message on the banding data website is not likely to be as effective. This issue is of particular concern to those who engage in long-term research or who study long-lived species, and therefore may not make use of their banding data for many years. As it currently stands, the data are available by request, which should be sufficient for any ornithologist. With data available on the Web, anyone can decide to see what data happen to be available and, after browsing through it, developing ideas for articles to publish. We are also extremely concerned about the possible misuse of banding data by non-scientists who may use this information in a manner opposed to research and conservation. For instance, it is possible that those who oppose banding and other research methods that involve the capture of live birds may use this information to press for unwarranted restrictions on these procedures.
As became evident during our meeting, continued input from ornithologists, banders, managers, and others may help to resolve some of the issues that the task forces addressed, such as the bander's proprietary interests. Although BBL may not be required to permit comment from ornithologists and other banders, we encourage BBL to involve interested parties in this process. If it would help to facilitate the often-cumbersome process of seeking public input, the Ornithological Council would volunteer to coordinate these efforts, including the convening of periodic meetings with the BBL. We do this on a regular basis with the BRD leadership and other science and conservation groups.
Before the task force recommendations are implemented regarding data release, we would like to canvas banders and researchers about the issue and ask for their ideas about how to make data available and yet promote the banders' rights to first use of the data. In addition to the ideas we shared during our meeting, reiterated below, there may be other measures that can be taken to achieve this goal. A short delay in implementation of the task force recommendations will give us the time needed to communicate with banders and ornithologists and obtain their views.
Suggestions to safeguard the proprietary interests of
researchers
It appears that the Implementation Team has already accepted
the Data Release Task Force report and issued a Policy for Release and
Use of Banding and Encounter Data (24 September 1998). If, in fact,
the decision is not open for further discussion, we would at least like
to see some safeguards in place. Therefore, I want to reiterate
the suggestions we made during our meeting, which would further the open-data
policy while giving increased recognition to the interests of the banders
who collect and report the data. As noted before, it is likely that
other valuable suggestions will come from ornithologists and banders, if
they are given an opportunity to do so.. These suggestions are as
follows:
• In the database now under development, create an electronic link from the permit numbers to the bander's contact information (for Canadian banders, permission of the bander will be needed). This will make it easier for those who request data to contact the bander. Many who might otherwise adhere to standards of professional courtesy might be deterred if it is difficult to obtain contact information. An electronic link from one part of the database to another would eliminate this barrier. It is also beneficial to the researcher who might want to obtain ancillary data or verify specific records.
• The database should be configured to send an automatic e-mail notification to the banders whose records are requested. The Draft Recommended Policy refers to the bander's "first right of use" of their data for publication purposes, but in fact, there is no such right if data are released unconditionally. Automatic notification to the bander that the records have been requested will at least assure that the bander knows when the data may be used by someone else. It would be the obligation of the bander to report address changes to BBL. The Ornithological Council would be willing to remind bander's to do so by way of periodic notices in the Ornithological Newsletter, BIRDNET, and a notice in the next edition of Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research.
The data release policy
These suggestions address only the method of release
of data. The plan to create an open-access database only intensifies
what is still an unresolved issue of unlimited access to data. We
recognize that BBL is adhering to the Department of the Interior FOIA rules,
but suggest that there are some situations in which unrestricted release
is not called for. These are as follows:
• Proprietary interests can be protected under FOIA. Other agencies have regulations intended to safeguard the interests of permittees who are required to submit information under the terms of the permits. For instance, the Minerals Management Service (another division of USGS) does not release geological data, information, and geophysical information submitted under a permit and retained by MMS until 25 years after the date of submission of the data and information unless the permittee agrees to release it at an earlier time. Geophysical data submitted under a permit and retained by MMS is not made available to the public until 50 years after the data of submission unless the permittee agrees to earlier release. Note, though, that the Director of MMS has the right to disclose any data submitted by a permittee to an independent contract or agent for the purpose of reproducing, processing, re-processing or interpreting the data or information, subject to limitations on release of the information to the public (20 CFR 280.12). Under that same regulation, geophysical data, processed geological and geophysical information, interpreted geological and geophysical information, and other data submitted by mine lessees are not available for public inspection .without the consent of the lessee so long as the lease remains in effect, unless the Director determines that earlier limited release of such information is necessary for the unitization of operations on two or more leases, to ensure proper Mining Plans for a common orebody, or to promote operational safety. When the Director determines that early limited release of data and information is necessary, the data and information shall be shown only to persons with a direct interest in the affected lease(s), unitization agreement, or joint Mining Plan.
• Release of location data for threatened and endangered species. We have some concern that location data may be used by those who want to see rare birds. To resolve this, the BBL could avail itself of the Section 7 consultation provided for by the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Under Section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA, all federal agencies must insure that any actions they authorize, fund, or carry out is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a listed species. The agency may request an informal consultation and if it is determined by the FWS that the agency's action may affect a listed species, a formal consultation may follow. The FWS will make recommendations to the agency on ways to minimize or avoid adverse impacts. There is precedent for the guarding of location data. For instance, the Marine Mammal Commission does not release geographical and geophysical information, including maps, concerning the location of wells. 50 CFR 520.2(b)(8).
• Banding records that are generated from banding efforts focused on breeding birds, specifically "locals, " should not have location information more precise than 10" blocks in the open-access database. This will prevent people from using the data to deliberately seek out breeding birds. This is a potential problem for raptors and for rare species.
• The BBL database should also direct researchers to the archived locationsof the field notes and ancillary data of banders who have retired or passed away (i.e., a contact name and address, or the name of the institution where the data are archived). OC would assist by putting notices in the OSNA newsletter, on BIRDNET, and in the Guidelines to remind banders and researchers to inform BBL of the location of their archived data (assuming BBL decides to go ahead with this idea).
You suggested to us during the meeting that BBL would like to have endorsement from the Ornithological Council of the data release policy. We cannot endorse the policy at this point without having had the opportunity to work with BBL to address our concerns. Therefore, we look forward to hearing that BBL will refrain from further efforts to implement the new policies until it has provided ornithologists and banders with a full opportunity to be heard. The Ornithological Council will do all it can to facilitate this process.
Sincerely,
Ellen Paul
Executive Director
Update, 1 July 1999: Response from the BBL to OC's comments:
USGS PATUXENT WILDLIFE RESEARCH CENTER
12100 BEECH FOREST ROAD
LAUREL, MD 20708-4037
FAX: 301-497-5717
June 25, 1999
Ellen Paul
The Ornithological Council
3713 Chevy Chase Lake Dr. Apt. 3
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
Dear Ellen:
We are sorry to have delayed so long in responding to the Ornithological Council's concerns about BBL policy on release of bird banding data. We have asked Department of the Interior solicitors to advise on the applicability of the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to our policy but have not yet received a response. Rather than delay further, we are responding herein, maintaining our position that banding data are not exempt from FOIA.
The Council's concerns covered three issues: proprietary interests of researchers; release of location data for threatened and endangered species; and release of location data on breeding birds, specifically "locals".
We have long recognized that banders have a proprietary interest in the data they collect and report to BBL. This recognition has formed the basis of our data release policy for decades. Under that policy we acknowledge banders' interests, provide guidelines for use of banding data, and advise requesters or negotiate with them on potentially sensitive requests. Ultimately though, we do not deny data to anyone, recognizing that once data are released, we have no control over their possible misuse or misinterpretation. This policy has been highly successful. Of thousands of data requests filled, we can recall only one case where a bander was "scooped', and that case had a satisfactory outcome for all.
We are confident that our new policy will also be successful and acceptable to the great majority of banders. We are encouraged by the fact that we received fewer than 70 comments on this policy from the 2,400 banders to whom a letter announcing the policy was distributed, and many of those comments were favorable. The new policy does not differ significantly in principle from past policy. The only appreciable difference is that we will augment traditional means of delivery by making data available directly over the Internet. Although this advance may slightly increase the risk of someone scooping a bander or misusing data, we expect that the users will be the same kinds of banders and biologists who currently make use of the database. Given that the ethical makeup of those users is unlikely to have changed, a gentle electronic reminder of users' ethical responsibilities to other banders upon accessing the database should be a sufficient safeguard against misuse. As an aid to proper use, we also intend to follow your suggestion to link the data with the banders' names and addresses. This will enable the requester to learn more about the data, will hopefully result in acknowledgment of banders, and may perhaps lead to co-authorship of publications. The effectiveness of the link will be limited somewhat, because we will only list the names and addresses of banders on the Internet if they consent. Data requesters will have to contact us for the remaining names and addresses.
After some consideration, we have decided not to notify banders when their data have been accessed or requested. We believe that most banders would not wish to be notified, and other banders would only want to be notified in certain cases. To be useful to those who did want to be notified, the system would have to tell them who had accessed which data. Even if this were technologically feasible and the programming costs were inexpensive, maintaining such a system would not be. The system would require constant updating as banders came and left the program and changed their minds about which data they wanted to be notified about.
We also recognize that releasing precise location data for threatened and endangered species poses some risk. This has always been the case. However, because of our current understanding that banding data are not exempt from FOIA, we are not seeking Section 7 consultation with the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Unless our solicitors determine that we can withhold data on listed species (the examples you provided in your letter suggest a possibility this could happen), a negative Section 7 finding by the FWS could result in an undesirable prohibition on banding listed species at sensitive sites. For threatened and endangered species, however, and for certain sensitive species (e.g. goshawks) banded as nestlings, we will exclude precise banding location data from records served over the Internet. If a requestor wants those data, she or he will have to request them specifically from us. This will force a consultation and possible negotiation in sensitive cases.
BAND MANAGER is the software mentioned in our January 6, 1999, letter to all banders. It is designed to enable banders to manage their banding records and submit electronic banding schedules to the banding offices. In July we plan to send every master level bander a CD copy of BAND MANAGER along with a cover letter and start-up instructions. We will send you a copy also, and place you on our distribution list for future communications to banders.
Finally, the Council suggested that BBL archive, or provide a referral service for archived field notes and ancillary data of banders who retire or pass away. We agree that an archiving program might be useful to the banding community and others. However, we believe that such a program would require a significant amount of work to develop and maintain, and BBL is currently not in a position to take on this work. Perhaps the regional banding associations or the North American Banding Council might be persuaded to instead. We would be happy to consult with anyone interested.
Thank you again for your comments and ideas. Although
we cannot always be as flexible and accommodating as you might prefer,
we will continue to give full consideration to any suggestions received
from the Council and from individual banders regarding implementation or
modifications of our policies.
Sincerely,
John Tautin, Chief
Return to the Ornithology and Society page
Return to BIRDNET Home Page