| ArcGIS REST Services Directory |
| Home > services > ACJV_focus_areas (FeatureServer) > All Layers and Tables | | API Reference |
In the process of defining important geographic areas for waterfowl conservation in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, it has become clear that the original concept and definitions of focus areas are not adequate to map and describe important areas for waterfowl conservation in landscapes where the habitats and conservation needs are sparsely distributed over large areas or in areas where the targeted activity addresses other conservation issues such as protecting water quality. In order to capture the conservation needs in the diversity of landscapes in the ACJV, we used a three-tier, hierarchical approach to mapping and defining areas. From coarsest to finest they would be planning areas, focus areas and sub-focus areas. Definitions for each of the three types follow. I. Planning Areas Waterfowl Conservation Planning Areas are large areas within a state or region that generally contain small patches of suitable habitats for waterfowl dispersed across the landscape. The boundaries of the planning areas are based on units used to plan waterfowl habitat conservation within a state such as watersheds or physiographic areas. These ecological boundaries may be generalized or simplified by using recognizable cultural or political features such as roads, county or town boundaries. The boundary description and justification for planning areas should clearly state the justification for the planning area boundary and identify the habitats within the larger area that are in need of protection, restoration or enhancement. An example would be the watersheds feeding into Chesapeake Bay. In this region, watershed boundaries are the logical units used to plan for restoration of wetlands and water quality. The justification for the boundary would indicate the importance of restoring small wetlands and buffers throughout the watershed to provide habitat and food sources for waterfowl during spring and fall migration and to improve the water quality of the bay. Large wetland complexes and river corridors within the watershed planning areas are identified as focus areas and specific wetlands are defined as sub focus areas. II. Focus Areas Focus areas are habitat complexes that are priorities for waterfowl conservation. Unlike planning areas, they are defined by specific continuous or contiguous suitable habitat areas. Criteria for focus area delineations are: 1. Regionally important to one or more life history stages or seasonal-use periods of waterfowl. 2. Developed within the context of landscape-level conservation and biodiversity. 3. Discrete and distinguishable habitats or habitat complexes demonstrating clear ornithological importance. The boundaries are defined using ecological factors such as wetlands and wetland buffers. 4. Large enough to supply all the necessary requirements for survival during the season for which it is important, except where small, disjunct areas are critical to survival and a biological connection is made.
Examples of focus areas are complexes of salt marshes and coastal bays along the coast or river corridors and associated floodplain wetlands with known importance to waterfowl. III. Sub-Focus Areas Sub-focus areas are specific, discrete habitat patches such as marshes, bays or islands within a larger habitat complex focus area (e.g., a specific salt marsh within a coastal wetland complex). Many focus areas may not need to have sub-focus areas but they can be useful to help describe specific sites for waterfowl conservation.
One of the tools being used to foster implementation in Bird Conservation Regions is the concept of focus areas which are geographically explicit areas supporting general habitat characteristics preferred by priority birds. Focus areas are not the only areas within a BCR that provide basic habitat needs for priority species but are geographic areas that have been identified by the bird conservation community as areas of high conservation potential because of their biological attributes at the landscape scale. The New England/Mid-Atlantic bird focus areas were defined by staff of partner agencies and organizations during the BCR 30 all-bird workshop held in December 2004, as well as during other workshops and efforts focused on bird conservation within the region. Criteria developed for designating waterfowl focus areas have been adopted for use in defining other bird focus areas within BCR 30. These are:
Areas are regionally important to one or more life history stages or seasonal-use periods.
Focus areas are developed within the context of landscape-level conservation and biodiversity.
Focus areas are made up of discrete and distinguishable habitats or habitat complexes demonstrating clear ornithological importance. The boundaries are defined using ecological factors such as wetlands and wetland buffers.
Focus areas are large enough to supply all the necessary requirements for survival during the season for which it is important, except where small, disjunct areas are critical to survival and a biological connection is made, such as areas used by migrating shorebirds.
The focus areas depicted in this plan should be considered an initial draft set for the BCR and will need to be periodically revised as new tools become available to aid in site selection and enhanced through a review process. The process used to generate focus areas has important limitations that should be understood by anyone using the maps or list in this plan. The list of focus areas is biased in terms of taxonomic groups, habitats, jurisdictions, and existing knowledge. Not all bird experts in the region attended BCR 30 workshops where lines were drawn on maps, and some geographic areas and species groups were better represented than others. In the spirit of consensus, we tended to be inclusive with focus areas suggested. No attempt was made to verify the importance of each focus area identified or to rank them or quantify their relative contributions to different bird species or groups. It is important to consider that due to differences in their ecology, some avian taxa lend themselves to the concept of focus areas better than others. Species that tend to occur in large congregations and/or in relatively open habitats that are easily observed (e.g., shorebirds at beaches or waterfowl in bays) are likely covered more completely by current focus areas than are species that are secretive, widely dispersed, typically occur in small numbers, or use habitats that are difficult to observe (e.g., secretive marsh birds). Over the long-term, model-based approaches should be used for widely distributed species to determine the most suitable habitats across the landscape to focus conservation efforts on (see conservation design discussion in Chapter 6). In this draft, maps of focus areas for each bird group have been created and illustrate where overlap occurs in areas considered to be important for the different taxonomic groups and where conservation efforts can benefit multiple groups of birds. Focus areas targeted for one taxonomic group are not necessarily less important than focus areas supporting multiple group of birds, because they might be extremely important for some of the highest priority species in that single bird group. Statistics for individual focus areas (e.g., acres/hectares, acres protected, etc.) can be found in Appendix A of the BCR 30 Plan at http://www.acjv.org/bcr30.htm.
References for process of delineating focus areas for BCR 30:
1) BCR 30 Implementation Plan - http://www.acjv.org/bcr30.htm
2) ACJV Waterfowl Implementation Plan Focus Areas – Guidelines for delineation of waterfowl focus areas can be found in the ACJV WIP section titled The Plan, http://acjv.org/wip/acjv_wip_main.pdf, page 66, Item 7.2, Important Geographic Areas for Waterfowl Habitat Conservation in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture.
Additional Guidance on delineation of BCR focus areas:
1) White paper titled “SUGGESTIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL BIRD CONSERVATION REGION WORKSHOP” by David Pashley – U.S. NABCI Coordinator, Art Martell – Canadian NABCI Coordinator, Craig Watson – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kevin Loftus – Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Andrew Milliken - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. These suggestions are derived from successful Bird Conservation Region (BCR) meetings for the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative (part of BCR 27) and the Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain (BCR 13). Available upon request.
2) BCR Coordinators Workshop, Patuxent National Wildlife Research Center, October 13, 2004. Minutes include discussion of core elements for BCR planning, of which one component is the delineation of focus areas. Available upon request.
One of the tools being used to foster implementation in Bird Conservation Regions is the concept of focus areas which are geographically explicit areas supporting general habitat characteristics preferred by priority birds. Focus areas are not the only areas within a BCR that provide basic habitat needs for priority species but are geographic areas that have been identified by the bird conservation community as areas of high conservation potential because of their biological attributes at the landscape scale. The New England/Mid-Atlantic bird focus areas were defined by staff of partner agencies and organizations during the BCR 30 all-bird workshop held in December 2004, as well as during other workshops and efforts focused on bird conservation within the region. Criteria developed for designating waterfowl focus areas have been adopted for use in defining other bird focus areas within BCR 30. These are:
Areas are regionally important to one or more life history stages or seasonal-use periods.
Focus areas are developed within the context of landscape-level conservation and biodiversity.
Focus areas are made up of discrete and distinguishable habitats or habitat complexes demonstrating clear ornithological importance. The boundaries are defined using ecological factors such as wetlands and wetland buffers.
Focus areas are large enough to supply all the necessary requirements for survival during the season for which it is important, except where small, disjunct areas are critical to survival and a biological connection is made, such as areas used by migrating shorebirds.
The focus areas depicted in this plan should be considered an initial draft set for the BCR and will need to be periodically revised as new tools become available to aid in site selection and enhanced through a review process. The process used to generate focus areas has important limitations that should be understood by anyone using the maps or list in this plan. The list of focus areas is biased in terms of taxonomic groups, habitats, jurisdictions, and existing knowledge. Not all bird experts in the region attended BCR 30 workshops where lines were drawn on maps, and some geographic areas and species groups were better represented than others. In the spirit of consensus, we tended to be inclusive with focus areas suggested. No attempt was made to verify the importance of each focus area identified or to rank them or quantify their relative contributions to different bird species or groups. It is important to consider that due to differences in their ecology, some avian taxa lend themselves to the concept of focus areas better than others. Species that tend to occur in large congregations and/or in relatively open habitats that are easily observed (e.g., shorebirds at beaches or waterfowl in bays) are likely covered more completely by current focus areas than are species that are secretive, widely dispersed, typically occur in small numbers, or use habitats that are difficult to observe (e.g., secretive marsh birds). Over the long-term, model-based approaches should be used for widely distributed species to determine the most suitable habitats across the landscape to focus conservation efforts on (see conservation design discussion in Chapter 6). In this draft, maps of focus areas for each bird group have been created and illustrate where overlap occurs in areas considered to be important for the different taxonomic groups and where conservation efforts can benefit multiple groups of birds. Focus areas targeted for one taxonomic group are not necessarily less important than focus areas supporting multiple group of birds, because they might be extremely important for some of the highest priority species in that single bird group. Statistics for individual focus areas (e.g., acres/hectares, acres protected, etc.) can be found in Appendix A of the BCR 30 Plan at http://www.acjv.org/bcr30.htm.
References for process of delineating focus areas for BCR 30:
1) BCR 30 Implementation Plan - http://www.acjv.org/bcr30.htm
2) ACJV Waterfowl Implementation Plan Focus Areas – Guidelines for delineation of waterfowl focus areas can be found in the ACJV WIP section titled The Plan, http://acjv.org/wip/acjv_wip_main.pdf, page 66, Item 7.2, Important Geographic Areas for Waterfowl Habitat Conservation in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture.
Additional Guidance on delineation of BCR focus areas:
1) White paper titled “SUGGESTIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL BIRD CONSERVATION REGION WORKSHOP” by David Pashley – U.S. NABCI Coordinator, Art Martell – Canadian NABCI Coordinator, Craig Watson – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kevin Loftus – Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Andrew Milliken - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. These suggestions are derived from successful Bird Conservation Region (BCR) meetings for the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative (part of BCR 27) and the Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain (BCR 13). Available upon request.
2) BCR Coordinators Workshop, Patuxent National Wildlife Research Center, October 13, 2004. Minutes include discussion of core elements for BCR planning, of which one component is the delineation of focus areas. Available upon request.
One of the tools being used to foster implementation in Bird Conservation Regions is the concept of focus areas which are geographically explicit areas supporting general habitat characteristics preferred by priority birds. Focus areas are not the only areas within a BCR that provide basic habitat needs for priority species but are geographic areas that have been identified by the bird conservation community as areas of high conservation potential because of their biological attributes at the landscape scale. The New England/Mid-Atlantic bird focus areas were defined by staff of partner agencies and organizations during the BCR 30 all-bird workshop held in December 2004, as well as during other workshops and efforts focused on bird conservation within the region. Criteria developed for designating waterfowl focus areas have been adopted for use in defining other bird focus areas within BCR 30. These are:
Areas are regionally important to one or more life history stages or seasonal-use periods.
Focus areas are developed within the context of landscape-level conservation and biodiversity.
Focus areas are made up of discrete and distinguishable habitats or habitat complexes demonstrating clear ornithological importance. The boundaries are defined using ecological factors such as wetlands and wetland buffers.
Focus areas are large enough to supply all the necessary requirements for survival during the season for which it is important, except where small, disjunct areas are critical to survival and a biological connection is made, such as areas used by migrating shorebirds.
The focus areas depicted in this plan should be considered an initial draft set for the BCR and will need to be periodically revised as new tools become available to aid in site selection and enhanced through a review process. The process used to generate focus areas has important limitations that should be understood by anyone using the maps or list in this plan. The list of focus areas is biased in terms of taxonomic groups, habitats, jurisdictions, and existing knowledge. Not all bird experts in the region attended BCR 30 workshops where lines were drawn on maps, and some geographic areas and species groups were better represented than others. In the spirit of consensus, we tended to be inclusive with focus areas suggested. No attempt was made to verify the importance of each focus area identified or to rank them or quantify their relative contributions to different bird species or groups. It is important to consider that due to differences in their ecology, some avian taxa lend themselves to the concept of focus areas better than others. Species that tend to occur in large congregations and/or in relatively open habitats that are easily observed (e.g., shorebirds at beaches or waterfowl in bays) are likely covered more completely by current focus areas than are species that are secretive, widely dispersed, typically occur in small numbers, or use habitats that are difficult to observe (e.g., secretive marsh birds). Over the long-term, model-based approaches should be used for widely distributed species to determine the most suitable habitats across the landscape to focus conservation efforts on (see conservation design discussion in Chapter 6). In this draft, maps of focus areas for each bird group have been created and illustrate where overlap occurs in areas considered to be important for the different taxonomic groups and where conservation efforts can benefit multiple groups of birds. Focus areas targeted for one taxonomic group are not necessarily less important than focus areas supporting multiple group of birds, because they might be extremely important for some of the highest priority species in that single bird group. Statistics for individual focus areas (e.g., acres/hectares, acres protected, etc.) can be found in Appendix A of the BCR 30 Plan at http://www.acjv.org/bcr30.htm.
References for process of delineating focus areas for BCR 30:
1) BCR 30 Implementation Plan - http://www.acjv.org/bcr30.htm
2) ACJV Waterfowl Implementation Plan Focus Areas – Guidelines for delineation of waterfowl focus areas can be found in the ACJV WIP section titled The Plan, http://acjv.org/wip/acjv_wip_main.pdf, page 66, Item 7.2, Important Geographic Areas for Waterfowl Habitat Conservation in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture.
Additional Guidance on delineation of BCR focus areas:
1) White paper titled “SUGGESTIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL BIRD CONSERVATION REGION WORKSHOP” by David Pashley – U.S. NABCI Coordinator, Art Martell – Canadian NABCI Coordinator, Craig Watson – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kevin Loftus – Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Andrew Milliken - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. These suggestions are derived from successful Bird Conservation Region (BCR) meetings for the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative (part of BCR 27) and the Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain (BCR 13). Available upon request.
2) BCR Coordinators Workshop, Patuxent National Wildlife Research Center, October 13, 2004. Minutes include discussion of core elements for BCR planning, of which one component is the delineation of focus areas. Available upon request.
In the process of defining important geographic areas for waterfowl conservation in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, it has become clear that the original concept and definitions of focus areas are not adequate to map and describe important areas for waterfowl conservation in landscapes where the habitats and conservation needs are sparsely distributed over large areas or in areas where the targeted activity addresses other conservation issues such as protecting water quality. In order to capture the conservation needs in the diversity of landscapes in the ACJV, we used a three-tier, hierarchical approach to mapping and defining areas. From coarsest to finest they would be planning areas, focus areas and sub-focus areas. Definitions for each of the three types follow. I. Planning Areas Waterfowl Conservation Planning Areas are large areas within a state or region that generally contain small patches of suitable habitats for waterfowl dispersed across the landscape. The boundaries of the planning areas are based on units used to plan waterfowl habitat conservation within a state such as watersheds or physiographic areas. These ecological boundaries may be generalized or simplified by using recognizable cultural or political features such as roads, county or town boundaries. The boundary description and justification for planning areas should clearly state the justification for the planning area boundary and identify the habitats within the larger area that are in need of protection, restoration or enhancement. An example would be the watersheds feeding into Chesapeake Bay. In this region, watershed boundaries are the logical units used to plan for restoration of wetlands and water quality. The justification for the boundary would indicate the importance of restoring small wetlands and buffers throughout the watershed to provide habitat and food sources for waterfowl during spring and fall migration and to improve the water quality of the bay. Large wetland complexes and river corridors within the watershed planning areas are identified as focus areas and specific wetlands are defined as sub focus areas. II. Focus Areas Focus areas are habitat complexes that are priorities for waterfowl conservation. Unlike planning areas, they are defined by specific continuous or contiguous suitable habitat areas. Criteria for focus area delineations are: 1. Regionally important to one or more life history stages or seasonal-use periods of waterfowl. 2. Developed within the context of landscape-level conservation and biodiversity. 3. Discrete and distinguishable habitats or habitat complexes demonstrating clear ornithological importance. The boundaries are defined using ecological factors such as wetlands and wetland buffers. 4. Large enough to supply all the necessary requirements for survival during the season for which it is important, except where small, disjunct areas are critical to survival and a biological connection is made.
Examples of focus areas are complexes of salt marshes and coastal bays along the coast or river corridors and associated floodplain wetlands with known importance to waterfowl. III. Sub-Focus Areas Sub-focus areas are specific, discrete habitat patches such as marshes, bays or islands within a larger habitat complex focus area (e.g., a specific salt marsh within a coastal wetland complex). Many focus areas may not need to have sub-focus areas but they can be useful to help describe specific sites for waterfowl conservation.
One of the tools being used to foster implementation in BCRs is the concept of focus areas, which are geographically explicit areas supporting general habitat characteristics preferred by priority birds. Focus areas are not the only areas within a BCR that provide basic habitat needs for priority species but are geographic areas that have been identified by the bird conservation community as areas of high conservation potential because of their biological attributes at the landscape scale. The Piedmont bird focus areas were defined by staff of partner agencies and organizations during the Piedmont workshops held in October and December 2012. Criteria developed for designating waterfowl focus areas have been adopted for use in defining other bird focus areas within the Piedmont. These are:
1. Focus areas are regionally important to one or more life history stages or seasonal- use periods,
2. Focus areas are developed within the context of landscape-level conservation and biodiversity,
3. Focus areas are made up of discrete and distinguishable habitats or habitat complexes demonstrating clear ornithological importance. The boundaries are defined using ecological factors such as wetlands and wetland buffers, etc., and
4. Focus areas are large enough to supply all the necessary requirements for survival during the season for which it is important, except where small, disjunct areas are critical to survival and a biological connection is made, such as areas used by migrating shorebirds (Steinkamp 2008).
The focus areas depicted in this plan should be considered an initial draft set for the Piedmont and will need to be periodically revised as new tools become available to aid in conservation site selection (see DSL below). The process used to generate focus areas has important limitations that should be understood by anyone using the maps or lists in this plan. The determination of focus areas is biased in terms of taxonomic groups, habitats, jurisdictions, existing knowledge, and the people reviewing and selecting focus areas. Not all bird experts in the region attended the workshops where lines were drawn on maps, and some geographic areas and species groups were better represented than others. No attempt was made to verify the importance of each focus area identified or to rank them or quantify their relative contributions to different bird species or groups.
Over the long-term model-based approaches should be used for widely distributed species to determine the most suitable habitats across the landscape to focus conservation efforts. For this plan Forest Bird, Grassland Bird, Waterfowl, and Potential Waterbird and Shorebird Focus Area maps are presented. All of these maps and associated data can be obtained from the ACJV website.
One of the tools being used to foster implementation in BCRs is the concept of focus areas, which are geographically explicit areas supporting general habitat characteristics preferred by priority birds. Focus areas are not the only areas within a BCR that provide basic habitat needs for priority species but are geographic areas that have been identified by the bird conservation community as areas of high conservation potential because of their biological attributes at the landscape scale. The Piedmont bird focus areas were defined by staff of partner agencies and organizations during the Piedmont workshops held in October and December 2012. Criteria developed for designating waterfowl focus areas have been adopted for use in defining other bird focus areas within the Piedmont. These are:
1. Focus areas are regionally important to one or more life history stages or seasonal- use periods,
2. Focus areas are developed within the context of landscape-level conservation and biodiversity,
3. Focus areas are made up of discrete and distinguishable habitats or habitat complexes demonstrating clear ornithological importance. The boundaries are defined using ecological factors such as wetlands and wetland buffers, etc., and
4. Focus areas are large enough to supply all the necessary requirements for survival during the season for which it is important, except where small, disjunct areas are critical to survival and a biological connection is made, such as areas used by migrating shorebirds (Steinkamp 2008).
The focus areas depicted in this plan should be considered an initial draft set for the Piedmont and will need to be periodically revised as new tools become available to aid in conservation site selection (see DSL below). The process used to generate focus areas has important limitations that should be understood by anyone using the maps or lists in this plan. The determination of focus areas is biased in terms of taxonomic groups, habitats, jurisdictions, existing knowledge, and the people reviewing and selecting focus areas. Not all bird experts in the region attended the workshops where lines were drawn on maps, and some geographic areas and species groups were better represented than others. No attempt was made to verify the importance of each focus area identified or to rank them or quantify their relative contributions to different bird species or groups.
Over the long-term model-based approaches should be used for widely distributed species to determine the most suitable habitats across the landscape to focus conservation efforts. For this plan Forest Bird, Grassland Bird, Waterfowl, and Potential Waterbird and Shorebird Focus Area maps are presented. All of these maps and associated data can be obtained from the ACJV website.
A primary objective of SAMBI was to delineate focus areas, areas in which conservation actions are implemented for high priority species and habitats. Essentially, focus areas are important to the life history of a wide variety of high priority birds where financial and conservation resources can be expended to have positive effects on these bird populations. These data were developed as a means of capturing existing knowledge and beliefs about the most important areas for bird conservation in the south Atlantic Coastal Plain of five states, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. The areas indentified varied widely in size and scale, from whole subregions to relatively small, specific sites (e.g., individual management units or islands). For each focus area, participants were asked to identify the species or group of species for which the area was most important. Participants were separated by state, each group comprising individuals with knowledge of landbirds, waterbirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl, and were asked to map on 1:250,000 scale topographic maps, important (focus) areas in each state for each bird group. More details on how these focus areas were delineated can be found in the first two references below.
References for process of delineating focus areas for SAMBI:
1) Watson, C., C. Hayes, J. McCauley, and A. Milliken. 2005. The South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative – An Integrated Approach to Conservation of “All Birds Across All Habitats”. Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference. 2002 March 20-24; Asilomar, California, Volume 1 and 2. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, ForestService, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 1294 p
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/psw_gtr191_0266-0276_watson.pdf
2) SAMBI Implementation Plan –
http://www.acjv.org/sambi_plan.htm
http://www.acjv.org/SAMBI/Delineation_of_Focus_Areas.pdf
3) ACJV Waterfowl Implementation Plan Focus Areas – Guidelines for delineation of waterfowl focus areas can be found in the ACJV WIP section titled The Plan, http://acjv.org/wip/acjv_wip_main.pdf, page 66, Item 7.2, Important Geographic Areas for Waterfowl Habitat Conservation in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture.
Additional Guidance on delineation of BCR focus areas:
1) White paper titled “SUGGESTIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL BIRD CONSERVATION REGION WORKSHOP” by David Pashley – U.S. NABCI Coordinator, Art Martell – Canadian NABCI Coordinator, Craig Watson – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kevin Loftus – Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Andrew Milliken - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. These suggestions are derived from successful Bird Conservation Region (BCR) meetings for the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative (part of BCR 27) and the Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain (BCR 13). Available upon request.
2) BCR Coordinators Workshop, Patuxent National Wildlife Research Center, October 13, 2004. Minutes include discussion of core elements for BCR planning, of which one component is the delineation of focus areas. Available upon request.
A primary objective of SAMBI was to delineate focus areas, areas in which conservation actions are implemented for high priority species and habitats. Essentially, focus areas are important to the life history of a wide variety of high priority birds where financial and conservation resources can be expended to have positive effects on these bird populations. These data were developed as a means of capturing existing knowledge and beliefs about the most important areas for bird conservation in the south Atlantic Coastal Plain of five states, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. The areas indentified varied widely in size and scale, from whole subregions to relatively small, specific sites (e.g., individual management units or islands). For each focus area, participants were asked to identify the species or group of species for which the area was most important. Participants were separated by state, each group comprising individuals with knowledge of landbirds, waterbirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl, and were asked to map on 1:250,000 scale topographic maps, important (focus) areas in each state for each bird group. More details on how these focus areas were delineated can be found in the first two references below.
References for process of delineating focus areas for SAMBI:
1) Watson, C., C. Hayes, J. McCauley, and A. Milliken. 2005. The South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative – An Integrated Approach to Conservation of “All Birds Across All Habitats”. Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference. 2002 March 20-24; Asilomar, California, Volume 1 and 2. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, ForestService, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 1294 p
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/psw_gtr191_0266-0276_watson.pdf
2) SAMBI Implementation Plan –
http://www.acjv.org/sambi_plan.htm
http://www.acjv.org/SAMBI/Delineation_of_Focus_Areas.pdf
3) ACJV Waterfowl Implementation Plan Focus Areas – Guidelines for delineation of waterfowl focus areas can be found in the ACJV WIP section titled The Plan, http://acjv.org/wip/acjv_wip_main.pdf, page 66, Item 7.2, Important Geographic Areas for Waterfowl Habitat Conservation in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture.
Additional Guidance on delineation of BCR focus areas:
1) White paper titled “SUGGESTIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL BIRD CONSERVATION REGION WORKSHOP” by David Pashley – U.S. NABCI Coordinator, Art Martell – Canadian NABCI Coordinator, Craig Watson – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kevin Loftus – Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Andrew Milliken - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. These suggestions are derived from successful Bird Conservation Region (BCR) meetings for the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative (part of BCR 27) and the Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain (BCR 13). Available upon request.
2) BCR Coordinators Workshop, Patuxent National Wildlife Research Center, October 13, 2004. Minutes include discussion of core elements for BCR planning, of which one component is the delineation of focus areas. Available upon request.
A primary objective of SAMBI was to delineate focus areas, areas in which conservation actions are implemented for high priority species and habitats. Essentially, focus areas are important to the life history of a wide variety of high priority birds where financial and conservation resources can be expended to have positive effects on these bird populations. These data were developed as a means of capturing existing knowledge and beliefs about the most important areas for bird conservation in the south Atlantic Coastal Plain of five states, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. The areas indentified varied widely in size and scale, from whole subregions to relatively small, specific sites (e.g., individual management units or islands). For each focus area, participants were asked to identify the species or group of species for which the area was most important. Participants were separated by state, each group comprising individuals with knowledge of landbirds, waterbirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl, and were asked to map on 1:250,000 scale topographic maps, important (focus) areas in each state for each bird group. More details on how these focus areas were delineated can be found in the first two references below.
References for process of delineating focus areas for SAMBI:
1) Watson, C., C. Hayes, J. McCauley, and A. Milliken. 2005. The South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative – An Integrated Approach to Conservation of “All Birds Across All Habitats”. Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference. 2002 March 20-24; Asilomar, California, Volume 1 and 2. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, ForestService, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 1294 p
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/psw_gtr191_0266-0276_watson.pdf
2) SAMBI Implementation Plan –
http://www.acjv.org/sambi_plan.htm
http://www.acjv.org/SAMBI/Delineation_of_Focus_Areas.pdf
3) ACJV Waterfowl Implementation Plan Focus Areas – Guidelines for delineation of waterfowl focus areas can be found in the ACJV WIP section titled The Plan, http://acjv.org/wip/acjv_wip_main.pdf, page 66, Item 7.2, Important Geographic Areas for Waterfowl Habitat Conservation in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture.
Additional Guidance on delineation of BCR focus areas:
1) White paper titled “SUGGESTIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL BIRD CONSERVATION REGION WORKSHOP” by David Pashley – U.S. NABCI Coordinator, Art Martell – Canadian NABCI Coordinator, Craig Watson – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kevin Loftus – Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Andrew Milliken - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. These suggestions are derived from successful Bird Conservation Region (BCR) meetings for the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative (part of BCR 27) and the Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain (BCR 13). Available upon request.
2) BCR Coordinators Workshop, Patuxent National Wildlife Research Center, October 13, 2004. Minutes include discussion of core elements for BCR planning, of which one component is the delineation of focus areas. Available upon request.
A primary objective of SAMBI was to delineate focus areas, areas in which conservation actions are implemented for high priority species and habitats. Essentially, focus areas are important to the life history of a wide variety of high priority birds where financial and conservation resources can be expended to have positive effects on these bird populations. These data were developed as a means of capturing existing knowledge and beliefs about the most important areas for bird conservation in the south Atlantic Coastal Plain of five states, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. The areas indentified varied widely in size and scale, from whole subregions to relatively small, specific sites (e.g., individual management units or islands). For each focus area, participants were asked to identify the species or group of species for which the area was most important. Participants were separated by state, each group comprising individuals with knowledge of landbirds, waterbirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl, and were asked to map on 1:250,000 scale topographic maps, important (focus) areas in each state for each bird group. More details on how these focus areas were delineated can be found in the first two references below.
References for process of delineating focus areas for SAMBI:
1) Watson, C., C. Hayes, J. McCauley, and A. Milliken. 2005. The South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative – An Integrated Approach to Conservation of “All Birds Across All Habitats”. Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference. 2002 March 20-24; Asilomar, California, Volume 1 and 2. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, ForestService, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 1294 p
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/psw_gtr191_0266-0276_watson.pdf
2) SAMBI Implementation Plan –
http://www.acjv.org/sambi_plan.htm
http://www.acjv.org/SAMBI/Delineation_of_Focus_Areas.pdf
3) ACJV Waterfowl Implementation Plan Focus Areas – Guidelines for delineation of waterfowl focus areas can be found in the ACJV WIP section titled The Plan, http://acjv.org/wip/acjv_wip_main.pdf, page 66, Item 7.2, Important Geographic Areas for Waterfowl Habitat Conservation in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture.
Additional Guidance on delineation of BCR focus areas:
1) White paper titled “SUGGESTIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL BIRD CONSERVATION REGION WORKSHOP” by David Pashley – U.S. NABCI Coordinator, Art Martell – Canadian NABCI Coordinator, Craig Watson – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kevin Loftus – Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Andrew Milliken - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. These suggestions are derived from successful Bird Conservation Region (BCR) meetings for the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative (part of BCR 27) and the Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain (BCR 13). Available upon request.
2) BCR Coordinators Workshop, Patuxent National Wildlife Research Center, October 13, 2004. Minutes include discussion of core elements for BCR planning, of which one component is the delineation of focus areas. Available upon request.
A primary objective of SAMBI was to delineate focus areas, areas in which conservation actions are implemented for high priority species and habitats. Essentially, focus areas are important to the life history of a wide variety of high priority birds where financial and conservation resources can be expended to have positive effects on these bird populations. These data were developed as a means of capturing existing knowledge and beliefs about the most important areas for bird conservation in the south Atlantic Coastal Plain of five states, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. The areas indentified varied widely in size and scale, from whole subregions to relatively small, specific sites (e.g., individual management units or islands). For each focus area, participants were asked to identify the species or group of species for which the area was most important. Participants were separated by state, each group comprising individuals with knowledge of landbirds, waterbirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl, and were asked to map on 1:250,000 scale topographic maps, important (focus) areas in each state for each bird group. More details on how these focus areas were delineated can be found in the first two references below.
References for process of delineating focus areas for SAMBI:
1) Watson, C., C. Hayes, J. McCauley, and A. Milliken. 2005. The South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative – An Integrated Approach to Conservation of “All Birds Across All Habitats”. Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference. 2002 March 20-24; Asilomar, California, Volume 1 and 2. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, ForestService, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 1294 p
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/psw_gtr191_0266-0276_watson.pdf
2) SAMBI Implementation Plan –
http://www.acjv.org/sambi_plan.htm
http://www.acjv.org/SAMBI/Delineation_of_Focus_Areas.pdf
3) ACJV Waterfowl Implementation Plan Focus Areas – Guidelines for delineation of waterfowl focus areas can be found in the ACJV WIP section titled The Plan, http://acjv.org/wip/acjv_wip_main.pdf, page 66, Item 7.2, Important Geographic Areas for Waterfowl Habitat Conservation in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture.
Additional Guidance on delineation of BCR focus areas:
1) White paper titled “SUGGESTIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL BIRD CONSERVATION REGION WORKSHOP” by David Pashley – U.S. NABCI Coordinator, Art Martell – Canadian NABCI Coordinator, Craig Watson – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kevin Loftus – Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Andrew Milliken - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. These suggestions are derived from successful Bird Conservation Region (BCR) meetings for the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative (part of BCR 27) and the Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain (BCR 13). Available upon request.
2) BCR Coordinators Workshop, Patuxent National Wildlife Research Center, October 13, 2004. Minutes include discussion of core elements for BCR planning, of which one component is the delineation of focus areas. Available upon request.
A primary objective of SAMBI was to delineate focus areas, areas in which conservation actions are implemented for high priority species and habitats. Essentially, focus areas are important to the life history of a wide variety of high priority birds where financial and conservation resources can be expended to have positive effects on these bird populations. These data were developed as a means of capturing existing knowledge and beliefs about the most important areas for bird conservation in the south Atlantic Coastal Plain of five states, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. The areas indentified varied widely in size and scale, from whole subregions to relatively small, specific sites (e.g., individual management units or islands). For each focus area, participants were asked to identify the species or group of species for which the area was most important. Participants were separated by state, each group comprising individuals with knowledge of landbirds, waterbirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl, and were asked to map on 1:250,000 scale topographic maps, important (focus) areas in each state for each bird group. More details on how these focus areas were delineated can be found in the first two references below.
References for process of delineating focus areas for SAMBI:
1) Watson, C., C. Hayes, J. McCauley, and A. Milliken. 2005. The South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative – An Integrated Approach to Conservation of “All Birds Across All Habitats”. Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference. 2002 March 20-24; Asilomar, California, Volume 1 and 2. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, ForestService, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 1294 p
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/psw_gtr191_0266-0276_watson.pdf
2) SAMBI Implementation Plan –
http://www.acjv.org/sambi_plan.htm
http://www.acjv.org/SAMBI/Delineation_of_Focus_Areas.pdf
3) ACJV Waterfowl Implementation Plan Focus Areas – Guidelines for delineation of waterfowl focus areas can be found in the ACJV WIP section titled The Plan, http://acjv.org/wip/acjv_wip_main.pdf, page 66, Item 7.2, Important Geographic Areas for Waterfowl Habitat Conservation in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture.
Additional Guidance on delineation of BCR focus areas:
1) White paper titled “SUGGESTIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL BIRD CONSERVATION REGION WORKSHOP” by David Pashley – U.S. NABCI Coordinator, Art Martell – Canadian NABCI Coordinator, Craig Watson – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kevin Loftus – Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Andrew Milliken - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. These suggestions are derived from successful Bird Conservation Region (BCR) meetings for the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative (part of BCR 27) and the Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain (BCR 13). Available upon request.
2) BCR Coordinators Workshop, Patuxent National Wildlife Research Center, October 13, 2004. Minutes include discussion of core elements for BCR planning, of which one component is the delineation of focus areas. Available upon request.
A primary objective of SAMBI was to delineate focus areas, areas in which conservation actions are implemented for high priority species and habitats. Essentially, focus areas are important to the life history of a wide variety of high priority birds where financial and conservation resources can be expended to have positive effects on these bird populations. These data were developed as a means of capturing existing knowledge and beliefs about the most important areas for bird conservation in the south Atlantic Coastal Plain of five states, Virginia, North and South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. The areas indentified varied widely in size and scale, from whole subregions to relatively small, specific sites (e.g., individual management units or islands). For each focus area, participants were asked to identify the species or group of species for which the area was most important. Participants were separated by state, each group comprising individuals with knowledge of landbirds, waterbirds, shorebirds, and waterfowl, and were asked to map on 1:250,000 scale topographic maps, important (focus) areas in each state for each bird group. More details on how these focus areas were delineated can be found in the first two references below.
References for process of delineating focus areas for SAMBI:
1) Watson, C., C. Hayes, J. McCauley, and A. Milliken. 2005. The South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative – An Integrated Approach to Conservation of “All Birds Across All Habitats”. Bird Conservation Implementation and Integration in the Americas: Proceedings of the Third International Partners in Flight Conference. 2002 March 20-24; Asilomar, California, Volume 1 and 2. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-GTR-191, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, ForestService, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Albany, CA. 1294 p
http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr191/psw_gtr191_0266-0276_watson.pdf
2) SAMBI Implementation Plan –
http://www.acjv.org/sambi_plan.htm
http://www.acjv.org/SAMBI/Delineation_of_Focus_Areas.pdf
3) ACJV Waterfowl Implementation Plan Focus Areas – Guidelines for delineation of waterfowl focus areas can be found in the ACJV WIP section titled The Plan, http://acjv.org/wip/acjv_wip_main.pdf, page 66, Item 7.2, Important Geographic Areas for Waterfowl Habitat Conservation in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture.
Additional Guidance on delineation of BCR focus areas:
1) White paper titled “SUGGESTIONS FOR A SUCCESSFUL BIRD CONSERVATION REGION WORKSHOP” by David Pashley – U.S. NABCI Coordinator, Art Martell – Canadian NABCI Coordinator, Craig Watson – U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kevin Loftus – Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources, and Andrew Milliken - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. These suggestions are derived from successful Bird Conservation Region (BCR) meetings for the South Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative (part of BCR 27) and the Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain (BCR 13). Available upon request.
2) BCR Coordinators Workshop, Patuxent National Wildlife Research Center, October 13, 2004. Minutes include discussion of core elements for BCR planning, of which one component is the delineation of focus areas. Available upon request.
Data were derived from hand drawn maps of bird focus areas, based on expert opinion, delineated during a workshop attended by 70 bird conservation experts, representing governmental and non-governmental organizations from the United States and Canada, in Rockland, ME, December 3-5, 2002. The purpose of the workshop was to identify priority bird species, the priority habitats needed by these priority species, begin discussion of a process for setting population and habitat goals, and define focus areas for the Atlantic Northern Forest Bird Conservation Region (i.e., BCR 14). The digital Bird Focus Area maps were based on the hand-drawn maps completed during the December 2002 workshop and were produced by Mark Anderson (The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA), who worked with biologists in states and provinces in BCR 14 to refine polygon shapes, sizes, and exact boundaries. Randy Dettmers (USFWS, Hadley, MA) updated the BCR 14 focus areas for Waterfowl in February 2006 based on the revised 2005 ACJV Waterfowl focus areas.
Data were derived from hand drawn maps of bird focus areas, based on expert opinion, delineated during a workshop attended by 70 bird conservation experts, representing governmental and non-governmental organizations from the United States and Canada, in Rockland, ME, December 3-5, 2002. The purpose of the workshop was to identify priority bird species, the priority habitats needed by these priority species, begin discussion of a process for setting population and habitat goals, and define focus areas for the Atlantic Northern Forest Bird Conservation Region (i.e., BCR 14). The digital Bird Focus Area maps were based on the hand-drawn maps completed during the December 2002 workshop and were produced by Mark Anderson (The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA), who worked with biologists in states and provinces in BCR 14 to refine polygon shapes, sizes, and exact boundaries. Randy Dettmers (USFWS, Hadley, MA) updated the BCR 14 focus areas for Waterfowl in February 2006 based on the revised 2005 ACJV Waterfowl focus areas.
Data were derived from hand drawn maps of bird focus areas, based on expert opinion, delineated during a workshop attended by 70 bird conservation experts, representing governmental and non-governmental organizations from the United States and Canada, in Rockland, ME, December 3-5, 2002. The purpose of the workshop was to identify priority bird species, the priority habitats needed by these priority species, begin discussion of a process for setting population and habitat goals, and define focus areas for the Atlantic Northern Forest Bird Conservation Region (i.e., BCR 14). The digital Bird Focus Area maps were based on the hand-drawn maps completed during the December 2002 workshop and were produced by Mark Anderson (The Nature Conservancy, Boston, MA), who worked with biologists in states and provinces in BCR 14 to refine polygon shapes, sizes, and exact boundaries. Randy Dettmers (USFWS, Hadley, MA) updated the BCR 14 focus areas for Waterfowl in February 2006 based on the revised 2005 ACJV Waterfowl focus areas.
These data were developed as a means of capturing existing knowledge and beliefs about the most important areas for bird conservation. The areas indentified varied widely in size and scale, from whole subregions (e.g., the Lake Champlain Basin, for waterbirds and waterfowl) to relatively small, specific sites (e.g., individual airports or military installations). For each focus area, participants were asked to identify the species or group of species for which the area was most important. There was no attempt to identify specific focus areas for all priority bird species, species-suites, or habitat suites. Therefor some habitats that are more discrete or patchy on the lanscape (e.g., large grasslands) were more likely to be identified than were others (e.g., high-quality forest patches). Some priority species are not associated with any of the focus areas identified, and some species groups are represented by many large focus areas (e.g., waterfowl), while other groups are represented by few or no focus areas (e.g., forest birds). No survey data, published or otherwise, was used explicitly to define or justify focus area designation, or to make qualitative assessments among areas, or between focus areas designated and other areas in the landscape that were not designated.
These data were developed as a means of capturing existing knowledge and beliefs about the most important areas for bird conservation. The areas indentified varied widely in size and scale, from whole subregions (e.g., the Lake Champlain Basin, for waterbirds and waterfowl) to relatively small, specific sites (e.g., individual airports or military installations). For each focus area, participants were asked to identify the species or group of species for which the area was most important. There was no attempt to identify specific focus areas for all priority bird species, species-suites, or habitat suites. Therefor some habitats that are more discrete or patchy on the lanscape (e.g., large grasslands) were more likely to be identified than were others (e.g., high-quality forest patches). Some priority species are not associated with any of the focus areas identified, and some species groups are represented by many large focus areas (e.g., waterfowl), while other groups are represented by few or no focus areas (e.g., forest birds). No survey data, published or otherwise, was used explicitly to define or justify focus area designation, or to make qualitative assessments among areas, or between focus areas designated and other areas in the landscape that were not designated.
These data were developed as a means of capturing existing knowledge and beliefs about the most important areas for bird conservation. The areas indentified varied widely in size and scale, from whole subregions (e.g., the Lake Champlain Basin, for waterbirds and waterfowl) to relatively small, specific sites (e.g., individual airports or military installations). For each focus area, participants were asked to identify the species or group of species for which the area was most important. There was no attempt to identify specific focus areas for all priority bird species, species-suites, or habitat suites. Therefor some habitats that are more discrete or patchy on the lanscape (e.g., large grasslands) were more likely to be identified than were others (e.g., high-quality forest patches). Some priority species are not associated with any of the focus areas identified, and some species groups are represented by many large focus areas (e.g., waterfowl), while other groups are represented by few or no focus areas (e.g., forest birds). No survey data, published or otherwise, was used explicitly to define or justify focus area designation, or to make qualitative assessments among areas, or between focus areas designated and other areas in the landscape that were not designated.