Partners in Flight
North American

Landbird
Conservation Plan
Part 1. The Continental Plan

Signed and approved bywww.partnersinﬂight.org

United States: Partners in Flight Council
Canada: Partners in Flight Canada National Working Group
Mexico: Comisión Nacional pare el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad(CONABIO) y Comité Mexicano de laIniciativa para la Conservación de las Aves en
América del Norte (ICAAN-NABCI)

Published by

Recommended citation
Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. W. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. Demarest, E. H.
Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. Martell, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C.
M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab
of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY.
Front Cover: The Painted Bunting is on Partners in Flight’s Continental Watch List because of troubling declines throughout its range andmultiple threats, including continued trapping for the caged-bird trade in Mexico and Cuba. Photo © Tom Vezo
Back Cover: The Mountain Bluebird is a Stewardship Species of shrubland habitats in the Intermountain West Biome. The mullein on which
this bluebird is perched is one of many invasive plant species threatening the integrity of native bird habitats. Photo © Marie Read
Design and layout by Julie Hart • Printing by Cayuga Press of Ithaca Inc., Ithaca, NY.

Partners in FlightSpotted Owl © Mike DanzenbakerNorth American
Landbird Conservation Plan
January 2004

Signed and approved byUnited States: Partners in Flight Council
Canada: Partners in Flight Canada National Working Group
Mexico: Comisión Nacional pare el Conocimiento y Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO) y Comité Mexicano de laIniciativa para la Conservación de las Aves en
América del Norte (ICAAN-NABCI)

Authors
Terrell D. Rich • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Carol J. Beardmore • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Humberto Berlanga • Comisión Nacional para el Conocimiento y
Uso de la Biodiversidad (CONABIO)Peter J. Blancher • Bird Studies Canada and Canadian Wildlife Service
Michael S. W. Bradstreet • Bird Studies Canada
Greg S. Butcher • National Audubon Society
Dean W. Demarest • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Erica H. Dunn • Canadian Wildlife Service
W. Chuck Hunter • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Eduardo E. Iñigo-Elias • Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology
Judith A. Kennedy • Canadian Wildlife Service
Arthur M. Martell • NABCI-Canada

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plani

Arvind O. Panjabi • Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory
David N. Pashley • American Bird Conservancy
Kenneth V. Rosenberg • Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology
Christopher M. Rustay • Playa Lakes Joint Venture
J. Steven Wendt • Canadian Wildlife Service
Tom C. Will • U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A great many individuals, Partners in Flight (PIF) working groups, funding agencies, and other partners have contributed to the establishment and growth of PIF, building the foundation that had to exist before preparation of a North
American Landbird Conservation Plan could even be contemplated. To all our partners in this endeavor, we owe agreat debt of thanks.
We greatly appreciate the International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies for funding, through Grant
Agreement No. DC M-18-PO (Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Program), that supported PIF Regional
Coordinators during the development of regional and state bird conservation plans and through the early stagesof this plan. Analysis and writing was supported by employers of all of the Plan’s authors. We thank the staﬀ of theCornell Laboratory of Ornithology, particularly Julie Hart, who designed and laid out the document, and Allison
Childs Wells and Miyoko Chu for editing. Printing costs were provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, theU.S. Forest Service, Environment Canada, Plum Creek Timber Company, American Forest & Paper Association,
Department of Defense Partners in Flight, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, and the New Jersey Division of Fish
and Wildlife, Endangered and Nongame Species Program.

© Marie Read

For comments on draft versions of the Plan, the authors thank Bob Altman, the Arkansas Game and FishCommission, Luc Bélanger, Roxanne Bogart, Ellen Campbell, Canadian Wildlife Service—Quebec Region, Breck
Carmichael, John Confer, Brenda Dale, Martin Damus David Davis, Krista De Groot, Dave Duncan, Wendy Easton,Jane Fitzgerald, Robert Ford, Jean Gauthier, Christina Hargis, Audrey Heagy, Geoﬀ Holroyd, Bill Howe, MarshallHowe, Mark Howery, Robbie Hunsinger, Idaho Fish and Game, Iowa Department of Natural Resources, Stephanie
Jones, Rick Kearney, David Klute, Melinda Knutson, Dave
Krueper, Steve Lewis, Craig Machtans, Steve Matsuoka,
Allan Mueller, Larry Neel, New York State Departmentof Environmental Conservation, Wendy Nixon, Mike
Norton, Phil Nott, Cyndi Perry, C.J. Ralph, John Robinson,
Janet Ruth, Cliﬀord Shackelford, Pam Sinclair, PIF Canada
Technical Committee, Don Sutherland, Wayne Thogmartin,
Utah Division of Wildlife Resources, and Jeﬀ Walk. We
thank Jon Bart for providing analysis of monitoring needs
and commenting on that important section of the plan.
Others too numerous to mention individually have contributed as well, through discussions of various issues addressed in the Plan. Final decisions on the methodology andcontent of this plan are the responsibility of the authors.

The Prairie Warbler, one of 101 species identiﬁed in this Planon Partners in Flight’s continental Watch List, breeds in disturbance-dependent habitats in eastern North America and migrates to the West Indies in winter.

We also deeply appreciate the contributions of all individuals who reviewed species assessment scores at various geographic scales over the past decade. Without this thoroughreview and evaluation from hundreds of experts, this Plan
simply would not have been possible. We are especiallygrateful to the Rocky Mountain Bird Observatory, which
has supported the database with substantial staﬀ time overthe past decade.
Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Planii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Authors .........................................�

i

Acknowledgments ......................�

ii

Executive Summary and Invitation to Action ................................................................................................... 1
Part 1. The Continental Plan .�

4

Introduction ...........................�
4
Assessing Conservation Vulnerability .............................................................................................................. 9Species of Continental Importance................................................................................................................. 14
Continental Landbird Objectives .................................................................................................................... 23
Landbird Monitoring and Research Needs ................................................................................................... 27
Taking Action ......................�
33

Part 2. Conservation Issues and Recommendations ...................................................................................... 38
Arctic Avifaunal Biome .....�
40
Northern Forest Avifaunal Biome ................................................................................................................... 43
Paciﬁc Avifaunal Biome .....�
47Intermountain West Avifaunal Biome............................................................................................................ 51
Southwest Avifaunal Biome .............................................................................................................................. 55
Prairie Avifaunal Biome .....�
59
Eastern Avifaunal Biome ...�63

Literature Cited .......................�

67

Appendices
Appendix A. Assessment scores and estimated population size of North American landbirds ........ 69
Appendix B. Methods used to estimate population sizes and percents .................................................. 78
Appendix C. Wetland-associated landbird Species of Continental Importance .................................. 83
Appendix D. Species of Continental Importance in Bird Conservation Region 69—Puerto Ricoand the Virgin Islands ........�
84

TablesTable 1. PIF Species of Continental Importance for the US & Canada ................................................... 18
Table 2. Species of Continental Importance in the Arctic Avifaunal Biome .......................................... 41
Table 3. Species of Continental Importance in the Northern Forest Avifaunal Biome ........................ 44
Table 4. Species of Continental Importance in the Paciﬁc Avifaunal Biome.......................................... 48
Table 5. Species of Continental Importance in the Intermountain West Avifaunal Biome ................ 52
Table 6. Species of Continental Importance in the Southwest Avifaunal Biome .................................. 56
Table 7. Species of Continental Importance in the Prairie Avifaunal Biome ......................................... 60
Table 8. Species of Continental Importance in the Eastern Avifaunal Biome ........................................ 64

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Planiii

Allan Brooks © Cornell Lab of Ornithology

We must never forgetthat by far the mostabundant bird in North
America—the Passenger
Pigeon—was driven froma population size of 3 to
5 billion to extinction in
fewer than 100 years.

Partners in Flight Mission• Helping species at risk •• Keeping common birds common •• Voluntary partnerships for birds, habitats, and people •Part 1. The Continental PlanINTRODUCTION
Development of Partners in Flight
Birds are perhaps the most highly valued and actively
appreciated component of North America’s biological diversity. Approximately 1,200 species, representing nearly
15% of the world’s known bird species, inhabit Canada,
the U.S., and Mexico. Approximately three-fourths ofthese, including warblers, thrushes, sparrows, ﬁnches,
hummingbirds, ﬂycatchers, raptors and other groups, occupy terrestrial habitats. These “landbirds” are the focusof this document.
Landbirds are an important contributor to our economy,
providing untold billions of dollars in ecosystem services each year. Through their consumption of pest insects, pollination of plants, dispersal of native seeds, andother services, birds contribute to the maintenance of
ecosystems that also support human life. Nature-based
recreation, a high proportion of which involves observing birds, is the fastest growing segment of the tourism
industry, increasing approximately 30% annually since1987. In 2001 in the U.S. alone, 46 million birders spent$32 billion to observe, photograph or feed wildlife. The
overall economic output of this activity was $85 billion(La Rouche 2003).

The causes of population declines in birds are numerous,
but the loss, modiﬁcation, degradation, and fragmentation of habitat almost always play a major role. Threats
to habitats come primarily from intensiﬁed land-use
practices in agricultural and forested regions and fromother impacts associated with human population growth.

Recognition that a cooperative, nonadversarial conservation approach was required to address bird and habitat
issues at a continental scale led to formation in 1990 ofPartners in Flight/Compañeros en Vuelo/Partenairesd’Envol (National Fish and Wildlife Foundation 1990).
This voluntary, nonadvocacy, international coalition was
originally dedicated to reversing declines of Neotropicalmigratory songbirds, but soon expanded its mission to
include all landbirds. Current partners include federal,state, provincial, and territorial government agencies,
First Nations, tribes, nongovernmental organizations,numerous universities, concerned individuals, and private industry in Canada, the U.S., Mexico, the Caribbean,
and Central America. We expect to expand into SouthAmerica in the near future.
The Partners in Flight (PIF) mission is expressed throughthree related concepts:• Helping species at risk. Species exhibiting warning
signs today must be conserved before they become
imperiled. Allowing species to become threatenedor endangered results in long-term and costly recovery eﬀorts whose success often is not guaranteed.
Species that have attained endangered or threatened
status must not only be protected from extinction,
but also must be recovered.
© Gary Rosenberg

Because birds are valuable to humans in so many ways,
declines in numerous landbird populations are creating
serious concern for their futures. Some species, such as
the Golden-winged Warbler, are in suﬃcient trouble tomerit immediate conservation action. Others, including
the Wood Thrush, remain widespread but deserve attention to prevent continued decreases. Because landbird
habitats are directly aﬀected by human use of the land,
the health of all North American species is in our hands.
We have a stewardship responsibility for maintaining
healthy populations of still-common species and not
simply for preventing extinctions. We must never forgetthat by far the most abundant bird in North America—
the Passenger Pigeon—was driven from a population
size of 3–5 billion to extinction in fewer than 100 years(Blockstein 2002).

Climate change is producing new threats to birds andvegetation which may be particularly severe in arctic andalpine regions. Birds are a vital element of every terrestrial habitat in North America. Conserving habitat for birds
will therefore contribute to meeting the needs of otherwildlife and entire ecosystems.

In 2001 in the U.S. alone, 46 million birders spent $32 billion toobserve, photograph or feed wildlife. The overall economic output of
this activity was $85 billion (La Rouche 2003).

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
4• Keeping common birds common.
Native birds, both resident andmigratory, must be retained inhealthy numbers throughout theirnatural ranges. Humans have a
responsibility to be good stewardsof species that are fundamental tothe integrity of North America’s
diverse and unique ecosystems.
• Voluntary partnerships for birds,
habitat, and people. A central
premise of PIF is that the resourcesof public and private organizations
throughout the Americas must be
combined, coordinated, and increased in order to achieve successin conserving bird populations inthis hemisphere. The power of PIF
lies in the synergy that builds when
diverse, committed partners whocare about birds work together for
a common goal.

Purpose and Scope of this Plan

BOX 1
What the PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan does:•

Summarizes the conservation status of landbirds across North America,
illustrating broad patterns based on a comprehensive, biologicallybased species assessment.

•

Identiﬁes species most in need of attention at the continental scale, recognizing that additional species will need attention in each region.

•

Emphasizes the important need for stewardship of biome-restricted
species that may not otherwise be in need of immediate conservation
attention.

•

Promotes conservation throughout birds’ seasonal cycles, and in all
regions of North America—not just during breeding periods or where
species at risk occur.

•

Presents continental-scale population objectives for species identiﬁed
as continentally important and identiﬁes general actions necessary tomeet those objectives.

•

Demonstrates the need for greater resources for landbird conservation.

•

Outlines ways in which continental scale issues and objectives relate toregional conservation eﬀorts.

•

Promotes a coordinated approach to landbird conservation among

nations and regions of North America, which will serve as a stepping
PURPOSEstone to even broader geographic cooperation in the future.
This Plan provides a continental perspective on North American landbird
conservation, presenting geographic,
species, and habitat priorities. An international approach (Donaldson et al. 2000) and U.S. Shorebird Conservation
is essential because most species breed, migrate, andPlans (Brown et al. 2001), and Waterbird Conservation for
winter in more than one country, such that Canada, thethe Americas (Kushlan et al. 2002).
U.S., and Mexico share many of the same birds at diﬀerWe consider two types of landbirds to be of high conserent times of year. Migratory birds are an international
vation importance—those that show some combination
resource that requires conservation planning at a continental scale and beyond—a diﬀerent approach than what of population declines, small ranges, or distinct threats
to habitat, and those that are restricted to distinct geomay be suitable for more sedentary wildlife.
graphical areas, but otherwise not currently at risk. This
Our audience includes decision-makers, land-managers
rationale forms the basis for grouping species into the PIF
and scientists at national and international levels, who
Watch List (those warranting attention due to concern)collectively have the ability to meet PIF’s ambitious goals
and the Stewardship Species (those that are recognized as
for landbirds.
responsibilities due to restricted range).

Based on a comprehensive, top-down, continental assessment of the 448 native landbird species that breed in the
United States and Canada, we establish population objectives and recommended actions for Species of Continental
Importance (see Box 1). These objectives and recommendations will facilitate the integration of landbird conservation actions with those described in continental andnational plans for other groups of birds such as the North
American Waterfowl Management Plan (North American
Waterfowl Management Plan Committee 1998), Canadian

Although this Plan identiﬁes Species of Continental
Importance, we do not advocate conservation based on
single species as the only, or best, approach to addressing issues. That approach is required in some cases, particularly when protecting already-endangered species.
Rather, we encourage planners to identify common issues
or habitats among suites of high priority species. This
enables a more practical approach for implementing conservation actions, which will simultaneously beneﬁt many
bird species and other organisms as well.

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
5

This Plan is a blueprint for continental landbird conservation and, as such, is not intended to replace existing ordeveloping regional and state PIF plans. The conservationand management strategies required for several hundred
landbird species are far too complex and variable acrossNorth America to be treated only at a continental scale.
Implementation of on-the-ground bird conservation strategies must take place at state, provincial, territorial, andlocal levels, guided by regional and continental planning.

for local or regional partners to implement bird conservation objectives. Content of regional plans may not be infull synchrony with the content of this plan as a naturalconsequence of working at diﬀerent scales. It will be a
primary task of PIF partners over the next few years toresolve diﬀerences and arrive at ever better conservation
objectives at all scales. Part 2 of this Plan summarizes thesalient issues faced by North American landbirds, reﬂecting the recurring messages of the regional plans.

Over the last seven years, PIF has engaged in a comprehensive planning eﬀort, resulting in several dozen regional bird conservation plans covering all states or physiographic areas in the U.S. (Pashley et al. 2000,
www.partnersinﬂight.org). Similar regional eﬀorts areunderway in Canada and Mexico. These regional andstate PIF plans (see www.partnersinﬂight.org) identify
priority species and habitats, set goals and objectives, discuss local issues and opportunities, and outline strategies

SCOPE
Geographic
For the purposes of this document, “North America”
includes Canada, the continental U.S., and Mexico.
However, this version of the Plan is limited to landbirds
that regularly breed in the continental U.S. and Canada.
Nonetheless, Mexican scientists provided important ideas
and strategies for this plan as well as considerable data on
the status in Mexico of many species included here.

BOX 2
The PIF Continental Plan considers 448 landbird species native to the United States
and Canada from 45 families, listed below. Colored bold text shows 13 additional families
with landbirds native to Mexico that will be treated in future versions of the Plan.
FamilyTinamidae
CracidaePhasianidae
Odontophoridae
Cathartidae
Accipitridae
Falconidae
Columbidae
Psittacidae
Cuculidae
Tytonidae
Strigidae
Caprimulgidae
Nyctibiidae
Apodidae
Trochilidae
Trogonidae
Momotidae
Alcedinidae
Bucconidae
Galbulidae
Ramphastidae
Picidae
Furnariidae
Dendrocolaptidae
Thamnophilidae
Formicariidae
Tyrannidae
Cotingidae

Taxa
Tinamous
Chachalacas & allies
Pheasants, Grouse, Turkeys
Quail & allies
Vultures
Hawks, Eagles & allies
Falcons & Caracaras
Doves & PigeonsParrots & Parakeets
Cuckoos & Anis
Barn Owls
True Owls
Nightjars
PotoosSwiftsHummingbirds
Trogons & Quetzals
Motmots
Kingfishers
Puffbirds
Jacamars
Barbets & Toucans
Woodpeckers & allies
Spinetails, Leaftossers & allies
Woodcreepers
Antshrikes, Antwrens, Antbirds & allies
Antthrushes & Antpittas
Flycatchers, Becards, & Tityras
Cotingas

FamilyPipridae
Laniidae
Vireonidae
Corvidae
Alaudidae
Hirundinidae
Paridae
Remizidae
Aegithalidae
Sittidae
Certhiidae
Troglodytidae
Cinclidae
Regulidae
Sylviidae
Turdidae
Timaliidae
Mimidae
Motacillidae
Bombycillidae
Ptilogonatidae
Peucedramidae
Parulidae
Coerebidae
Thraupidae
Emberizidae
Cardinalidae
Icteridae
Fringillidae

Taxa
Manakins
Shrikes
Vireos & Greenlets
Jays, Crows & allies
Horned Lark
Swallows
Chickadees & Titmice
VerdinBushtit
Nuthatches
Brown Creeper
Wrens
American Dipper
Kinglets
Arctic Warbler, Gnatcatchers & allies
Thrushes
Wrentit
Mockingbirds, Thrashers & Catbirds
Wagtails & Pipits
Waxwings
Silky Flycatchers
Olive Warbler
Wood Warblers
Bananaquit
Tanagers, Euphonias & allies
Towhees, Sparrows, Seedeaters & allies
Saltators, Grosbeaks, Buntings & allies
Blackbirds, Orioles & allies
FinchesPartners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
6© Ken Rosenberg

The introduced European Starling, which now numbers at least 120
million in North America, outnumbers native Northern Flickers bymore than 10-to-1 in most regions. Starlings compete with ﬂickers
for nest cavities.

Landbird Species—
Breeding
2–31
32–61
62–91
92–120
121–150
151–180
Figure 1a. Number of landbird species during the breeding season ineach lat-long block of the U.S. and Canada, from an overlay of range
maps of all 448 species.

Under the guidance of the Mexican Committee of theNorth American Bird Conservation Initiative (ICAANNABCI), a working group was established in 2002 to develop the species assessment process for all bird species
present in that country (approximately 1,100 species).
Mexico is following the PIF methodology for their continental species status assessment, which includes all bird
species occurring in the country and is expected to becomplete by the end of 2004. Thus, we are preparing forintegration of about 450 Mexican landbird species in thenext version of this Plan. Species assessment also has taken place for portions of the Caribbean, and partners arecoordinating bird conservation across that region as well.
Considering for now only Canada and the U.S., the highest diversity of breeding landbirds occurs in the western
U.S., especially near the Mexican border, and in the transition between eastern deciduous and northern boreal
forest types in eastern Canada (Fig. 1a). Arctic regions
support the fewest breeding landbird species. In the nonbreeding season, these same species are most concentrated from the southwestern U.S. through Mexico and into
Central America (Fig. 1b).
Taxonomic
This document provides status information for the 448
native landbird species with manageable populations
that breed in Canada and the U.S., including Neotropicalmigrant, short-distance migrant, and largely resident species. Landbirds are deﬁned here as those species having
principally terrestrial life cycles (see Box 2). Scientiﬁcnames for bird species are given in Appendix A.
Although this Plan deals only with native species, werecognize that the important negative eﬀects of intro-

Landbird Species—Winter
1–40
41–80
81–121
122–161
162–201
202–241
Figure 1b. Number of landbird species during winter for the 448 species that breed in the U.S. and Canada.

duced species should be considered during conservation
planning for native birds (Dunn et al. 2001). There are
relatively few introduced landbird species of consequencein North America, but their inﬂuence can be disproportionately large. For example, three introduced species—
European Starling (120 million birds), House Sparrow(82 million) and Rock Pigeon (26 million)—comprise an
estimated 5 percent of all landbirds breeding in Canada

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
7

BOX 3

Boreal Warblersaand the U.S. and are among the most widespread birds onthe continent.
In this Plan we only address full species (American
Ornithologists’ Union 1998 and supplements). We recognize the importance of conserving subspecies and populations, but there is not yet a consistent way to identify thosethat truly are in need of conservation attention. Thus, it isimportant to emphasize that subspecies and populations
treated in many regional PIF plans can have continental
signiﬁcance that is not reﬂected in this document.

Breeding
few

many

b

Seasonal
In this assessment, we considered information from boththe breeding and nonbreeding seasons. We provide information on geographic links between seasons highlighting
areas, for example, where most breeding species of a particular region spend the winter. For species that winterin tropical areas, these geographic links reveal the needfor better information and greatly increased developmentof partnerships for conservation action. The Plan also
discusses conservation issues that apply to the migrationseasons, such as loss of stopover habitats and mortality
from collisions with buildings and towers. These issues
remain a critical priority for PIF to address.

The Partners in Flight Planning Approach
Migration
few

many

c

Throughout the development of regional bird conservation plans, PIF has followed a stepwise planning approachthat ensures a sound scientiﬁc basis for decision-making and a logical process for setting, implementing, andevaluating conservation objectives. Originally describedas the PIF “Flight Plan” (Pashley et al. 2000), we have adopted this approach for use at the continental scale here.
These steps include:• assessing conservation vulnerability among all native
landbird species,• identifying species most in need of conservation
attention at a continental level, including consideration of their geographic and habitat aﬃnities,

Winterfew

many

Species of boreal-breeding warblers occurring in each lat-longblock (a) during the breeding season, (b) during migration, and(c) during winter, illustrating important linkages among boreal
forest, habitats in eastern U.S., and tropical habitats in Central
America, northern South America, and the Greater Antilles.

• setting quantitative population objectives for Speciesof Continental Importance,• identifying conservation needs and recommended
actions for priority species and their habitats,• outlining an implementation strategy for meeting
species and habitat objectives at a continental
scale, and• evaluating success, making revisions, and setting updated objectives for the future.
Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan

8

© Gary Rosenberg

Uncertainty, Assumptions and Rule Sets
Numerous experts and many rounds of review havehelped bring this plan to life, and we hope that it will become a valuable tool in landbird conservation. But realizethat the authors intend for this Plan to be a starting point,
not a ﬁnal answer. Many new discussions have alreadybegun as a result of the Plan’s content, and we look forward to substantial improvements with every Plan update
as data, analysis and concepts improve.
Therefore, it is important for readers of this version tounderstand the following:• All species assessment scores have a degree of uncertainty in the underlying information and professional judgments were made in setting each score. See
Carter et al. 2000 and Panjabi et al. 2001 for details.
• The global population size estimates rely on several
assumptions and have a level of error that can only beapproximated. Estimates will be revised as data improve and as the estimation process is reﬁned. Revised
estimates will be posted regularly on the PIF web site(www.partnersinﬂight.org). See Appendix B for details.
• Rule sets were used to select Species of Continental
Importance and to assign those species to categories for Conservation Action and Monitoring Need.
Diﬀerent rule sets would produce diﬀerent lists, but
the ones used here are the result of exhaustive discussion and analysis by landbird experts.
• Population objectives are based on past population
trend and are independent of population size estimates. Changes in population size estimates will haveno eﬀect on objectives, but improved trend information could have large eﬀects. Objectives will be revised as appropriate.
• The rule set used for setting population objectives does
not incorporate priority-setting. Much work remains
on reﬁning objectives and priorities where species are
sympatric and have diﬀerent habitat requirements.

ASSESSING CONSERVATIONVULNERABILITY
The ﬁrst step in PIF’s planning process is a conservation
status assessment of each species throughout its range
and annual cycle. PIF has developed a process that evaluates several components of species vulnerability and provides an overall conservation assessment of the species

The Elegant Trogon, ranging from southern Arizona to Costa Rica,
is among the 192 Species of Continental Importance identiﬁed inthis plan.

(Hunter et al. 1993, Carter et al. 2000, Panjabi et al. 2001).
This process has been tested, reviewed, and updated, andits scientiﬁc credibility acknowledged by the American
Ornithologists’ Union (Beissinger et al. 2000). During thedevelopment of this Plan, the process was further improved to address issues raised by Beissinger et al. (2000)
and by other reviewers.
Notably, this assessment process is based entirely on
biological criteria. While political, economic, and social
considerations frequently must be factored into decisions
on setting priorities, we believe those decisions should bemade after a biologically based assessment has identiﬁed
species and issues truly in need of attention. This will increase the probability of making good conservation decisions and eﬃciently using limited resources.

Species Assessment Factors
Species assessment was based on the PIF North
American Species Assessment Database, which contains standardized data on the status of North American
landbirds at the continental scale (www.rmbo.org/pif/
pifdb.html). The PIF Science Committee reviewed thePartners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
9

BOX 4The Six PIF Species Assessment Factors:
Population Size (PS) indicates vulnerability due to thetotal number of adult individuals in the global population.
Evaluation of PS is based on the assumption that species
with small populations are more vulnerable to extirpation or
extinction than species with large populations. Scores wereassigned using population estimates derived from Breeding
Bird Survey abundance data (Rosenberg and Blancher inpress) or from other sources (see Appendix B).
Breeding Distribution (BD) indicates vulnerability due
to the geographic extent of a species’ breeding range. The
underlying assumption of BD is that species with narrowly
distributed breeding populations are more vulnerable thanthose with widely distributed populations. BD was assessed
at a truly global scale, whereby the entire range of the species
was considered in the evaluation.

Each species was given scores for six factors that assess
distinct aspects of vulnerability: Population Size (PS),
Breeding Distribution (BD), Nonbreeding Distribution(ND), Threats to Breeding (TB), Threats to Nonbreeding(TN), and Population Trend (PT) (see Box 4). Scores foreach factor reﬂect the degree of each species’ vulnerability (i.e., risk of signiﬁcant population decline or rangewide extinction) as a result of that factor. Scores ranged
from “1” for low vulnerability to “5” for high vulnerability.
Complete descriptions, justiﬁcations, scoring criteria,
and deﬁnitions for each factor can be found in Panjabi
et al. (2001), available at the Rocky Mountain Bird
Observatory web site (www.rmbo.org/pif/pifdb.html).
Scores and selected other data for all 448 native landbird
species regularly breeding in the continental U.S. andCanada are provided in Appendix A.
© Christopher Tessaglia-Hymes

Non-breeding Distribution (ND) indicates vulnerability
due to the geographic extent of a species’ non-breeding
range, with the assumption that species narrowly distributedin the non-breeding season are more vulnerable than thosethat are widely distributed. In practice, we did not consider
range size during migratory periods, or phenomena such as
migratory bottlenecks. Instead, evaluation of ND was basedon the range of a species when populations are relatively sedentary (i.e., “winter”). As with BD, ND was assessed at a truly
global scale.

data and consulted other appropriate experts for all factors in the database to ensure that our assessment reﬂects the current state of knowledge. Close coordination
among Canada, the U.S., and Mexico made it possible forthe update to consider the entire North American continent as deﬁned herein.

Threats to Breeding (TB) indicates vulnerability due to theeﬀects of current and probable future extrinsic conditions
that threaten the ability of populations to survive and successfully reproduce in breeding areas within North America.
Evaluation of TB included anthropogenic threats to breeding
habitats, as well as other factors (e.g., competition with exotic
species) that interfere with reproduction.
Threats to Non-breeding (TN) indicates vulnerability due
to the eﬀects of current and probable future extrinsic conditions that threaten the ability of North American breeding populations to survive over the non-breeding season.
Evaluation of TN included anthropogenic threats to habitat,
as well as other factors aﬀecting survival during winter andmigration periods.
Population Trend (PT) indicates vulnerability due to thedirection and magnitude of changes in population size overthe past 30 years. Species declining by 50% or more over thisperiod are considered most vulnerable, whereas species withincreasing trends are least vulnerable. The Breeding Bird
Survey was the primary source of data, but Christmas Bird
Count or specialized data sources were used where available
and appropriate. Thus, PT was based on the best available
breeding or non-breeding data indicating overall trend in
those populations that breed in North America.

The Black-capped Vireo, already recognized as federally
Endangered, exhibits a combination of high vulnerability scores.

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
10© Brandt Ryder

Right: © Mike Danzenbaker;
Center: Roger Eriksson © Cornell Lab of Ornithology;

Three similar thrushes illustrate how species assessment works: The Bicknell’s Thrush (a), with its tiny world distribution (BD,ND=5) andpopulation (PS=5), as well as severely threatened winter habitat (TN=5), is among the highest scoring North American landbirds (Combined
Score=18). The Wood Thrush (b) has a much larger breeding distribution (BD=2) and population (PS=2), but a small and threatened winterrange (ND,TN=4) and declining trend (PT=4) warrant its inclusion on the PIF Watch List (Combined Score=14). In contrast, the very large
population (PS=1) and range size (BD=1) of the Hermit Thrush (c), combined with low threats (TB,TN=2) and increasing population (PT=1),
make this one of the least vulnerable of North American landbirds (Combined Score=6).

An important departure from Panjabi et al. (2001) andpast PIF assessments of landbirds is the use of estimatedPopulation Size to replace Relative Abundance. Use of
Population Size is now possible because of recently developed methodology to estimate population sizes fromsurvey data (Appendix B; Rosenberg and Blancher inpress). In addition to providing perspective on an important component of vulnerability, population estimatesserve as the critical foundation for setting measurable
population objectives at the continental level. Note that
our estimates of population size rely on many assumptions and that error is associated with each part of theprocess (Appendix B). We provide accuracy ratings and ameasure of repeatability for the population estimates togive a sense of the possible error involved. We oﬀer these
population estimates and accuracy ratings as starting
points and look forward to steadily reﬁning these estimates as they are cross-checked with both regional dataand continental estimates from other sources. Regular
updates of population estimates, with information documenting changes made, will be posted on the PIF web site(www.partnersinﬂight.org).
For each species we calculated the Combined Score,
which is a single metric of a species’ relative conservation
importance. The Combined Score is calculated as (highest of TB or TN scores) + (highest of BD or ND scores)+ PT + PS. This score can range from 4 for a widespread,
relatively secure species for which we have few concerns,
to 20 for a species of the very highest concern. The mostvulnerable species are those with a combination of small

and declining populations, limited distributions, anddeteriorating habitats. The latter often are already recognized as Threatened or Endangered at federal levels. We
group species with high Combined Scores into categories
corresponding to the reasons for those scores.
Note that our method of calculating the Combined Score
represents a departure from our previous method of
simply totaling all six factor scores (Carter et al. 2000,
Pashley et al. 2000). This reﬁned approach addresses
some theoretical concerns raised by Beissinger et al.
(2000). Speciﬁcally, by reducing redundancy among
breeding and nonbreeding factors, we elevate the importance of some widespread but declining species. Further
work is required to determine whether or not this new
approach should be incorporated into assessment at subcontinental scales, for example, in regional PIF plans.

Geographic Patterns in Assessment Scores
An overview of assessment scores shows regional differences in the average vulnerability of species. The
following maps were created by combining PIF assessment data with digital range maps from NatureServeand partners (Ridgely et al. 2003). Maps variously depict
average scores, number of species, or number of species
weighted by population size in a particular area. In eachcase, values were calculated based on all landbird species
present in each degree block of latitude and longitude(lat-long block). Maps of average threats and trends (Fig.
5–7) used range-wide scores for each species, not scores

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
11

speciﬁc to each degree block. These maps are intended
to show broad geographic patterns and are not meant
to be interpreted at small scales, such as degree blocks.
Where maps show values south of the U.S., they include
only the 448 landbirds breeding in Canada and the U.S.
Future Plan versions will have maps revised to include all
Mexican landbirds.
Population Size: Mean PS scores in the breeding season(Fig. 2) show that there are numerous species with small
populations breeding in the desert southwest, althoughmuch of the western U.S., Florida, and parts of northern
Canada and Alaska also have concentrations of species
with relatively small population sizes. In contrast, most
species breeding across the eastern two-thirds of the continent have relatively large global populations.
Breeding Distribution: Mean BD scores (Fig. 3) exhibita very clear NE-SW gradient, with species in northern
regions on average having larger breeding ranges (lower
BD scores) and species in the southwestern U.S. having
smaller ranges (higher BD scores). Note that BD scoresfor southwestern species are calculated on the basis of
their global ranges, including the Mexican portions ofrange, though the score is only mapped onto the U.S. portion of the range. Landbirds in the Arctic not only tend
to have large breeding distributions in North America,
but also generally have breeding ranges in the Eurasian
Arctic. This also is true for some circumboreal species
found in northern forests.

centrate in a smaller land area than those wintering in the
U.S. or Canada. This pattern also illustrates why many
Neotropical migrant species are thought to be more vulnerable on their wintering grounds.
Threats to Breeding: Mean TB scores (Fig. 5) also show
a NE-SW gradient, with species concentrated in theSouthwest and Paciﬁc regions facing higher threats,and species in the Arctic, on average, facing lower

BD Score—Breeding
low

high
Figure 3. Average vulnerability among species occurring in each
lat-long block during the breeding season, based on Breeding
Distribution (BD) scores for 448 landbird species. Smallest range
size = highest vulnerability (high BD score); largest range size = lowest vulnerability (low BD score).

Nonbreeding Distribution: Mean ND scores show small
distributions for landbird species wintering throughout
Mexico, Central America, and the West Indies (Fig. 4),
indicating that species migrating south of the U.S. con-

PS Score—Breeding
low

ND Score—Winter
low

high
high
Figure 2. Average vulnerability among species occurring in each latlong block during the breeding season, based on Population Size (PS)scores for 448 landbird species. Smallest population size = highest
vulnerability (high PS score); largest population size = lowest vulnerability (low PS score).

Figure 4. Average vulnerability among species occurring in each latlong block during winter, based on Nonbreeding Distribution (ND)
scores for 448 landbird species. Smallest range size = highest vulnerability (high ND score); largest range size = lowest vulnerability (lowND score).

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
12

Roger Eriksson © Cornell Lab of Ornithology

threats. Given the larger number of species breeding in
the Southwest (Fig. 1a), this pattern of elevated overall
threats is even more striking.
Threats to Nonbreeding: Mean TN scores are highest
for Canadian and U.S. breeding species that winter innorthern South America, the West Indies, and Central
America (Fig. 6). Average nonbreeding threats also areelevated in wintering areas in the southwestern U.S.

TB Score—Breedinglow

While the Cerulean Warbler is among the most vulnerable breeding
species in Eastern forests, it may be even more highly threatened within its narrow cloud-forest winter range in northern South America.

through Mexico, but are quite low for species wintering
throughout most of the U.S. and Canada.
highFigure 5. Average vulnerability among species occurring in each latlong block during the breeding season, based on Threats to Breeding(TB) scores for 448 landbird species. Severe threats = highest vulnerability (high TB score); no threats = lowest vulnerability (low TB
score).

TN Score—Winter
low

high
Figure 6. Average vulnerability among species occurring in each
lat-long block during winter, based on Threats to Nonbreeding (TN)scores for 448 landbird species. Severe threats = highest vulnerability (high TN score); no threats = lowest vulnerability (low TN score).

Population Trend: The pattern of mean PT scores on thebreeding grounds (Fig. 7a) is notably unlike patterns of
the other vulnerability factors. A higher proportion of
species in the prairie regions have undergone signiﬁcant
population declines (higher average PT scores) than inmost other regions. Other areas with concentrations of
declining species include the southwestern U.S. and someareas around Hudson Bay. Note, however, that trend data
for large areas of Canada and Alaska are not adequate(see Monitoring Needs, p. 27). The general lack of correspondence in geographic patterns between PT andother factors suggests that whether or not a species has
declined signiﬁcantly over the past 30 years is largely independent of its range or population size. Further, trend
is mostly independent of whether future threats are perceived to be high.
The pattern of mean PT scores on the wintering grounds(Fig. 7b) indicates that a higher proportion of short-distance migrants wintering in the central and southern U.S,
northern Mexico, and the Greater Antilles are exhibiting
signiﬁcant declines, compared with species migrating
to Central America or resident in Canada and Alaska.
Declining species also are concentrated in northwesternSouth America.
Combined Score: The mean Combined Score across all assessment factors, reﬂective of overall vulnerability to serious decline or extinction (Fig. 8a), mirrors the NE-SW
pattern seen in many of the individual factors. In general,levels of risk are highest for landbird species breeding inPartners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
13

a

a

PT Score—Breedinglow

Combined Score—
Breeding
low

high

high

b

b

PT Score—Winter
low

high

Combined Score—Winter
low

high

Figure 7. Average vulnerability among species occurring in each latlong block during the breeding season (a) and in winter (b), based on
Population Trend (PT) scores for 448 landbird species. Declines ≥50% over 30 years = highest vulnerability (high PT score); increasing
populations = lowest vulnerability (low PT score).

Figure 8. Average overall vulnerability among species occurring ineach lat-long block during the breeding season (a) and in winter (b),based on Combined Scores for 448 landbird species. High Combined
Score = highest vulnerability; low Combined Score = lowest vulnerability.

the southwestern U.S., California, the Colorado Plateau,and southern Great Plains, whereas vulnerability is lowest for landbirds in the Arctic region.

SPECIES OF CONTINENTAL IMPORTANCE

In winter, species with higher Combined Scores are clearly
concentrated in the Greater Antilles and Mexico, particularly western Mexico, illustrating the tremendous conservation importance of these areas (Fig. 8b). Overall risk isrelatively high for residents and migrants wintering in thesouthwestern U.S and California through Central America
into northern South America, but is relatively low (on average) for species wintering farther north or east.

PIF goals include protection and restoration of species
that are at risk of extinction or serious decline, as well as
stewardship of native species that are characteristic ofNorth America’s varied and unique ecosystems. These
represent two rather diﬀerent yet interrelated goals,
and we address them both in identifying Species ofContinental Importance.

Selection Criteria

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
14

Species were selected for the Watch List according to
the Combined Score, which reﬂects the level of concern
across multiple vulnerability factors. Species were placedon the Watch List if they had a Combined Score ≥ 14, ora Combined Score = 13 with Population Trend score = 5(the latter representing a 50% decline over 30 years).
Stewardship Species and Avifaunal Biomes: Conservationof Watch List Species alone will not address the PIF vision of maintaining healthy populations of all native birds
across their ranges. In order to plan appropriately for theconservation of all species, PIF traditionally has stressed
the importance of responsibility or “stewardship,” where-© Brian Small

Watch List Species: Conservation of species that are introuble will allow us to safeguard our historic biodiversity, and attention paid to those species will beneﬁt otherless vulnerable species that use the same habitats. In
many cases, statutory requirements to address the conservation needs of endangered and threatened species doexist, because these species often rank high on public andpolitical agendas. Here we present the PIF Watch List,
comprised of species that have multiple reasons for conservation concern across their entire ranges. Our intent isthat Watch List designation will improve the chances thatspecies at risk are given appropriate attention, whether
that is immediate intervention, long-term planning andmanagement to maintain populations, or only a close
watch for change in existing conditions.
The Blackburnian Warbler is one of many “spruce-woods warblers”
largely restricted to the Northern Forest Avifaunal Biome. Althoughmost are not highly threatened at present, this plan recognizes theimportant stewardship responsibility for maintaining the characteristic avifauna of this vast region.

by conservation responsibilities are highlighted for species that have a high proportion of their global population or range within a particular regional planning area
(Dunn et al. 1999, Rosenberg and Wells 1999). Here we
address this concept at the continental scale by identifying Stewardship Species.

To identify Stewardship Species that represent all major
biogeographic regions inNorth America, we ﬁrst
used cluster analyses to
identify groups of Bird
Conservation Regions(BCRs, NABCI 2000) thatshare similar avifaunas.
We based this analysis on
the percentage of the total
global breeding population of each species that
Avifaunal Biomes
occurs in each BCR.
ArcticWe refer to the resultNorthern Forest
ing clusters as “Avifaunal
PaciﬁcBiomes” (Fig. 9). Next,
Intermountain West
we deﬁned StewardshipSouthwest
Species as species that
Prairiehave a proportionately
Easternhigh percentage of theirworld population within
a single Avifaunal Biome
during either the breeding or wintering season.
Figure 9. Avifaunal Biomes in North America, based on degree of shared landbird avifauna among Bird
The cutoﬀ for “high perConservation Regions (BCRs; outlined in black). See inside back cover for names and numbers of BCRs.

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
15

centage” varied among the biomes according to theirsize: 90% for large biomes, 75% for medium biomes, and
50% for small biomes. It is important to note that theseAvifaunal Biomes do not represent new geographic regions for conservation implementation purposes. Rather,
they constitute a tool for identifying species characteristic of diﬀerent areas of the continent. We use them also
in Part 2 of this Plan to summarize conservation issues
and objectives that are particular to major regions ofNorth America. We eliminated from the ﬁnal Stewarship
Species list those species for which threats are consideredvery low (i.e. TB=1).
Although the analysis identiﬁed Stewardship Species by
biome, the combined list of Stewardship Species across allbiomes represents a continental picture of responsibility.
Note that Watch List Species can also have a high proportion of their global population within a given Avifaunal
Biome and therefore can also be identiﬁed as StewardshipSpecies. In this document the phrase “additional
Stewardship Species” refers to those Stewardship Species
not also identiﬁed on the Watch List.

Species of Continental ImportanceCollectively, we refer to the 192 Watch List and
Stewardship Species as Species of Continental
Importance (Table 1). These species deserve special consideration in conservation planning and implementation
at the continental scale. However, this does not imply thatevery Species of Continental Importance has an equallyhigh level of concern or equal priority for conservation
action in any given area. We generally suggest that Watch
List Species be aﬀorded attention wherever they occur.
We suggest that action for Stewardship Species be carefully considered in areas where these species are mostcommon, particularly where actions taken on behalf ofWatch List Species are likely to leave Stewardship Species
and their habitats lacking in attention.
WATCH LIST SPECIESThe PIF Watch List for Landbirds (Table 1) includes 100
species (22% of the 448 species assessed), for which wehave the greatest range-wide concerns, and which aremost in need of conservation attention. The geographic
distribution of Watch List Species during the breeding
season (Fig. 10a) shows a concentration of these species in California and the arid southwest, with a moderate number distributed across the eastern and western
U.S. The fewest species breed across northern Canada
and Alaska, with none in the High Arctic islands. In
winter, the highest concentration of Watch List Species
occurs in western Mexico, with high numbers of species from the southwestern U.S. and Caribbean throughCentral America (Fig. 10b). When the approximately
450 Mexican species are brought into this plan, the importance of Mexico for conservation of North American
landbirds will become even more evident.
Although the Watch List represents species of greatest
concern at the continental level, not every species forwhich we have legitimate concerns appears on this list.
For example, there are several species that have declinedby more than half over the past 30 years, but which do
not qualify for the Watch List because they are still relatively abundant and widespread, and do not face highthreats across their entire range (e.g., Loggerhead Shrike,Northern Bobwhite). Other species that have undergone
severe declines have done so only in a portion of their

Watch List Species—
Breeding
1–5
6–9
10–14
15–18
19–23
24–27
Figure 10a. Number of PIF Watch List species occurring in each latlong block during the breeding season.

Watch List Species—Winter
1–5
6–10
11–16
17–21
22–26
27–31
Figure 10b. Number of PIF Watch List species occurring in each latlong block during winter.

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
16© Marc Dantzker

ranges (e.g., Burrowing Owl, Bewick’s Wren). Such species often are included on lists of regionally important
species and may have incipient problems at broader
scales. Further discussion is needed on how future versions of this Plan might address conservation concerns ofsubspecies and populations.
We place Watch List Species into three groups (Table 1)that are distinguished by the reasons they are considered
to be continentally important:Species with multiple causes for concern across their entire
range: Twenty-one species are on the Watch List because
they have a combination of small population, narrow distribution, high threats, and declining population trends.
These species are of highest continental concern andpriority for conservation action at national and international scales. A majority of these are legally listed as
Endangered or Threatened in either the U.S. or Canada,
and as such have recovery plans in place. Notable in thisgroup, however, are several species without legal status,
including Bicknell’s Thrush and Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed

With an extremely small and shrinking global range and population,
the recently recognized Gunnison Sage-Grouse is among the mostvulnerable of North American landbirds.

Sparrow. Henslow’s Sparrow has status in Canada, but
not in the U.S. Ivory-billed Woodpecker and Bachman’s
Warbler already may be extinct, and California Condor
exists in the wild only as a reintroduced population.
Note that Red-crowned and Thick-billed parrots andGreen Parakeet are included here on the basis of small
present-day or historic breeding populations within the
U.S. Both are highly threatened within their Mexican
breeding range and require collaborative conservation
measures between the U.S. and Mexico. Both Gunnison
Sage-Grouse and Lesser Prairie-Chicken are resident
game birds with notably low populations.

© Tom Vezo

Ten of the Watch List Species in this group are essentiallyresident year-round within their range, whereas eightare classiﬁed as Neotropical migrants (species breeding
north of Mexico and for the most part migrating southof the U.S. for the winter). Three are temperate migrants(wintering primarily in the U.S.). As a group, these species are found primarily across the U.S. Further, 86% also
are Stewardship Species, which means they are relatively
concentrated within a single Avifaunal Biome. It is, therefore, the responsibility of regional groups to meet the
global conservation needs of those species.

The Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow exhibits multiple causes forconcern across its narrow range; its coastal marsh habitat is sharedwith numerous waterbird and waterfowl species.

Moderately abundant or widespread species with declines
or high threats: Thirty-seven species are on the Watch
List primarily because they are declining and/or threatened throughout their ranges, although they remain
fairly widespread or have moderately large populations.
Many of these species still number in the millions (e.g.,
Dickcissel, Wood Thrush), but their futures are threatened by serious reductions in population or geographic

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
17

Table 1. PIF Species of Continental Importance for the U.S. & CanadaSpecies1

Conservation
Action2

Continental
Population
Objective

Monitoring
Need3

US & Canada Accuracy Avifaunal Biome with
Population
Rating & Global Stewardship
Estimate4
Precision5
Responsibility6

Watch List Species—Multiple causes for concern across entire range
Gunnison Sage-Grouse
Lesser Prairie-Chicken
California Condor

IM
IM
IM

Increase 100%
Increase 100%
Recovery Plan

**
**
**

2,000
32,000
< 100

5
5
6

Intermountain West
Prairie
Pacific

Green Parakeet
Thick-billed Parrot
Red-crowned Parrot
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Ivory-billed Woodpecker
Black-capped Vireo
Florida Scrub-Jay
Island Scrub-Jay
Bicknell’s Thrush
Bachman’s Warbler
Golden-winged Warbler
Colima Warbler
Golden-cheeked Warbler
Kirtland’s Warbler
Bachman’s Sparrow
Henslow’s Sparrow
Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow
Tricolored Blackbird

IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM
IM

Increase 50%
Poss. Reintroduction
Increase 100%
Recovery Plan
LocateRecovery Plan
Recovery Plan
Maintain/Increase
Maintain/Increase
LocateIncrease 100%
Maintain/Increase
Recovery Plan
Recovery Plans
Increase 100%
Increase 100%
Increase 100%
Increase 100%

Mo1
Mo1
Mo1
Mo2
**
Mo1
**
Mo1
**
**
**
Mo1
Mo1
**
Mo2
Mo2
Mo2
Mo2

< 5,0000?
< 2,500
20,0000?
4,800
10,0009,000
40,0000?
210,000< 250
21,0002,100
250,000
79,000250,000
250,000

1
6
2
2D
6
4
5
5
4
6
4B
3
4
6
3C
3B
3
5

*
Southwest*
Eastern
Eastern
Southwest
Eastern
Pacific
Northern Forest
Eastern*
Southwest
Southwest
Northern Forest
Eastern
Eastern
Eastern
Pacific

Watch List Species—Moderately abundant or widespread with declines or high threats
Greater Sage-Grouse
Blue Grouse
Greater Prairie-Chicken
Scaled Quail
Swallow-tailed Kite
Swainson’s Hawk
White-crowned Pigeon

IM
MA
IM
MA
IM
MA
MA

Increase 100%
Increase 100%
Increase 100%
Increase 50%
Increase 100%
Maintain/Increase
Increase 100%

Mo2
Mo2
Mo2
**
Mo2
**
Mo1

150,000
2,600,000
690,000
610,000
3,700
460,000
15,000

4
3B
2C
3B
5
4A
4

Intermountain West
Pacific
Prairie
Southwest***

Band-tailed Pigeon
Mangrove Cuckoo
Short-eared Owl
White-throated Swift
Rufous Hummingbird
Elegant Trogon
Red-headed Woodpecker
Olive-sided Flycatcher
Willow Flycatcher
Bell’s Vireo
Pinyon Jay
Oak Titmouse
Brown-headed Nuthatch
Wood Thrush

MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
IM
MA
MA
MA
MA

Increase 100%
Increase 50%
Increase 100%
Increase 100%
Increase 100%
Increase 50%
Increase 100%
Increase 100%
Increase 50%
Increase 100%
Increase 100%
Increase 50%
Increase 50%
Increase 50%

Mo2
Mo1
Mo3
Mo2
**
Mo1
**
Mo3
**
**
**
**
**
**

970,000
6,100
710,000
280,000
6,500,000
340
2,500,000
1,200,000
3,300,000
1,100,000
4,100,000
900,000
1,500,000
14,000,000

3B
1F
3A
3B
3B
1F
4A
3A
4A
4B
4B
4C
4B
4A

*
*
*
*
Pacific*****
Intermountain West
Pacific
Eastern
Eastern

Sprague’s Pipit
Grace’s Warbler
Prairie Warbler
Bay-breasted Warbler
Cerulean Warbler
Prothonotary Warbler

MA
MA
MA
MA
MA
MA

Increase 100%
Increase 50%
Increase 50%
Increase 50%
Increase 100%
Increase 50%

**
**
**
Mo2,3
**
**

870,000
1,000,000
1,400,000
3,100,000
560,000
1,800,000

4C
2C
4A
3B
4B
4A

Prairie*
Eastern
Northern Forest
Eastern
EasternWorm-eating Warbler
Kentucky Warbler

MA
MA

Maintain/Increase
Increase 50%

Mo2**

750,000
1,100,000

3A
4A

Eastern
Eastern(continued)

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
18

Table 1. PIF Species of Continental Importance for the U.S. & Canada (continued)
Conservation
Action2

Continental
Population
Objective

Monitoring
Need3

Canada Warbler
Brewer’s Sparrow
Baird’s Sparrow
Harris’s Sparrow
Varied Bunting

MA
MA
IM
MA
MA

Increase 50%
Increase 100%
Increase 100%
Increase 100%
Increase 50%

Mo3
**
**
Mo2,3
Mo1

1,400,000
16,000,000
1,200,000
3,700,000
31,000

3A
4A
4C
3
2D

Northern Forest
Int.West & Southwest
Prairie & Southwest
Arctic & Prairie*

Painted Bunting
Dickcissel
Rusty Blackbird

MA
MA
MA

Increase 100%
Increase 50%
Increase 100%

**
**
Mo2,3

3,600,000
22,000,000
2,000,000

4A
4A
3B

*
Prairie*

Species1

US & Canada Accuracy Avifaunal Biome with
Population
Rating & Global Stewardship
Estimate4
Precision5
Responsibility6

Watch List Species—Restricted distribution or low population size
Mountain Quail
Montezuma Quail
Flammulated Owl
Elf Owl
Spotted Owl
Antillean Nighthawk
Black Swift
Costa’s Hummingbird
Calliope Hummingbird
Allen’s Hummingbird
Lewis’s Woodpecker
Nuttall’s Woodpecker
Arizona Woodpecker
White-headed Woodpecker
Thick-billed Kingbird
Gray Vireo
Yellow-billed Magpie
California Gnatcatcher
Black-capped Gnatcatcher
Wrentit
Bendire’s Thrasher
California Thrasher

PR
MA
PR
PR
IM
PR
MA
PR
PR
PR
MA
MA
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
MA
IM
MA

Maintain/Increase
Increase 50%
Maintain/Increase
Maintain/Increase
Recovery Plans
Maintain/Increase
Increase 50%
Maintain/Increase
Maintain/Increase
Maintain/Increase
Maintain/Increase
Maintain/Increase
Maintain/Increase
Maintain
Maintain/Increase
Maintain
Maintain/Increase
Recovery Plan
Maintain/Increase
Increase 50%
Increase 100%
Increase 50%

**
Mo1
Mo1
Mo1
**
Mo1
Mo2
Mo2
Mo2
Mo2
Mo2
**
Mo1
Mo2
Mo1
Mo2
**
Mo1
Mo1
**
Mo2
Mo2

160,000
150,000
29,00047,00011,000< 500
84,0001,800,000
1,000,000
530,000
130,000
290,000
4,300
72,0002,300
360,000
180,000
6,000< 100
1,300,000
130,000
190,000

3C
2
1F
1E
5
4
2C
2D
3B
2E
3B
4C
1F
2C
1F
2D
2D
4
1
4C
2C
3D

Pacific
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Intermountain West
Pacific
Intermountain West
Pacific*
Pacific**
Pacific**
Pacific
Southwest
Pacific

Le Conte’s Thrasher
Blue-winged Warbler
Virginia’s Warbler
Lucy’s Warbler
Hermit Warbler
Swainson’s Warbler
Red-faced Warbler
Abert’s Towhee
Rufous-winged Sparrow
Five-striped Sparrow
Black-chinned Sparrow
Nelson’s Sharp-tailed Sparrow
Seaside Sparrow

PR
MA
PR
MA
MA
PR
PR
PR
PR
MA
MA
PR
PR

Maintain/Increase
Increase 50%
Maintain/Increase
Maintain/Increase
Maintain/Increase
Maintain
Maintain/Increase
Maintain/Increase
Maintain/Increase
Increase 50%
Increase 50%
Maintain
Maintain/Increase

Mo2
**
Mo2
**
**
**
Mo1
Mo2
Mo1
Mo1
Mo2
Mo2
Mo2

150,000
390,000
410,000
920,000
2,400,000
84,000110,000
210,000
8,900< 100
310,000
510,000
110,000

2D
4A
3C
3C
4B
4B
1E
2E
1E
1
2D
3B
2D

Southwest
Eastern*
Southwest
Pacific
Eastern
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest*
Southwest
Eastern
Eastern

McCown’s Longspur
Smith’s Longspur
McKay’s Bunting
Audubon’s Oriole
Black Rosy-Finch
Brown-capped Rosy-Finch
Lawrence’s Goldfinch

PR
PR
PR
MA
PR
PR
PR

Maintain/Increase
Maintain/Increase
Maintain/Increase
Maintain/Increase
Maintain/Increase
Maintain/Increase
Maintain/Increase

**
Mo2,3
Mo1,3
Mo1
Mo2
Mo2
Mo2

1,100,000
75,0006,000
8,600
20,00045,000130,000

2C
3
3
1E
1
3
3D

Prairie
Prairie
Arctic*Intermountain WestIntermountain West
Pacific(continued)

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
19

Table 1. PIF Species of Continental Importance for the U.S. & Canada (continued)
Species1

Conservation
Action2

Continental
Population
Objective

Monitoring
Need3

US & Canada Accuracy Avifaunal Biome with
Population
Rating & Global Stewardship
Estimate4
Precision5
Responsibility6

Additional Stewardship Species—High percent of Global Population in single biome (breeding or winter)
Spruce Grouse
Sharp-tailed Grouse
Gambel’s Quail

PR
PR
PR

Maintain
Maintain
Maintain

Mo2,3
Mo2
**

1,200,000
1,200,000
1,100,000

2C
3B
3B

Northern Forest
Prairie
Southwest

Mississippi Kite
Bald Eagle
Red-shouldered Hawk
Chuck-will’s-widow
Lucifer Hummingbird
Red-bellied Woodpecker
Williamson’s Sapsucker
Yellow-bellied Sapsucker
Red-naped Sapsucker
Red-breasted Sapsucker
Black-backed Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Flycatcher
Acadian Flycatcher
Alder Flycatcher
Gray Flycatcher
Dusky Flycatcher
Pacific-slope Flycatcher
Northern Shrike
White-eyed Vireo
Yellow-throated Vireo
Blue-headed Vireo
Philadelphia Vireo
Gray Jay
Steller’s Jay
Western Scrub-Jay
Clark’s Nutcracker
Chestnut-backed Chickadee

PR
PR
PR
MA
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR

Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain

Mo2
Mo3
**
**
Mo1
**
Mo2
Mo2,3
**
Mo3
Mo2,3
Mo3
**
Mo3
Mo2
**
**
Mo2,3
**
**
Mo2,3
Mo2,3
Mo3
**
**
**
**

190,000
330,000
820,000
15,000,000< 150
10,000,000
310,000
9,200,000
2,200,000
2,500,000
1,300,000
6,200,000
4,700,000
49,000,000
1,200,000
3,500,000
7,900,000
210,000
16,000,000
1,400,000
6,900,000
4,300,000
16,000,000
3,700,000
2,700,000
1,000,000
6,900,000

3B
3A
3A
3A
1
4A
3B
3A
4B
3C
3A
3A
4A
3A
3B
4A
4B
2B
4A
4A
3A
3B
3A
4A
4A
4B
4B

Prairie
Pacific
Eastern
Eastern
Southwest
Eastern
Intermountain West
Northern Forest
Intermountain West
Pacific
Northern Forest
Northern Forest
Eastern
Northern Forest
Intermountain WestIntermountain West
Pacific
Northern Forest
Eastern
Eastern
Northern Forest
Northern Forest
Northern Forest
Pacific
Pacific
Intermountain West
Pacific

Boreal Chickadee
Black-crested Titmouse
VerdinCactus Wren
Carolina Wren
Black-tailed Gnatcatcher
Mountain Bluebird
Varied Thrush
Sage Thrasher
Brown Thrasher
Curve-billed Thrasher
Crissal Thrasher
Phainopepla

MA
PR
MA
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
MA
PR
PR
PR

Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain

Mo2,3
Mo1
**
**
**
Mo2
**
Mo3
**
**
Mo2
Mo2
Mo2

7,800,000
760,000
4,500,000
4,100,000
15,000,000
1,800,000
5,200,000
26,000,000
7,900,000
7,300,000
1,200,000
130,000
900,000

3A
3C
4B
4B
4A
2C
4A
3A
4B
4A
3C
2C
3B

Northern Forest
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest
Eastern
Southwest
Intermountain West
Pacific
Intermountain West
Eastern
Southwest
Southwest
Southwest

Tennessee Warbler
Nashville Warbler
Chestnut-sided Warbler
Magnolia Warbler
Cape May Warbler
Black-throated Gray Warbler
Black-throated Green Warbler

PR
PR
MA
PR
PR
PR
PR

Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain

Mo3
**
**
Mo3
Mo2,3
**
Mo2,3

62,000,000
34,000,000
9,400,000
32,000,000
3,200,000
2,900,000
9,600,000

3A
4A
4A
3A
3B
4B
3A

Northern Forest
Northern Forest
Northern Forest
Northern Forest
Northern Forest
Pacific
Northern Forest

Blackburnian Warbler

PR

Maintain**

5,900,000

4A

Northern Forest(continued)

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
20

Table 1. PIF Species of Continental Importance for the U.S. & Canada (continued)
Conservation
Action2

Continental
Population
Objective

Monitoring
Need3

Yellow-throated Warbler
Pine Warbler
Palm Warbler
Louisiana Waterthrush
Connecticut Warbler

PR
PR
PR
PR
MA

Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain

**
**
Mo2,3
**
Mo3

1,600,000
11,000,000
23,000,000
260,000
1,200,000

4A
4A
3B
4A
3B

Eastern
Eastern
Northern Forest
Eastern
Northern Forest

Mourning Warbler
Hooded Warbler
Green-tailed Towhee
Eastern Towhee
Canyon Towhee
California Towhee
Cassin’s Sparrow
American Tree Sparrow
Black-throated Sparrow
Sage Sparrow
Lark Bunting
Grasshopper Sparrow
Fox Sparrow
Lincoln’s Sparrow
Swamp Sparrow
White-throated Sparrow
Golden-crowned Sparrow
Chestnut-collared Longspur
Pyrrhuloxia
Indigo Bunting
Yellow-headed Blackbird
Scott’s Oriole
Cassin’s Finch

PR
PR
PR
MA
PR
PR
MA
PR
MA
PR
MA
MA
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
MA
MA
PR
PR
PR
MA

Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain

Mo3
**
**
**
**
**
**
Mo2,3
**
**
**
**
Mo3
Mo3
Mo3
Mo3
Mo3
**
**
**
Mo2
**
**

7,000,000
4,000,000
4,100,000
11,000,000
1,600,000
2,400,000
10,000,000
26,000,000
14,000,000
3,900,000
27,000,000
14,000,000
16,000,000
39,000,000
9,000,000
140,000,000
5,200,000
5,600,000
1,900,000
28,000,000
23,000,000
820,000
1,900,000

3A
4A
4B
4A
4B
4C
4B
3
4A
4B
4A
4A
3A
3A
3A
3A
2C
4B
3C
4A
3A
4B
4B

Northern Forest
Eastern
Int.West & Southwest
Eastern
Southwest
Pacific
Southwest
Prairie
Southwest
Intermountain West
Prairie
Prairie
Pacific
Northern Forest
Northern Forest
N.Forest & Eastern
Pacific
Prairie
Southwest
Eastern
Southwest
Southwest
Intermountain WestSpecies1

US & Canada Accuracy Avifaunal Biome with
Population
Rating & Global Stewardship
Estimate4
Precision5
Responsibility6

Additional Stewardship Species—High percent of Western Hemisphere Population in single biome (breeding or winter)
Willow PtarmiganRock Ptarmigan
Rough-legged Hawk
Gyrfalcon
Peregrine Falcon
Snowy Owl
Winter Wren
Bohemian Waxwing
Lapland Longspur
Snow Bunting

PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR
PR

Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain
Maintain

Mo1,3
Mo1,3
Mo2,3
Mo2,3
Mo2,3
Mo2,3
Mo3
Mo2,3
Mo2,3
Mo2,3

11,000,000
4,100,000
260,000
53,000340,000
140,000
18,000,000
1,400,000
74,000,000
19,000,000

2D
3
2
1
2
2
3A
2B
3
3

ArcticArcticArcticArcticArcticArcticPacific
Northern Forest
Arctic & Prairie
ArcticPine Grosbeak
White-winged Crossbill
Hoary Redpoll

PR
PR
PR

Maintain
Maintain
Maintain

Mo3
Mo2,3
Mo2,3

2,200,000
21,000,000
13,000,000

3B
3A
2

Northern Forest
Northern Forest
ArcticSpecies are sorted by reason for inclusion on the list of continental importance, then by taxonomy. Species shaded in yellow are Watch List Species; those ingreen (in species or biome columns) are Stewardship Species.
2
Recommended Conservation Action: IM=Immediate Action, MA=Management, PR=Long-term Planning & Responsibility.
3
Monitoring Need (this assessment addresses only the adequacy of long-term population trend monitoring at the continental scale): Mo1=no trend data,
Mo2=imprecise trends, Mo3=inadequate northern coverage.
4
United States & Canada Population: estimates are rounded to two greatest digits, not meant to imply accuracy or precision.
5
Accuracy Ratings for US & Canada Population estimates (see Appendix B for more information): 6=Accurate, 5=Good, 4=Moderate, 3=Fair, 2=Poor,
1=Guesstimate; Estimated Precision (Repeatability) of U.S. & Canada Population estimates, based on BBS count variance (see Appendix B for more
information): A=Very High, B=High, C=Good, D=Moderate, E=Low, F=Very Low, No letter=population estimate not based primarily on BBS.
6
Avifaunal Biome: indicates biome of high stewardship responsibility; Watch List species merit attention wherever they occur, while Stewardship Species require
attention in those biomes where they are most common; where more than one biome is listed, first is for breeding season, second is for winter.
*These Watch List species are not concentrated in any single biome.
**Long-term population trend monitoring is generally considered adequate but some issues, such as bias, may not have been accounted for.
1

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
21

Isidor Jeklin © Cornell Lab of Ornithology

range. Several other species (e.g., Swallow-tailed Kite,
Mangrove Cuckoo, Elegant Trogon) are fairly widespreadoutside the U.S. and Canada, but are threatened in the
U.S. portion of their range. Five species are aﬀorded U.S.
federal legal status in part of their range or for a particular recognized subspecies. This group also includes four
resident game bird species with seriously declining populations.
About half the species in this group are classiﬁed as
Neotropical migrants. Ten species are temperate migrants,
and nine are essentially resident. As a group, these species
breed in all parts of the U.S. and Canada. At the same time,
57% are concentrated enough within a single Avifaunal
Biome to be classiﬁed as Stewardship Species.
Species with restricted distributions or low population
size: Another 42 species are on the Watch List because
they are restricted to a small range or have small global
populations (often both). Many of these species are notknown to be declining or seriously threatened at present, but many others are (e.g., Spotted Owl, Montezuma
Quail, Bendire’s Thrasher, Rufous-winged Sparrow,
Audubon’s Oriole). PIF recognizes that these species withsmall populations and restricted ranges are particularly
vulnerable to relatively minor changes from current conditions, whether or not their populations are currently indecline.

ber restricted to the southwestern U.S. and northern
Mexico. Fourteen species have their world distributions
concentrated along the Paciﬁc Coast. The Yellow-billed
Magpie, for example, is restricted entirely to California.
The few eastern species include Swainson’s and Bluewinged warbler, Seaside Sparrow, and in winter, Nelson’s
Sharp-tailed Sparrow. Fifteen species in this category areclassiﬁed as Neotropical migrants. However, most are
relatively short-distance migrants wintering primarily
within Mexico.
STEWARDSHIP SPECIESOf the 100 Watch List Species, 66 also are StewardshipSpecies, deﬁned as being characteristic of a single
Avifaunal Biome. These species merit
special attention for conservation action within their core ranges. There
are an additional 92 continentally
important Stewardship Species beyond those included in the Watch List
(Table 1). Most (58%) of the additional
Stewardship Species have stable or
unknown population trends, althoughfour species (Boreal Chickadee, Verdin,
Black-throated Sparrow, Grasshopper
Sparrow) have declined by 50% or morein the past 30 years.

© Mike DanzenbakerTwenty-seven species in this group also are StewardshipSpecies, indicating relatively high concentration in asingle Avifaunal Biome. All but ﬁve are endemic to partsof western North America, with a disproportionate num-

Although still fairly widespread and with a moderately large population, the Red-headed Woodpecker warrants Watch List status because of steep, yet unexplained, range-wide declines.

Not all Watch List species are at high risk; the Yellow-billed Magpie is not threatened,but its small population is entirely restricted to a small area of California, making it
highly sensitive to future environmental changes.

Thirteen species have extensive populations in the Old World, but a high proportion of their Western Hemispheric
population is restricted to a North
American Avifaunal Biome (usually
Arctic or Northern Forest). These areincluded as additional Stewardship

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
22

© Gary Rosenberg

Species (Table 1) because they represent a signiﬁcant andcharacteristic component of the North American biomes
in which they occur.
Stewardship Species are broadly distributed acrossCanada and the U.S. during the breeding seasons (Fig.
11a), in a pattern that mirrors the richness of all landbird species (Fig. 1a). In winter, Stewardship Species areheavily concentrated in the southern U.S. (Fig. 11b), particularly the Southwest and into Mexico, and along theWest Coast of the U.S. In total, 74 Stewardship Species
are biome-restricted in their winter range, illustrating theimportance of conservation action in nonbreeding areas.
Watch List and Stewardship Species are identiﬁed basedon criteria that reﬂect the way in which we should thinkaWhile not highly threatened at present, the Snow Bunting
and other Stewardship Species in northern biomes requirelong-term planning and habitat protection to maintainthis characteristic component of the continent’s avifauna.

Stewardship Species—
Breeding
1–7
8–13
14–20
21–26
27–33
34–39

b

about conservation for these two groups of birds. We intend Watch List Species to receive focused management
attention that may or may not consider the needs of an
entire faunal suite. That is, for Watch List Species, thespecies themselves take precedence. With StewardshipSpecies, our intent is to develop a pool of species that
represents all major biomes across the continent and thatwill bring attention to habitats and birds characteristicof each of these biomes. For Stewardship Species, theimplied conservation need is almost always to be taken in
the much broader context of a species suite and related tohabitat.
By highlighting Stewardship Species, we draw attention
to them and aﬀord some attention to all biomes of thecontinent. Additionally, this puts a high value on abundance. The ecological roles and services provided by aspecies, as well as social beneﬁts to consumptive andnonconsumptive users, increase with bird abundance.
The beneﬁts of bird abundance are an integral part of the
PIF vision and are as important to our success as protecting diversity.

Stewardship Species—Winter
1–5
6–10
11–16
17–21
22–26
27–31
Figure 11. Number of PIF Stewardship Species occurring in each latlong block (a) during the breeding season and (b) in winter.

CONTINENTAL LANDBIRD OBJECTIVES
Using the list of Species of Continental Importance, thenext step is to set speciﬁc, measurable population objectives. In the following section, we describe how we haveestablished population objectives for the 192 Species ofContinental Importance (Table 1). For the remaining
landbird species, we do not set objectives but rather rely

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
23

Tim Gallagher © Cornell Lab of Ornithology

on regional plans to set those objectives as appropriate.
We next assign each Species of Continental Importance toan “action category,” according to the level and immediacyof conservation action required to meet the population
objectives. We also categorize each species according to
its monitoring needs and summarize general researchneeds. Finally, we outline the overarching conservation
issues and threats facing landbirds in North America.

Population Objectives
The establishment of population objectives is one of
the more diﬃcult tasks in the practice of conservation
biology. Setting objectives as minimum viable population size—that number of individuals necessary to keepa species from the brink of extinction—is a desperate
standard. PIF does not operate in that realm. We believea more desirable objective is to sustain healthy, genetically diverse populations of birds, well distributed acrosstheir historical ranges. Because this is a large continent,
this often means maintaining millions, or even tens of
millions, of individuals of a given species. These numbers
may sound high, but they represent what is required if weare to have healthy, intact ecosystems and biotic integrity
across the continent. “Keeping Common Birds Common”
is more than a catch phrase. For PIF it’s a true goal.
Setting population objectives requires knowledge of
population size and trends, as well as agreement on historic baselines to which present-day populations can becompared. As a starting point, the target for Watch List
species is to maintain current populations, or to return
declining populations at least to their numbers in the late1960s. This date was selected because we believe thattarget is achievable and realistic for most species on the
Watch List. Acceptance of this baseline recognizes thatthe extensive losses and modiﬁcations of habitat since theEuropean settlement of North America are historical realities that are not likely to be reversed to a signiﬁcant extent at the continental level. It also recognizes that prior
to 1966 and the start of the Breeding Bird Survey, there
were no consistent data for most landbird species uponwhich to base measurable population objectives.
Targets for additional Stewardship Species are based on
maintaining populations at levels of the 1990s. This ispresented as a reasonable baseline for species that are
not as vulnerable as Watch List species but still needa clear, measurable objective. However, some of these
species’ populations are declining (e.g., Cactus Wren,
Grasshopper Sparrow). These population declines indicate that maintenance of Stewardship Species, as a step
toward maintaining broader suites of species within all

The very small world population and distribution of the Florida
Scrub-Jay contribute to its Threatened status.

biomes, may in some instances require actions and immediacy similar to those for Watch List Species.
Our continental perspective should not prevent the setting of more aggressive population objectives at the regional level for any Species of Continental Importance,
especially in those regions where species’ declines may be
driving continental population trends.
Population objectives were determined for Watch List
Species based on degree of population change since 1966,
according to the trend data used in the species assessment process. However, we recognize that trend estimates are not exact. Rather than proposing population
objectives that represent estimates of the actual numberof birds in 1966 (which would generate a diﬀerent target
for each species), we assigned each Watch List Species to
one of four population objective categories (Table 1), as
described below. For species that are the subject of legally
mandated Recovery Plans, we defer to the objectives of
those plans.
Double Population: For all Watch List Species that haveundergone severe declines of 50% or more over 30 years(i.e., those with Population Trend scores of 5), the objective is to double the current population over the next 30
years. Reversing declines and doubling present-day populations is warranted for nearly a third of the 100 Watch
List Species (Table 1).
Increase Population by 50%: For Watch List Species thathave undergone moderate declines (15–50% over 30 years,
as indicated by Population Trend scores of 4), the objective
is to increase the population by 50% over the next 30 years.
This objective is warranted for 23 Watch List Species.
Maintain/Increase Population: Watch List Species withuncertain or unknown past trend (Population Trend
Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan

24

scores of 3) may be seriously declining without ourknowledge. Our conservative objective for these species,
therefore, is to maintain or increase current populationsin the next 30 years while simultaneously improving ourknowledge of population status. This is the objective for
33 Watch List Species.
Maintain Population: For species with stable or increasing populations, and for all additional StewardshipSpecies, PIF’s objective is to at least maintain current
populations. This objective applies to 4 Watch List
Species and to all 92 additional Stewardship Species.
By combining the suggested population objectives with
our initial estimates of population size (Table 1), a ﬁrst
approximation of a numerical population target for eachspecies at the continental level can be determined. For
example, this Plan calls for a doubling of present-day
Brewer’s Sparrow populations over the next 30 years to
restore a range-wide population of roughly 32 million
breeding individuals.

Immediate Action (IM): Immediate Action is needed for
28 Watch List Species, either to reverse or stabilize signiﬁcant, long-term population declines of species withsmall populations, or to protect species with the smallest
populations for which trends are poorly known (Table1). Populations of these species are at risk of extirpation
over broad portions of their range, and immediate andfocused attention to their needs represents the highest
conservation priority for landbirds. Nine species in thisgroup already are the subject of intensive recovery eﬀorts
or are feared extinct. Other species do not have federal
legal status at present, but are of serious concern. These
include several resident game bird species, most notably
Lesser Prairie-Chicken and Gunnison Sage-Grouse, as
well as songbirds such as Bendire’s Thrasher, Goldenwinged Warbler, and Tricolored Blackbird. A few other
Greg W. Lasley © Cornell Lab of Ornithology

Presenting numerical population targets for smaller planning units and jurisdictions is beyond the scope of thisplan. On the PIF web site (www.partnersinﬂight.org), we
will post estimates of that portion of the continental population target for each species within a given state, BCR,
or other geographic unit. We emphasize that the continental population estimates presented here, and all derivative population targets as just described, are preliminary
and rely on many assumptions. Further, target population
sizes depend on factors such as body weight, longevity,
productivity, and a host of other factors that vary among
species and populations. As smaller planning units workwith both population objectives and population estimates,
we anticipate a productive dialogue that will lead to evermore reﬁned objectives upon which we can all agree. And
as always, it is important for regions to work together sothat our eﬀorts collectively will meet continental objectives for the most important species.

conserve each species or groups of species will vary acrossthe continent, and we do not attempt to list them in thisPlan. Further, we do not imply that we always understandwhat those speciﬁc actions should be. Research or demographic monitoring may be needed before we can take thenecessary actions eﬀectively. Instead, speciﬁc needs andstrategies for local action are detailed in the many ﬁnerscale PIF plans (www.partnersinﬂight.org).

Recommended Conservation Action
Meeting PIF’s population objectives will require a signiﬁcant level of coordinated, on-the-ground conservation action. Of the 192 landbird Species of Continental
Importance, however, not all require the same level or immediacy of conservation attention. We used combinationsof assessment scores to place each Species of Continental
Importance into one of three groups that indicate the relative level and immediacy of conservation action required.
Categories of Conservation Action were assigned independent of population objectives, though there is a close
relationship between the two. Speciﬁc actions required toLike several other grassland specialists, the Baird’s Sparrow warrants Immediate Action to reverse long-term population declines
and reduce high threats to its habitat.

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
25

species in this category, such as Bicknell’s Thrush, Colima
Warbler, and Island Scrub-Jay, require the highest level ofvigilance to sustain their tiny world populations.

IM Species—Breeding
1
2
3
4
5

Figure 12. Number of PIF Species of Continental Importance breedingin each lat-long block that require Immediate Action (IM). These species typically exhibit a combination of very small population size or
range, high threats, and declining population trend.

MA Species—Breeding
1–3
4–6
7–10
11–13
14–16
17–19

Management (MA): Management or other on-the-groundconservation actions are needed to reverse signiﬁcant,long-term population declines or sustain vulnerable populations for 44 Watch List Species (Table 1). Althoughmany of these species are still relatively widespread, actions are necessary to prevent these species from becoming in danger of regional or range-wide extirpation in the
future. Of the additional Stewardship Species (Table 1),
14 also require Management in order to meet population objectives. However, because the causes of species
declines often are not understood, research is needed to
identify these causes so that management can be eﬀective(see Research Needs).
Every part of North America south of the Arctic supports
multiple Species of Continental Importance in need ofManagement (Fig. 13). High concentrations of species
are found in such diverse regions as the Appalachian
Mountains, southern Ontario, U.S. Midwest, NorthernRockies, California, and along the Mexican border in© Mike DanzenbakerFigure 13. Number of PIF Species of Continental Importance breeding in each lat-long block that require Management (MA) to reverse
signiﬁcant long-term population declines or eliminate high threats.

Species in need of immediate action occur throughout
the U.S. and southern Canada, but no single location supports more than 4-5 species (Fig. 12). Immediate actions
in Florida and parts of the southwestern U.S. will beneﬁt
the greatest number of species, while so far, vast areas ofnorthern Canada and Alaska have no landbirds in suchdire need.

PR Species—Breeding
1–5
6–10
11–15
16–20
21–25
26–30

Figure 14. Number of PIF Species of Continental Importance breeding in each lat-long block that require Long-term Planning andResponsibility (PR) to sustain healthy populations. These are primarily biome-restricted species that are not known to be declining or
highly threatened at present.

Le Conte’s Thrasher is one of 28 Watch List species with restricteddistribution and small population size that require long-term planning in the regions that support the bulk of their global population—in this case the Southwest Avifaunal Biome.

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
26

© Gary Rosenberg

For many Species of Continental Importance in the
PR action category, population trends are unknown
and knowledge of threats and limiting factors is poor.
If populations of these species were known to be declining, close to three-quarters would be reassigned
to the Management category or, in some cases, to the
Immediate Action category. Thus, it is very important toﬁll the many gaps in monitoring and research identiﬁedin the following sections of this plan.

Montezuma Quail is one of many southwestern species for which
we have inadequate data on population trends. Developing a birdmonitoring program within Mexico is one of PIF’s highest continental priorities.

Arizona and New Mexico. Although total numbers of species in the Great Plains are lower, more than 50% of theSpecies of Continental Importance in that region are inneed of Management due to population decline (Fig. 7a).
Long-Term Planning and Responsibility (PR): Long-term
Planning is needed to maintain sustainable populations of
28 Watch List Species, and of the majority of additional
Stewardship Species (Table 1). This action level applies
to species with relatively stable or increasing populations
regardless of population size, or relatively abundant species for which population trends are poorly known. A
majority of species in this category are found mainly ina single Avifaunal Biome, emphasizing the stewardship
responsibility of jurisdictions in those areas. Although
Long-term Planning may be considered a lower conservation priority, such action is critical to achieving PIF’s
continental goals. Taking action to protect vulnerable
species when they are still relatively healthy will be farless expensive—and more successful—than waiting until
they are endangered.
The number of Species of Continental Importance in thisaction category is highest across the northern and boreal
forests of Canada, the northern Rocky Mountains, and inmany parts of the western U.S. (Fig. 14). Although there
are fewer PR species in the Arctic, these represent a highproportion of that region’s landbird avifauna. Throughout
much of Canada and in Alaska, the highest priority forconservation action consists of careful planning andimplementation of land-use choices that lead to longterm sustainability of the many Species of Continental
Importance supported there.

LANDBIRD MONITORING AND
RESEARCH NEEDS
Monitoring Needs
Population monitoring is critical for all stages of conservation planning, including assessment of population status, identiﬁcation of causal factors in population change,
setting of population targets, and evaluating success ofconservation action. Without continued attention to
information needs, PIF will be unable to evaluate the success of our conservation actions or reﬁne our objectives
for the future.
In this Plan, the primary use of monitoring data is to assign a Population Trend (PT) score. In many cases, however, data on population trend are inadequate to assign PT
scores within a deﬁned level of certainty. While the BBS
provides data for many landbirds that breed in the U.S.
and Canada, work is needed to improve survey precision(Bart et al. in review). For other species, BBS is unsuitable,
and will remain so even if survey coverage and analysis isenhanced. These species will require diﬀerent survey approaches. Based on the source and quality of data for assigning PT scores, we deﬁne three groups of species withthe greatest needs for better trend information:
Species for which we have no trend data (Mo1): These
are species for which there are essentially no data on
population trend. There are 85 species in this category,of which 24 are on the Watch List and 4 are additional
Stewardship Species (Table 1). Many of these species
breed along the U.S.-Mexico border (Fig. 15a), have large
breeding populations south of the Mexican border, andwinter in Mexico and Central America, so it is unlikelythat increased monitoring eﬀorts in the U.S. alone will
permit accurate estimation of range-wide trends. The
distribution of these species shows the need to expand
bird-monitoring programs as Mexico becomes a full participant in the next version of this plan.
Species with poor trend data (Mo2): This category includes 106 species for which BBS trends have very low

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
27

a

c

Mo1 Species—
Breeding
1–6
7–11
12–17
18–23
24–28
29–34

Mo3 Species—
Breeding
1–13
14–27
28–40
41–53
54–67
68–80

Figure 15a. Number of species in Monitoring Need category Mo1 (notrend data) that occur in each lat-long block during the breeding
season.
b

Figure 15c. Number of species in Monitoring Need category Mo3 (inadequate northern coverage) that occur in each lat-long block during
the breeding season.
d

Mo2 Species—
Breeding
1–7
8–13
14–20
21–27
28–33
34–40
Figure 15b. Number of species in Monitoring Need category Mo2(poor trend data; high or unquantiﬁed variance) that occur in each
lat-long block during the breeding season.

precision (SE of 20-yr trend > 0.02; Bart et al. in review),
or whose trend scores were based on Christmas Bird
Count trend graphs, for which precision estimates were
not available. Some Mo2 species have narrow ranges,
but many broadly distributed species also are sampledsporadically or not at all by BBS. The latter include raptors, nocturnal species, grouse, and species of Boreal
and Arctic regions (Fig. 15b). Many of these species will
require surveys targeted at certain habitats or species
groups, such as raptor migration counts or nocturnal owl
monitoring. Mo2 species include 34 Watch List and 29
additional Stewardship Species.
Species with inadequate northern coverage (Mo3): Species
in this category have more than one-third of their range
in boreal and Arctic regions, north of the BBS coveragearea (Fig. 15c). Signiﬁcant bias can be present in trend
estimates based on <⅔ of a species’ range (Bart et al. in

Mo3 Species—Winter
1–10
11–20
21–30
31–40
41–50
51–60
Figure 15d. Number of species in Monitoring Need category Mo3(inadequate northern coverage) that occur in each lat-long block
during winter.

review). This category includes 96 species, 8 of which
are on the Watch List and 39 of which are additional
Stewardship Species. Most Mo3 species are migratory,
wintering in the U.S., Mexico, or Central America (Fig.
15d) such that they are amenable to monitoring by migration counts or winter surveys such as the Christmas
Bird Count.
PIF has long been involved in identifying gaps in monitoring, developing monitoring strategies, and recommending best monitoring practices (e.g. Butcher et al.
1993, Downes et al. 2000, www.nabci-us.org/aboutnabci/monstratframe.pdf, Bart et al. in review). There is a newPartners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan28

emphasis on Coordinated Bird Monitoring (CBM, Bart
2003), an initiative aimed at improving eﬃciency throughcoordination of monitoring eﬀorts among neighboring jurisdictions and major bird initiatives (particularlywaterbirds, shorebirds and landbirds). Initial actions of
CBM are focused on improved monitoring in the western
U.S. and Canada, and in the Arctic.
Coordinated Bird Monitoring supports monitoring that
includes hypothesis testing and assessment of demographic parameters. However, it is not feasible to conductdetailed, hypothesis-testing monitoring on all species,and recommendations for higher levels of monitoring are
not covered in this Plan. Rather, the recommendations
below are aimed at increasing the number of species withreliable long-term population trend estimates. These recommendations treat all species equally. Because priorities for action may vary among regions and agencies, it isimportant to coordinate across jurisdictions to carry out
these recommendations:and arctic species which can most easily be monitored on their temperate wintering grounds, by conducting additional critical evaluation of winter surveys, especially the Christmas Bird Count. Researchis needed on best analysis methods and precision
estimation, and analysis and reporting should bedone on an annual basis. The Bird Monitoring
Program in Protected Areas in Mexico (part of the
ICAAN Mexican plan with CONABIO-CONANPINE) should be pursued as a means of monitoring
Neotropical migrants in the nonbreeding season.
• Continue improvement of migration monitoring tomeet information needs of many raptors and of thelarge group of northern nesting Neotropical migrantsthat are largely inaccessible for monitoring both in
the breeding or wintering seasons. More evaluation
and research is needed on best analysis methods andprecision estimation, and annual analysis and reporting should be instituted (Dunn in press).
© Brian Small• Strategically increase the number of routes in the
BBS and other similar programs, and institute eﬀorts
to estimate and correct for potential bias. With enhancements that could realistically be achieved, BBS
should be able to meet precision targets (Bart et al.
in review) for 80% of the landbirds currently sampled
by this survey.
• Through the Mexican NABCI Committee (ICAAN),
support the Mexican government and partners
to develop and implement the Mexican Bird
Monitoring Strategy, particularly standardized
breeding season monitoring.
• Establish new programs for species that can bemonitored in the breeding season but which cannot
be adequately sampled by even an improved BBS(including most species with restricted ranges). Mosteﬀort should be focused on Watch List Species, developing surveys designed to investigate population
change and potential causal factors simultaneously.
All new monitoring programs should be designedwith clearly deﬁned and achievable objectives andshould take into account such issues as detectability,
sample frames, unbiased population estimates, andstatistical power, and should cover multiple species
whenever possible.
• Institute a standardized, breeding-season monitoring program for birds in the boreal forest, as recommended by a recent PIF workshop on boreal monitoring (Machtans 2003).
• Improve the quality of data for the many northern

Research is urgently needed to understand the response by priority
species such as White-headed Woodpecker to forest management,
ﬁre suppression, habitat fragmentation, and other land uses.

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
29• Improve standardization, management, and accessibility of the many existing bird-monitoring data
sets and improve analysis capabilities across multiple
programs, taking advantage of rapid advances incomputer and internet technologies (Bart et al. in
review).
Another important monitoring need is to track theamount, condition, and conﬁguration of the habitats
on which birds depend (www.nabci-us.org/aboutnabci/monstratframe.pdf ). Habitat monitoring cannot substitute for population monitoring, because bird numbers may ﬂuctuate independently of habitat condition.
Nonetheless, knowledge of habitat change is a crucialcomponent of eﬀective land-use planning at the landscape level. Analysis of remote-sensing data has often
been used for this purpose regionally, but is lacking at thenational and continental scale. We recommend a coordinated program of regular habitat assessment at the continental scale, as a tool for ensuring that landbirds have sufﬁcient habitat to support healthy populations in all partsof North America during all phases of their life cycle.

Research Needs
PIF has summarized and published research needs inorder to encourage researchers and funding agencies tofocus on the issues of greatest importance to landbird
conservation. Perspectives and general guidance areavailable in several publications (Marzluﬀ and Sallabanks
1998, Fitzpatrick 2002, Ruth et al. 2003, Williams 2003),
while more speciﬁc priorities are outlined in Donovan etal. (2002).
New research should be applied, and should move awayfrom descriptive, correlative and short-term work insmall geographic areas, to large-scale replicated studies,
controlled experiments, and long-term studies of demography (Donovan et al. 2002). Results that lead to concrete
recommendations for habitat management are needed.
Finally, there is a need for collaborative research withpractitioners of other disciplines, particularly in ﬁelds
other than biology (climatologists, land use planners,
contaminants specialists).
Many of the priority information needs that should be
addressed by research are too speciﬁc to local or regional
circumstances to be summarized at the continental level.
These needs are included in regional conservation plans
and are available in a searchable database (www.
partnersinﬂight.org/pifneeds/searchform.cfm). There
are, however, some common themes reﬂected by theseregional research priorities, many of which are inter-related.

• Identifying critical habitat components: General
habitat associations of landbirds are well known.
However, we lack important information on speciﬁc structural features, landscape conﬁgurations,and amounts of habitat that are required by priority
species. Such information is critical for guiding thedevelopment of eﬀective management strategies formeeting continental population objectives. Habitat
needs during nonbreeding seasons, particularly during migration, are even less well known.
• Demographics: Measurement of demographic parameters (nest success, productivity, survival, immigration) is needed to identify factors limiting
populations and to contribute to understanding of
metapopulation dynamics (gene ﬂow, source vs. sink
populations). Measurement of survival, particularly
during juvenile, migration, and winter periods, isneeded to both assess when landbirds are most at
risk and to identify sources of mortality.
• Examining responses of bird populations to land uses:
There is a critical need to determine the eﬀects ofvarious types of land use on avian populations in order to devise eﬀective measures for minimizing thenegative consequences of such land use. Land uses
aﬀecting bird populations include livestock grazing,
silviculture, recreation, ﬁre management, oil and gas
development, mining, water control and development, agriculture, suburbanization, communication
towers, and wind-power development. Only by understanding the responses and tolerances of birds toland use and management regimes can eﬀective mitigation actions be developed. Research should involve
stakeholders from the beginning so that solutions will
be accepted and used by those who control the land.
• GIS and landscape modeling: Continue to develop
tools such as the Grassland Bird Conservation Area
Model to identify geographic focus areas for habitat
protection, restoration, and management.
• Examining the eﬀects of abiotic environmental factors: Research is needed on the importance of abiotic
factors on bird population regulation, including climate change, drought, and contaminants (acid deposition, pesticides).
• Testing assumptions: Many assumptions havebeen explicitly identiﬁed in this plan and in Bird
Conservation Plans written at the state and physiographic area level. These assumptions must be tested
so that we can continue to improve the scientiﬁc basis for our decisions and our actions.
Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan

30

• Cumulative eﬀects: Because bird populations are affected by multiple factors, understanding the cumulative eﬀects of these factors is critical to all future
management strategies.
• Investigating interactions among birds and other ﬂora
and fauna: We need to understand the relative importance of disease, predation, nest parasitism, andintroduced species. Eﬀects may be magniﬁed by land
use and abiotic factors, so these should not be studied in isolation.
• Combining research and management: Bird conservation plans are built upon information about theecological and environmental factors aﬀecting bird
populations that is inadequate for many species.
Research should be combined with ongoing management to evaluate assumptions and contribute new
information for revision and improvement of thoseplans (adaptive management). Combining research
and management also is fundamental to testing theeﬀects of management action on bird population response.
• Improving monitoring: As noted in the previous section, there is need for research on monitoring methods and analysis procedures, particularly for monitoring that takes place outside the breeding season.

• Habitat loss remains the paramount factor for most
species. Although most native grassland was long
ago converted to agriculture, loss of remnant grassland continues today. Other habitats in particulardanger of signiﬁcant loss in the near future include
western pinyon-juniper, sagebrush, California chaparral, native prairies, and wetlands. Selective harvestof old-growth forests, and conversion of large areasof southern boreal forest to agriculture are additional examples of ongoing, large-scale habitat loss.
Growth in dispersed recreation, such as oﬀ-roadvehicle use, may make otherwise suitable habitat unsuitable. While a return to presettlement conditions
is not feasible, land-use planning at broad scales cancontribute to providing habitat suﬃcient to maintainhealthy populations of North American landbirds
throughout their native ranges.
• Habitat does not have to be lost entirely to have major eﬀects on bird populations. Fragmentation anddegradation of many habitat types is caused by mosthuman activities, including development associatedwith urban and suburban growth. Such developmental sprawl is particularly rampant along the Atlantic
and Gulf coasts, California, the Great Lakes region,© Marc Dantzker

Funding and institutional support are of course the foundation for ensuring that needed research is undertaken.
Providing adequate resources will require cooperationand collaboration among management agencies, researchfacilities, industry, and nongovernmental organizations,
all of which have a role to play in support of landbird
research.

ground conservation actions at continental scales are
diﬃcult to deﬁne because variation in biogeography andconservation issues is far too great for such actions tobe appropriate in all regions. Nonetheless, there are several overarching threats faced by landbirds across North
America that can, at least in part, be addressed withaction on the national or international stage, as summarized below.

Continental Issues and Threats for Landbirds
In many cases the general causes of bird population
declines are already known and can be addressed,
although additional research and monitoring areneeded to pinpoint the most eﬀective management
actions for high-priority species and habitats. A majority of threats to landbird populations are thoseaﬀecting many species at once, through modiﬁcation
or destruction of habitats. While special action may
be required to meet the needs of the highest-priority
species, PIF advocates conservation actions directed
at habitat issues that will simultaneously beneﬁt
suites of priority species as well as other wildlife.
Conservation issues aﬀecting Species of Continental
Importance in particular regions are described in
more detail in Part 2 of this Plan. Speciﬁc, on-the-Threatened by extensive degradation of its sagebrush habitat by overgrazing and invasive plant species, the Greater Sage-Grouse has received
much recent conservation attention.

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
31and most recently in the Rocky Mountain states.
Models are available for growth that is more environmentally sensitive, but these models need to be
implemented much more widely.
• Increasing intensity of agriculture continues to contribute to precipitous population declines in many
species that use open, shrubland, and grassland habitats. Bird-friendly practices and mitigation measures
to enhance these habitats exist (e.g., Farm Bill programs in the U.S.), but these need to be expanded toother jurisdictions, better leveraged by conservationinterests, more explicitly linked to bird conservation
objectives, and improved with respect to program
funding and economic incentives.

Collectively, these factors contribute to a high proportionof population declines among Watch List Species, andaddressing these issues at the largest possible administrative scales will go a long way toward meeting PIF’s continental objectives for landbirds.

TAKING ACTION
Linking Across Geographic Scales
Most on-the-ground conservation action will take placeat sub-continental scales, where action can be tailored© Brian Small• Forest-management practices over vast regions (including industrial forestry, selective planting, ﬁremanagement, and management of forest pathogens)have led to changes in forest structure and composition that reduce suitability for some high-priority
species, even in the face of increased overall forest
cover in some regions. Needs and objectives forpriority forest birds must be incorporated explicitly
into forest-management plans within agencies, andincentives should be oﬀered to encourage implementation on private lands.

tify. These include communication towers, wind
power development, domestic and feral cats, lighted
buildings, and competition with introduced species
such as European Starlings and House Sparrows.
Although some programs exist to locally minimize
eﬀects from these factors, no plan exists to comprehensively address their cumulative impact on bird
populations.

• Livestock grazing has had enormous eﬀects on native vegetation across most of the U.S. A century
or more of the selective removal of palatable plant
species, soil compaction, water developments, andlivestock management activities have degraded ecosystems and have had signiﬁcant impacts on native
bird populations (Saab et al. 1995).
• Exotic invasive plants and animals are having increasingly serious direct and indirect impacts on
many ecosystems, particularly in the U.S. The quantity and quality of habitat for many species is being
reduced, often at alarming rates, by serious disruptions in natural processes.
• Habitat loss and degradation pose threats to bird
populations not only when they occur in breedingareas, but also along migration routes and in wintering areas. At the same time, little is known of species’
distributions, habitat needs, or responses to land-use
trends in nonbreeding seasons. Inclusion of Mexico
and Caribbean nations in future updates of this Plan
will lead to much greater attention to nonbreeding
issues for many species.
• Landbirds also face mortality from factors not directly related to habitat, which are diﬃcult to quan-

The steeply declining Olive-sided Flycatcher breeds across the coniferous forests of Canada and the western U.S. and migrates to winterin the mountains from southern Mexico to northern South America.
Clearly, conservation of this species will require international cooperation and action.

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
32

to the needs and conservation issues speciﬁc to a region.
Detailed PIF landbird conservation plans have alreadybeen written for most physiographic areas and states in
the U.S. (linked at www.partnersinﬂight.org) and are currently being written for remaining portions of the U.S.
and Canada. Implementation actions, programs, and initiatives will vary among the three countries represented
in this Plan. Each country has developed or is developing a separate national strategic plan, which outlines thegoals and steps that need to be taken to conserve landbird populations and their habitats and to integrate withconservation of other wildlife.

• Coordinate conservation planning and action acrossgeographic scales and political boundaries. Provide
leadership in ensuring this Plan is implemented.

Regional planners are naturally focused on regional
objectives, but the eﬀectiveness of landbird conservation action can be increased by linking objectives for
BCRs or physiographic regions to those identiﬁed here
at the continental scale. For example, although this Plan
represents a revised assessment of conservation vulnerability for all species of landbirds, many Species ofContinental Importance are likely to have been identiﬁed
through past assessments in regional plans. If not, planners should consider whether revisions to existing plans
could better address the needs of these species in theirarea. We generally suggest that Watch List Species be afforded attention wherever they occur. We suggest that
action for Stewardship Species be carefully considered
in areas where these species are most common, particularly where actions taken on behalf of Watch List Species
are likely to leave Stewardship Species and their habitats
lacking in attention. Additionally, where an individual
Stewardship Species has a high regional population decline, speciﬁc action may be warranted, and an appropriate local objective might be to increase that species’
population.

• Encourage international treaties and policies that
protect species, habitats, and the environment either
directly or indirectly (e.g., trade policies).

Continental population objectives can be stepped down
to regional, provincial, territorial, or state-level objectives, adjusted as needed based on the capacity within
the region, and then rolled up again to ensure that continental objectives will be met. PIF will continue to provide guidance throughout this process. Although only
numbers for continental populations are presented in thisplan, data on the percent of population present in each
BCR, state, province, or territory will be posted on the
PIF web site (www.partnersinﬂight.org) to aid in stepping
down numerical objectives.
While on-the-ground conservation action will take placeat sub-continental scales, there are additional actions required for meeting PIF objectives that are appropriate for
implementation at the national and international level.
These tasks include the following:• Promote landscape-level natural resource planning that will lead to retention in all parts of North
America of suﬃcient and suitably diverse habitat forsustaining healthy native bird populations.
• Develop and support bird-friendly guidelines for agriculture, forestry, energy industry, urban planning,water management, and other human activities thathave the most impact on bird habitats.

• Encourage coordinated international legal protection
for species at risk.
• Work with other conservation initiatives to integrate
landbird conservation objectives with those for othertaxa.
• Forge national- and international-scale partnerships
to accomplish PIF objectives.
• Lead in the coordination and development of monitoring and research to provide critical informationneeded for truly eﬀective adaptive management.

Implementation
Implementation of this Plan consists of a variety of actions. They include habitat and nonhabitat based actions
that lead to reaching the population objectives for landbird species outlined above. Successful implementation
also depends on meeting the diverse needs identiﬁed inregional plans for monitoring, research, education, andoutreach. These actions must occur at several scales, but
in this Plan we focus on actions that are appropriate for
implementation at national and international scales.
PIF needs many and varied partners to implement theconservation actions discussed in this plan. Good partnerships develop shared goals and objectives, synergy,
and excitement. Because partners bring diﬀerent skills to
a common task, each partner sees its capacity enhanced.
Each partner may also tap diﬀerent sources of funding,and cooperation among partners creates new opportunities for involving new segments of society in maintaininga healthy environment.
A key role of PIF, therefore, is to work with individuals,
agencies, and other organizations responsible for public

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
33

and private lands to integrate their management objectives with those outlined here. Those entities that manage
the greatest amount of land and whose current management priorities have the greatest potential for compatibility with birds are the ones that can have the greatest
positive eﬀects. These should be the primary targets for
PIF implementation activity. Fortunately, many of theseagencies and organizations already are part of PIF, andthis partnership has the primary responsibility for meeting PIF objectives.

© Mike Danzenbaker

The Joint Ventures, which were formed to implement theNorth American Waterfowl Management Plan, provide
a very eﬀective model for a public/private conservation
partnership. The Joint Ventures involve multiple levels ofgovernment, industry, landowners, and a wide range of
nongovernmental organizations in eﬀective partnerships
to deliver conservation on the ground. Most of the existing Joint Ventures have embraced the goal of integrated
bird conservation, including attention to landbirds. In
areas that do not have existing Joint Ventures, similar
partnerships are in the process of forming. While collectively these partnerships will deliver integrated habitat
conservation for all birds, PIF’s role will be to promote

Meeting habitat objectives for this Mountain Quail and the otherlandbird species identiﬁed in this Plan will require eﬀective partnerships among state and federal wildlife agencies, as well as industrial
and other private landowners.

the needs of landbirds, develop the biological foundation,and evaluate landbird implementation.
Most implementation programs take place within jurisdictional units, such as states, provinces, and territories.
In the U.S., an important opportunity exists over the
next few years to increase resources for nongame birds
within state agencies. Incorporation of PIF objectives
into Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plans will
be a critical step in this process. Each state will develop
its own priorities and procedures for developing theseplans and for incorporating the needs of all birds (seeHodgman, in press, for an example).
Management of speciﬁc sites for particular bird species
and their habitats has always played an important role inconservation. To date, National Wildlife Refuges in the
U.S. have been delineated primarily in wetland systems,
and priority landbirds will beneﬁt from establishing morerefuges in upland habitats. A successful model for identifying and evaluating speciﬁc land parcels that can contribute to meeting population targets of priority bird species
has been presented for the mid-Atlantic Coastal region(Watts and Bradshaw, in press). A valuable program for
identifying and conserving speciﬁc sites is the Important
Bird Areas program of BirdLife International. Important
Bird Areas have been established in Europe, Africa, andSouth America, and this successful approach is now being implemented in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. Finally,
public land management agencies have mechanisms for
identifying special management areas in their land-use
planning processes that can be used to identify and protect important bird habitat. Bird populations cannot survive using protected areas alone, of course, but special areas are important for ensuring protection of key habitats
and places that might otherwise be lost.
PIF Bird Conservation Plans, Joint Venture Implementation Plans, and other regional, state, provincial, territorial, and local implementation plans should be the foundations for presenting and accomplishing site-speciﬁc
conservation actions. While natural links exist among
other bird groups through the NABCI framework, integration with programs for other taxa can also produce
mutual beneﬁts, and ﬁnding the best management practices across landscapes can have broadscale implications
for habitat availability and quality. The Wildlands Project,
Yellowstone to Yukon Conservation Initiative, North
American Bat Conservation Plan, Partners in Amphibianand Reptile Conservation, and Mesoamerican BiologicalCorridor are examples of excellent initiatives focusing on
species other than birds, but with which we inevitably
have shared goals. By combining our eﬀorts, we not only
Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan

34

enhance our opportunities to protect landbirds, but wealso increase our chances of improving the quality of theenvironment upon which we all depend.
The following three administrative structures will facilitate coordination of conservation planning and action
across geographic scales and political boundaries:
National Councils: Each country included in this Plan has
a national forum or council that will guide PIF activities
at a national level. The exact structures vary nationallyin response to the needs and desires of PIF partners, but
are generally composed of representatives of Federal andState/Provincial/Territorial governments, nongovernmental agencies, academia, and others. National councils serve in an advisory role in each country to identify
program-wide priorities, discuss policy issues, facilitateeﬀective communication and coordination, and identify
issues for discussion and resolution at other national andinternational fora.
Continental Council: As more countries join in the Plan,
formation of an international council, composed of representatives designated by the National Councils, may beconsidered to help facilitate international cooperation.
This Continental Council would serve in an advisory role

BOX 5
Examples of measurable criteria for evaluating
success of the Continental Plan:

to oversee the implementation, evaluation, and revisionof the PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan.
Science Committee: Guidance on the biological foundation for PIF will be provided by an international Science
Committee (formerly the PIF Technical Committee)
composed of representatives from the U.S., Canada, andMexico. The Science Committee is responsible for maintaining, revising, and evaluating the technical content
of this Plan and PIF Species Assessment Databases. The
Science Committee will be responsible for addressing
all other technical issues concerning landbird conservation at national and international levels, including, inparticular, research and monitoring. Further, the Science
Committee will provide assistance in stepping down continental objectives to smaller scales and revising continental objectives based on input.

Evaluation and Revision
Evaluation is a critical component of conservation planning and implementation. Plans must be periodically upgraded to reﬂect improved knowledge. Importantly, there
are assumptions behind every recommendation made in
the bird conservation planning process. All of these assumptions should be explicitly stated, and the degree ofsupport for them addressed. Elements of evaluation
include examining the relationships between habitat and population responses to actions, assessing
the completeness of conservation planning, andrevising plans.

• Number of species on the Watch List and in the various
categories of recommended conservation action•

Number of Species of Continental Importance on track formeeting 30-year population objectives•

Number of landbird habitat improvement projects supported by the Neotropical Migratory Conservation Act,
North American Wetlands Conservation Act, and similar
granting authorities•

Number of hectares of habitat protected and restored, byBird Conservation Region and habitat type•

Number of species with monitoring needs•

Number of peer-reviewed research publications addressing
priority landbird conservation issues•

Number of delivery mechanisms (e.g., Joint Ventures) inplace throughout the continent to meet landbird population and habitat objectives•

Number of agency plans into which landbird objectives
have been incorporated

Regular assessment of the success of this Plan will
provide important opportunities to modify approaches, bring in new partners, or redirect eﬀorts,
maximizing the likelihood of conservation successon an ongoing basis. Population monitoring is one
important means of determining conservation success, but there are many other criteria that can beused to determine whether this Plan is being successfully implemented (see Box 5).
This Plan will be revised once Mexico concludes the
species assessment and becomes a full partner, and
the Plan will then be evaluated and revised every ﬁve
years thereafter. The Continental Council, in cooperation with the national councils and the Science
Committee, will oversee this process. Input will be
actively solicited from national and regional PIF committees and regional implementation bodies. These
periodic reassessments will ensure that this Plan responds eﬀectively to changing conservation requirements and opportunities and, most importantly, addresses the highest priority needs for landbirds.

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
35

Landbird Conservation Goals for the Next Decade
Landbird conservation in North America has made majoradvances in the past decade, and a maturing infrastructure is prepared to accomplish largescale, long-term conservation across the continent. Evidence of this change
was apparent at the Third International PIF Conference:
A Workshop on Bird Conservation Implementation
and Integration, in Monterey, California, 20-24 March
2002 (Ralph and Rich, in press). In order to see that the
momentum continues, we propose the following goals,
adapted from Fitzpatrick (2002), to guide us into the next
decade.
GOAL 1: Ensure an active scientiﬁcally based conservation design process that identiﬁes and develops solutions to threats and risks to landbird populations.
Reduce gaps in our understanding of populations andtrends• Create and implement comprehensive monitoring
schemes for all priority species in North America,
Mexico, the Caribbean, and Central and SouthAmerica.
• Develop an expanded array of census approaches sothat the results for individual species can be compared and pooled among species.
• Develop new programs for nocturnal species, certain raptors and others whose ecology or behavior
make them diﬃcult to detect by conventional census
methods.
• Conduct research of single species and ecologicalassemblages to increase our understanding of causesof population expansions, declines, and ﬂuctuations.
Develop a scientiﬁc auditing process to produce adaptive
responses to monitoring projects and conservation plans• Modify conservation plans and management practices to reﬂect current knowledge.
• Conduct ﬁeld experiments to test the assumptions ofconservation plans and directly dictate new management decisions (adaptive management).
• Support national and regional specialists to trackresearch and management accomplishments, keepplans fresh and updated, coordinate research objectives, and catalyze interactions among partners andfunding sources.
• Update plans, measure accomplishments, and set
new population objectives.

Expand the PIF North American Landbird
Conservation Plan to incorporate additional countries• Include the results of the species assessment process from Mexico in the Plan and collaborate with
Mexican government agencies, conservation groups,
and academic institutions to include all winter andbreeding landbirds.
• Help initiate PIF assessment and planning activities in the Caribbean, Central America, and SouthAmerica in cooperation with Plan partners.
GOAL 2: Create a coordinated network of conservation partners implementing the objectives of landbird
conservation plans at multiple scales.
Ensure that habitat management is in place to meet objectives of all high-priority species throughout their life
cycles in Canada, the U.S., Mexico, and the rest of Latin
America.
• Put measurable actions and results on the groundbased on best current information and adaptive
management practices.
• Help establish and coordinate conservation implementation eﬀorts through regional partnerships toprotect priority bird species and habitats in Canada,
the U.S., and Mexico.
• Expand conservation implementation eﬀorts to encompass the Caribbean, Central America, and SouthAmerica.
Encourage wildlife agencies within countries, states,
provinces, and territories to fully embrace all-bird conservation as a high priority for resource allocation andprogram implementation• Help create and coordinate information on priorities
and objectives for landbirds so that they are incorporated into all appropriate agency activities.
Assist Joint Ventures in delivering habitat programs forall birds• Work with Joint Ventures by providing information
on priority species and habitats in forms that are
useful to JV planning and implementation.
• Seek additional resources to strengthen the capacityof JVs to deliver landbird conservation.
• Assist in developing increased cooperation and coordination among agencies and jurisdictions.

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
36

Assist nongovernmental organizations so that they canshepherd bird conservation• Provide information and coordination necessary
so that mission-focused, not-for-proﬁts can supply
important guidance for setting long-term objectives,
adjusting management strategies, measuring results,
and sharing the labor required to achieve long-term
conservation.
• Assist nongovernment organizations in coordinating
among themselves and taking full advantage of theirrespective strengths.
• Provide industry with information, priorities, andplan components that are most useful to them inaccomplishing their missions while also beneﬁting
landbirds.
• Provide needs assessments and other opportunities
for the academic sector to fully engage its capacity inscience, leadership, and communication.
Greatly increase education programs aimed at the general public• Incorporate bird conservation messages into classroom curricula.
• Fully support International Migratory Bird Day andother public education initiatives.

GOAL 3: Secure suﬃcient commitment and resources
to support vigorous implementation of landbird conservation objectives.
Work to ensure that there is substantial new funding tosupport all-bird conservation• Provide information necessary so that government
and private funding is increased signiﬁcantly to meetthe challenges of all-bird, all-season conservation
action.
• Work to ensure full funding at appropriate levels
for sources such as the Neotropical Migratory Bird
Conservation Act, the North American Wetlands
Conservation Act, State Wildlife Grants, and otherequivalent legislation in the U.S., Canada, andMexico.
• Support signiﬁcant increases in staﬀ and resources
devoted to nongame wildlife within all partners.
• Ensure that budgets of public land agencies are increased so that they can adequately assess their bird
and habitat resources, and then take appropriate actions to secure or improve those resources.
• Ensure that policies and programs of public landagencies are directed toward conservation and management of high-priority landbirds.
© Brian Small

Greatly increase the contributions of citizens to the conservation of landbirds• Conduct eﬀective communication andoutreach so that the numbers of amateur bird watchers directly involved inbird conservation reﬂect the level of
their participation in the enjoyment ofwild birds in wild places.
• Provide incentives and training so thatbird watchers play an important role inconservation science by participatingin organized monitoring programs andlarge-scale studies.
• Provide clear objectives and priorities
for action so that the bird-watching
public is an eﬀective constituency, inﬂuencing government policy and willingto contribute resources in proportion totheir numbers.

Conservation of the Red-faced Warbler, and many other popular “border birds”, depends on full participation of Mexico in future versions of the PIF North American
Landbird Conservation Plan.

Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan
37