Abstract —Boreal regions of western North America regularly support breeding populations of 130 species of landbirds, including 68 Nearctic-Neotropical migrants. Primary conservation concerns within the region include increased timber harvesting, insect outbreaks, fire suppression, mining, impacts of military training activities, urbanization, and recreational activities. Under auspices of Partners in Flight, biologists, land and resource managers, and conservationists from Alaska and western Canada have combined efforts to develop a regional research and monitoring program for landbirds. An experimental monitoring program has been under way during the past four years to test the relative statistical power and cost-effectiveness of various monitoring methods in Alaska. Joint efforts currently include the Alaska
Checklist Project on National Wildlife Refuges, 75 Breeding Bird
Surveys along the road system, 122 Off-road Point Count routes,
27 Monitoring Avian Productivity and Survivorship banding sites, and 8 migration banding stations. The ultimate goal is to design a comprehensive monitoring program that is sensitive to changes in population size, survival rates, and productivity, but robust enough to accommodate logistical constraints that arise when working in vast, roadless areas with limited funds and staff. Primary challenges that must be faced to assure the long-term future of such a program are obtaining long-term commitment from resource agencies in the region, integrating this program with other national and regional programs that address those species and habitats that are inadequately monitored by established techniques, and developing cooperative research, monitoring, and management programs at the landscape level.
Boreal regions of northwestern North America support a rich diversity of terrestrial breeding habitats for birds.
Coastal tundra blankets the northern and western fringes of the continent. Taiga and mixed forests of spruce ( Picea glauca and P . mariana ) and hardwoods cover large expanses of the interior, whereas old-growth coniferous forests tower along the southern coasts. Shrub thickets line riparian corridors and lower hillsides throughout the region, while alpine tundra cushions the peaks. Alaska’s diverse terrestrial habitats host large breeding populations of landbirds, which converge from wintering areas across all continents of
In: Bonney, Rick; Pashley, David N.; Cooper, Robert J.; Niles, Larry, eds. 2000. Strategies for bird conservation: The Partners in Flight planning process; Proceedings of the 3rd Partners in Flight Workshop; 1995
October 1-5; Cape May, NJ. Proceedings RMRS-P-16. Ogden, UT: U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research
Station.
Colleen M. Handel, Alaska Biological Science Center, Biological Resources
Division, U.S. Geological Survey, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska
99503.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000 the globe except Antarctica. More than half of the 130 species of landbirds breeding in Alaska, however, winter in the Neotropics.
Boreal Partners in Flight had its inception in November
1991, when a small group of biologists held a workshop on landbirds at the Fourth Alaska Bird Conference in Anchorage, Alaska. We were concerned with the alarming downward trends in populations of Nearctic-Neotropical migrants which had been studied elsewhere on the continent (cf.,
Keast and Morton 1980; Rappole and others 1983; Robbins and others 1986, 1989b; Terborgh 1989; Hagan and Johnston
1992). We knew very little about the landbirds that rely on northern areas each year to breed, so we decided to combine our efforts to determine the status of boreal populations.
In March 1992 we had our first meeting of Boreal Partners in Flight, which is now a formally recognized working group of national Partners in Flight and includes over 100 members from Alaska and Canada. Our closest working relationships are among Alaska, Yukon Territory, and British Columbia. Our coalition includes representatives from all the major federal land and resource managers in Alaska and
Canada, state and provincial agencies, universities, Native corporations, and local environmental consulting firms.
Nongovernmental organizations such as the Alaska Bird
Observatory, the Alaska Natural Heritage Program, and local chapters of the National Audubon Society play key roles. The foundation of the program, however, relies on the commitment of individuals. Boreal Partners in Flight includes biologists, land managers, teachers, and birders—a diverse, active, and dedicated group.
To be successful, a conservation plan must be based on sound, scientific information on the status of populations, species’ habitat requirements, and the ecological processes that affect the populations and their habitats. One of the first tasks we set for Boreal Partners in Flight was to establish a regional Research and Monitoring Program in
Alaska to address these information needs. We focused our initial efforts on landbird species that winter south of the
United States-Mexico border, in keeping with the international program, but have since expanded our focus to include all landbirds that breed regularly in Alaska and northwestern Canada. In addition to those changes that are occurring on wintering grounds, Boreal Partners in
Flight has identified seven major issues within Alaska that need to be addressed to assure the health of boreal landbird populations.
143

Timber harvesting is the primary factor that is likely to influence breeding populations throughout Alaska within the next twenty years. Harvest of old-growth coniferous forests in southeastern Alaska has been of growing concern since 1954, when two long-term sale contracts began in the
Tongass National Forest. Other areas of specific concern include the Chugach National Forest, Haines State Forest,
Cape Yakataga, and large Native corporation holdings within and adjacent to national parks, refuges, and forests in southeastern and southcoastal Alaska. Although only 7% of productive old-growth forests within Tongass National Forest had been harvested as of 1993, an estimated 52% of the productive forests in southeastern Alaska under state or private ownership had been removed (J. Rice, U.S. Forest
Service, personal communication).
Mature white spruce forests on state and private lands on the Kenai Peninsula in southcoastal Alaska have been harvested heavily for chipped wood during the past several years, and mixed forests of spruce and hardwoods within the
Tanana River Valley in central Alaska are being harvested increasingly to supply saw timber, fiber products, and pulp
(L. Fortune, Alaska Department of Natural Resources, personal communication).
Three primary issues associated with timber harvesting have been identified as of special concern for landbird populations:
1. Effects of the removal of trees, changes in habitat configurations, and revegetation treatments.
2. Effects of road-building—which accompanies timber harvesting—including fragmentation of forested habitats, increased human access, and changes to drainage patterns.
3. Effects of log-transfer activities in estuarine areas.
A widespread infestation of spruce beetles ( Dendroctonus rufipennis ) currently exists in coniferous and mixed coniferous-deciduous forests of southcoastal and east-central Alaska.
Natural changes in forest structure and composition have the potential to affect populations of many landbird species.
Under the Federal Emergency Salvage Law (Public Law
104-19, § 2001), the Chugach National Forest has proposed to salvage timber in several different areas that would include not only trees that have been infested, but also healthy trees in nearby areas. Other land management agencies and private landowners in the region are also faced with decisions about how to respond to actual or potential infestations. Several questions need to be addressed to guide management decisions:
1. What would be the long-term effects of this natural insect outbreak on avian populations if no management treatment were applied? How would the structure and composition of forest habitats and avian community structure be altered?
2. What would be the effect of different types of management treatments on populations of landbird species? How would population and community dynamics be affected by timber harvests of various patch sizes, fragmentation of
144 habitats, and changes in forest structure through different revegetation treatments?
3. How are the dynamics of outbreaks of spruce bark beetles and other insects being altered by increased rates of fire suppression throughout boreal regions?
As the human population has increased in Alaska, human habitations have become increasingly dispersed across areas that previously were uninhabited. A policy of protecting human property has led to increasing attempts to suppress natural fires, which are an important aspect of boreal forest ecology, particularly in central Alaska (Dyrness and others
1986). Fire is an important factor not only in determining a dynamic mosaic of forest types throughout the boreal region, but also in allowing regeneration of an unproductive monospecific stand to an uneven-aged stand of mixed species
(Kelsall and others 1977; Chandler and others 1983; Dyrness and others 1986; Bonan 1992). Fire suppression in other areas of North America has led to changes in avian communities primarily from changes in the structural diversity and composition of vegetation (see Rotenberry and others 1995 for review). Two areas of research need to be addressed:
1. How are ecological processes and avian communities in the boreal region being altered with recent changes in the fire regime? This requires study beyond the changes that occur after a single fire. Not only must one examine the effects of patchiness, intensity, and season of an individual fire, but one must look at cumulative effects on the ecological community of the dynamics that result from a series of fires over a longer time period.
2. What methods, patch sizes, seasonal timing, and frequency of prescribed burning can be used to mimic the patterns and processes wrought previously by natural fires in boreal regions?
Placer mining is of particular concern in central Alaska and to some extent in the other parts of the state, primarily because of the loss of riparian habitat and alteration of the hydrology of the streams (A. Morkill, Bureau of Land Management, personal communication). Throughout the boreal region, undisturbed riparian areas support corridors of shrub thickets, which are often surrounded by black spruce taiga forests. Taiga forests are relatively depauperate in terms of avian breeding density and species richness, whereas tall shrub habitats are comparatively rich (Spindler and
Kessel 1980). Several topics of research need to be addressed:
1. What have been the cumulative effects on landbird populations of destruction of riparian habitat, which has occurred extensively across federal and state lands since the turn of the century?
2. What are the effects on landbird communities of settling ponds and uncontrolled revegetation that has occurred on old tailings piles throughout the region?
3. During the reclamation process that is now legally mandated, how can the geomorphological properties of the
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000

streams be stabilized so that natural vegetative communities can be restored? What guidelines can be developed to aid miners in the restoration process?
There are 21 Military Overflight Areas (MOAs) in Alaska, which encompass 170,000 square kilometers, or 11% of the land in Alaska. The MOAs include large tracts of forests, shrublands, interior wetlands, and tundra in southwestern and central Alaska, which support breeding populations of a diverse array of avian species (Kessel and Gibson 1978).
These areas are used by the two fighter wings stationed in
Alaska for routine training operations and Major Flying
Exercises, which include approximately 21,000 low-level flights annually. In addition, these and other military training areas are exposed to the use of ordnance. Several issues are of concern regarding the use of these vast areas for training:
1. What are the effects on birds of sonic booms and increased noise levels associated with low-level flight?
2. What are the effects of exploded and unexploded ordnance on avian habitats within the region, both directly from fire and explosions, and indirectly from contamination of soil and water?
Spreading out along the road corridors throughout central and southcoastal Alaska is a progressive loss of landbird habitat due to urbanization. Specific issues include direct loss of forested and wetland habitats due to development, and fragmentation of forests due to road-building. Specific questions that need to be addressed include:
1. How are survival and productivity of breeding birds affected when displaced to other areas due to loss of habitat?
Do they move to adjacent areas and, if so, how are population dynamics altered in these areas with increased densities of nesting birds?
2. How does fragmentation of breeding areas influence northern breeding birds? Are predation rates increased? Are any of these species area-sensitive?
As resident human populations and tourism increase within the boreal region, disturbance increases in urban and remote areas due to recreational activities. Disturbance includes intrusion of humans into previously undisturbed areas, proliferation of trail systems and subsequent erosion, and building of roads and facilities necessary to support recreational activity. The effects of such changes on boreal landbird populations are unknown.
A Boreal Landbird Research and Monitoring Program is needed to determine the current status of boreal populations and to develop recommendations for their management.
This paper describes some of our goals, the obstacles we face, what tools we are using to accomplish our goals, where we hope to head in the future, and some of the roadblocks we see to long-term success. It focuses on our work in Alaska and the neighboring Yukon Territory.
Our first step was to assess where we were. Our only monitoring tool at the time was the North American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), but the data had been collected so sporadically in our region of interest that they could not be analyzed statistically except for a handful of species (J.
Sauer, Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological Survey, personal communication). From 1968-1991, a total of 57 fifty-stop routes had been established in Alaska. Among these, 15 (26%) had been run only once and only 8 (14%) had been repeated for more than 5 years sequentially (B.
Peterjohn, Biological Resources Division, U.S. Geological
Survey, unpublished data). A consistent effort was not established until 1982, when the Nongame Wildlife Program of the Alaska Department of Fish and Game assumed leadership of the program in Alaska, so no long-term data were available for any routes in the state. In addition, observers frequently changed between years, further reducing the number of routes that could be analyzed for population trends. We identified two basic problems with the existing status of the BBS in Alaska:
1. Turnover of individual observers within Alaska was high, resulting in a crippling lack of continuity in the program.
2. The road system is very limited within boreal regions, leading to a small, geographically biased sample. Most of the routes that had been run were clustered along the primary road corridors between east-central and southcoastal Alaska
( fig. 1 ). Roads are virtually nonexistent throughout the rest of Alaska.
Our initial goals for a research and monitoring program were to be able to provide answers to some very basic questions:
1. How are landbirds distributed across the landscape within the western boreal region of North America? With what habitats are they associated?
2. Are breeding populations in boreal regions declining, stable, or increasing? Are these trends in accordance with continental trends?
3. If populations are changing, what are the causes? Are there management actions that can be taken on boreal breeding grounds to slow or reverse declines in populations?
Next, we identified characteristics necessary for a research and monitoring program to answer these questions effectively:
1. The program must be able to detect significant changes in populations with enough lead time for action.
2. It must be able to relate changes in habitat to their effects on bird populations.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000 145

Figure 1 —Location of standard 50-stop North American Breeding Bird Survey routes in Alaska that had been censused at least once between 1968 and 1991.
3. It must help us to understand the causes for changes in bird populations. Without such knowledge, there would be no basis for action.
4. It must be efficient in terms of monetary costs, staffing, training, and logistics.
5. It must provide feedback at several different levels, including local, regional, national, and continental.
Establishing a regional monitoring program required overcoming several major obstacles. First was the size of the state and the immense logistical problems and costs in sampling remote areas. Alaska alone encompasses 1.5 million square kilometers, and is about one-fifth the size of the rest of the United States. Access to most of the region is restricted to small plane, helicopter, or boat.
One factor that aided our efforts was the fact that about
68% of the land in Alaska is under some type of federal or state jurisdiction with natural resource responsibilities
( table 1 ). These lands are distributed widely across the state, and all agencies have some type of authority to inventory and monitor wildlife populations. Therefore, one of our first objectives was to establish a program across these lands and to determine what role they might play in supporting viable breeding populations of landbirds.
Two other major obstacles existed: first, different legislative mandates and authorities among the agencies involved, and second, different funding levels among agencies, and therefore differing abilities to participate in the program. To overcome these obstacles, we refocused our efforts to undertake a pilot project to determine what methods might work in boreal regions, and what sample sizes and funding levels would be required to carry out such a program. The ultimate
146 goal was to use these baseline data to develop recommendations for a cohesive, regional program to which all partners could contribute.
Building the initial structure for a regional research and monitoring program has been an entirely grassroots campaign. We have relied on the energy, enthusiasm, and knowledge of individuals scattered across the region, including many volunteers, to make it work. Several key tools have helped make the initial phase so successful.
Everything has been done with group consensus. Each year we elect a Chair, Vice-chair, Secretary, and Regional
Coordinators to help organize our efforts. The entire group meets once or twice a year at different locations around the state. We have informal workshops and organize smaller groups to accomplish various tasks. At our annual meeting we set specific objectives for the upcoming year, agree upon deadlines, and identify individuals responsible for accomplishing each objective.
We set up regional working groups that work closely together to deal with similar scientific questions as well as common logistical problems. We have divided the state up into six biogeographic regions that are based on the distributional patterns of birds (Kessel and Gibson 1978), and we use
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000

Table 1 —Amount of land in Alaska under jurisdiction of federal and state agencies with major responsibility for natural resource management. Note that areas are approximate because of ongoing conveyances.
Resource land units a
Area (km
2
) Percent of Alaska
Bureau of Land Management public lands
and National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska
National Wildlife Refuges
National Parks and Preserves
National Forests
State Parks
State Refuges
Department of Defense training areas
Other
Total
356,100
309, 200
218,500
114,100
20,900
12,100
6,100
481,800
1,518,800
23.5
20.4
14.4
7.5
1.4
0.8
0.4
31.7
100.0
a
Sources: Bureau of Land Management, Alaska Regional Office; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Alaska Regional Office; National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office; USDA Forest Service,
Chugach National Forest; Alaska Department of Natural Resources; Alaska Department of Fish and
Game; Fort Richardson Army Base, Department of Public Affairs.
these to stratify our sampling (fig. 1). By looking at regional needs without respect to jurisdiction, we are able to distribute sampling efforts more efficiently than if individual agencies assumed the task separately. For example, by combining survey data collected in black spruce forests from three refuges and a park in central Alaska, we can monitor landbird populations across a broader area with only a quarter of the resources from each land unit.
Gathering and coding of data are carefully standardized.
National programs are adopted where possible. Data can then be analyzed at various hierarchical levels: The specific land unit, the habitat type, the biogeographic region within
Alaska, or Alaska in comparison with other continental regions. Key data fields are identified that must be collected by all cooperators; additional fields are identified to answer specific research questions at designated areas.
For each aspect of the program, an individual or organization is assigned to coordinate allocation of sampling efforts, collection of data, statistical analysis, and reporting. This model affords the efficiency that can be gained by centralization, but disperses the effort required across several different agencies and organizations. Consensus is necessary to determine how much effort should be allocated statewide to each project.
Several of the federal agencies have had modest amounts of funding that could be distributed to various projects across the state where it was most needed. Often, these small amounts made a huge difference as to whether a particular group could participate in the program. For example, small
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000 allocations allowed smaller refuges and parks to set up banding efforts in northwestern Alaska, which supports large breeding populations of Nearctic-Neotropical migrants, but whose regional ecology is poorly understood. Discretionary funds also were contributed by several agencies to fund jointly the production of a compact disc of Alaska Bird Songs by the
Cornell Library of Natural Sounds (1996). This product could not have been funded by a single agency, but will serve to train observers across the state to census birds.
We set up a tiered structure to the program, which consists of several different projects requiring different levels of time, funding, and expertise. In the pilot phase, individuals have contributed at whatever level possible, given their available resources, capabilities, and motivation; these individuals have been organized according to the stratified framework that we have identified regionally. After analysis of these initial data, we will make recommendations about how efforts should be allocated optimally within each tier to monitor different parameters of population dynamics.
Here is an overview of the pilot projects we have established, listed roughly in ascending order of the time, money, and expertise required to establish and run them.
This project has been organized by the Alaska Migratory
Bird Management Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, and tested thus far on national wildlife refuges in
Alaska (Andres 1995). Individuals collect standardized data on the relative seasonal abundance of birds on a township basis. It is an easy way to add to our knowledge of distributional patterns, and is an important means by
147

which to train observers. Data can be collected in conjunction with other ongoing projects, so this effort requires no added logistical costs.
Participation on established BBS routes has increased, and several new routes have been set up through the organizational efforts of the Alaska Migratory Bird Management
Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. We now have 75 routes regularly run within the state, including 7 routes along rivers, on which observers navigate by boat instead of car, and one route that is traversed on a four-wheeler ( fig. 2 ).
Through these innovations, we have increased coverage in roadless portions of the state.
As part of a cooperative research project of the Alaska
Biological Science Center, Biological Resources Division,
U.S. Geological Survey, we have established an off-road point-count program across the state to test methodology for monitoring bird populations in the vast roadless areas of the region (Handel 1993b,c). We are investigating the relative importance of time of day, time of season, interannual variability, and observer variability in detection of different species across the six biogeographic regions of the state using standardized point-count methodology (Ralph and others 1993). We have established 122 twelve-point routes that are stratified by region and habitat (fig. 2). We also have conducted surveys at an additional
283 individual points for a total of 1,747 across the state. At each point we collect standardized data on habitat (Handel
1993a). Both BBS and Off-road Point Counts require more time, money, and expertise than the Checklist Program, but provide information on population trends.
We currently have 27 stations at 17 locations across
Alaska and the Yukon Territory participating in the MAPS program organized by The Institute for Bird Populations
( fig. 3 ). This project requires more time and money than any of the surveys, and also requires banding expertise. It does, however, provide additional information on regional productivity and survivorship, which helps us to understand the factors influencing changes in population size (DeSante and others 1993b).
We have had eight stations banding during spring or fall migration or both since the inception of Boreal Partners in
Flight (fig. 3). This project is the least standardized of any of our efforts, and also requires the greatest amount of resources. At this point, efforts are under way to investigate seasonal and interannual variability at different locations.
This pilot project should shed light on the timing and pathways of migration for various species, and possibly population trends and regional productivity. The Alaska
Bird Observatory and Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife
Refuge have helped to organize this project and summarize regional data each year.
148
Figure 2 —Location of 12-stop Off Road Point Count routes and 50-stop North American Breeding Bird Survey routes that have been surveyed in Alaska since 1992.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000

Figure 3 —Location of mist-netting stations that have been established in Alaska since 1992 as part of the Monitoring
Avian Productivity and Survivorship (MAPS) program and to monitor migration of landbirds.
A number of studies have been conducted within the past few years as a direct result of Boreal Partners in Flight. For example, studies of the breeding ecology and habitat requirements of Townsend’s Warblers (Matsuoka 1996;
Matsuoka 1997a,b) and Olive-sided Flycatcher (J. Wright,
Alaska Department of Fish and Game, personal communication) were initiated because of particular concerns about the status of these Nearctic-Neotropical migrants. An important role of Boreal Partners in Flight is to identify species, habitats, or issues of management concern and to identify potential studies of highest priority in the region.
Our next step will be to analyze data collected during the pilot phase of this program and to refine the design of our monitoring program. We will be looking at sample size requirements, statistical power, and sources of variability, including observer effect, in relation to the costs involved with different types of projects.
We also will be analyzing data from various aspects of the integrated program to see how concordant the results are.
We will investigate combining measures of population trends from Breeding Bird Surveys and Off-road Point Counts into a comprehensive, single data set. This approach could greatly increase statistical power to detect population changes.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000
Another goal is to have the entire program habitat-based.
Changes in amounts and configuration of breeding habitats can influence species composition, abundance, and productivity. Our monitoring program will be much more sensitive to changes in populations if it can account for the effects of large-scale changes due to fire, insect outbreaks, succession, and human influences. Management actions should be scaled to mimic the natural patch dynamics that occur across landscapes in response to such disturbances (Rotenberry and others 1995).
Because the state is so vast and most areas are too remote to monitor bird populations directly, we will be using remotely sensed vegetation data to aid our monitoring efforts. The EROS Alaska Field Office of the U.S. Geological Survey is currently developing a Geographical Information System that maps vegetation classes across the state at a resolution of 1 km, based on a composite Normalized-
Difference Vegetation (or “Greenness”) Index from satellite data (M. Fleming, U.S. Geological Survey, personal communication). Features such as large fires can be readily discerned and measured. Maps such as these can be produced over various time intervals to detect long-term changes in the configuration and amounts of different habitats and to aid us in stratification.
We feel that it is very important that feedback from the research and monitoring program be provided immediately to land managers and other decision-makers. Although we have concentrated a lot of effort on determining the proper input to our program, an equally important aspect of its
149

design will be the output . We believe that providing information within a local, regional, national, or continental context is a real strength of this approach. The Alaska Biological
Science Center has been developing an interactive resource information system so that land managers, biologists, and the public can have immediate access to survey data via the Internet <http://www.absc.usgs.gov/research/bpif/ bpif.html>.
As we progress in our design of the program, we will be incorporating trigger-points for management actions. Key to the success of a conservation plan is an understanding of the processes that contribute to the patterns we observe. It is not sufficient to know that populations have declined by a certain percentage over a certain period of time. One must understand the causes contributing to the decline in order to determine proper corrective actions. The feedback system will provide information both on when management actions should be taken and what actions, if any, will be effective.
The primary goal of our efforts is to establish a long-term research and monitoring program for populations of birds that rely on boreal regions of western North America. Our initial efforts have proven productive, but two major roadblocks may prevent us from accomplishing our final goal.
First of all, the grassroots effort that has taken us so far in our initial phase may be viewed as a potential weakness in the long term. By relying on efforts of individuals who voluntarily have assumed extra duties with little or no compensation, we risk tremendous losses to integrity of the program should they leave, particularly if they are replaced with individuals with no personal motivation to continue.
Second, certain individuals have assumed responsibility for coordination of data collection and analysis during the initial phase. For none of the projects is this a long-term funded responsibility. Without some long-term commitment to coordination, analysis, and feedback, the projects are doomed to failure.
I make three recommendations for long-term success of our program and others like it. First, a long-term commitment must be made by every federal and state agency with landmanagement responsibility to continue to support coordinated, cooperative efforts to study and monitor landbirds.
This commitment must be made in two ways. First, mandates must be incorporated into management plans to guarantee that the projects will continue regardless of turnover of personnel. Next, these mandates must be supported with adequate funding for training, regional coordination, field efforts, data analysis, and feedback. By coordinating efforts of a large number of cooperators, we will maximize the efficiency of our programs.
Second, this program must be integrated with other research and monitoring programs. Although the program began with an emphasis on Nearctic-Neotropical migrant landbirds, the goals of Boreal Partners in Flight have since broadened. For example, Alaskan tundra and boreal forests provide breeding grounds for 37 species of shorebirds and support the majority of the western hemispheric population for at least 12 of these species (Gill and Senner 1996). Over
75% of Alaska’s breeding shorebird species winter in the
Neotropics (Gill and others 1994) and are vulnerable, like many landbirds, to the rapid changes in habitat that are occurring at southern latitudes. One goal of Boreal Partners in Flight is to develop a comprehensive research and monitoring program that examines entire ecosystems and the species that they support. The program must incorporate the fact, however, that these are not closed systems because of the migratory nature of the birds. Partnerships must be extended across international boundaries, not only to Neotropical countries, but also to those nations within Australasia, Oceania,
Europe, and Africa with which Alaska shares landbird and shorebird populations.
Finally, efforts must be expanded to involve more private landowners and to develop cooperative management plans at the landscape level. Wildfires and spruce beetles do not recognize property lines. Natural disturbances such as these are best managed with cooperative, integrated efforts across broad geographic regions. The impacts of human-caused disturbances such as logging and urbanization are still poorly understood in boreal habitats. Information on the effects of such disturbances on landbird populations at the landscape level needs to be gathered and management recommendations must be made available to all landowners, both public and private. By working together, regardless of affiliation, we can accomplish much more than we ever imagined. We must keep the momentum going.
I thank all the dedicated members of Boreal Partners in
Flight for their commitment to building this international program. Members of the Western Working Group and the
National Working Groups were instrumental in providing inspiration and guidance. I thank B. Peterjohn and J. Sauer for data from the North American Breeding Bird Survey, and A. Morkill, J. Rice, L. Fortune, J. Wright, P. Martin, T.
Doyle, B. McCaffery, B. Andres, E. Campbell, and many others for insights on conservation concerns in Alaska. D.
Robertson and K. Milton are thanked for their assistance with the figures.
150 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000