Short-eared Owl (Asio flammeus) Surveys in the North American Intermountain West: An Innovative Approach using Citizen Science to Conduct Long-term Monitoring

Robert A. Miller Intermountain Bird ObservatoryNeil Paprocki Hawkwatch InternationalMatt Stuber U.S. Fish and Wildlife ServiceColleen Moulton Idaho Department of Fish and GameJay D. Carlisle Intermountain Bird Observatory

SEOW Problem Statement (Booms et al. 2014)

Status: Long-term, range-wide, substantial decline

Weight of evidence convincing

Magnitude unclear

Better survey information needed

Conservation Priorities

Better define & protect important habitats

Improve population monitoring

Better understanding owl movements

Re-evaluate NatureServe conservation designations

Classify raptors as Migratory Birds in Canada

Develop management plans and tools

The Idaho Bird Conservation Partnership (IBCP): A Coordination Point for Bird

Conservation in Idaho

Jay Carlisle, Coordinator

IBCP is designed to contribute to the management, science delivery, outreach, and conservation of birds and their habitats in Idaho.

Initial IBCP SEOW ObjectivesPerform baseline population assessment of SEOW within the

state of Idaho

Identify abundance, distribution, and habitat associations

Develop long-term monitoring program to evaluate trends in the population

Do it inexpensively (no dedicated funding available)

Expanded Scope• Trial surveys extended into Utah by Hawkwatch

International (to expand in 2016)

• Analysis expanded to accommodate state-level stratification to provide an example of a west-wide or range-wide monitoring solution

Why Citizen ScienceLarge networks of willing volunteers

East-Cascade Audubon has successfully utilized for general winter raptor surveys

Intermountain Bird Observatory has used citizen science successfully on other projects – e.g., White-faced Ibis

Protocol is within reach of citizen scientistsRoad surveys, single species, low investment per survey, charismatic

Protocol: Larson and Holt 2014

Broad geography necessitates geographically dispersed team

Inexpensive, but definitely not free

Survey Selection Process10km by 10km grid across region

Stratify by assumed SEOW habitat

Landfire Data - Shrubland, Grassland, and Agriculture

70% of grid must fall with stratified habitat

Evaluated selection with historical eBird data

Result:

628 grids in Idaho ~ 5,589,200ha

529 grids in Utah ~ 4,549,400ha

Perform Spatially Balanced Draw of survey grids (GRTS) within each state

Visually inspect for presence of secondary roads

Idaho: 628 Suitable Grids Utah: 529 Suitable Grids

ExampleSpatially

Balanced Draw(GRTS)

100 Grids

Survey ProtocolRoad survey protocol – Owl Research Institute (Larson and Holt 2014)

Volunteer chooses own route (within guidelines)

2 visits – one in March, one in April

90 minute survey approaching civil twilight

8 to 11 points separated by 800m along secondary roads

5 minute, minute-by-minute protocol

Basic habitat assessment

Wiggins et al. 2006

Sampled Area – 1km radius ~ 1750ha

AnalysesMulti-scale occupancy models (Nichols et al. 2008, Pavlacky et al. 2012)

Imperfect detection, “replacement” design

p – probability of detection1

ϴ - probability that point is occupied given grid is occupied

Ψ – probability that grid is occupied

Multi-scale abundance models (Chandler et al. 2011, Sparks et al. In Review)

Modified, open population, N-mixture model w/ Poisson distribution. Imperfect detection, “removal” design

p – probability of detection1

Φ – availability/coverage probability (bird’s territory overlaps sampling unit)

Λ – abundance1 Different definitions

VariablesOccupancy/Abundance

GIS Data

Availability

Surveyor collected

Detection

Surveyor collected

State Stratum1

% Sagebrush w/in 1km

% Steppe w/in 1km

% Grassland w/in 1km

% Cropland w/in 1km

% Savanna w/in 1km

% Scrubland w/in 1km

% Shrubland w/in 1km

% Ruderal w/in 1km

% Shrub

% Grass

% Marsh

% Ag Green

% Ag Dirt

% Ag Stubble

% Ag Fallow

minutes before civil twilight

day-of-year

wind

temperature

1 Included in all models (no selection)

Model SelectionWe used a sequential, parameter-wise model

building (Lebreton et al. 1992, Doherty et al. 2010)

We ranked models using AIC (Burnham and

Anderson 2002).

The result is a single best model for occupancy and a single best model for abundance (i.e., no model averaging).

2015 Results128 volunteers participated!

1477 volunteer hours

17,900 volunteer miles travelled

Volunteer value: $37,500!

75 grids surveyed in Idaho (71 surveyed twice)

SEOW detected on:

21 grids round one, 26 grids in round two, 27 grids total.

9 grids surveyed in Utah (9 surveyed twice)

SEOW detected on:

0 grids round one, 1 grid in round two, 1 grid total.

Multi-scale OccupancyTop Model:

Ψ(~State) ϴ(~fallow + dirt) p(~day-of-year)

Estimate 95% CI

Ψ 0.36 0.26 – 0.47

ϴ 0.140.11 – 0.18

p 0.490.43 – 0.56

p – Day-of-Year

ϴ - Fallow Agriculture

ϴ - Plowed Dirt Agriculture

Multi-scale AbundanceTop Model:

Λ(~ LFsavanna + State) Φ(~fallow) p(~time)

Estimate95% CI

ΨIdaho 0.93 0.59 – 2.08

ΨUtah 0.46 0.33 – 1.33

Φ 0.100.06 – 0.16

p 0.250.14 – 0.42

p – Time (minutes before civil twilight)

Φ – Fallow Ag Cover

Ψ – Savanna

Abundance – State Stratum [w/ 80% CI]

Potential Sources of Bias

Survey timing of second visit too late – possibly counted offspring instead of only adults (bias ▲)

Volunteer skill (bias ▲)

Routes chosen in best habitat within grids (bias ▲)

Survey on roads versus random on landscape (bias ▲▼)

Birds detected > 1km (bias ▲)

Suitable habitat not included in stratum (bias ▼)

Abundance model uses Poisson distribution even though data is zero-inflated and over-dispersed (bias ▲▼)

First-year Learnings

Indications suggest that most volunteer quality met or exceeded professionals

Coordination effort higher than expected

Non-connected volunteers required significantly more investment

It worked!

Birders and birding groups are awesome!

Adjustments Going ForwardContinue to scale multi-state solution

Secure funding for 2016 and beyond (survey design, layout, coordination, analysis)

Refine habitat model

Move surveys earlier to avoid sampling family groups

Consider single visit survey structure (power analysis)

Assign survey routes / points (GPS)

Increase base technical requirements of volunteers (GPS/Smart phone, online data entry)

FundingLocal grant applications in Idaho and Utah for 2016

Pursuing State Wildlife Grant funding for 2017+

Lead: Pacific Flyway Nongame Technical Committee (Colleen Moulton [Idaho Dept. F & G])

Interest: Central Flyway Nongame Technical Committee

General Structure:

Centrally managed: survey design, recruiting materials, training materials, GIS, data entry portal, analysis, and reporting.

State managed: volunteer recruiting and coordination

ConclusionsEffectively deployed first multi-state survey of

Short-eared Owls utilizing citizen-science volunteers

Established initial population estimates for Idaho and Utah to provide baseline for future monitoring

Habitat associations may require refinement

Overall project design and quality exceeded expectations and will only require minor modifications going forward

Acknowledgements - Volunteer AffiliationsBirding/Nature GroupsAmerican Birding AssociationGolden Eagle Audubon SocietyIdaho Birders Linked Electronically (email)Idaho Birding (Facebook)Idaho Master NaturalistsIdaho Master Naturalists - McCall Chap.Idaho Master Naturalists - Upper Snake Chap.National Audubon SocietyPortneuf Valley Audubon SocietyPrairie Falcon Audubon ChapterSnake River Audubon SocietySouthwest Idaho Birders

Idaho StateIdaho Department of Fish and GameIdaho Department of Parks and RecreationIdaho Museum of Natural History

Non-Profit OrganizationsBoise State UniversityFriends of Deer Flat Wildlife RefugeHawkWatch InternationalIdaho Bird Conservation PartnershipIntermountain Bird Observatory

Federal Agencies/TribesBLM - Bruneau Field OfficeBLM - Owyhee Field Office Gonzales-Stoller SurveillanceIdaho National LaboratoryNational Park Service – City of RocksShoshone Bannock TribesUS Fish and Wildlife ServiceUS Forest Service Sawtooth NF

AcknowledgementsCitizen Science Volunteers!

Travis Booms - Motivation, consultation, linkages

Matt Larson, Denver Holt, Owl Research Institute - Protocol, reviews, consultation, illustration

Rob Sparks, David Pavlacky (Bird Conservancy of the Rockies) – statistical consultation

Agency partners:  Idaho Department of Fish and Game and US Fish and Wildlife Service

2015 Funding (in-kind): Intermountain Bird Observatory and Hawkwatch International

Photographs: Zak Pohlen, Shae Warnick, Don Weber, Sherri Weber, Paul Bannick, Rob Miller, Neil Paprocki