Population Monitoring. Though the presence of gorillas has been confirmed at eleven localities in Nigeria and Cameroon, the total area habitually used by gorillas remains unclear. Surveys in recent years have shown that the gorillas occupy significantly larger areas of habitat than had been assumed, but data from a number of sites, particularly in lowland areas, remain limited. Ongoing monitoring at all known gorilla localities is needed to better understand the gorillas’ ranging patterns, map core habitat areas, and evaluate the impacts of hunting and other human disturbance. A regular research presence at the gorilla sites would also contribute to protection, community outreach, and community benefits from employment.
Population Monitoring. 1. To achieve its conservation goals, it is fundamentally important that the Co-management Committee have access to accurate information on harbor seal populations throughout Alaska. There are several sources for such information, including scientific information as well as local and traditional knowledge.
2. Effective population monitoring involves evaluating the best available information on the following topics:
a) Population abundance and trends by stock and, as possible, by sub-areas within those stocks;
b) Habitat use and seasonal movements (including information on preferred haul-out sites, foraging areas, and prey composition);
c) Sources of mortality to harbor seals (including the nature, extent, timing, and location of such mortality); and
d) Population status by stock and, as possible, by sub-areas within those stocks (including aspects such as age structure, vital rates, and indices of physical condition).
Population Monitoring. Maintain the long-term marking, re- sighting and counting programmes at the main Irish wintering site of Wexford. Develop a complementary Scottish marking programme, at locations which allow for sustained resighting effort. Maintain the annual international population census, improving coverage where deficient, and collecting more extensive assessments of age-ratios throughout the range. Enhance knowledge of numbers and distribution on the staging and breeding areas to develop site safeguard programmes. Many of the actions above will be enhanced by developing better awareness of the conservation needs of the geese. In particular, there is a need to develop engagement with people likely to come into contact with the geese at different stages of their life-cycle, especially with farming communities and hunters. There is particular scope to develop educational programmes related to the geese as outlined in the Annex below. Further needs identified by the workshop are summarised in the Annex, together with more information on the priorities above. The four Range States agreed to work together to
(i) halt and reverse declines in the population and
(ii) establish an international Steering Group to co- ordinate actions. The Steering Group will finalise an international action plan in consultation with other interested parties, agree a process for its formal conclusion, and promote its implementation throughout the Range States. This will include the development of a costed work-plan relating to projects identified as priorities. Bilateral and other intergovernmental arrangements for research and conservation projects involving more than one Range State will need to be established to complement the action plan. Wide organisational support for the plan is important: the workshop requested SNH to approach relevant organisations, including those represented at the meeting, to request their support for the international action planning process. Participants thanked SNH and GWGS for their initiative in convening the workshop and considered it timely to meet again in 2012 to review progress. Until then, they agreed to maintain regular contact through e-mail and web- based media45.
Population Monitoring. FWC staff and others have monitored bald eagle nests in Florida since 1972. The information gathered during the past 35 years includes the locations of thousands of eagle nests and nesting territories, breeding productivity, core nesting areas, reproductive success, and population trends. Current information pertaining to the status and trends of the eagle population in Florida, as well as the current status of all known active eagle nests, is available online at <xxx.xxxxx.xxx/xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/xxxxx>. An online database for reporting new or previously undiscovered eagle nests in the state is anticipated to be available during spring 2008. Continued monitoring of bald eagle nests in Florida will provide the scientific data necessary to evaluate whether the objectives of this management plan are being achieved, and to determine whether future modification of this management plan and its guidelines may be warranted. A survey of all known bald eagle nests in Florida is conducted annually between November and March of each nesting season. Surveys are flown by FWC biologists or contractors, and, for Everglades National Park, by National Park Service staff. New or previously undiscovered nests are searched for opportunistically during the regular survey flights. Replication of the survey methodology ensures that effort is comparable among years. All nesting and productivity data for bald eagles in Florida are compiled and analyzed to generate annual population estimates that are used to determine population trends. Additional surveys were conducted during the 2006–2007 nesting season to determine the efficiency of the current protocol for finding previously undiscovered bald eagle nests and to locate new nests in potential bald eagle habitat. FWC researchers have identified 16 core areas of bald eagle nesting activity (Figure 3). Changes in size, configuration, and location of these areas will be monitored, and their importance to the overall bald eagle population in Florida will be determined as new data become available. - 38 - Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Bald Eagle Management Plan Chapter 4: Recommended Conservation Actions The Draft Post-Delisting Monitoring Plan (USFWS 2007c) recommends that bald eagle nests be monitored every five years for three eagle generations (24 years). Monitoring eagle nests and nesting territories in Florida at a five-year interval would not provide adequate information to verify that the conservation objectiv...
Population Monitoring. The DNR, Service, and other cooperators will collaborate to implement a monitoring strategy to track status and trends of EMR populations. Surveys will include quantitative data on select populations and habitat. The survey design will reflect the available funding resources and may include selecting a subset of sites that can serve as representatives for other similar situated populations (size, geographically, etc.) or help to provide a periodic benchmark for the status of the species. As resources allow, the DNR and the Service will also seek to target population monitoring efforts on key managed lands or population monitoring to help address uncertainties related to critical management questions. The DNR and the Service will continue to seek reliable, cost-effect survey methodologies. Given the reality of limited non-game funding and the intensity of Service’s currently recommended protocols if utilized, the DNR does not anticipate increasing EMR surveys beyond current levels. Monitoring the status and trends of the EMR will take place once the CCAA is permitted and will build on existing baseline data or baseline data acquired during early implementation. For status and trends monitoring, survey protocols and schedules will be established during the initial phase of implementation (years 1 through 5). Where feasible, the DNR and the Service will draw from relevant and established monitoring protocols. Unless the DNR and the Service agree to adopt an alternative monitoring approach the Service’s Recommended Standard Survey Protocol for the Eastern Massasauga Rattlesnake (xxxx://xxx.xxx.xxx/midwest/endangered/reptiles/eama-survey.html) will be used to inform cooperative and collaborative monitoring efforts. These protocols stress that surveys at each site be intensive (40 hours of searching per site) and only be done by highly trained observers. Survey results will be recorded in Michigan’s natural heritage database. These surveys will be the responsibility of each Enrolled Landowner and survey intensity and frequency will likely depend on time and funding constraints of individual Enrolled Landowners. Survey data, findings, and any assessment of trends will be reported to the DNR within the calendar year of performing the surveys.
Population Monitoring. Measure 8: Monitoring of Boreal Caribou Population Metrics (e.g. population size, population trend, calf recruitment) Activities Target Timeline Parties to the Agreement Potential Collaborators*
Population Monitoring. The Centennial Valley Arctic Grayling CCAA requires specific monitoring associated with the conversation measures implemented under this agreement and resulting biological responses of Arctic Grayling populations. FWP, under the guidance of geneticists and with the approval of USFWS, began systematically using genetic monitoring for Centennial Valley Arctic Grayling in 2010 (Table 3), but estimates of genetic variation are also available from historical sampling in the 1990s and 2000s (Figure 3). Justification for genetic monitoring is listed below: Determining trends in population abundance of rare or highly migratory fish species can be difficult. Genetic analysis is an effective alternative or supplemental method to determine the health and long-term persistence of fish populations (Xxxxxxxx et al. 2007). Using non-lethal sampling techniques geneticists can analyze the structure of an Arctic Grayling population and determine its long-term viability by estimating genetic diversity in a population (Allelic richness and average expected heterozygosity), effective number of breeding individuals that produced a given cohort (Nb), and ultimately the overall genetic effective population size (Ne). These estimates provide important population information on potential rate of loss of genetic variability and inbreeding depression, population dynamics, and the efficacy of management actions. Moreover, genetic data ensure that conservation efforts maintain the historic diversity found within and among Arctic Grayling populations, and thus, the continued evolutionary legacy of the species [Upper Missouri River Arctic Grayling Conservation Strategy, in preparation]. Year N Nb LCI UCI 2010 34 273.1 86.1 ∞ 2011 63 207.1 106.4 544.1 2012 51 406.3 131.0 ∞ 2013 88 356.7 167.1 1714.4 2014 95 453.7 229.5 3914.3 2015 34 47.6 36.5 66 2016 29 35.8 26.3 53.2 2017 15 25.7 14.4 78
