1. PART Assessment for Migratory Birds

2. USFWS Migratory Bird Program Program Summary  Responsible for maintaining healthy migratory bird populations for the benefit of the American people  Accomplish this by: –Conserving and restoring mig bird populations –Restoring and acquiring mig bird habitat –Surveying and monitoring mig birds –Regulating take of mig birds –Working closely with partners to ensure bird conservation

4. Long-term Goal 1 Increase the percent of species of migratory birds that are at healthy and sustainable levels

5. Annual (Output) Goals and Measures  1) Percent of population management needs met to achieve healthy and sustainable levels of migratory birds  2) Percent of habitat needs met to achieve healthy and sustainable levels of migratory birds.

6. Focal Species  emphasis on changing population status required a new and concerted effort by the Program  strategy proposed to and accepted by OMB was to select Focal Species to be the subject of systematic, cross-programmatic campaigns

7. Focal Species Team  Brad BortnerR1  Dave Krueper R2  Sean Kelly R3  EJ Williams R4  Scott Johnston R5 Stephanie Jones R6  Bob LeedyR7  Jennifer Wheeler Waterbird Initiative and Team Leader  Bob Trost Flyways  Seth Mott NAWMP, DBHC  Brad Andres Shorebird  Terry Rich PIF

8. Focal Species Characteristics  Biological or ecological need - species at the highest levels of conservation concern; population status greatly below or above healthy and sustainable levels  Broad application - will focus advance our ability to manage for a number of priority species  Existing efforts – current efforts could include comprehensive planning and funded monitoring, research, habitat enhancement projects, etc.  Campaign for species could become a new or stronger unifying element for the Program - across regions and between habitat and population components  Likelihood of measuring success and improved status in the available timeframe (by end of FY2007)?

9. Focal Species Campaigns  Development of comprehensive Action Plan  Clear statement of the responsibilities for actions within the Program  Focus of Program resources on implementing those actions  Communications to solicit support and cooperation from partners inside and outside the Service

10. Focal Species Performance Indicators for FY07  Northern PintailR9  Common EiderR7 (Pacific), R5 (Atlantic)  Laysan Albatross or Black-footed AlbatrossR1  King RailR4, with R3  Snowy Plover (except on Pacific Coast)R2, with R4  American Oystercatcher R5, with R4  Black OystercatcherR7  Long-billed CurlewR6  Cerulean WarblerR5, with R3 and R4  Henslow’s SparrowR3, with R4  Painted BuntingRegion 4, with R2  Tri-colored BlackbirdRegion 1  American WoodcockR9, with R3, R5, R4

11. Painted Bunting

12. Snowy Plover, King Rail & Oystercatcher

13. Henslow’s Sparrow, Cerulean Warbler & Pintail

14. Focal Species Action Plans Minimum Requirements

15. Action Plans Must Contain…  Summary of Status –Threat assessment  Identification of key limiting factor(s)  Strength of evidence for status and limiting factor determinations  Statement of What Constitutes Desired Status –Indicators of desired condition (what are they and how do we determine when they are achieved)  Actions to Achieve Desired Status –List of projects and activities (i.e., tasks) necessary to achieve desired condition  Assuming resources are not limiting and plan implementation starts 10/1/06, for each task provide… –Indication of importance relative to achieving goal –Sequence/relationship relative to other tasks –Estimated timeline (start, finish) –Responsible partner (e.g., States, FWS MBP, BLM, NGO) – highlights need for workshops and agreements among partners –Estimated cost

16. Plan Management  Plans will be kept in original format, but should be scanned into.pdf files  Task details will be incorporated into an MS Project database for each focal species –This will allow:  Estimate of time needed to achieve goal if resources were unlimited  Cost to accomplish goal  Partnerships required and responsibilities  Automatic revision of timelines if task deadlines slip due to resource deficiencies

17. SMA Project Proposals FY06  Region RankProject FY06 FY07.  R1-31Albatross $ 69,250 $ 69,250  R4-12Ptd Bunting $130,000 $130,000  R1-13Sno Plover $ 93,540 $ 9,727  R3-24.5Henslow’s Sp $ 70,000  R5-14.5Cerulean Wa $ 40,000  R3-16King Rail $ 70,000

18. PABU Project  1) Estimate reproductive success and demographic parameters of E & W breeding populations - viability and relative productivity across habitats  2) Develop and implement an improved monitoring program for eastern PABU  3) Identify areas in northern Mexico and southwestern US where western PABU disperse for post-breeding molt  4) Quantify the extent and impact of the caged bird trade in Mexico (E & W PABU)  5) Better document wintering areas of eastern and western populations of PABU

19. PABU Project Products  Demographic data to assess productivity and survival of coastal and interior breeding populations  Identification of important areas and habitats used during post-breeding molt migration (W)  Quantitative assessment of the impact of cage bird trapping in Mexico on E & W PABUs  GIS tools that allow explicit consideration of PABU in JV and other planning, implementation and evaluation efforts

20. PABU Existing Efforts & Partnerships  South Atlantic PABU Conservation Initiative –Organized in 2003 – State/Fed/NGO partners –Baseline research – habitat, survival –Outreach materials  Expanding SAPABUCI to include West –Region 2 FWS, states  Priority Species in CWCS – FL, GA, SC, etc  Active involvement by Mexico –Efforts to track legal and illegal trade –CITES –Indirect connection to Cuba

21. Painted Bunting

22. PART Accountability  Long-term Goal 1 Increase the percent of species of migratory birds that are at healthy and sustainable levels

23. PART Accomplishments  Percent of migratory birds that are at healthy and sustainable levels  Not more PABU  Assumes hold BCC list steady

24. PART Expectations  Accountability relative to population sustainability  Compatible with NEAT –Population based habitat objectives –“conservation targets rooted in population abundance and landscape sustainability”  Assumptions based on habitat not enough “if we build it they will come” follow thru with productivity/survival study  OMB called our hand