maryland ornithological society maryland/district of ... · maryland ornithological society...

of 28

Maryland Ornithological Society

Maryland/District of Columbia Records Committee (MD/DCRC)

White Paper

on

The Evolving Rarity Environment: Documentation, Observers, and Communications

as of 28 Oct 2014

by Phil Davis MD/DCRC Secretary

of 28

Table of Contents

Abstract ............................................................................................................................................. 4

1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 5

1.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 5

1.2 Scope and Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 5

1.2.1 Scope ........................................................................................................................................... 5

1.2.2 Definitions ................................................................................................................................... 5

2. The Maryland/District of Columbia Records Committee (MD/DCRC) ................................................ 6

2.1 Background ......................................................................................................................................... 6

2.2 Review Role ........................................................................................................................................ 6

2.3 Archival Role ....................................................................................................................................... 6

2.4 Relationships with MDBirding and eBird ............................................................................................ 6

3. The Evolution of MD/DCRC Rarity Documentation and the Observer Environment .......................... 7

3.1 MD/DC Baseline (prior to 1958) ......................................................................................................... 7

3.2 Pre-Records Committee (1958 – early 1980s) .................................................................................... 7

3.3 The MD/DCRC Era (early 1980s) ......................................................................................................... 8

3.4 The MD Osprey and Birdchat (BC) Digital Era (~1997-2012) .............................................................. 8

3.5 The Internet Growth and Photo Gallery Era (~2004 to present)........................................................ 8

3.6 The MDBirding (Google Group) Era (2012 to present) ....................................................................... 8

3.7 The eBird Era ([2002-]2012) ............................................................................................................... 8

3.8 MDBirding Facebook and Other Social Media (~2014 on) ................................................................. 9

4. MD/DCRC Evolving Documentation and Communications Policies ................................................. 10

4.1 Observer Documentation Categories and Formats .......................................................................... 10

4.1.1 Descriptive Documentation Category ....................................................................................... 11

4.1.2 Non-Descriptive Documentation ............................................................................................... 13

4.1.3 Published Accounts (Descriptive or Non-descriptive) ............................................................... 13

4.2 Non-Observer Documentation ......................................................................................................... 13

4.2.1 Reference Material .................................................................................................................... 13

4.2.2 Outside Expert Opinions ............................................................................................................ 14

4.3 Observation, Observer, and Documentation Capture Channel Relationships ................................. 14

4.3.1 Observation Categories ............................................................................................................. 15

4.3.2 Observers Categories ................................................................................................................. 16

4.3.4 Documentation Channel Categories ............................................................................................. 18

4.3.4.1 Direct Submissions ................................................................................................................. 18

of 28

4.3.4.2 Indirect Capture ...................................................................................................................... 18

5. MD/DCRC Policies ........................................................................................................................ 19

5.1 Documentation Policies .................................................................................................................... 19

5.1.1 Documentation Usage Policy ..................................................................................................... 19

5.1.2 “Complete” Documentation Policy ........................................................................................... 19

5.1.3 Observer Consent/Permission Policy ........................................................................................ 19

5.1.4 Photo Publication Policy ............................................................................................................ 20

5.2 Observer Communications Policies .................................................................................................. 20

5.2.1 Observer Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... 20

5.2.2 Observer Decision Notices......................................................................................................... 20

5.2.3 Observer Privacy ........................................................................................................................ 21

5.2.4 Hardcopy Communications ....................................................................................................... 21

5.3 Revised Policy – Long Stayer (LS) Documentation from New Observers ......................................... 21

5.4 Revised Policy – Short Stayer (SS) Documentation from New Observers ........................................ 22

6. MD/DCRC Documentation and Communications Procedures ......................................................... 24

6.1 Observer Procedures ........................................................................................................................ 24

6.1.1 Observers of Record .................................................................................................................. 24

6.1.2 Additional Observers ................................................................................................................. 24

6.2 Document Channel Procedures ........................................................................................................ 24

6.2.1. Direct Submissions (via US Postal Service) ............................................................................... 24

6.2.2. Direct Submissions (via email) .................................................................................................. 24

6.2.3. MDBirding Posts ....................................................................................................................... 25

6.2.4. eBird Checklist Documentation Procedures ............................................................................. 25

6.2.5. Web Search Documentation Procedures ................................................................................. 26

6.3 Observer Communications Procedures ............................................................................................ 26

6.3.1 Proposes Observer A/V Documentation Acknowledgement Procedures ................................. 26

6.3.2 Revised Observer Acknowledgement/Decision Notice Communications Process ................... 27

7. Summary ..................................................................................................................................... 28

Literature Cited ................................................................................................................................ 28

of 28

Abstract This white paper analyzes the Maryland/District of Columbia Records Committee (MD/DCRC, also referred to as “the committee”) past, current, and future management of rare bird documentation. The scope of documentation management activities include how documentation is submitted to, captured by, and then subsequently reviewed and archived by the committee. The primary purpose of this paper is to present to the regional birding community the rationale of planned changes to MD/DCRC policies and procedures regarding the collection and use of observer documentation, and how the committee communicates with those observers. Changes are needed due to the increased number of observers and the volume of documentation that they now generate within today’s evolving electronic rarity documentation environment of digital imagery and automated checklists. This paper (1) briefly recaps the role of the MD/DCRC, (2) summarizes the history and evolution of rarity documentation and the observer base, (3) discusses current MD/DCRC documentation and communications policies and proposed changes needed to adapt to the evolving environment, and (4) outlines resulting proposed MD/DCRC detailed documentation and communications practices and related procedures. The two general changes proposed to the committee’s operations are to (1) shift away from requiring explicit observer permission for the committee to use publically-posted documentation for its review processes and archival functions and instead, shift to the principle of implied consent, and (2) to formalize internal observer and documentation category definitions that the committee will use to tailor observer communications and how the committee credits records. Specific changes to MD/DCRC policies and procedures are summarized in the table, below, and are discussed in more detail in the sections that follow.

Policy Area Previous Policy New/Changed Policy

Observer Permission

Previously, the MD/DCRC would seek permission from new observers to use “third

party-obtained” documentation for its committee reviews and archiving.

The committee will no longer actively seek permission from new observers to use descriptive documentation

(written details, images, A/V recordings); the committee will now presume that permission to use

documentation is implied when documentation is posted to a public email group (e.g., MDBirding) or to a public web site (e.g., eBird, photo sharing, or blog sites).

Observer Categories

Previously, the committee used no formal observer category system in its internal

processes and procedures; observers were either “acknowledged observers” or members of an unnamed group of

observers. The flag “et al.” is used indicated that other unnamed observers were

reported to have also seen the bird(s).

For MD/DCRC internal processes and procedures (only), observers will now be placed into one of three

categories:

∑ Observers of Record ∑ Additional Observers

∑ Casual Observers

Observer Acknowledgements

The committee periodically mailed printed acknowledgements to each observer who submitted or allowed access to descriptive

documentation.

Printed acknowledgements will no longer be mailed; a new process will be established using emails, MDBirding

posts, or some combination thereof. [Details TBD.]

Observer Decision Notices

The committee mailed printed decision notices to each acknowledged observer after

the MD/DCRC review was completed.

Printed decision notices will no longer be mailed; a new process will be established using email, MDBirding

posts, or some combination thereof. [Details TBD.]

of 28

1. Introduction 1.1 Background The MD/DCRC has prided itself in establishing positive communications with observers by directly acknowledging documentation submissions and by directly advising observers of its final record decisions. However, the recent and rapid expansion of birding-related communications channels (specifically, “MDBirding,” an email group, and “eBird,” an online checklist service) and a related explosive growth of birders (including listers, chasers, and photographers) who use these communications channels has significantly multiplied the sets of written rarity details and photographic images now availability to the committee for many rarity sightings. This increase in observers and associated documentation volume, while overall is highly beneficial, is beginning to stress the bandwidth of the MD/DCRC to continue to deal directly with each observer in the same manner as has been the past practice. Also, the increasing cost of letter postage is a factor that can no longer be ignored. Therefore, some changes are necessary. 1.2 Scope and Definitions 1.2.1 Scope This paper focuses primarily on the most popular local/regional reporting rarities reporting channels; the most popular being MDBirding and eBird. Other national reporting channels such as BirdChat (http://www.birdchat.net/), the North American Rare Bird Alert (NARBA - http://narba.org/), the SurfBirds.com website (http://www.surfbirds.com/), etc. are infrequently used to initially or widely disseminate regional rarity information or as channels of local rarity documentation. 1.2.2 Definitions The following definitions are used in this paper: Rarity A rarity is a taxon (species or subspecies) that is new or unusual to our region, as defined by the prevailing MD/DCRC MD and DC Review Lists. Review Lists The MD and DC Review Lists define for which taxa the MD/DCRC solicits documentation, and reviews and archives records. These review lists evolve over time as the committee adds, deletes, and moves taxa within defined review categories. These latest versions of these review lists are always available on the MD/DCRC web page (http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html). Observers Observers fall into two basic categories. “Direct” observers submit reports directly to the committee. “Indirect” observers post descriptive text, images, or A/V files to public email groups (e.g., MDBirding) or to public web sites (e.g., eBird). The discussion, below, primarily focuses with how the committee will interface with indirect observers in the future.

http://www.birdchat.net/http://narba.org/http://www.surfbirds.com/http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html

of 28

2. The Maryland/District of Columbia Records Committee (MD/DCRC) 2.1 Background The MD/DCRC is a standing committee of the Maryland Ornithological Society (MOS). Detailed information on the committee’s charter, role, background, and operations can be found on the committee’s web page, here:

http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html 2.2 Review Role The MOS charges the MD/DCRC to review and accept or not-accept reports of rare bird sightings and, from these records, create and maintain the Official List of the Birds of Maryland and Official List of the District of Columbia. The latest versions of these official lists are also always available on the committee’s web page. 2.3 Archival Role The most important function of the MD/DCRC is actually to archive documentation associated with rarity reports. All written reports, images, A/V files, related emails, and any published accounts are captured (either in hardcopy or digitally) and backed-up up by an on-line archival service. This repository of archived historical documentation is preserved for future ornithological investigations and publications. 2.4 Relationships with MDBirding and eBird The MD/DCRC operates independently from any email groups, such MDBirding, and from the online checklist service, eBird. These information services operate in near real-time and provide a framework for distributing contemporaneous sighting reports, including rarity confirmations and status updates. Frequently, birders (both local and, sometimes, non-local) use these near real-time information services to decide whether or not to chase a rarity, often in an attempt to add the sighting as a tick to one’s personal checklist. The MD/DCRC, however, has no fixed time constraints; the committee’s processes operate on a slower cycle using rather formal and deliberate peer review processes.

http://www.mdbirds.org/mddcrc/rcindex.html

of 28

3. The Evolution of MD/DCRC Rarity Documentation and the Observer Environment The environment within which observers generate rarity documentation has significantly evolved in phases over the years and is depicted in Figure 3-1. Details are discussed in the sections that follow.

Figure 3-1. Evolution of the Regional Rarity Documentation and the Observer Environment

The following information provides further details about these evolving phases. 3.1 MD/DC Baseline (prior to 1958) The Maryland and DC ornithological “baseline” was established with the publication The Birds of Maryland the District of Columbia by Stewart and Robbins (1958). The authors published detailed accounts of the avifauna of our region, including rarities. Rarities addressed by the authors were documented by references to historical publications, specimens collected, photographs, written accounts, and sight records reported by known and trusted observers. 3.2 Pre-Records Committee (1958 – early 1980s) In years following Stewart and Robbins, regular observers throughout the region continued to submit local or statewide seasonal (generally quarterly) sighting summaries to “The Season” editor of the MOS journal, Maryland Birdlife, to the regional editor of the “Mid-Atlantic Regional Report” in American Birds (now, North American Birds), or to the quarterly “Birds of the Season” editor of the DC Audubon Society’s defunct journal, The Atlantic Naturalist. These edited seasonal (roughly, spring, summer, fall, and winter) summaries included notices and, sometimes details, of observed rarities. Notable rarities were also often documented in accompanying journal articles. Many published historical rarity reports, however, were based on sight records that the editors vetted, using the standards of the times.

MD/DC Baseline

Seasonal Reports

MD/DCRC Direct

MD Osprey/BC

Web/Digital

MDBirding

eBird/Social media

MD/DCRC ObserversCommittee Communications: Acknowledgements, Decision Notices, Analyses

Types of Observers: Observers of Record, Additional Observers, Casual Observers, Expert OpinionsTrends: Many New Observers, Direct Submissions ‡ Public Postings; eBird, Social Media

MD/DCRC DocumentationUsage: Reviews, Archives

Formats: Written Reports, Imagery, Audio/Video Recordings, Descriptive Text, Publications, Trends: Analog ‡Digital, Long Delays ‡Near Real-Time, Few Submissions ‡Many Postings

‡ 1958 1959-present Early 1980s-on ~1997-2004 ~2004-present ~2012-present ~2014-present

Phases

of 28

3.3 The MD/DCRC Era (early 1980s) The MD/DCRC was established in the early 1980s, originally as the MOS Maryland Records Committee. Rarity observers would mail (via US Postal Service mail) to the committee Secretary written sighting reports, sometimes accompanied by original or duplicate photographic 35mm slides or photographic prints, if any were taken. Later in the 1980s, the original Maryland Records Committee “adopted” the District of Columbia and then became known as the MD/DC Records Committee (MD/DCRC). The MD/DCRC assumed the then updated DC baseline (Czaplak and Hayes 1985) including records that were accepted by the defunct DC Records Committee. In the later stages of this era, beginning in 1987, electronic communications began to burgeon. Norm and Fran Saunders founded the “dial-in” computer Bulletin Board Service (BBS) The Osprey’s Nest (TON) and news on local, regional, and even national rarities began to be shared electronically, on a informational “pull” basis. 3.4 The MD Osprey and Birdchat (BC) Digital Era (~1997-2012) As Internet email listservers proliferated Norm and Fran Saunders replaced their earlier TON BBS with the “MD Osprey” email listserver. Observers began posting more detailed rarity sighting messages to this (and other regional) email lists. Faster communications were now enabled via email “pushes.” The geographic scope of the local MD Osprey listserver now covered the entire state of Maryland and DC. Some observers continued to directly submit written reports or photographic documentation to the MD/DCRC, even if a sighting summary had been previously posted to the email list. However, the MD Osprey listserver had a fixed subscription limit, therefore, non-connected observers still had to submit sighting reports directly to the committee either as a hardcopies or, later, via emails directly to the committee Secretary. 3.5 The Internet Growth and Photo Gallery Era (~2004 to present) As digital Internet communications proliferated, most (but not all) US Postal Service-delivered MD/DCRC-submitted rarity reports were replaced by direct email messages and attachments. Many observers gravitated to just posting detailed messages to the email lists. Later, with the proliferation of photo gallery web sites such as Flickr and Picasa (which were established in 2004), many observers began to only post rarity photos on their web sites and just provide links to their photos in their MD Osprey messages. During this period, an MD/DCRC electronic reporting form was added to the committee’s web page (and is still available on the MD/DCRC web page) and many observers began to take advantage of this paperless reporting capability. 3.6 The MDBirding (Google Group) Era (2012 to present) In 2012, Jared Fisher founded the Google Group "Maryland & DC Birding" (or "MDBirding" for short) (http://www.mdbirding.com/) which replaced the MD Osprey listserver. MDBirding did not limit the number of subscribers and this ushered-in many new observers to the digital birding community. Many of these new observers began to post rarity descriptions and rarity photo links to the email group. The number of MDBirding subscribers currently exceeds 1,200 observers. The current administrators are Jared Fisher and Bill Hubick. 3.7 The eBird Era ([2002-]2012) Even though Cornell’s eBird checklist service (http://ebird.org/content/ebird/) was launched in 2002, it has especially has taken off over the past few years as a very popular widespread reporting and documentation platform. Now, many observers only enter rarity documentation into eBird checklists; including written sighting details, images, and/or A/V files (via embedded links). Non-local observers visiting our region (often specifically chasing local rarities) rarely post their sightings or documentation

http://www.mdbirding.com/http://ebird.org/content/ebird/

of 28

to the MDBirding group, but will instead post documentation to eBird and/or to their own personal blog or photo web pages. eBird also can generate alert summaries, either on a hourly or daily basis, for rarities and other uncommon birds, as established by a set of “filters” managed by the local eBird team. 3.8 MDBirding Facebook and Other Social Media (~2014 on) A MDBirding Facebook (http://www.mdbirding.com/facebook.html) site has been established and other social media platforms are actively monitored by several avid local birders who typically relay rarity posts of interest to the MDBirding group. The MDBirding Facebook current exceeds 1500 subscribers. The next generation of social media will undoubtedly define the next phase of rarity documentation and observers.

http://www.mdbirding.com/facebook.html

of 28

4. MD/DCRC Evolving Documentation and Communications Policies Today’s increased number of birders, listers, chasers, and photographers has multiplied the volume of available rarity documentation, which is very positive. However, this success has created some MD/DCRC processing and volume challenges. The MD/DCRC is are trying to adapt as best we can and we are implementing some needed changes to our committee documentation and communications policies and procedures. This section analyzes the evolving documentation and communications environment and establishes a framework for the changes the committee will implement to its policies and procedures. 4.1 Observer Documentation Categories and Formats As a part of the process of establishing a framework and formalizing its processes and procedures, the committee has created and formalized two categories of observer documentation, summarized below and discussed in the more detail in the sections that follow.


Observer Documentation

Categories

Previously, the MD/DCRC did not categorize observer documentation.

To enable procedures revisions, the committee now formalizes two categories of observer documentation:

∑ Descriptive

∑ Non-descriptive

These categories are only used to govern how documentation is managed and how the committee

communicates with observers. This is a technical change that does not affect or impact the typical observer.

Observer-generated rarity documentation may be either “descriptive” or “non-descriptive.” An overview of the basic types of documentation and documentation flow from observers to the committee, both directly and indirectly, is illustrated in Figure 4.1-1. The characteristics of these documentation categories are discussed below.

of 28

Figure 4.1-1. MD/DCRC Documentation Categories and Formats.

4.1.1 Descriptive Documentation Category Descriptive documentation provides specific observational details, either written, or via images or A/V recordings. Note: For consistency, the lettered sections, below, follow the alphabetic callouts shown in Figure 4.1-1. 4.1.1.1 Formal (Descriptive) Report Descriptive documentation may be packaged by an observer into a formal report and submitted directly to the committee.

a. Formal MD/DCRC Report. A submitted report includes, at a minimum, a narrative of the conditions of the sighting (where, when, who, etc.) and either a written description of the bird(s) and/or sketches, images, or A/V recordings. The committee does not require a formal written report in order to review and accept a record; however, formal reports are encouraged and welcomed. There is no required format for a formal report; however, on the MD/DCRC web page there is a section entitled “Reporting Sightings to the MD/DC Records Committee” that includes links to a suggested report template in various formats (Microsoft Word, and PDF). The template includes “memory joggers” and a checklist of items to consider in preparing a report. There is also a web-based version of the form that can be completed and submitted on-line.

Observer c. Images(slide, print, digital file)

a. Narrative / Description

d. Audio/Video Recordings(tape, disk, digital file)

f. Status Notes[positive or negative]

(MDBirding email, eBird checklist)

b. Sketches

Formal MD/DCRC Report(ad hoc format, template, web form)

e. Descriptive Text(MDBirding email, eBird checklist, blog)

Documentation Format

Descriptive

Non-descriptive

g. Published Account[article or sighting report]

(e.g., Maryland Birdlife, North Am. Birds)

Descriptive or Non-descriptiveEditor

Descriptive – basic narrative

of 28

4.1.1.2 Other Descriptive Documentation In addition to formal reports submitted to the MD/DCRC, descriptive documentation may also be posted by observers to public email groups or to public web sites. Descriptive documentation may involve of any of the following formats:

b. Sketches Sketches, especially field sketches captured at or shortly after the time of observation, often serve as valuable evidence, especially when photographs are not available. Sketches may be scanned, or even generated electronically, and posted to web sites or embedded in eBird checklists. c. Photographic Images During the earlier analog era, observers submitted 35mm slides or photographic prints to the committee. Now, in the digital age, photographic image files (typically JPGs) are most commonly provided. Digital images may be submitted in conjunction with formal MD/DCRC reports or may be transmitted as email attachments to the MD/DCRC Secretary. Digital images (or links thereto) may also be posted to MDBirding, within eBird checklists, or to an observer’s photo gallery or blog web site. The committee Secretary downloads and archives images from any available sources or link provided. Original digital image files are desirable since they allow the voting committee members to manipulate and analyze images (for example, enlarge, adjust brightness and contrast, etc.) if necessary, during their reviews, without much loss of resolution. Images that are embedded within email messages or within documents are not the committee’s first preference since these image formats are often of reduced resolution and may not readily manipulable. Occasionally, observers elect to protect the rights to their images on their photo gallery web site. In the past, the committee Secretary has attempted to contact the observer and ask for JPG files of the original images for the committee’s use. However, in the future, contra to the committee’s long-standing commitment to try and obtain all rarity documentation, original copies of rights-protected photo documentation may not be pursued in cases where many other photos are available from other sources. However, in such cases, page images (in PDF format or screen captures) of web photo galleries, blog sites, or eBird checklists may be used to provide an archived record of that observer’s image(s). This policy change is basically due to a resource issue on the part of the committee and the case of diminishing returns. d. Audio/Video (A/V) Recordings During the analog era, a small number of observers submitted video tapes or audio cassette tapes to the committee. In the digital age, recordings are now more frequent and are transmitted as either email attachments or are downloaded by the Secretary from photographic, videographic, or sonic web sites. When downloaded from a web site, the Secretary may convert the file from a proprietary format into a more common standard A/V format, such as mp4. e. Descriptive Text “Descriptive text” refers to verbiage, not directly included in a formal MD/DCRC report, that describes something significant about a rarity or the conditions of its sighting. Descriptive text

of 28

typically may be either posted in a MDBirding email message, entered into an eBird checklist, or be associated with an observer’s photo gallery web site or blog entry.

4.1.2 Non-Descriptive Documentation

h. Status Notes Non descriptive text generally relates to status notes (positive or negative) that a (continuing) bird was/was not seen or re-located. The committee captures and archives, for the overall record, all non-descriptive status reports from either MDBirding email messages or from non-descriptive eBird entries.

4.1.3 Published Accounts (Descriptive or Non-descriptive) Observers may also chose to submit documentation, either alternatively or in parallel, directly to editors of regional ornithological journals.

f. Published Accounts The committee compiles, indexes, and archives published peer-reviewed accounts, typically from ornithological journals, that deal with specific rarity sightings. Published rarity accounts may consist of either:

(1) Article. A detailed sighting report or an analytical article submitted to a peer-reviewed journal by an observer. (2) Seasonal Report. Editors compile individually-submitted sighting reports into a regional seasonal sighting report. Seasonal reports formerly included “The Season” report published in Maryland Birdlife and currently include the “Middle Atlantic Coast Region” report published in North American Birds (current Maryland editor – Rob Ostrowski.)

4.2 Non-Observer Documentation The committee actively gathers and organizes reference material that supports its review function and, occasionally, may consult references or outside experts for their opinions regarding specific observer-submitted rarity documentation.

4.2.1 Reference Material Reference material gather by the committee may be either published material or expert-authored (vetted) Internet sources.

Published Material. Relevant identification or distribution information authored by recognized ornithological experts who possess expertise with a given taxon, may be captured, indexed, and added to the committee’s review file to support the members’ deliberations. The committee routinely reviews the ornithological literature, popular birding and birdwatching magazines (both domestic and overseas), and also recently published field guides and ornithological reference books for sources of relevant information. The committee indexes related publications and provides to its voting members a reference listing for the taxa contained in each review package. These references are optional research sources for the voting members.

of 28

Internet Material. In some cases, identification and distribution references may be mined from Internet sources; however, due to the nature of the Internet, any captured reference material is generally limited to that generated by recognized ornithological experts.

4.2.2 Outside Expert Opinions For certain new or challenging reviews, the committee may solicit identification or distribution opinions on submitted documentation from acknowledged ornithological experts to assist the members in their reviews.

4.3 Observation, Observer, and Documentation Capture Channel Relationships To provide a framework for policy and procedure revisions, the committee now defines categories of observations and observers. Documentation channels are also defined. The categories are summarized in the table below and are discussed in more detail in the sections that follow.


Observation Categories

The committee previously did not define any observation categories.

To develop revised policies and procedures, the committee now defines two categories of rarities

observations:

∑ Short-Stayer (SS)/Few Observers ∑ Long-Stayer (LS)/Many Observers

Observer Categories

Previously, the committee used no formal observer categories (for MD/DCRC internal processes and procedures only); observers were either “acknowledged observers” or

unnamed (“et al.”) observers which indicated that other unnamed observers

were also reported to have seen the bird(s).

Observers are now be placed into one of three categories (for MD/DCRC internal processes and

procedures):

∑ Observers of Record ∑ Additional Observers

∑ Casual Observers

Documentation Categories

Previously, the committee informally treated certain types of documentation differently.

Documentation is now placed into one of two categories for treatment:

∑ Descriptive

∑ Non-Descriptive

Documentation Capture Channels

Previously, the committee differentiated between direct documentation submissions

and documentation made available by “third-party” sources.

Newly defined documentation channels are:

∑ Direct Submissions ∑ Indirection Document Capture

∑ Outside Expert Opinions The overall observer-documentation categorical relationships of the evolving environment are depicted in Figure 4.3-1. The discussion below follows the flow of this figure.

of 28

Figure 4.3-1. MD/DCRC Observation, Documentation, and Observer Categories

4.3.1 Observation Categories Regional rarities now generally fall into one of two basic categories with respect to the total amount of documentation generated. The committee now defines two categories of rarity observations: Short-Stayer (SS)/Few Observers, and Long-Stayer (LS)/Many Observers. These category definitions establish a framework that enables the committee to discuss and adapt various MD/DCRC policies and procedures. The boundary definitions between these two categories is soft; not hard and fast. These categories are informal and their use does not affect the formal records review process in any way; instead, these categories relate only to how documentation and observer communications are processed prior to and after the review process. Approximate category parameters are shown in Figure 4.3.1-1. The key parameter related to the amount of total documentation is the total number of observers who generated documentation. Another key parameter associated with the total amount of documentation generated relates to the length of stay of the rarity. The amount of documentation generated is also related to the relative regional “rareness” of the taxon and/or whether the bird is easily accessible, such as on public property (rather than private property), and whether the bird was cooperative or a fleeting pelagic sighting.

Rarity Category Typical Duration #

Observers Relative Rareness

Public Property? Pelagic Sighting?

# Images or A/V

Recordings Short-Stayer (SS)/ Few Observers ~1-3 days ~1-5 Moderate Often No

Yes – fleeting birds None-few

Long-Stayer (LS)/ Many Observers ~3+ days ~5+ “Mega” Often Yes

Yes – cooperative birds Many

Figure 4.3.1-1. Observation Category Attributes - General Guidelines. These two categories are further described below.

“Short-Stayers”(SS)

typicallyfew

observers

“Long-Stayers”(LS)

typicallymany

observers

Direct Submissions:(a) Written reports, images, or A/V recordings

forwarded directly to the MD/DCRC Secretary via email, web form, or USPS, or

(b) Descriptions, images, or A/V recordings posted or linked to MD Birding messages or eBird

checklists by existing MD/DCRC Observers of Record

Indirect Document Capture:(a) Descriptions; attached, linked, or embedded

images; or A/V recordings posted to MD Birding messages, eBird checklists, blogs, or

photo gallery sites by new observers, or

(b) MD Birding email sighting status notes(positive or negative status)

Observer of Record (credited)•Direct submission (SS and LS)•Indirect descriptive text (SS)

•Indirect images or A/V files (SS)

Additional Observer (“et al.”)•Indirect descriptive text (LS)•Indirect images, A/V files (LS)

Casual Observer (“et al.”)•Indirect sighting status notes (SS or

LS)(positive or negative)

Rarity Observation Category

Documentation Submission CategoryObserverCategory

Outside Expert Opinions:Identification or distribution analysis or

commentary

Typically requested from an expert via email or mined from Internet sources

Outside Expert Opinions•MD/DCRC-solicited expert opinions

•Expert Internet sources•Contributed unsolicited analysis

*

* Status can be changed by observer providing POC info

of 28

a. Short-Stayers (SS)/Few Observers Many rarities are either Short-Stayers (i.e., present for just one or a few days) and/or are seen by only a few observers. In these cases, since the total amount of documentation is small, all available documentation is considered to be extremely relevant. Documentation volume may also be small due to the bird’s presence on private property or if the bird was a fleeting pelagic sighting (i.e., seen by only a few observers on a pelagic trip). b. Long-Stayers (LS)/Many Observers (Lingerers) Some rarities may linger for many days and/or are seen by a large number of observers (e.g., the early 2014 Pink-footed Geese and Western Tanager). As a result of lengthy stays and/or robust communications about the locations and status of such birds, many observers will generate either MDBirding email documentation, eBird checklist details, or record digital audio/video (A/V) files. Pelagic rarities that are seen and photographed by many (“a boatload of”) observers at the same time also often fit this category. Birds that are extreme or “mega” rarities will naturally create more of an observer demand and, therefore, also more total documentation. It is for this category of rarity and the resulting large amount of documentation that the committee primarily needs to adapt its procedures.

4.3.2 Observers Categories The committee has also formalized the attributes associated with rarity observers. These categories are summarized in Figure 4.3.2-1 and are described in more detail below.

Observer Category MD/DCRC Observer

Permission

Communications Attributes Point of Contact

(POC) Info Direct MD/DCRC Communications Record Credit

Observer of Record Explicit/Legacy Provided/Logged Yes Yes Additional Observer Implied Optional (upgraded) No No Casual Observer Implied None/Not Used No No

Figure 4.3.2-1. Summary of MD/DCRC Observer Categories and Attributes 4.3.2.1 Observers of Record An observer who directly submits a written report or provides images or A/V recordings to the committee for either a Long-Stayer (LS) or a Short-Stayer (SS) is considered to be an “Observer of Record.”

a. Observer of Record Status Observers of Record are captured and logged into the MD/DCRC relational database and will be credited in any formal MD/DCRC publications. For each Observer of Record, the committee creates an MD/DCRC data record that describes the type of documentation that was submitted (for example, the number of images provided), the date the documentation was submitted, and the observer’s contact information (full name, email, and postal address). Observer of Record metadata is used to generate useful committee reports and analyses. b. Legacy Observers of Record If an observer is already an Observer of Record from a previous committee documentation submission, that observer is then considered to be an “legacy” Observer of Record (i.e., in perpetuity) for later documentation submissions. That is, if an observer has previously

of 28

submitted documentation to the committee and is identified in the committee’s observer register (database); that observer is considered to retain Observer of Record status for future rarity documentation and the MD/DCRC Secretary will process the observer’s subsequent documentation accordingly (i.e., logging in the date of receipt, describing the documentation, etc.). c. Observer of Record Solicitation for Short-Stayers (SS) If an observer posts descriptive text information, images, or A/V recordings to a public forum (e.g., MDBirding or eBird) for a Short-Stayer (SS), the MD/DCRC Secretary will attempt to contact the observer and seek explicit permission to use that documentation for the committee’s review process and archives. By definition, for Short-Stayers (SS), the amount of rarity documentation is limited; therefore, the value of each available set of documentation is relatively more important. Therefore, the process of contacting observers is worth the investment of committee effort. If the Secretary is unable to contact the observer, the committee will still presume that it has implied permission to use the documentation for its record review function.

4.3.2.2 Additional Observers

a. New Additional Observers A “new” observer (i.e., one who has not previously submitted documentation to the committee as a prior Observer of Record) who posts written details, images, or A/V recordings to either MDBirding or eBird, is initially categorized as an “Additional Observer.” An “Additional Observer’s” name is captured in the MD/DCRC database but since the observer is “new” and therefore does not already have contact information on file with the committee, the observer is not considered to be an Observer of Record. As such, “Additional Observers” will not receive direct committee communications nor receive record credit. b. “Upgrading” an Additional Observer to an Observer of Record A new Additional Observer who submits images or A/V records can easily be converted to a Observer of Record. The MD/DCRC Secretary will provide some form of public status report (details TBD, likely via a MDBirding email message) that indicates each observer’s status. If a new Additional Observer contacts the committee Secretary and volunteers his/her email and contact information, the committee will add that observer to its register of Observers of Record so that the committee can contact the observer in the future and credit the observer with the record, if accepted. This action also makes the observer a “legacy” Observer of Record for future documentation, so no further interactions will be needed with these observers; i.e., this is a simple one-time process.

4.3.2.3 Casual Observers “Casual Observers” are observers who publically post sighting status notices, without significant descriptive observational details, for either positive (successful) or negative (unsuccessful) sighting attempts. These non-descriptive messages, typically via MDBirding emails and/or eBird checklists, are mined, captured and archived by the committee; however, the identity of these casual observers are not captured in the committee’s database.

(a) Shared eBird Checklists The committee will treat unmodified shared eBird checklist rarity reports as if they were status reports and will consider the observers to be “Casual Observers.” Shared eBird checklists do not

of 28

add any additional descriptive information, even if the checklist links to photos taken by others or repeats descriptive comments of others. Sometimes it can be difficult to recognize shared checklists; however, the committee will try to sort this out and process it as best as we can. (b) Finders A “finder” is the observer(s) who originally discovered a rarity. (Note that rarities may occasionally be discovered independently by multiple observers.) If a rarity was found by someone who did not subsequently provide any documentation to the committee, then the observer is not considered to be an MD/DCRC Observer of Record for that sighting; however, a comment about who originally found the bird is generally entered as a note into the committee’s database. If a finder is an Observer of Record (someone who has previously submitted documentation to the committee), then that observer is flagged in the MD/DCRC database and is credited as a finder for that specific record. For the historical record, finders are encouraged to submit reports to the committee, even if just a brief statement, describing the conditions of the original finding. Finder metadata is also used in generating various committee reports and analyses. (c) Last Date Observers A note in the committee database is typically entered to identify the observer(s) who noted a bird’s last sighting (“end date”); however, without end date supporting descriptive documentation, the committee may, truncate the official record ending date to comport with supporting documentation.

4.3.4 Documentation Channel Categories Documentation capture may come from either direct or indirect channels. 4.3.4.1 Direct Submissions Rarity documentation can be channeled directly to the committee, in care of the Secretary, either as mailed hardcopy (e.g., via US Postal Service) or as an electronic submission (typically via email). Direct documentation is, by definition, submitted by an observer who is providing explicit permission to the committee to use that documentation and who typically has provided personal contact information (name, address, etc.) Therefore, direct submission providers are either existing or new “Observers of Record.” 4.3.4.2 Indirect Capture Documentation may also be indirectly channeled to the committee via an observer posting to any of the following: (1) an email group list, such as MDBirding; (2) a publically accessible photo gallery; (3) a blog web site; (4) as text or an imagery entry in an eBird checklist; or (5) in a Published Account - The committee compiles, indexes, and archives published peer-reviewed accounts of rarity sightings. This category of documentation is channeled to the committee as either articles or as compiled published seasonal sighting summaries published in ornithological journals. Journal examples include Maryland Birdlife and North American Birds.

of 28

5. MD/DCRC Policies This section summarizes the evolving MD/DCRC policies related to documentation and observer communications. 5.1 Documentation Policies The following policies concern observer documentation. 5.1.1 Documentation Usage Policy The MD/DCRC objectives of document collection are to ensure that (1) all relevant reviewable documentation rarity is captured and made available to the committee’s members during record reviews and (2) the history of the observation is preserved for posterity for future researchers. This policy remains unchanged. 5.1.2 “Complete” Documentation Policy The MD/DCRC policy is to collect all available documentation related to a reviewable rarity. In addition to documentation submitted directly to the committee, the committee Secretary captures all relevant rarity MDBirding email messages, eBird checklists, posted images, and A/V files. This policy remains unchanged, with the exception of possibly not pursuing protected images for Long-Stayer/Many Observer (LS) sightings. 5.1.3 Observer Consent/Permission Policy Due to the recent increase in the number of observers and volume of documentation, the MD/DCRC must evolve its policy of obtaining an observer’s permission to use their documentation for committee purposes.

a. Prior Basic Policy Years ago, the committee adopted a policy to not use in its review process any rarity documentation that had been indirectly provided to the committee via a third-party (such as from a MDBirding post or from an eBird checklist) without the expressed permission of the observer. b. Background This policy was established after a rarity sighting report had been reviewed based on a written description that had been submitted to a Christmas Bird Count compiler and subsequently forwarded to the committee. However, it was later discovered that the observer possessed additional written details that would have affected the outcome of the review. Hence, the committee instituted its policy to ensure that we always had an observer’s permission to use indirectly acquired documentation. (When the committee does seek permission to use an observer’s indirect documentation, we also always ask if the observer has any additional information to add to the review file.) To date, no observer has ever denied the committee permission to use their posted rarity documentation. c. Legacy Consent Observers of Record who previously provided documentation to the committee, thereby already granting the committee permission to use that documentation for its review and archival functions, will be considered to remain legacy Observers of Record for any subsequently

of 28

publically posted rarity documentation. In other words, blanket permission to use documentation from that observer for future committee reviews is presumed. d. Revised Policy - Implied Consent Policy The committee will now begin to presume that if an Additional Observer has posted observation details to a public group (such as MDBirding), posted digital images or recordings to a public web page, or posted written details (written, imagery, or A/V recordings) in an eBird checklist, then the observer has implicitly granted the MD/DCRC permission to use that documentation for the purposes of a record review and permission to add that documentation (credited to the observer) to our archives for posterity. e. Revised Policy - Opt Out Policy If a current Observer of Record does not wish to grant standing permission to the committee to use their documentation, please directly contact the committee Secretary.

5.1.4 Photo Publication Policy Consent, whether explicit or implied, to use documentation for the purposes of a committee review does not extend the right to the committee to publish those photos. This policy, although previously unstated, remains unchanged. The MD/DCRC does not re-post contributed photos on its own web site. If the committee should desire to publish observer photos in any future publications (such as in an article in the MOS journal Maryland Birdlife), then the committee will attempt to directly contact the photographer to obtain permission. At some point in the future, the MD/DCRC is planning to publish (on a non-profit basis) a book on The History of the Rare Birds of Maryland and the District of Columbia. Again, at that time, the committee would attempt to contact photographers for permission to use any desired images. The possibility of future publications is a good reason for photographers/videographers to have their Observer of Record address and contact information on file with the committee. 5.2 Observer Communications Policies Some of the committee’s official communications are still currently generated in hardcopy format and notices are mailed to observers via US Postal Service (“snail mail”); therefore, the committee always solicits postal addresses from new Additional Observers so that we can mail out related committee notices. These communications processes provide valuable feedback loops by which observers can easily provide information corrections and updates to improve the integrity of the committee database. However, due to the volume of documentation and observers, these policies will need to change in the future. The current two basic committee communications notices are:

5.2.1 Observer Acknowledgements The committee traditionally has acknowledged documentation submissions by sending each Observer of Record a printed hardcopy “Acknowledgement” notice that contains (1) all of the data fields captured in our extensive MD/DCRC database related to the observers’ documentation submission and (2) also contains information parameters related to the overall sighting (e.g., start date, end date, location, etc.) 5.2.2 Observer Decision Notices After the completion of the review process, the committee has sent hardcopy “Decision Notices” to observers to convey the final decision and provide a summary of the decision rationale.

of 28

5.2.3 Observer Privacy The committee does not publish or share contact information for our Observers of Record. For rarity sighting locations at personal homes, full location street addresses are kept private. 5.2.4 Hardcopy Communications The committee’s current official communications are “pushed,” as hardcopies, to Observers of Record via the US Postal Service (“snail mail”). Currently, all of the committee’s formal observer communications (documentation “Acknowledgements” and final “Decision Notices”) are generated as PDF file report pages by a relational report writer driven by the committee’s extensive relational database. The pages are decollated and then snail mailed to the observers. The committee is beginning to plan a transition from hardcopy to softcopy communications; however, some legacy data processing related challenges exist. 5.3 Revised Policy – Long Stayer (LS) Documentation from New Observers The revised MD/DCRC general approach to capturing documentation for Long-Stayer (LS) Observations is depicted in Figure 5.3-1.

Figure 5.3-1. General Approach to Capturing Documentation for Long-Stayer (LS) Observations

a. General Policy. For Long-Stayer (LS), in addition to direct submissions, the committee will continue to mine and capture all documentation from new Additional Observers who publically post descriptive text, imagery, or A/V recordings. b. Descriptive Text. Descriptive text (from MDBirding emails and eBird checklists) for Long-Stayer (LS) will be gathered and archived; however, no formal observer logging will take place for this documentation. This is in no way due to any implied diminished value of text

Observer of Record(existing or new)

Direct(submitted to

MD/DCRC)

Indirect(via MD

Birding, eBird, web sites, etc.)

Images, A/V

Any Format

Descriptive Text

Status Report

Casual Observer

Casual Observer

Additional Observer

Long-Staying

(LS)/Many

ObserverRarity

Observation Category Documentation Channel Documentation Format Observer Category

Legacy Observers of Record or New Observers

of 28

documentation; but rather this is just a necessary triage process for dealing with the increasing volume of MDBirding messages and eBird checklists that contain text-only. c. Images and A/V Recordings. For Long-Stayer (LS) images and A/V recordings posted by observers, the committee will not directly pursue observer permissions or contact information nor initiate efforts to reclassify the documenter as a Observer of Record; however, if the observer voluntarily contacts the committee Secretary and provides contact information, the observer will then be reclassified as an Observer of Record (see immediately below). d. Upgrading from a New Additional Observer to an Observer of Record. New observers who have posted imagery or A/V records are encouraged to contact the MD/DCRC Secretary and provide their contact information; this will “upgrade” the observer to an “Observer of Record.” This change of status will make an observer eligible to receive appropriate committee notices and record credit. The committee will identify observer’s status in a batch process (details TBD, but probably via a MDBirding email message) so that new Additional Observers can note their observer status and decide whether or not to contact the committee. e. Implicit Permission. Regardless, the committee will presume, unless contacted by the observer to the contrary, that Long-Stayer (LS) observers have provided blanket permission to go forward with a review.

5.4 Revised Policy – Short Stayer (SS) Documentation from New Observers The committee will continue to pursue permissions and contract information from New Observers for Short-Stayer (SS) documentation, including descriptive text, images, and A/V recordings. The new general MD/DCRC approach to capturing documentation for Short-Stayer (SS) Observations is depicted in Figure 5.4-1. In Short-Stayer (SS) cases, the MD/DCRC will continue its current protocol of obtaining observer permissions to use indirectly acquired documentation and to seek contact information for new Additional Observers to try to convert them to Observers of Record.

of 28

Figure 5.4-1. General Approach to Capturing Documentation for Short-Stayer (SS) Observations

Observer of Record(existing or new)

Direct(submitted to

MD/DCRC)

Indirect(via MD

Birding, eBird, web sites, etc.)

Images, A/V

Any Format

Descriptive Text

Status Report

Casual Observer

Casual Observer

Short-Staying

(SS)/Few

ObserverRarity

Observation Category Documentation Channel Documentation Format Observer Category

Legacy Observers of Record or New Observers

of 28

6. MD/DCRC Documentation and Communications Procedures The committee will capture all documentation related to a rarity sighting in order to support the committee’s (1) record reviews, and (2) archival function policies. This section establishes a draft set of procedures to implement the evolving policy changes discussed above. 6.1 Observer Procedures The committee will implement the following observer-related processes for current, non-historical sighting reports: 6.1.1 Observers of Record For each Observer of Record, the committee will perform the following steps:

(a) Documentation Capture The Secretary will save the observer’s documentation (written, photographic files, or A/V files) as either: HTML copies of email messages; JPG copies of photographic image; or PDF page images of eBird checklists, blog pages, or photo web pages. The Secretary will also download and save A/V recordings; however, the Secretary will generally convert proprietary data formats, such as FLV (flash video), into more common standardized formats, such as MP4 or AVI. (b) Logging The Secretary will create a entry in the MD/DCRC database “Observer” table for each Observer of Record. An entry, linked to each specific sighting, will identify the observer, record the date the documentation was captured, and, for imagery or A/V files, describe the documentation files (for example, “3 digital web images,” “a 42 second MP4 video clip,” etc.) The metadata allows the committee to analyze observer data and create meaningful reports.

6.1.2 Additional Observers For new “Additional Observer” documentation, the Secretary will capture, save, and log-in publically-posted documentation (typically from an MDBirding email or an eBird checklist) by describing the nature of the documentation and the date captured. However, since a new Additional Observer is, by definition, new to the committee, personal information about the actual observer (full name, address, etc.) is not previously known to the committee, therefore the observer is not able to be formally identified nor the observer credited for the record. However, as described, the process of changing an Additional Observer to an Observer of Record can be easily initiated. 6.2 Document Channel Procedures The following documentation channels are currently used to capture rarity documentation: 6.2.1. Direct Submissions (via US Postal Service) The committee still receives a few direct committee rarity report submissions via US Postal Service mail. These submitting observers are logged-in as “Observers of Record.” 6.2.2. Direct Submissions (via email) Some observers send emails directly to the MD/DCRC Secretary, or explicitly copy the Secretary on email messages that include either written details or images (either attached to emails or via links embedded in messages). These observers are also logged-in as “Observers of Record.”

of 28

6.2.3. MDBirding Posts The committee Secretary will “mine” posts to the MDBirding Google group for reports related to rarities. MDBirding emails may contain one of two types of content:

(a) Descriptive Text Descriptive text consists of written observation details.

Short-Stayers (SS) For Short-Stayers (SS), the observers/authors of these descriptive text messages are “Observers of Record” and a corresponding entry is created in the MD/DCRC database to chronicle the capture of and description of the documentation. Long-Stayers (LS) For Long-Stayers (LS), descriptive text documentation is also captured. Existing MD/DCRC Observers of Record are considered to also be Observers of Record for new/subsequent sightings while new observers are considered to be “Additional Observers.” For legacy “Observers of Record,” the complete logging and documentation description process is performed; however, for new “Additional Observers,” complete observer logging is not fully implemented since the Secretary will not have the observer’s full name and contact information (since these new Additional Observers are, by definition, “new” to the committee).

(b) Status Notes Status notes are brief messages indicating that a rarity was seen (a positive report) or was not seen (a negative report) during a recent sighting attempt. The Secretary captures these reports, orders them chronologically in the hardcopy/scanned review file, and saves them in the committee’s accession numbered sighting documentation directory. Individual observers are not credited for these brief, non-descriptive text messages, except for beginning and end date status notes, which are given extra treatment. (c) Shared Checklists Repeated or shared eBird checklist information (text or images) is treated similar to status notes. Individual observers are not credited for duplicative information.

6.2.4. eBird Checklist Documentation Procedures The following procedure is used to identify and capture eBird rarity documentation:

1. The committee Secretary receives the daily Maryland and DC eBird alert message summary and scans the list of included taxa (found at the top of the alert message) for rarities that appear on the committee’s MD or DC Review Lists. 2. For reviewable rarities, the Secretary saves in the committee’s data repository an electronic copy of that day’s eBird summary alert message. This process captures all descriptive eBird text entries associated with a given rarity since each observer’s descriptive text for each (filtered) rarity is shown in the alert summary message.

of 28

3. Next, the Secretary reviews the individual eBird checklist entries for each rarities of interest. A hardcopy of selected reviewable taxa eBird summary alert reports is also printed for the chronological scanned item review file. 4. If the eBird alert summary provides links to web-available images, the Secretary links to and prints a PDF copy of the observer’s full checklist (with embedded image(s)) and saves a copy of that checklist in a subdirectory crated for that observer, for the specific rarity. 5. Next, the Secretary follows any eBird checklist link to the observer’s photo web page. 6. For each available photo, the Secretary downloads the highest available resolution image (on Flickr, this is called the “original” size) as a JPG image. 7. For Long-Stayers (LS), individual text-only observers are not captured and logged in the committee database, due to the large volume of observers and descriptive comments/images. However, for Short-Stayers (SS), since the volume of documentation is smaller and all documentation is considered to be highly relevant, the Secretary will pursue all “new” Short-Stayers (SS) Additional Observers and attempt to obtain personal contact information from them to convert the observer into a formal Observer of Record.

6.2.5. Web Search Documentation Procedures The committee Secretary will occasionally perform web searches, particularly for Short Stayers (SS), for any additional documentation related to a specific sighting. Web searches sometimes yield descriptive observer blog entries or photo gallery images that were not posted to MDBirding or entered into an eBird checklist. This documentation is captured by the committee and logged-in.

(a) Short-Stayers (SS) In the case of Short-Stayers (SS), the Secretary will generally attempt to contact the observer who posted the documentation and seek permission to use their documentation as an Observer of Record in the committee’s review process. (b) Long-Stayers (LS) In the case of Long-Stayers (LS), the Secretary will generally not attempt to contact the observer who posted the documentation or seek permission to use the posted documentation in the committee’s review process. Instead, implied consent will be presumed and the observer will be considered to be an Additional Observer. For a given rarity, the Secretary will post (probably via an MDBirding email message) which “Observers of Record” and which new “Additional Observers” have provided documentation. “Additional Observers” will be invited and encouraged to contact the Secretary to provide personal contact information and become “Observers of Record.”

6.3 Observer Communications Procedures 6.3.1 Proposes Observer A/V Documentation Acknowledgement Procedures The key change in MD/DCRC communications procedures deals with how Long-Stayer (LS) documentation (from any source or documentation channel) observers are processed.

of 28

(a) “Long-Staying” (LS) Observer Status Report For “Long-Staying” (LS) rarities (i.e., with many observers) after the bird departs, the committee Secretary will post a status message to MDBirding listing details of the type of imagery and A/V documentation that was captured, along with the “Observers of Record” and “Additional Observers” from whom documentation was acquired. (b) New Additional Observer Responses Typically, new observers who have not previously submitted documentation to the committee will fall into the “Additional Observer” category. The committee encourages these new, “Additional Observers” to simply advise the MD/DCRC Secretary, via email, that they would like to be changed to be an “Observer of Record” and provide their postal (“snail mail”) address for the committee’s records and archives. Implicit in this process is that an “Observer of Record” will continue as an “Observer of Record” for any subsequent documentation postings.

6.3.2 Revised Observer Acknowledgement/Decision Notice Communications Process The committee plans to transition its official observer communications from paper to email to save paper and postage. A software program that can automate this function is rather expensive; however, in the future, we may instead migrate from a postal mail “push” to a web-based “pull” system of communications. We intend to experiment with this transition beginning with “Long Staying” (LS) documentation since this category involves the most observers. This transition will begin in conjunction with the committee’s new eBird policies, discussed above. Later, we hope to move fully to softcopy communications.

of 28

7. Summary The key changes outlined in this white paper are:

(a) Implied Consent The MD/DCRC will now presume that any MDBirding or eBird checklist written details or web-posted images or A/V recordings are cleared by the observer for use by the committee in their review and archival processes. (b) Triage Processing of Long-Staaying (LS) Documentation and Observer Communications The committee will also periodically post [TBD] status updates to MDBirding regarding “Additional Observers” for whom we do not have contact information and encourage those observers to provide contact information to become “Observers of Record.”

The committee’s governing “Goals, Policies, and Procedures” document (available on our web page) will later be modified to reflect changes adopted from this white paper. Literature Cited Czaplak, David, and Floyd. E. Hayes. 1985. Six species of birds new to the District of Columbia. Atlantic Naturalist 35:19-22. Stewart, Robert E. and Chandler S. Robbins. 1958. Birds of Maryland and the District of Columbia. US Dept. Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, N.A. Fauna No. 62.

maryland ornithological society maryland/district of ... · maryland ornithological society...

Documents