The Lake Ontario Migratory Songbird
Study: A Case Study of the Challenges
and Rewards of Using Volunteers in
Ornithological Research
Kris Agard West
Abstract—A two-year spring migration research project conducted
by The Nature Conservancy and the New York Natural Heritage
Program is presented as a model for involving volunteers in basic
research. The study area spanned roughly 375 miles of Lake Ontario
shoreline. The success of the project depended on more than 200
volunteers to manage information, provide logistical field support,
collect data, and provide access to study sites on private land.
Practices used to recruit, train, and manage volunteers are presented. Information on successful practices, as assessed by the
volunteers, are shared. Volunteer recruitment, training, and administration requires substantial coordination and support. However, the time and financial resources invested in volunteer management are rewarded by the high volume of data collected and the
long-term benefits of increased participation in bird conservation by
birders and non-birders alike.
The Lake Ontario Migratory Songbird Study was a twoyear research effort, encompassing New York’s Lake Ontario
shoreline, conducted jointly by the Central and Western
New York Chapter of The Nature Conservancy (CWNY
TNC) and the New York Natural Heritage Program. The
goals of the study were to document whether migrant
landbirds concentrate in habitat close to Lake Ontario
during spring migration. Modeling the study protocol after
Mabey and others (1993), volunteers conducted 10-minute
point counts twice weekly from mid-April through midJune in 1993 and 1994 at 239 study sites. The outcomes of
the study are currently being used by CWNY TNC and
several other groups to conserve important shoreline stopover habitat.
The project was funded through corporate contracts, foundation grants, and gifts from bird clubs. The budget covered
project-related expenses for three years including salary for
a project coordinator, volunteer training materials and supplies, contract fees for professional services, travel, and field
equipment. As a result, volunteers were not asked to contribute financially to the project.
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.
Kris Agard West, Central and Western New York Chapter of The
Nature Conservancy, 339 East Avenue, Rochester, NY 14604. Current
address: 1 East Chatfield Place, Painted Post, NY 14604.
236
Project Description ______________
Volunteer Involvement
The project depended on more than 200 volunteers for
scientific peer review, mapping services, access to study
sites, data collection, logistical field support, and administrative assistance. Scientists from TNC, Natural Heritage
Program, Cornell University, SUNY Albany, and SUNY
Oswego provided peer review of study protocol. The New
York State Department of Environmental Conservation
Habitat Inventory Unit donated aerial photo interpretation
and mapping services. Public land managers facilitated
access to public property by waiving park entry fees and
allowing access to restricted areas. Several people provided
logistical field support and administrative assistance. More
than 150 private landowners provided access to their property for use as study sites. Nearly 80 volunteer bird watchers
contributed 726 person-days while conducting 4,826 10minute point counts. The remainder of this paper will focus
on the administrative measures taken to involve private
landowners and amateur bird watchers in the study.
Private Landowner Involvement
As a result of a random site selection process, nearly twothirds of the study sites were located on private property. We
identified private landowners through tax records, then
asked for permission to establish study sites on their properties. We contacted landowners by mail, and due to tight
deadlines, followed up with phone contact. We received
permission from about 50% of landowners contacted. Those
contacted by phone were more likely to grant permission.
The few landowners who explained their refusal cited liability concerns.
We maximized the educational value of private landowner
participation by sending landowners background information about migratory bird conservation issues, project status
updates, lists of birds observed on their property, and an
informational booklet that was completed at the end of the
study. The booklet provided information about local bird
clubs, lists of recommended bird books, habitat protection
options, and habitat management recommendations.
Bird Watcher Involvement
The project coordinator was responsible for recruiting volunteers from local bird clubs, training them in point-count
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000
methods, and supervising all field work. We clearly defined
volunteer roles in the project by creating volunteer job descriptions. We then identified people with the skills needed for
each role and aggressively recruited them and trained them
in methods specific to the project.
Bird Watcher Recruitment
Volunteer recruitment was facilitated by New York’s
organized bird watching community. The Federation of New
York State Bird Clubs provided lists of all bird clubs and
their officers. Shoreline area club officers and other people
within the bird watching community identified the most
skilled bird watchers. The project coordinator aggressively
recruited proficient bird watchers through direct mail and
personal phone calls.
Volunteer Training
Volunteer training consisted of a bird song identification
tape and a one-hour classroom session on point count methodology (Ralph and others 1993). The song identification tape,
created by the Cornell Library of Natural Sounds, included
songs of 48 bird species commonly found in upstate New York
during spring. Copies were provided to all volunteers, allowing them to brush up on their song identification skills before
the field season.
Most participants valued the song identification tape as a
new way to improve their birding skills. Improvements on our
song identification tape would include a good variety of song
types for each species. Furthermore, grouping songs by habitat guild would allow observers to use both habitat type and
song to identify each species as they do by ear in the field.
The classroom session was a valuable way to discuss point
count standards, address all questions, and distribute project
materials. To generate a sense of team membership among
the volunteers, we provided each volunteer with a clipboard,
a TNC baseball hat, a letter of introduction for curious
passers-by, a laminated sign to place on their dashboard,
detailed written information covering all aspects of their
involvement, and the song identification tape. The baseball
hat and dashboard sign also provided a way for landowners to
identify volunteers on their property from a distance.
Volunteer Administration
The coordinator created the structure of the project by
identifying several volunteer roles including field observer,
logistical field support crew, and administrative assistants.
This allowed the volunteers to step into a pre-defined framework and focus their efforts in areas of most interest to them.
During the field season, the project coordinator focused on
providing organizational support and oversight of data collection across the entire study area. This support simplified the
tasks of each volunteer. Volunteers were given both written
directions and maps to find the study sites. All data forms
were provided along with addressed, stamped envelopes for
data return to the project coordinator. Cost of gas was reimbursed for all who requested it. On a few occasions, the project
coordinator made camping arrangements for volunteers traveling more than 100 miles to study sites.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000
Flexibility was crucial to the success of the project. Volunteers were allowed to set their own commitment to the project
with regard to number of days of participation, maximum
travel distance, number of hours per day, and their own role
in the project. Data collection was allowed between two hours
after sunrise until one hour before sunset to accommodate
work schedules. Since most study sites were located off road
in rural areas, we did not require volunteer observers to work
alone. However, we did require that only one person on a team
actually conduct the point count.
Communication between the project coordinator and volunteers throughout the duration of the project also was
critical. The project coordinator’s home and work phone
numbers were provided to all volunteers. Providing the
coordinator’s home number gave the volunteers a sense that
someone was available at any time in the event of an emergency. However, during this two-year study, the coordinator
was contacted at home on only a few occasions. As minor
problems arose throughout the study, volunteers worked with
the project coordinator to identify and implement solutions.
The coordinator shared status reports and preliminary results through mailings, newsletter articles, and public presentations, allowing volunteers to see tangible results from
their work and to maintain their dedication to the project.
Volunteers can never be thanked too often! Recognition and
thanks for their contributions were made in all correspondence, during special events, and in published articles.
Data Quality Control
We addressed data quality at several levels including:
Study design, volunteer recruitment and training, data review, and statistical analysis. Our study design included
rotating observers to different sites to disperse observer bias.
As discussed above, to ensure that we recruited competent
observers, we focused recruitment on the best bird watchers
in our area. Point count training included both written and
verbal explanation of methodology and the need for standardized data collection. We assessed song identification skills of
each volunteer with the tape. Individuals were encouraged to
learn songs that were unfamiliar to them. The project coordinator reviewed all data forms; full accounts of unusual birds
were required before they were included in the database.
Finally, we analyzed the data for observer bias and removed
outliers.
Project Outcomes _______________
Outcomes of the project include: Involvement of the public
in bird conservation, action by a conservation organization,
and collection of data valuable to the growing field of stopover ecology.
Involving private landowners in this project provided a
mechanism to educate them in bird conservation issues. A
follow-up survey of landowners indicated that roughly half of
them were more interested in songbirds as a result of their
participation in the study. The other half indicated that they
were already very interested in birds before the study began.
Most importantly, about half of the landowners polled intend
to improve management of bird habitat on their property.
237
Their management decisions are important, because most of
the Lake Ontario shoreline is privately owned.
The bird watchers who contributed to the study were
educated about bird research methods and gained a deeper
understanding of bird conservation issues. A subset of them
are assisting with long-term bird monitoring projects at
several TNC preserves. In addition, CWNY TNC has received
increased financial support for conservation projects from
both individual bird watchers and bird clubs including
Onondaga Audubon Society, Buffalo Ornithological Society,
Genesee Ornithological Society, North Country Bird Club,
and Genesee Valley Audubon.
The Nature Conservancy has taken several tangible steps
to protect important stopover habitats on Lake Ontario ranging from private landowner education, information sharing
with public land managers and land use planners, land
acquisition, and cooperation with other land trusts and research groups.
We produced an informational booklet targeted to shoreline
property owners. The booklet describes the need for habitat
protection near the lake’s shoreline and provides several
options for doing so. The booklet was mailed directly to all
volunteer landowners and bird watchers. Additional copies
are distributed through Cornell Cooperative Extension offices and Soil and Water Conservation District offices across
the shoreline.
The CWNY TNC also has communicated the study’s preliminary findings to public land managers and planning
entities. Planning departments in two shoreline counties
have incorporated the findings into their assessment of important natural resources. We assisted The Town of Mexico,
Sea Way Trail, Oswego County Department of Promotion and
Tourism, Onondaga Audubon Society, and other partners in
organizing a bird festival that attracted more than 1,000
people to the shore of Lake Ontario.
To date, TNC has protected more than 1,000 acres near
Lake Ontario, including rare wetlands and the last mile of
undeveloped barrier dune on the east end of the lake. We
continue to work with public agencies and other land trusts to
increase shoreline habitat protection.
238
Research results from this project will be submitted to a
peer reviewed journal. The CWNY TNC is providing assistance to the Braddock Bay Bird Observatory to foster further
stopover ecology research and participation in the Migration
Monitoring Network. Further, the project’s data are being
used in state-wide and Great Lakes basin-wide collaborative
research programs.
Conclusions ____________________
The outcomes of volunteer-based research are tangible and
formidable. The success of the Lake Ontario Songbird study
depended on (1) clear statement of project objectives; (2) staff
support and coordination of volunteer activities; and (3) followup
with partners to ensure conservation action.
Acknowledgments ______________
This project received financial support from the National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation, the Woodcock Foundation,
Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation, Niagara Mohawk
Power Corporation, New York State Electric and Gas Corporation, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, New York
Natural Heritage Trust, Buffalo Ornithological Society,
Genesee Ornithological Society, Genesee Valley Audubon,
and North Country Bird Club. Peer review and helpful comments were provided by Ken Able, Larry Master, George
Maxwell, Kathryn Schneider, Gerald Smith, Charles Smith,
Bob Unnasch, and Bob Zaremba. We are indebted to the
private landowners who let us onto their property. Jean
Bruns, Chloe Larson, Bill Monteverdi, Jim Mott, Adrienne
Ramsey, Ann Stear, Bob Stear, and Georgia Young provided
critical administrative assistance and field support. Finally,
many thanks to each of the bird watchers, too numerous to
name here, for patiently feeding the mosquitoes and blackflies while collecting data.
USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000