APPENDIX L Avian Conservation Implementation Plans

APPENDIX L

Avian Conservation Implementation Plans

L.1 Big Cypress National Preserve L.2 Biscayne National Park L.3 Buck Island Reef National Monument L.4 Dry Tortugas National Park L.5 Everglades National Park L.6 Salt River Bay National Historical Park and Ecological Preserve L.7 Virgin Islands National Park and Coral Reef National Monument

SFCN Vital Signs Report L Appendix L. Avian Conservation Implementation Plans

APPENDIX L.1

BIG CYPRESS NATIONAL PRESERVE

SFCN Vital Signs Report L.1 Appendix L. Avian Conservation Implementation Plans

FINAL DRAFT Avian Conservation Implementation Plan Big Cypress National Preserve

National Park Service Southeast Region

Compiled by J. Keith Watson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service In cooperation with

BICY Resource Management Staff, National Park Service And Bird Conservation Partners January 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction...... 3

Background ...... 3 The North American Bird Conservation Initiative...... 4 The Southeastern Bird Conservation Initiative: National Park Service...... 5

Role of NPS in Avian Conservation...... 5

Preserve Description ...... 7

Avian Resources of the Subtropical Florida ...... 10

Avian Conservation in BICY...... 11

Preserve Identified Needs for Avian Conservation...... 13

Coordination with Regional Conservation Initiatives ...... 13 North American Bird Conservation Initiative ...... 13 North American Waterfowl Management Plan...... 13 Partners In Flight ...... 15 United States Shorebird Conservation Plan ...... 15 Waterbird Conservation for the Americas...... 15

Integration of NABCI Goals and Objectives into Park Planning and Operations: NABCI Implementation Recommendations ...... 15 Inventory ...... 16 Monitoring ...... 17 Habitat Restoration...... 18 Threat Management...... 19 Research ...... 19 Compliance...... 20 Outreach ...... 21 Partners and Partnerships ...... 21 Funding Opportunities...... 22 Contacts...... 24

Literature Cited...... 26

Appendixes High Priority Species in Peninsular Florida Florida’s Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Species of Special Concern US Fish and Wildlife Service, Species of Conservation Concern 2002, Peninsular Florida (BCR 31)

2 Introduction

This Avian Conservation Implementation Plan (ACIP) is provided to the staff at Big Cypress National Preserve (BICY) to help identify and prioritize bird conservation opportunities, and to provide information and guidance for the successful implementation of needed conservation activities. This plan may identify goals, strategies, partnerships, and perhaps specific projects for the preserve to participate in existing bird conservation planning and implementation efforts associated with the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). Under the auspice of NABCI, appropriate bird and habitat conservation goals may be recommended as identified in the appropriate existing national or regional bird conservation efforts aligned with this initiative: Partners In Flight (PIF), North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), US Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP), and Waterbird Conservation for the Americas (WCA). For example, parks in the Appalachians and the Cumberland Plateau will have few if any high priority waterbird conservation issues at a regional landscape or greater scale. As such, little information regarding waterbird conservation will be presented in the ACIP, unless there is an identified park need for this species group, or other mandates, such as federal laws. Similarly, because BICY has a mix of habitat types, recommendations will be derived from the appropriate existing planning document priorities, with an emphasis on waterbirds, including marshbirds, and landbirds. However, all high priority bird conservation issues for BICY will be discussed and integrated as appropriate.

Information and data presented in the ACIP have been obtained from several sources: 1) interviews with BICY staff 2) BICY bird conservation partners 3) the PIF Subtropical Florida Bird Conservation Plan Executive Summary 4) NPS databases, 5) peer reviewed bird conservation and management literature, and 6) personal communications with bird conservation specialists throughout North America, especially in the southeastern United States. This plan has been reviewed by BICY resource management staff and managers, South Florida/Caribbean Inventory and Monitoring (AHN I&M) Network staff, and bird conservation partners and approved by BICY management. Optimally, this plan will be incorporated into the preserve’s Resource Management Plan (RMP) and updated annually to reflect completed projects, newly identified needs, and shifts in bird conservation priorities in the region.

BICY is not obligated to undertake any of the proposed actions in this plan. The plan is provided to offer guidance to BICY to voluntarily support important preserve, regional, and perhaps national and international bird conservation projects for which BICY is a primary participant in the proposed actions.

Background

During the past thirty years, monitoring programs across North America have documented declines of certain bird species populations and their habitats, often severe (Sauer et al. 2000). The decline has caused great concern among scientists, biologists, 3 biodiversity proponents, ecologists, land managers, etc., and the bird conservation community in general. Birds are recognized as critical components of local and global genetic, species, and population diversity, providing important and often critical ecological, social, economic, and cultural values. Their overall decline has stimulated a worldwide focus on conservation efforts and North American interest in bird conservation is rapidly becoming a focus of government, non-government, industry, and private interests and expenditures.

Many state, federal, and non-governmental wildlife agencies and non-government organizations (NGO’s) have recognized this alarming bird decline trend and have joined forces in several extensive partnerships to address the conservation needs of various bird groups and their habitats. The primary initiatives are:

• North American Waterfowl Management Plan • Partners in Flight • U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan • Waterbird Conservation for the Americas

The North American Bird Conservation Initiative: While efforts associated with these plans have generated some successes, it has been increasingly recognized that the overlapping conservation interests of these initiatives can be better served through more integrated planning and delivery of bird conservation. The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI; http://www.nabci-us.org/main2.html) arose out of this realization. The vision of NABCI is simply to see “populations and habitats of North America’s birds protected, restored and enhanced through coordinated efforts at international, national, regional, state and local levels, guided by sound science and effective management.” NABCI seeks to accomplish this vision through (1) broadening bird conservation partnerships, (2) working to increase the financial resources available for bird conservation in the U.S., and (3) enhancing the effectiveness of those resources and partnerships by facilitating integrated bird conservation (U.S. NABCI Committee 2000). Together, the four bird conservation initiatives mentioned above, as well as several other local and regional partnerships, work collectively to pursue this vision.

NABCI is guided by a set of principles that establish an operational framework within which the Initiative and its partners may conduct integrated bird conservation in the U.S. These will articulate a common understanding of the relationship between NABCI, the individual bird conservation initiatives, and all partner entities to ensure recognition of existing federal legislative and international treaty obligations, state authorities, and respect for the identity and autonomy of each initiative. The fundamental components of the conservation approach to be used by NABCI are expressed within its goal:

To deliver the full spectrum of bird conservation through regionally-based, biologically-driven, landscape-oriented partnerships.

4 The Southeastern Bird Conservation Initiative: National Park Service: In 1999, the Southeast Region of the National Park Service (NPS) recognized the importance of coordinating existing bird conservation goals into planning and operations of national park units in the southeast, that is, integration of NABCI. In support of this recognition, the Southeast Regional Office NPS approved and allocated eighty-eight thousand dollars, cost sharing 1:1 with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Region 4 (Southeast) to hire a biologist to conduct this two-year project (Interagency Agreement FS028 01 0368). This project is unique in the NPS, and perhaps the nation, and represents a potential model for better coordinating regional bird conservation programs and activities within and outside the NPS. It further represents a progressive action toward institutionalizing bird conservation as a programmatic priority in the Southeast Region of NPS, and potentially the nation.

As envisioned, the integration of NABCI into the Southeastern NPS involves:

1) Development and delivery of Avian Conservation Implementation Plans 2) Coordination with NPS Inventory and Monitoring Program, 3) Development of a web based project site, 4) Establishment or enhancement of bird conservation partnerships, 5) Identification and exploration of potential funding opportunities, and 6) Technical guidance and assistance as needed or requested.

This ACIP fulfills one aspect of the plan outlined above, and serves as a basis for future bird conservation actions in BICY and with adjacent partners or landowners.

Concurrently, the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the FWS and the NPS (Appendix A) to implement Presidential Executive Order (EO) 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (US Government 2000), calls for integration of programs and recommendations of existing bird conservation efforts into preserve planning and operations. Complementing each other, the MOU and the Southeastern Bird Conservation Initiative will advance bird conservation in the Southeast Region of the NPS beyond current regional NPS efforts.

Role of NPS in Avian Conservation

The interagency agreement that facilitates this partnership supports both FWS and NPS management policies. Specifically for the NPS, the agreement supports and advances the Strategy for Collaboration, a visionary document developed and signed by the Southeast Natural Resource Leaders Advisory Group (SENRLAG 2000), a consortium of 13 land and resource management agencies in the Southeastern United States whose vision is to encourage and support cooperation in planning and managing the region’s natural resources. Furthermore, the agreement is aligned with and implements a variety of NPS Management Polices (2001) including, but not limited to, External Threats and Opportunities, Environmental Leadership, Cooperative Planning, Land Protection, and especially Natural Resource Management that details policy and management guidelines which apply to bird conservation. Important policies in the 5 Natural Resource Management chapter include:

• Planning for Natural Resource Management • Partnerships • Restoration of Natural Systems • Studies and Collection • General Principles for Managing Biological Resources • Plant and Animal Population Management Principles • Management of Native Plants and Animals • Management of Endangered Plants and Animals • Management of Natural Landscapes • Management of Exotic Species • Pest Management • Fire Management and • Water Resource Management

The NPS is the fourth largest landowner in the United States, consisting of over 380 national park units covering 83 million acres of land and water with associated biotic resources (www.nps.gov). The 64 units in the Southeast Region of the NPS represent 16% of the total number of park units in the national park system and cover approximately 5% of the total land base in the entire system. Park units in the Southeast Region include national seashores (Canaveral National Seashore, Cape Hatteras National Seashore), national parks (Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Everglades National Park), national recreation areas (Big South Fork National Recreation Area), national preserves (Big Cypress National Preserve), national battlefields (Cowpens National Battlefield, Fort Donelson National Battlefield), national monuments (Ocmulgee National Monument), and others such as the Blue Ridge Parkway, Obed Wild and Scenic River, and Timicuan Ecological and Historic Preserve.

Southeast NPS units provide habitat for over 400 species of migrating, breeding, and wintering birds and include a wide range of Federal and State listed threatened and endangered species. Likewise, these units also provide nest, migration, and winter habitat for most of the eastern species identified in the national bird conservation plans in need of conservation attention.

Additionally, the NPS attracts over 280 million visitors to the parks each year, 120 million of these in the Southeast Region, affording excellent recreational bird watching and opportunities to strengthen bird conservation interpretation, outreach, and education programs. These opportunities, the NPS mission, policies, and organization all lead to the conclusion that the NPS is an extremely valuable partner and contributor to bird conservation in the region.

The NPS Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Program has been developed to provide management driven scientific information to national park managers so that resources can be adequately protected within national parks. One of the first phases of this program is to inventory vertebrates, including birds, within the 260 national park units in the program. Once completed, data from the inventories will provide an account of the occurrence and abundance of birds in all the national parks in the program. These records will be stored in the NPS I&M NPSpecies database http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/apps/npspp/). Coordination with I&M network staff is important to developing long-term bird monitoring programs that fulfill both park and NABCI objectives.

Park Flight is a NPS international partnership initiative that directs funding toward a variety of NPS programs that involve conservation of neotropical migratory birds whose life history range covers a US national park and a Latin American protected area. A relatively new program, Park Flight offers parks the opportunity to partner with a Latin American national park or protected area to cooperate on developing bird conservation and education projects (NPS 2002).

Recent increases in NPS base funded programs such as inventory and monitoring, exotic species management, habitat restoration, and fire management all indicate that national park managers recognize that park lands are increasingly subject to a variety of threats and conditions that must be improved to provide the quality of national park experience articulated in the NPS Organic Act (1916). Programmatic funding in these areas will increase the ability of national parks to provide quality habitat and conditions for increased wildlife conservation, including birds. Furthermore, private interests and non-profit conservation organizations have initiated programs, including grant programs, to provide much needed funding to national parks to meet backlogs of identified yet unfunded needs.

Preserve Description

Water is a principal natural resource of the entire south Florida region. Big Cypress National Preserve clearly illustrates this important resource with close to 90 percent of the preserve’s area flooded seasonally. Because the 295,015 ha (729,000 acre) preserve is relatively undeveloped, it serves as a large natural reservoir and nutrient filter, permitting natural biological processes to nourish diverse ecological communities distinctive to south Florida (see PIF and NPS maps below). The preserve’s ecology is finely tuned to seasonal water flow patterns, and any interference can alter this sensitive habitat. About 80 percent of the current Big Cypress land mass is wetland and 7

9 is characterized by extensive prairies, freshwater marshes, forested swamps, and shallow sloughs. Most wildlife species native to south Florida occur within the Big Cypress watershed. Ten species are listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as threatened or endangered, and 10 species are candidates for threatened or endangered status; an additional 14 species are listed by the state of Florida as threatened, endangered, or of special concern.

Avian Resources of Subtropical Florida

The physiographic area is entirely contained within Florida, and extends from the northern edge of Lake Okeechobee south through the Florida Keys. The region has very little topographic relief, but slight changes in elevation have important consequences for vegetation and the diversity of habitat types. The highest points of elevation are less than 2 meters and correspond with fairly recent shorelines (less than 5,000 years before present). Underlying sediments consist of freshwater marl, peat, freshwater lake and marine sediments, and to a lesser extent, sand deposited during the Pleistocene and Holocene. The subtropical Florida region can be divided into four smaller sub-regions: 1) the everglades, 2) Big Cypress, 3) Miami Ridge and Atlantic Coastal Strip, and 4) Southern Coasts and Islands. The Everglades is the most extensive of these areas, followed by the Big Cypress, Miami Ridge and Southern Coasts. Across all subregions, much of the physical and ecological characteristics of the region resemble tropical ecosystems where seasonal changes are reflected by changing rainfall patterns rather than by dramatic temperature changes. Distinctive dry (winter/spring) and wet (summer) seasons occur annually, and the nesting cycles of many birds are tied to these changes. At least two major forms of disturbance play key roles in the ecology of the region. Fire is an important feature in many pine dominated communities and many marsh and prairie communities. Frequent fires are essential in pine-dominated stands and prairies if understory conditions suitable to many nesting birds are to be maintained. However, the ideal fire frequency in some pine communities is not known. Hurricanes are a second form of disturbance that less frequently but predictably provide early successional habitats or open forest cover (Brawn et al. 2001).

Bird conservation priorities for Subtropical Florida have been stratified by habitat type. Recognized habitat types where high priority conservation actions are needed for both birds and habitats are pine forests (including pine rocklands, pine Flatwoods, sand pine scrub), grassland/grassland-scrub (including dry prairie and coastal strands), subtropical deciduous forest, everglades, brackish saltwater and freshwater marsh, and mangrove swamps. Species associated with each of these habitats and identified as high priority for conservation needs are given below.

Florida Scrub Jay, Red-cockaded Woodpecker, Southeastern American Kestrel, Brown- headed Nuthatch, Bachman’s Sparrow, Palm Warbler and Sedge Wren are associated with the pine forests. Both Florida Scrub Jay and Southeastern American Kestrel have been extirpated in Subtropical Florida and the Brown-headed Nuthatch and Bachman’s

10 Sparrow are nearly extirpated here. Both Palm Warbler and Sedge Wren are present only in the non-breeding seasons.

Grasshopper Sparrow, Crested Caracara, Burrowing Owl, Sandhill Crane and Mottled Duck are all species associated with grassland to grassland scrub habitats. Grasshopper Sparrow has been extirpated in South Florida.

In the subtropical deciduous forest, Short-tailed Hawk, Swallow-tailed Kite, White-crowned Pigeon and Gray Kingbird are high priorities for conservation.

In the Everglades, brackish saltwater and freshwater marshes, Snail Kite, Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow, Wood Stork, Black Rail, Reddish Egret, Yellow Rail, White Ibis, and Clapper Rail are species in need of conservation attention.

Prairie Warbler, Yellow Warbler, Black-whiskered Vireo, and Mangrove Cuckoo, species associated with Mangrove swamps and forests, and are of high priority conservation concern.

Human population growth has been phenomenal in subtropical Florida for the last 40 years. The impacts of such tremendous growth include increased infrastructure that directly reduces habitat availability, but also secondary impacts to bird habitats, such as pollution. Other land uses include production of sugarcane, winter vegetables, and citrus. Drastic changes in hydroperiod and natural water cycles are secondary impacts of increasingly intensive agriculture. However, among the best opportunities in the Southeast to work with existing public lands occur in Subtropical Florida, where over 54% of the area is publicly owned. Therefore, primary conservation programs include efforts to reduce impacts from adjacent or nearby lands on management of existing public lands. Many programs have been developed and are in various phases of implementation. These include the Save our Everglades program, the Surface Water Improvement and Management Act, Florida’s Everglades Forever Act and the development of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force as well as aggressive acquisition programs. These and other programs serve the basis for bird conservation efforts in the region (PIF 2000).

Avian Conservation in BICY

Avian Biodiversity: BICY has a complete avian inventory and a checklist of birds that is available for the public. Preserve staff are in the process of updating the checklist. Over 175 birds have been observed in BICY.

Verified records of birds in BICY have been entered into the NPS I&M program’s database, NPSpecies, and may be viewed via the internet at http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/app/npspp with a user identification and password combination authorized by the NPS for NPS personnel and NPS cooperators. Many other avian observational data need to be verified and entered into the database.

11 Preserve Priorities: Preserve staff and consultants have not identified any particular species that is a preserve management concern or high priority for conservation. However, the presence of 5 Federally listed bird species requires compliance with the Endangered Species Act and a large amount of staff time is given to managing these species. Additionally, preserve staff are concerned about conserving all birds and their habitats in BICY. However, several species that occur in BICY are high priority in Subtropical Florida and conservation efforts in the preserve could focus on these species or groups of species.

Inventory: A complete inventory has been recognized as important information for park managers and the BICY inventory is considered complete. However, BICY has identified additional funding needs to document distribution and abundance of the preserve’s avifauna.

Threatened and Endangered Species: Five Federally listed threatened or endangered species nest in BICY. These are Red-cockaded Woodpecker, Wood Stork, Bald Eagle, Snail Kite, and Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow. The recently delisted American Peregrine Falcon is a rare but regular fall transient and winter visitor.

Several Florida listed species occur in BICY as well. Prominent among these are: Florida Grasshopper Sparrow, White-crowned Pigeon, Arctic Peregrine Falcon, Florida Sandhill Crane, and Least Tern.

Partners In Flight (PIF) has also listed Brown-headed Nuthatch, Bachman’s Sparrow, Grasshopper Sparrow, Sandhill Crane, Mottled Duck, Short-tailed Hawk, Swallow-tailed Kite, White-crowned Pigeon, Black Rail, Reddish Egret, White Ibis, Florida Prairie Warbler, Yellow Warbler, Mangrove Cuckoo, Black-whiskered Vireo and non-breeding populations of Palm Warbler and Sedge Wren as species of high conservation concern in Subtropical Florida (PIF 2000).

Monitoring: Currently, several avian monitoring projects are being conducted at BICY. These are:

• Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow population monitoring (Population A) conducted by Everglades National Park personnel • Red-cockaded Woodpecker nest monitoring on 45 clusters of woodpeckers • Red-cockaded Woodpecker nestling banding • Wood Stork colony monitoring by helicopter • Snail Kite Monitoring • Bald Eagle nest surveys conducted by State of Florida • Waterbird colony monitoring conducted by Everglades National Park and State of Florida • Osprey nest monitoring conducted by State of Florida • Brown-headed Nuthatch and Eastern Bluebird monitoring following translocations • Three mini-Breeding Bird Survey routes conducted during May

12 • Regular Breeding Bird Survey route conducted by US Fish and Wildlife Service • Randomized recreational birding

Research: Scientific research is permitted within the preserve, and several recent projects have been concluded, focusing on several of the listed species that occur in the preserve. The only active current active avian research involves work on the endangered Snail Kite.

Outreach: No specific educational and outreach programs related to birds are undertaken in the preserve, but birds are included in the more generic wildlife programs.

Preserve Identified Needs for Avian Conservation

BICY has identified on high priority projects that would increase the avian knowledge of the preserve and would assist preserve managers in better decision making.

Research: The preserve would like to assess the impacts that Off Road Vehicles (ORV’s) have on the bird populations, especially birds that nest on the ground or in the herb/shrub layer of the forests.

Coordination with Regional Conservation Initiatives

North American Bird Conservation Initiative: NABCI bird conservation planning units, referred to as Bird Conservation Regions (BCR), are often larger than other planning units associated with other plans, such as Partners In Flight. For example, BICY is within the NABCI Peninsular Florida BCR located entirely within Florida (see BCR map) and encompasses two PIF physiographic areas (the planning unit for PIF)(compare to NPS and PIF maps).

Several NABCI BCR's have coordinators whose primary responsibility is to coordinate all bird conservation planning in the BCR, across all agencies and organizations. Currently, Peninsular Florida does not have a designated coordinator; however, a large portion of the BCR lies within the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture area (Maine to Florida and includes Puerto Rico) and the ACJV has several professional bird conservationists base throughout the region to assist partners in bird conservation efforts (see contacts below). This staff can provide valuable assistance to BICY with implementation of aspects of this ACIP.

14 programs in the United States, being monetarily supported by the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA).

Partners In Flight: Goals and strategies for Subtropical Florida have yet to be fully identified and organized into a bird conservation plan. Personnel from the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission are currently working on completing the Partners in Flight bird conservation plan for South Florida. In the meantime, Florida’s avian priorities and conservation needs are identified in Millsap et al. (1990).

Similar to NABCI BCR’s, PIF physiographic areas often do not have designated coordinators. However, state level non-game agencies with investment in PIF will establish key personnel to develop partnerships among cooperators in the physiographic area. The State of Florida has a non-game bird conservation coordinator and can be instrumental in assisting BICY to implement recommendations identified in this ACIP and projects important to bird conservation relative to Florida’s role in implementation of the bird conservation goals in Subtropical Florida.

United States Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP): The USSCP has been completed and is available on the World Wide Web (http://shorebirdplan.fws.gov/). A regional step down plan is in preparation by FWS personnel and should be available in 2004.

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas (WCA): The WCA plan has been completed and is available on the World Wide Web or can be ordered from the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Conservation Training Center (http://www.waterbirdconservation.org/). BICY will utilize this regional plan when completed.

Integration of NABCI Goals and Objectives into Preserve Planning and Operations: NABCI Implementation Recommendations

To successfully achieve preserve-established goals and actively participate in NABCI, the preserve could implement a variety of projects in different NPS programs. Most of these projects would require some level of participation by many existing preserve programs and could either be achieved through NPS funding, or more likely, through establishing or improving partnerships with agencies and organizations that already have the necessary expertise to provide guidance, funding, and execution of these programs. Programmatic areas where bird conservation actions are likely to be focused are:

• Inventory • Monitoring • Habitat Restoration • Threat Management (includes exotic species, air quality, water quality, etc.) • Research 15 • Compliance • Outreach • Partnerships

To the extent appropriate, each of these program areas will be discussed separately and within each, specific opportunities identified that, when implemented, will enable the preserve to meet its mandates (current and expected) as well as integrate NABCI into its planning and operations. With emphasis added, the preserve is not expected to implement any of these recommendations or be obligated to pursue any opportunity other than those the preserve is required to do by law or NPS program or policy. In other words, participation in this effort is currently voluntary. However, participation in these efforts at some level could become mandatory with the completion of an MOU with the FWS regarding EO 13186 (US Government 2000). The MOU will establish a formal agreement between the FWS and the NPS to promote bird conservation within the agency by incorporating goals and strategies of existing bird conservation initiatives, plans, and goals into park planning and operations.

Should the preserve decide to implement any of these projects, further consultation with bird conservation contacts is encouraged to obtain updated information on the relevance of these opportunities in regional bird conservation.

High priority projects are identified in bold print. Priorities that the preserve is encouraged to seek NPS funding for are marked with and asterisk (*). These projects are those that are critical to the stabilization or improvement of a bird population in the planning region.

Inventory: The preserve has inventoried its bird fauna exceptionally well. Although the avifauna of BICY is well documented, distribution and abundance data are desired to fully understand the status of birds in the preserve so that conservation actions for birds can be implemented. Status of high priority species is needed to effectively structure preserve management for the continued preservation and enhancement of the preserve’s avifauna.

Additional abundance and distribution data is needed for

• Marshbirds • Wet and Dry Prairie birds • Mangrove birds • Pine Hammock birds • Cypress Strands and Domes

Additionally, BICY is encouraged to

• partner with Everglades National Park (EVER), Ten Thousand Island National Wildlife Refuge (TTINWR), Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge 16 (FPNWR), Fakahatchee , Big Cypress Seminole Indians, Miccosukee Indians, and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) to coordinate area inventory efforts

• verify other avian observational data collected in the preserve and enter into the appropriate database (NPSpecies, eBird, etc.)

• standardize inventory and monitoring methodology to conform to NPS and/or FWS recommended standards (Fancy and Sauer 2000, Hunter 2000).

Monitoring: The preserve has an active bird monitoring program resulting in documentation of many high priority species identified for conservation effort occur in the Subtropical Florida and the preserve. Efforts should be made to continue existing monitoring programs, striving to conform to established NPS or FWS surveys protocols. Close coordination with State of Florida biologists, researchers, and local federal land managers is needed to identify and implement high priority projects on preserve lands and to ensure that preserve efforts contribute to preserve or regional bird conservation rather than undertake an action or actions that are not needed or are better conducted in other areas. Specific recommendations are to:

• continue to conduct existing monitoring programs and enter data into the appropriate database (NPSpecies, eBird, etc.) and provide data to cooperators

• conduct follow up monitoring on translocations of Brown-headed Nuthatch and Eastern Bluebird to Everglades National Park*

• conduct follow up monitoring to determine success of translocation of Red-cockaded Woodpeckers to Dupuis Wildlife and Environmental Area (DWEA)*

• establish an avian monitoring program based on distribution and abundance surveys that focus on regionally identified high priority species*

• establish a pre and post fire inventory program to document response of birds to prescribed fire

• standardize inventory and monitoring methodology to conform to NPS and/or FWS recommended standards (Fancy and Sauer 2000, Hunter 2000).

• partner with Everglades National Park (EVER), Ten Thousand Island National Wildlife Refuge (TTINWR), Big Cypress Seminole Indians,

17 • Miccosukee Indians, and South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) to coordinate area monitoring efforts

Habitat Restoration: Historical landscape conditions in the Southeastern US have changed dramatically since early European explorers began documenting the area, its habitats, and its inhabitants. Historic landscape alternation by Native Americans for a variety of uses (Williams 2002), wildfire, Bison (Bison bison), beaver (Castor Canadensis) and elk (Cervus elaphus) effects, weather, and beaver, etc. (Hunter et al. 2001) resulted in a landscape mosaic that supported a rich and diverse bird fauna in the Southeast (Barden 1997, Brawn et al. 2001). The arrival of Europeans and the subsequent change in landscape has dramatically effected bird habitat and bird populations. Bird conservationists have recognized for a long time that habitat restoration is critical to restoration of bird populations, stabilizing or reversing bird declines, and removing birds from both State and Federal Threatened and Endangered Species lists. Recently, habitat restoration efforts have increased nationwide, and on NPS lands; NPS receiving restoration emphasis and guidance in the 2001 Management Policies (NPS 2001). Habitat restoration efforts that parks may undertake are wetland restoration, grassland restoration, woodland restoration, etc. utilizing a wide range of tools to accomplish the restoration. Some of these tools may be but not limited to forest management practices, exotic species management, public use and recreation management, infrastructure development management, and prescribed fire.

Due to the protected nature of BICY lands, and generally those in the national park system, the condition of habitats for bird use may be of higher quality than other natural, developed, agricultural, or forest lands under other management regimes. However, national park lands can be greatly improved for wildlife, and particularly bird use, by restoring processes important for habitat formation, succession, and structural development. Largely, these processes have not been managed historically in the national park system but current policy allows for active management of species, populations, and lands to provide for long-term conservation of park resources. Protection, restoration, and enhancement of habitats in BICY can greatly contribute to established habitat goals identified in the Subtropical Florida bird conservation plan.

BICY is primarily a large wetland that cover a variety of habitats, including freshwater marsh, wet and dry prairies, forested wetlands, mangrove forest, and shallow sloughs. Preservation of these habitats and many species have evolved through a dependence on wildfire. Indeed, BICY is one of the most fire dependant landscapes in Florida and currently conducts the largest prescribed fire program in the NPS. Specific habitat recommendations are to:

• increase the amount of prescribed fire from current average to approximately 40,000 ha (100,000 acres) to improve habitat conditions in pinelands and prairies for high priority birds

18 • restore previously disturbed lands due to agriculture, ORV’s, and developments to natural vegetation

• protect existing snag trees, where not identified as a safety hazard, as important to cavity nesting birds

• enhance or maintain water quality to support aquatic biota necessary to support existing waterbirds, marshbirds, and other birds that use water for nesting and foraging

• assess historic landscape cover and determine feasibility of restoring landscape within the context of the preserve’s enabling legislation.

Threat Management: Potentially the greatest impact to birds at BICY is the use of ORV’s. The preserve has completed and ORV Management Plan. Implementation of the ORV Management Plan should allow the preserve to demonstrate that the preserve’s bird populations will improve. However, because ORV’s will still impact preserve habitats and vegetation, the preserve is encouraged to:

• fund and conduct the Project Management Information System (PMIS) project to assess the impacts of ORV’s to the preserve’s bird populations and at the conclusion of the research implement needed changes in the plan to further protect the preserve’s avifauna*

Impact of exotic species on birds at BICY is largely unquantified but feral hogs do occur in the preserve. However, feral hogs are a prey item of the Florida Panther and are not considered a resources threat, but a regulated resource.

Significant exotic plants species are negatively impacting habitat at BICY, particularly Melaleuca. Brazilian Pepper, Australian Pine, and Old World Climbing Fern are present and potentially a threat to habitat at BICY. It is important to establish and continue inventory and monitoring for exotic plant species and implement aggressive removal/reduction projects for these species. The South Florida Exotic Plant Management Team can assist in coordination and implementation of exotic plant management. BICY is encouraged to:

• implement an aggressive exotic plant reduction program to restore and improve habitat quality

Research: Several research projects have been identified that would provide additional information to BICY managers for bird conservation purposes.

• assess ORV impacts on the bird populations throughout the preserve*

• determine the response of Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow to airboat use* 19 • determine the effects of wildfire and fuel treatments on the avifauna of the pine rockland ecosystem in southern Florida*

• determine demographics of Limpkin

• determine winter and Neotropical and temperate migrants use of preserve

• assess the effects of prescribed burning on wintering and breeding birds of wet prairie habitats

Additionally, the preserve is encouraged to:

• list preserve needs and projects on Research Permit and Reporting System web site (RPRS)

• develop contact with South Florida/Caribbean Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit at the University of Miami, Miami, Fl

Compliance: Preserve compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act EO 13186 (US Government 2000) is necessary to assure that preserve activities incorporate bird conservation into preserve planning and operations. Further, to ensure that migratory birds are considered in all phases of preserve planning processes, especially during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Director’s Order #12 Compliance processes, the preserve should consider adding specific language in project evaluations that requires consideration and implications of preserve projects on migratory birds. The MOU being developed between the NPS and the FWS will likely contain specific language requiring a preserve to consider implications of preserve projects on migratory birds, particularly those species identified in the USFWS Species of Conservation Concern 2002 (Appendix C). Additional considerations are to encourage:

• preserve staff to begin specific consideration of migratory birds during preserve planning processes

• preserve staff to attend USFWS training on implementation of EO 13186 (US Government 2000) at the National Conservation Training Center (NCTC) (when available) or other training on migratory bird conservation in North America. NCTC has several courses and training related to conservation of migratory birds (http://training.fws.gov/courses.html).

The USFWS NCTC offers and reserves two tuition free slots for National Park Service employees wishing to attend NCTC courses on a first come, first served basis. Additionally, discount lodging is also available while attending a NCTC course.

20 Outreach:

• update the bird checklist for public availability

• participate in International Migratory Bird Day (IMBD) events with a local partner (http://birds.fws.gov/imbd.html), such as TTINWR or Collier- Seminole State Park

• continue to develop and foster relationship with local area bird clubs, such as Naples Bird Club and Collier County Audubon

• encourage development of outreach and educational programs to enhance visibility of bird conservation issues, which may include organized bird walks, owl prowls, and raptor surveys with the public

• encourage accurate documentation and reporting from these and random outings by visitors (see Cornell University’s eBird monitoring program (Cornell Lab. Ornith. 2002 (http://www.ebird.org/about/index.jsp)

• develop relationship with Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation and Miccosukee Indian Reservation personnel to cooperate on a joint bird conservation project

• preserve interpretation/education staff are encouraged to attend USFWS training on Migratory Bird Education at NCTC

• consider adding links to bird conservation information, data, etc. to the preserve’s web site home page

• support bird conservation by serving shade-grown coffees at meetings, events, and the office buildings in the preserve (http://www.americanbirding.org/programs/conssbcof3.htm)

• subscribe to Florida Birds, an electronic forum for listing bird sightings and publications in Florida

• explore cultural affiliation of landscape to inhabitants, both historical and contemporary. Cultures are strongly tied to the landscape they inhabit and birds often play a role in a cultural tie to the landscape. When these connections are discovered and preserved, a greater appreciation for the landscape and it’s value to the culture can be achieved.

Partners and Partnerships: Partnerships for land conservation and protection will perhaps have the greatest positive influence on bird conservation above all other landscape scale planning. Specific recommendations are to: 21 • keep abreast of Collier, Broward, and Hendry Counties initiatives or programs that could impact preserve resources*

• develop relationship with Big Cypress Seminole Indian Reservation and Miccosukee Indian Reservation personnel*

• contact US Fish and Wildlife Service private lands biologists to discuss private landowner initiatives applicable to the area*

Several private landowner programs could be implemented that would serve to protect areas adjacent to BICY and potentially improve water and habitat quality in the vicinity

• develop partnership with Florida Wildlife and Conservation Commission, SFWMD, TTINWR, Collier-Seminole State Park and EVER to coordinate and implement various aspects of this ACIP*

• contact the nearest Joint Venture office (see Funding section for explanation of Joint Ventures) or BCR coordinator to develop partnerships and funding proposals tiered to priorities established by the preserve, this ACIP, and the Subtropical Florida bird conservation plan*

• partner with and engage the local bird clubs, including Naples Bird Club, and Collier County Audubon as active partners in BICY’s bird conservation program

• develop land use agreements with local landowners through state, FWS programs to protect important habitats and landscapes adjacent to BICY

Funding Opportunities: Internal NPS funding is often an effective source to obtain funding; however, the project will have to be a fairly high priority among the preserve’s natural resource program to successfully compete for the limited funding available in the NPS. Therefore, partnerships and outside funding programs are often more productive for securing bird conservation funding. BICY is encouraged to enter all high priority projects into the NPS Performance Management Information System (PMIS) database. Funding for conservation projects for neotropical migrants is also available through the Park Flight program.

With the exception of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP and its associated funding legislation, the North American Wetland Conservation Act), funding opportunities for bird conservation programs, plans, and initiatives have been lacking. Only within the last decade have other appropriate and specific sources for bird conservation funding been created and used. The NAWMP has been supported for approximately 14 years by the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA 1989). This program has provided $487 million in appropriated funds matched with $1.7 billion for wetland and bird conservation projects since its inception. In 2002 alone, 22 over $70 million US dollars were awarded to US and Canadian agencies and organizations to enhance waterfowl populations by improving, restoring, or protecting wetland habitats. To adequately evaluate projects and distribute these funds, partnerships called Joint Ventures were established. Nationally, 14 (11 US, 3 Canada) Joint Ventures have been established, several which are funded and staffed. Internet links to Joint Ventures are: (http://southwest.fws.gov/gulfcoastjv/ojvcontact.html) and (http://northamerican.fws.gov/NAWMP/jv.htm).

Funding through NAWCA is highly underutilized by the NPS and any park unit that has wetland, water, or bird conservation needs associated with wetland are encouraged to investigate using this funding source. Naturally, there are certain requirements to be eligible for all grants and preserve managers are encouraged to consult with the nearest Joint Venture, BCR, PIF Coordinator, to learn how this program might be applicable to implementation of this plan, and other preserve wetland issues. BICY is not within a region which has an operational Joint Venture, but contact with the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, Central Hardwoods BCR, and Tennessee PIF coordinators will provide opportunity to investigate use of this funding source and developing proposals. Internal FWS funding programs may be used to support projects, but no effective method of project proposal delivery to these sources is currently in place for the NPS. Current funding in these programs may result from FWS familiarity with NPS needs, or NPS participation in one of the area FWS Ecosystem Teams, where a project has been identified and proposed to be funded through the Ecosystem Team.

One unexplored yet potentially fruitful funding source for national parks is the myriad of grants through the FWS State Programs, where grants are awarded to private individuals engaged in habitat conservation projects. No funding is directly available to national parks, but identified projects with important or critical adjacent landowners can sometimes be funded through these sources. Similar programs are available if the adjacent landowner is a federally recognized American Indian tribe.

Specific congressional appropriations to protect migratory birds has recently been authorized under the Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act (2000) (http://www.nfwf.org/programs/nmbcapp.htm). Appropriations through this Act are authorized up to $5 million per year. However, in 2000, appropriation was approximately $3.75 million and a majority of this funding was directed toward projects in Central and South America.

Many of the identified projects are eligible for funding under various grant programs of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation http://www.nfwf.org/programs/programs.htm).

Other prominent funding sources available to NPS managers for bird conservation are listed on this projects web site at: http://southeast.fws.gov/birds/NPSHighlits.htm.

Funding opportunities for migratory bird conservation are available yet most natural resource agencies are not fully aware of and/or understanding of how to use these sources. Perhaps a consolidated migratory bird funding source catalog will become 23 available to managers in the future; this is needed.

Contacts: Primary contacts within the region can be obtained by viewing the web site for the Southeastern Bird Conservation Initiative, National Park Service at http://southeast.fws.gov/birds/npsbirds.htm. This web site will provide contact information of the appropriate bird conservation coordinator in the region for preserve personnel. Preserve staff are encouraged to view the web site and obtain contact information. Primary contacts for BICY are:

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Keith Watson National Park Service US Fish and Wildlife Service 160 Zillicoa Street, Suite D South Florida/Caribbean Asheville, NC 28801 Inventory & Monitoring Network 828-350-8228 SF/C Network Coordinator [email protected] National Park Service Matt Patterson Jennifer Wheeler 305 224-4211 US Fish and Wildlife Service [email protected] Waterbird Conservation Plan Coordinator Mr. Tony Pernas 703-358-1714 National Park Service [email protected] 305 224-4246 [email protected] Craig Watson US Fish and Wildlife Service Carol Daniels Atlantic Coast Joint Venture South Florida/Caribbean CESU Charleston, SC Rosential School of Marine and 843-727-4707 ext. 16 Atmospheric Sciences [email protected] University of Miami Miami, Fl Chuck Hunter 305 361-4904 US Fish and Wildlife Service [email protected] Regional Refuge Biologist Atlanta, GA State of Florida 404-679-7130 [email protected] Jeff Gore Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Ralph Costa Commission US Fish and Wildlife Service [email protected] Clemson University Clemson, SC 864 656-2432 Karl Miller [email protected] Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation

24 Commission 352-955-2230 [email protected]

Bernice Constantine USDA Wildlife Services Florida 353-377-5556

Rob Bennetts US Geological Survey Biological Resources Division Florida and Caribbean Science Center 7920 NW 71st Street, Gainesville, FL 32653 Phone: 352-378-8181, ext. 374 [email protected]

Ken Meyer Avian Research and Conservation Institute Gainesville, FL [email protected]

Peter Frederick University of Florida Gainesville, Fl (904) 846-0565 [email protected]

Gary Slater Ecostudies Institute P.O. Box 703 Mount Vernon, WA 98273 360-416-6707 [email protected]

Joe Howard Collier-Seminole State Park 20200 E. Tamiami Trail Naples, Florida 34114 Phone: 239-394-339 [email protected]

25 LITERATURE CITED

Barden, L.S. 1997. Historic Prairie in the Piedmont of North and South Carolina, USA. Natural Areas Journal 17:149-152.

Brawn, J.D., S.K. Robinson and F. R. Thomson III. 2001. The Role of Disturbance in the Ecology and Conservation of Birds. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 32:251-76.

Cornell University and National Audubon Society. 2002. eBird Monitoring Program. Cornell University, Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

Fancy, S. and J. Sauer. 2000. Recommended Methods for Inventorying and Monitoring Landbirds in National Parks. National Park Service, Ft. Collins. 13p.

Hunter, C. 2000. Bird Population Survey, Inventory, and Monitoring Standards for National Wildlife Refuges and Partners in the Southeastern U.S. USFWS. January 2002. 49p.

Hunter C., D. Buehler, R. Canterbury, J. Confer, and P. Hamel. 2001. Conservation of disturbance-dependent birds in eastern North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin 29:440-455.

Millsap, B. A., J. A. Gore, D. E. Runde, and S. I. Cerulean. 1990. Setting priorities for the conservation of fish and wildlife species in Florida. Wildlife Monographs 111.

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. 2000. 114 Stat. 593. 16 U.S.C. 6102 Public Law 106247, enacted July 20, 2000.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act. 1989. 103 Stat. 1968; 16 U.S.C. 4401- 4412. Public Law 101-233, enacted December 13, 1989.

Partners In Flight. 2000. Executive Summary, Subtropical Florida Bird Conservation Plan. 1p.

Sauer, J.R., J.E. Hines, I. Thomas, J. Fallon, and G. Gough. 2000. The North American Breeding Bird Survey, Results and Analysis 1966-1999. Version 98.1, U.S.G.S. Patuxent Wildlife Research Center, Laurel, MD.

Southeast Natural Resource Leaders Advisory Group (SENRLAG). 2000. A Strategy for Collaboration. Unpublished. 4p.

USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp.

USDI Geological Survey. 2001. National Point Count Database. Biological Research Division, Patuxent Wildlife Research Station, Patuxent, MD. 26 USDI National Park Service. 2001. National Park Service Management Policies. 2001. December 2000. 137p.

USDI National Park Service. Resource Management Plan, Big Cypress National Preserve.

USDI National Park Service. 2002. Park Flight and Migratory Bird Conservation. National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center. 2p.

USDI National Park Service Organic Act. 1916. 39 Stat. 535 16 U.S.C. 1-4, enacted August 25, 1916.

US Government. 2000. Presidential Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, January 2000.

US NABCI Committee. 2000. The North American Bird Conservation Initiative in the United States: A Vision of American Bird Conservation. U.S. NABCI Committee, September 2000. 29p.

Williams, G.W. 2002. Aboriginal Use of Fire: Are There Any “Natural” Plant Communities? USDA Forest Service, Washington D.C., June 2002. 18p.

27 APPENDIX A

HIGH PRIORITY SPECIES IN PENINSULAR FLORIDA BIRD CONSERVATION REGION (from Table 1, Peninsular Florida Priority Bird Species)

Table 1. Priority bird species for Peninsular Florida: Entry criteria and selection rationale

Conservation Score Priority Total PIF Percent Local Entry Priority Area Population of BBS MigratoryGeographical or Criteria1 Species Species Score Importance Trend Population Status2 Historical Notes

Ia. Florida Scrub-Jay5 35 54 54 100 R Grasshopper Sparrow5 35 54 54 100 R (Florida) Snail Kite5 34 5 44 100? D (Everglade) Crested Caracara5 34 54 44 D (Florida pop.) Snowy Plover 34 5 5 D Gulf side only (SE US) Red Knot (SE US) 32 5 5 C Piping Plover5 31 4 5 C Prairie Warbler 31 54 54 D (Florida) Wood Stork5 30 5 4 D (SE US pop.) Short-tailed Hawk 30 54 3 D (Florida pop.) Swallow-tailed Kite 29 5 3 61.7 B (SE US) Red-cockaded 29 34 3 R Woodpecker5

28 Table 1 (cont.).

Conservation Score Priority Total PIF Percent Local Entry Priority Area Population of BBS MigratoryGeographical or Criteria1 Species Species Score Importance Trend Population Status2 Historical Notes

Mottled Duck 29 5 44 11.3? D American Kestrel 28 54 44 R (SE US) Burrowing Owl 28 54 3 D (Florida) Bachman’s Sparrow 28 5 3 18.9 D Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed 28 3 3 C Sparrow Painted Bunting (Eastern) 28 34 3 D American Oystercatcher 28 5 3 D (Eastern NA pops.)

Ib. Wilson’s Plover 27 4 3 D Nelson’s Sharp-tailed 27 3 3 C Sparrow Henslow’s Sparrow 27 3 4 C Black Rail 27 4 3 D Sandhill Crane 26 54 1 R (Florida) Audubon’s Shearwater 26 5 3 P (Caribbean) Reddish Egret 26 4 3 D Least Tern 26 5 44 4.6? B Black Skimmer 26 5 5 D Bicknell’s Thrush 26 5 3 A

29 Table 1 (cont.). Conservation Score Priority Total PIF Percent Local Entry Priority Area Population of BBS MigratoryGeographical or Criteria1 Species Species Score Importance Trend Population Status2 Historical Notes

Yellow Rail 26 4 3 C Buff-breasted Sandpiper 25 3 4 A Most southbound migration Black-throated Blue 25 5 3 A Warbler Seaside Sparrow 25 44 3 D Gulf populations Brown Pelican 24 5 14 D (SE US) Marbled Godwit 24 3 4 C Bobolink 24 5 5 A Tricolored Heron 23 4 3 17.3? D White Ibis 23 4 4 D King Rail 23 4 3 D Sandhill Crane 23 5 3 C (Greater) Solitary Sandpiper 23 5 3 A Whimbrel 23 3 5 A Stilt Sandpiper 23 4 3 A Brown-headed Nuthatch 23 3 3 R Cape May Warbler 23 5 3 A Connecticut Warbler 23 5 3 A Cory=s Shearwater 22 5 3 P Clapper Rail 22 3 3 R Limpkin 22 34 44 33.2? R Semipalmated Sandpiper 22 5 5 A Short-billed Dowitcher 22 5 5 C Gull-billed Tern 22 3 4 D Royal Tern 22 4 3 D Sandwich Tern 22 5 3 D Black Tern 22 5 5 A Mangrove Cuckoo 22 34 3 E 30 Table 1 (cont.).

Conservation Score Priority Total PIF Percent Local Entry Priority Area Population of BBS MigratoryGeographical or Criteria1 Species Species Score Importance Trend Population Status2 Historical Notes

Gray Kingbird 22 34 3 4.5? B Black-whiskered Vireo 22 34 3 B Loggerhead Shrike 22 5 5 4.1 D Sedge Wren 22 4 2 C Palm Warbler 22 5 5 C

II a. Anhinga 21 5 3 D American Bittern 21 4 5 C Northern Bobwhite 21 4 5 R Black-bellied Plover 21 4 5 D Willet 21 5 3 D Western Sandpiper 21 5 3 C Common Ground-Dove 21 5 5 23.8? R Red-headed Woodpecker 21 3 5 1.0 D Veery 21 4 5 A Pine Warbler 21 4 5 D Grasshopper Sparrow 21 5 5 C (Eastern) Green Heron 20 5 3 D Northern Harrier 20 4 4 C Ruddy Turnstone 20 3 4 D Least Sandpiper 20 5 5 C Dunlin 20 4 5 C Yellow-billed Cuckoo 20 3 5 B Gray Catbird 20 5 5 C Eastern Towhee 20 5 5 7.9 D American Avocet 19 3 3 C

31 Table 1 (cont.).

Conservation Score Priority Total PIF Percent Local Entry Priority Area Population of BBS MigratoryGeographical or Criteria1 Species Species Score Importance Trend Population Status2 Historical Notes

Greater Yellowlegs 19 5 3 C Sanderling 19 3 5 C Pectoral Sandpiper 19 5 3 A Common Nighthawk 19 5 5 3.6 B

II b. Chuck-will=s-widow 21 5 3 7.0 B White-eyed Vireo 20 5 2 5.4 D

II c. Snowy Egret 19 4 3 D Little Blue Heron 20 3 4 5.1 D

Local or Prothonotary Warbler 21 2 3 B (AA@ Merritt Island) Regional American White Pelican 20 4 1 C Interest Redhead 20 2 4 C American Woodcock 20 2 4 D Acadian Flycatcher 20 2 3 B (AA@ Merritt Island) Yellow-throated Vireo 20 3 3 B (AA@ Merritt Island) Yellow-throated Warbler 20 3 3 C Hooded Warbler 20 2 3 B (AA@ Merritt Island) Peregrine Falcon 19 5 1 A Winters in small numbers Northern Parula 19 5 2 C Common Loon 18 4 3 C Least Bittern 18 2 3 7.0? D Wood Duck 18 4 2 D Ring-necked Duck 18 3 2 C Lesser Scaup 18 3 5 C

32 Table 1 (cont.).

Conservation Score Priority Total PIF Percent Local Entry Priority Area Population of BBS MigratoryGeographical or Criteria1 Species Species Score Importance Trend Population Status2 Historical Notes

Red-shouldered Hawk 18 5 2 D Eastern Kingbird 18 3 5 B Summer Tanager 18 3 3 B Eastern Meadowlark 18 4 5 D Rusty Blackbird 18 2 5 C Bald Eagle5 17 44 1 D Blue-winged Teal 17 5 3 A Barn Owl 17 3 3 D Northern Flicker 17 4 5 D Eastern Wood-Pewee 17 2 3 B (AA@ Merritt Island)

Yellow-crowned Night- 16 2 3 D Heron Roseate Spoonbill 16 2 3 D Northern Pintail 16 3 5 C Brown Thrasher 16 2 3 D Black-and-white Warbler 17 3 3 C Smooth-billed Ani 15 2 3 R Blue-gray Gnatcatcher 14 3 2 C

1Entry criteria (Area Importance [AI] scores roughly mean A1" irregular and unpredictable occurrence, A2" rare to uncommon but regular occurrence, A3" low relative abundance, A4" moderate to high relative abundance, A5" highest relative abundance; Population Trend [PT] scores roughly mean A1" definite increase, A2" stable or possible increase, A3" trend unknown, A4" possible decrease, A5" definite decrease):

Ia. Overall Highest Priority Species. Species with total score 28-35. Ordered by total score. Consider deleting species with AI < 2 confirmed to be of peripheral occurrence and not of local conservation interest, but retain species

33 potentially undersampled by BBS or known to have greatly declined during this century.

Ib. Overall High Priority Species. Species with total score 22-27. Ordered by total score. Consider deleting species with AI < 2 confirmed to be of peripheral occurrence and not of local conservation interest, but retain species potentially undersampled by BBS or known to have greatly declined during this century.

II. Area Priority Species. Species with slightly lower score total 19-21 with PT+AI=8+(a), with high percent BBS population (b), or high level of threats identified (TB+TN=7+, TB or TN=5). Ordered by total score. These are overall moderate priority species.

III. Additional Species of Global Priority. Add WatchList species (Partners in Flight-National Audubon Society priority species at national level), not already listed in either I or II, with AI=2+. Order by total score. Consider deleting species with AI=2 if confirmed to be of peripheral occurrence and not of local conservation interest, but retain if a local population is viable and/or manageable. These are also overall moderate priority species.

LORI Local or Regional Interest Species. Includes game or nongame species identified by State Working Groups. Also, may include species often meeting criteria for I or II within other physiographic areas and therefore of regional interest for monitoring throughout the Southeast. These are overall low priority species within physiographic area, but may be more important within one or more States (especially where multiple states have designated some special protective status on the species).

2 Local Migratory Status, codes adapted from Texas Partners in Flight as follows:

A = Breeds in temperate or tropical areas outside of region, and winters in temperate or tropics outside of region (i.e., passage migrant).

B = Breeds in temperate or tropical areas including the region, and winters exclusively in temperate or tropics outside the region (i.e., includes both breeding and transient populations).

C = Breeds in temperate or tropical areas outside of region, and winters in both the region and in temperate or tropical areas beyond area (i.e., includes both transient and wintering populations).

D = Breeds and winters in the region, with perhaps different populations involved, including populations moving through to winter beyond the region in temperate or tropical areas (i.e., populations may be present throughout year, but may include a large number of passage migrants).

E = Species reaching distributional limits within the region, either as short-distance or long-distance breeding migrants, but at population levels above peripheral status.

F = Same as E except for wintering (non-breeding) migrants.

R = Resident, generally non-migratory species (though there may be local movements).

RP= Resident, non-migratory species, reaching distributional limits within the region, but at population levels above peripheral status.

P = Pelagic, breeding grounds outside of region, but can occur during breeding season.

PB = Post-breeding dispersal or non-breeding resident; species present during breeding season, but not known to be breeding in the region proper.

3Highest percent of breeding population recorded in temperate North America; numbers in A @ are likely projections; ? indicates species widespread outside of temperate North America and/or waterbirds poorly sampled by Breeding Bird Survey within physio. area.

4AI or PT score revised from what was derived by BBS data, or lack thereof, based on better local information.

5Species listed as either Federal Endangered or Threatened.

35 APPENDIX B Wildlife Conservation Commission

FLORIDA'S ENDANGERED SPECIES, THREATENED SPECIES AND SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN

Official Lists Publication Date: 1 August 1997

This document consolidates the state and federal official lists of endangered species, threatened species, and other species categorized in some way by the respective jurisdictional agencies as meriting special protection or consideration. The state lists of animals are maintained by the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and categorized as endangered, threatened and of special concern, and constitute Rules 39- 27.003, 39-27.004 and 39-27.005, respectively, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The state lists of plants are categorized into endangered, threatened and commercially exploited, and are administered and maintained by the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services via Chapter 5B-40, F.A.C. The federal lists of animals and plants are administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and categorized into endangered and threatened, and are published in 50 CFR 17 (animals) and 50 CFR 23 (plants). The abbreviations used in part one are:

GFC = Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

FDA = Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

FWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service

E = Endangered

T = Threatened

T(S/A) = Threatened/Similarity of Appearance

T(E/P) = Threatened/Experimental Population

SSC = Species of Special Concern C = Commercially Exploited

Designated Status Scientific Common Name(s) GFC FWS Name

Birds

Ajaia ajaja Roseate spoonbill SSC Ammodramus maritimus Wakulla seaside sparrow SSC juncicolus

Designated Status

Scientific Name Common Name(s) GFC FWS Ammodramus maritimus Cape Sable E E mirabilis seaside sparrow Ammodramus maritimus Scott's seaside SSC peninsulae sparrow Florida Ammodramus savannarum grasshopper E floridanus sparrow Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida scrub-jay T T Aramus guarauna Limpkin SSC Ivory-billed Campephilus principalis E E woodpecker Charadrius alexandrinus Southeastern T tenuirostris snowy plover Charadrius melodus Piping plover T T Worthington's Cistothorus palustris griseus SSC marsh wren Marian's marsh Cistothorus palustris marianae SSC wren White-crowned Columba leucocephala T pigeon Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland's warbler E E Egretta caerulea Little blue heron SSC Egretta rufescens Reddish egret SSC Egretta thula Snowy egret SSC Tricolored Egretta tricolor (=Louisiana) SSC heron Eudocimus albus White ibis SSC Arctic peregrine Falco peregrinus tundrius E falcon Southeastern Falco sparverius paulus T American kestrel Grus americana Whooping crane SSC T(E/P) Florida Sandhill Grus canadensis pratensis T crane American Haematopus palliatus SSC oystercatcher Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle T T

Mycteria americana Wood stork E E

37 Designated Status Common Scientific Name GFC FWS Name(s) Pandion haliaetus Osprey SSC* Pelecanus occidentalis Brown pelican SSC Red-cockaded Picoides borealis T E woodpecker Audubon's Polyborus plancus audubonii T T crested caracara Rostrhamus sociabilis Snail kite E E Rynchops niger Black skimmer SSC Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing owl SSC Sterna antillarum Least tern T Sterna dougallii Roseate tern T T Bachman's Vermivora bachmanii E E warbler *Applicable in Monroe County only

38 APPENDIX C

US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN IN PENINSULAR FLORIDA (BCR 31)

Black-capped Petrel Gull-billed Tern Audubon's Shearwater Common Tern Magnificent Frigatebird Least Tern American Bittern Black Tern Little Blue Heron Black Skimmer Reddish Egret White-crowned Pigeon White Ibis Common Ground-Dove Swallow-tailed Kite Mangrove Cuckoo Short-tailed Hawk Smooth-billed Ani American Kestrel (resident paulus ssp. Burrowing Owl only) Chuck-will's-widow Peregrine Falcon Red-headed Woodpecker Yellow Rail Loggerhead Shrike Black Rail Black-whiskered Vireo Limpkin Brown-headed Nuthatch Snowy Plover Yellow Warbler (resident gundlachi ssp. Wilson's Plover only) American Oystercatcher Yellow-throated Warbler Whimbrel Prairie Warbler Marbled Godwit Bachman's Sparrow Red Knot Henslow's Sparrow Semipalmated Sandpiper Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow Stilt Sandpiper Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow Buff-breasted Sandpiper Seaside Sparrow Short-billed Dowitcher Painted Bunting

APPENDIX L.2

BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK

SFCN Vital Signs Report L.2 Appendix L. Avian Conservation Implementation Plans

FINAL DRAFT Avian Conservation Implementation Plan Biscayne National Park

National Park Service Southeast Region

Compiled by J. Keith Watson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service In cooperation with

BISC Resource Management Staff, National Park Service And Bird Conservation Partners December 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction...... 3

Background ...... 3

The North American Bird Conservation Initiative ...... 4

The Southeastern Bird Conservation Initiative: National Park Service ...... 5

Role of NPS in Avian Conservation...... 5

Park Description ...... 7

Avian Resources of the Subtropical Florida ...... 8

Avian Conservation in BISC...... 11

Park Identified Needs for Avian Conservation...... 13

Integration of NABCI Goals and Objectives into Park Planning and Operations: NABCI Implementation Recommendations ...... 15 Inventory ...... 16 Monitoring ...... 17 Habitat Restoration...... 17 Threat Management...... 18 Research ...... 19 Compliance...... 19 Outreach ...... 20 Partners and Partnerships ...... 21 Funding Opportunities...... 21 Contacts...... 23

Literature Cited...... 25

Appendixes Subtropical Florida Priority Species Southeast Region Waterbird Priorities and Habitat Types Florida’s Endangered Species and Species of Special Concern US Fish and Wildlife Service Species of Conservation Concern for Peninsular Florida (BCR 31)

2 Introduction

This Avian Conservation Implementation Plan (ACIP) is provided to the staff at Biscayne National Park (BISC) to serve as guidance to identify, document, and undertake bird conservation activities in the park and with neighboring communities, organizations, and adjacent landowners. This plan may identify goals, strategies, partnerships, and perhaps specific projects for the park to participate in existing bird conservation planning and implementation efforts associated with the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). Under the auspice of NABCI, appropriate bird and habitat conservation goals may be recommended as identified in the appropriate existing national or regional bird conservation efforts aligned with this initiative: Partners In Flight (PIF), North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), US Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP), and Waterbird Conservation for the Americas (WCA). For example, parks in the Appalachians and the Cumberland Plateau will have few if any high priority waterbird conservation issues at a regional landscape or greater scale. As such, little information regarding waterbird conservation will be presented in the ACIP, unless there is an identified park need for this species group, or other mandates, such as federal laws. Similarly, because BISC is primarily a marine/estuarine/barrier island park with coastal hammock and mangrove forests recommendations will be provided in the ACIP for landbirds and coastal birds and their habitats. However, all high priority bird conservation issues for BISC will be discussed and integrated as appropriate.

Information and data presented in the ACIP have been obtained from several sources: 1) interviews with BISC staff 2) BISC bird conservation partners 3) the PIF Subtropical Florida Bird Conservation Plan Executive Summary (Partners In Flight 2000?) 4) NPS databases, and 5) personal communications with bird conservation specialists throughout North America, especially in the southeastern United States. This plan has been reviewed by BISC resource management staff and managers, South Florida/Caribbean Inventory and Monitoring (SFC I&M) staff, and bird conservation partners and approved by BISC management. Optimally, this plan will be incorporated into the park’s Resource Management Plan (USDI NPS 1995) and updated annually to reflect completed projects, newly identified needs, and shifts in bird conservation priorities in the region.

BISC is not obligated to undertake any of the proposed actions in this plan. The plan is provided to offer guidance to BISC to voluntarily support important park, regional, and perhaps national and international bird conservation projects for which BISC is a primary participant in the proposed actions.

Background

During the past thirty years, monitoring programs across North America have documented declines of certain bird species populations and their habitats, often severe (Sauer et al. 2000). The decline has caused great concern among scientists, biologists, 3 biodiversity proponents, ecologists, land managers, etc., and the bird conservation community in general. Birds are recognized as critical components of local and global genetic, species, and population diversity, providing important and often critical ecological, social, and cultural values. Their overall decline has stimulated a worldwide focus on conservation efforts and North American interest in bird conservation is rapidly becoming a focus of government, non-government, industry, and private interests and expenditures.

Many state, federal, and non-governmental wildlife agencies and organizations (NGO’s) have recognized this alarming bird decline trend and have joined forces in several extensive partnerships to address the conservation needs of various bird groups and their habitats. The primary initiatives are:

• North American Waterfowl Management Plan • Partners in Flight • U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan • Waterbird Conservation for the Americas

While efforts associated with these plans have generated some successes, it has been increasingly recognized that the overlapping conservation interests of the; se initiatives can be better served through more integrated planning and delivery of bird conservation. The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI ;http://www.nabci-us.org/main2.html) arose out of this realization. The vision of NABCI is simply to see “populations and habitats of North America’s birds protected, restored and enhanced through coordinated efforts at international, national, regional, state and local levels, guided by sound science and effective management.” NABCI seeks to accomplish this vision through (1) broadening bird conservation partnerships, (2) working to increase the financial resources available for bird conservation in the U.S., and (3) enhancing the effectiveness of those resources and partnerships by facilitating integrated bird conservation (U.S. NABCI Committee 2000). Together, the four bird conservation initiatives mentioned above, as well as several other local and regional partnerships, work collectively to pursue this vision.

To deliver the full spectrum of bird conservation through regionally-based, biologically-driven, landscape-oriented partnerships.

4 The Southeastern Bird Conservation Initiative: National Park Service: In 2000, the Southeast Region of the National Park Service (NPS) recognized the importance of coordinating existing bird conservation goals into planning and operations of national park units in the southeast, that is, integration of NABCI. In support of this recognition, the Southeast Regional Office NPS approved and allocated eighty-eight thousand dollars, cost sharing 1:1 with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Region 4 (Southeast) to hire a biologist to conduct this two-year project (Interagency Agreement FS028 01 0368). This project is unique in the NPS, and perhaps the nation, and represents a potential model for better coordinating regional bird conservation programs and activities within and outside the NPS. It further represents a progressive action toward institutionalizing bird conservation as a programmatic priority in the Southeast Region of NPS, and potentially the nation.

As envisioned, the integration of NABCI into the Southeastern NPS involves:

1) Development and delivery of Avian Conservation Implementation Plans (ACIP), 2) Coordination with NPS Inventory and Monitoring Program, 3) Development of a web based project site, 4) Establishment or enhancement of bird conservation partnerships, 5) Identification and exploration of potential funding opportunities, and 6) Technical guidance and assistance as needed or requested.

This ACIP fulfills one aspect of the plan outlined above, and serves as a basis for future bird conservation actions in BISC and with adjacent partners or landowners. Concurrently, the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the FWS and the NPS to implement Presidential Executive Order (EO) 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, calls for integration of programs and recommendations of existing bird conservation efforts into park planning and operations. Complementing each other, the MOU and the Southeastern Bird Conservation Initiative will advance bird conservation in the Southeast Region of the NPS beyond current regional NPS efforts.

Role of NPS in Avian Conservation

The interagency agreement that facilitates this partnership supports both FWS and NPS management policies. Specifically for the NPS, the agreement supports and advances the Strategy for Collaboration (March 2000), a visionary document developed and signed by the Southeast Natural Resource Leaders Advisory Group (SENRLAG), a consortium of 13 land and resource management agencies in the Southeastern United States whose vision is to encourage and support cooperation in planning and managing the region’s natural resources. Furthermore, the agreement is aligned with and implements a variety of NPS Management Polices (2001) including but not limited to External Threats and Opportunities (Chapter 1.5), Environmental Leadership (Chapter 1.6), Cooperative Planning (Chapter 2.3.1.9), Land Protection (Chapter 3), and especially Natural Resource Management (Chapter 4) that details policy and 5 management guidelines which apply to bird conservation. Important policies in this chapter include:

• Planning for Natural Resource Management (4.1.1) • Partnerships (4.1.4) • Restoration of Natural Systems (4.1.5) • Studies and Collection (4.2) • General Principles for Managing Biological Resources (4.4.1) • Plant and Animal Population Management Principles (4.4.1.1) • Management of Native Plants and Animals (4.4.2) • Management of Endangered Plants and Animals (4.4.2.3) • Management of Natural Landscapes (4.4.2.4) • Management of Exotic Species (4.4.4) • Pest Management (4.4.5) • Fire Management (4.5) and • Water Resource Management (4.6)

The NPS is the fourth largest landowner in the United States, consisting of over 380 national park units covering 83 million acres of land and water with associated biotic resources (www.nps.gov). The 64 units in the Southeast Region of the NPS represent 16% of the total number of park units in the national park system and cover approximately 5% of the total land base in the entire system. Park units in the Southeast Region include national seashores (Canaveral National Seashore, Cape Hatteras National Seashore), national parks (Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Everglades National Park), national recreation areas (Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area), national preserves (Big Cypress National Preserve), national battlefields (Cowpens National Battlefield, Fort Donelson National Battlefield), national monuments (Ocmulgee National Monument), and others such as the Blue Ridge Parkway, Obed Wild and Scenic River, and Timicuan Ecological and Historic Preserve.

Nationally, the status of birds in national parks is largely unknown, although many parks have adequate knowledge regarding bird occurrence in the parks 6 (http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/chekbird/chekbird.htm). Parks often play a role in ongoing regional bird conservation efforts. Indeed many of these parks are often important to regional, national, or international bird conservation, and many have been designated as Important Bird Areas (IBA’s) by the National Audubon Society. To date, there are approximately 64 NPS units that are designated IBA’s, 35 of which are considered of global importance (http://abcbirds.org/iba/aboutiba.htm). In the Southeast Region, the NPS has 13 global IBA’s. . The NPS Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Program has been developed to provide management driven scientific information to national park managers so that resources can be adequately protected within national parks. One of the first phases of this program is to inventory vertebrates, including birds, within the 260 national park units in the program. Once completed, data from the inventories will provide an account of the occurrence and abundance of birds in all the national parks in the program. These records will be stored in the NPS I&M NPSpecies database http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/apps/npspp/). Coordination with I&M network staff is important to developing long-term bird monitoring programs that fulfill both park and NABCI objectives.

Park Description

Biscayne National Park was established in 1969 as Biscayne National Monument with expansions in 1974 and 1980 when it was re-designated Biscayne National Park. The park is located in southeast Florida, within sight of a major metropolitan area, the City of Miami, and heavily influenced by growth within metro Miami-Dade County. The Park is comprised of 70,000 total ha (172,924 acres) of which 63,000 ha (155,631 acres) are submerged. Biscayne National Park’s enabling legislation charges the National Park Service to keep a rare combination of terrestrial, marine, and amphibious life for the 7 inspiration and enjoyment of present and future generations. The park preserves an entire coastal island ecosystem (upland to oceanic), and is home to over eleven federally threatened and endangered species, and over 28 state listed plants and animals in addition to the federally listed species (Sasso and Patterson 2000).

Avian Resources of Subtropical Florida

The physiographic area is entirely contained within Florida, and extends from the northern edge of Lake Okeechobee south through the Florida Keys (see PIF and NPS location maps below). The region has very little topographic relief, but slight changes in elevation have important consequences for vegetation and the diversity of habitat types. The highest points of elevation are less than 2 meters and correspond with fairly recent shorelines (less than 5,000 years before present). Underlying sediments consist of freshwater marl, peat, freshwater lake and marine sediments, and to a lesser extent, sand deposited during the Pleistocene and Holocene. The subtropical Florida region can be divided into four smaller sub-regions: 1) the everglades, 2) Big Cypress, 3) Miami Ridge and Atlantic Coastal Strip, and 4) Southern Coasts and Islands. The Everglades is the most extensive of these areas, followed by the Big Cypress, Miami Ridge and Southern Coasts. Across all subregions, much of the physical and ecological characteristics of the region resemble tropical ecosystems where seasonal changes are reflected by changing rainfall patterns rather than by dramatic temperature changes. Distinctive dry (winter/spring) and wet (summer) seasons occur annually, and the nesting cycles of many birds are tied to these changes. At least two major forms of disturbance play key roles in the ecology of the region. Fire is an important feature in many pine dominated communities and many marsh and prairie communities. Frequent fires are essential in pine-dominated stands and prairies if understory conditions suitable to many nesting birds are to be maintained. However, the ideal fire frequency in some pine communities is not known. Hurricanes are a second form of disturbance that less frequently but predictably provide early successional habitats or open forest cover (Partners in Flight 2000?).

10 Sparrow are nearly extirpated here. Both Palm Warbler and Sedge Wren are present only in the non-breeding seasons.

In the subtropical deciduous forest, Short-tailed Hawk, Swallow-tailed Kite, White-crowned Pigeon and Gray Kingbird are high priorities for conservation.

Prairie Warbler, Yellow Warbler, Black-whiskered Vireo, and Mangrove Cuckoo, species associated with Mangrove swamps and forests, and are of high priority conservation concern.

Avian Conservation in BISC

Avian Biodiversity: BISC has a complete avian inventory (> 90% avifauna known) but has not developed a checklist of birds that is available for the public. Managers recognize the need to update the inventory and checklist. BISC has recorded over 215 species in the park, including many rare vagrants that often show up on the barrier islands of the park, attracting many birding enthusiasts.

Verified records of birds in BISC have been entered into the NPS I&M program’s database, NPSpecies, and may be viewed via the internet at http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/app/npspp with a user identification and password

11 combination authorized by the NPS for NPS personnel and NPS cooperators. Many other avian observational data need to be verified and entered into the database.

Threatened and Endangered Species: Several federally listed threatened species occur in BISC, Bald Eagle, Wood Stork, Roseate Tern, and the Piping Plover. Only the Bald Eagle and Wood Stork are known to breed in BISC. The Roseate Tern is a migrant, and the Piping Plover is a winter resident. Critical habitat for Piping Plover has been established at BISC.

Several species in BISC are listed on the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC) list of Endangered Species, Threatened Species, and Species of Special Concern. Prominent among these are Osprey, White-crowned Pigeon, Least Tern, Black Skimmer, Snowy Plover, and Peregrine Falcon (Arctic subspecies).

Additionally, BISC has several species that have been identified as high priority for conservation by Partners In Flight. These are Cuban Yellow Warbler, Black-whiskered Vireo, Mangrove Cuckoo, Florida Prairie Warbler, Gray Kingbird, Reddish Egret and White Ibis.

Park Priorities: Park staff and consultants have identified the Brown Pelican, Least Tern, and Piping Plover as species of significant management concern and high priority for conservation.

Inventory: The park’s avian inventory has been recognized as important information for park managers and is considered complete within the framework of the NPS I&M Program. BISC is one of seven parks in the NPS South Florida/Caribbean I&M Network for which a plan to conduct high priority inventory projects has been prepared (Sasso and Patterson 2000). At this time, no inventory efforts are planned for BISC.

Monitoring: Currently, several avian monitoring projects are being conducted at BISC. These are:

• Breeding surveys are conducted for Least Tern, Wilson’s Plover, and Killdeer • Christmas Bird Count have been reinstated after a lapse in the late 1980’s and 1990’s • Bald Eagle and Osprey nest monitoring • Migration monitoring is occasionally conducted • Colonial Waterbird surveys on Arsenicker Keys (all egrets and herons; including Reddish Egret) • Randomized recreational birding

Research: Scientific research is permitted within the park, and currently no research other than existing avian monitoring is ongoing.

12 Outreach: Some educational information related to birds is conveyed to visitors to BISC.

• A Birdwatching for Beginners program is offered by Tropical Audubon Society

Park Identified Needs for Avian Conservation

BISC has identified several projects that would increase the avian knowledge of the park. They are:

Inventory: • Better knowledge of nesting birds, and relative abundance of all species, especially high priority species

Monitoring: • Better information on value of park for migration

Data Management: • Verify and enter avian observational data into NPSpecies, eBird, or another appropriate database (BISC data is stored in Everglades National Park databases)

Coordination with Regional Conservation Initiatives

North American Bird Conservation Initiative

NABCI bird conservation planning units, referred to as Bird Conservation Regions (BCR), are often larger than other planning units associated with other plans, such as Partners In Flight. For example, BISC is within the NABCI Peninsular Florida BCR that covers all of Southern Florida south of approximately Jacksonville (see NABCI BCR map below) and encompasses two PIF physiographic areas (the planning unit for PIF)(compare to PIF map).

Several NABCI BCR's have coordinators whose primary responsibility is to coordinate all bird conservation planning in the BCR, across all agencies and organizations. Currently, the Peninsular Florida BCR does not have a designated coordinator; however, the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV) has staff that with responsibility to provide bird conservation assistance to agencies and organizations in the area. This staff can provide valuable assistance to BISC with implementation of aspects of this ACIP.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP)

14 programs in the United States, being monetarily supported by the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA). The ACJV coordinators are responsible for coordination and implementation of this program.

Partners In Flight

Goals and strategies for the Subtropical Florida are not yet fully developed into a draft bird conservation plan. However, as previously noted, bird conservation priorities for BISC are better aligned with Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands goals, yet are largely the responsibility of the NPS and the State of Florida, an arrangement that can make bird conservation at BISC challenging.

Similar to NABCI BCR’s, PIF physiographic areas often do not have designated coordinators. However, state level non-game agencies with investment in PIF will establish key personnel to develop partnerships among cooperators in the physiographic area. The State of Florida has a non-game bird coordinator who can be instrumental in assisting BISC to implement recommendations identified in this ACIP and projects important to bird conservation relative to Florida’s role in implementation of the respective geographical plans.

United States Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP)

The USSCP has been completed and is available on the world wide web (http://shorebirdplan.fws.gov/). A regional step down plan is in preparation by FWS personnel and should be available in 2003.

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas (WCA)

The WCA plan has been completed and is available on the World Wide Web or can be ordered from the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Conservation Training Center (http://www.waterbirdconservation.org/).

Integration of NABCI Goals and Objectives into Park Planning and Operations

NABCI Implementation Recommendations

To successfully achieve park-established goals and actively participate in NABCI, the park could implement a variety of projects in different NPS programs. Most of these projects would require some level of participation by many existing park programs and could either be achieved through NPS funding, or more likely, through establishing or improving partnerships with agencies and organizations that already have the necessary expertise to provide guidance, funding, and execution of these programs. Programmatic areas where bird conservation actions are likely to be focused are:

15 • Inventory • Monitoring • Habitat Restoration • Threat Management (includes exotic species, air quality, water quality, etc.) • Research • Compliance • Outreach • Partnerships

To the extent appropriate, each of these program areas will be discussed separately and within each, specific opportunities identified that, when implemented, will enable to park to meet its mandates (current and expected) as well as integrate NABCI into its planning and operations. With emphasis added, the park is not expected to implement any of these recommendations or be obligated to pursue any opportunity other than those the park is required to do by law or NPS program or policy. In other words, participation in this effort is currently voluntary. However, participation in these efforts at some level could become mandatory with the completion of an MOU with the FWS regarding EO 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds. The MOU will establish a formal agreement between the FWS and the NPS to promote bird conservation within the agency by incorporating goals and strategies of existing bird conservation initiatives, plans, and goals into park planning and operations.

Should the park decide to implement any of these projects, further consultation with bird conservation contacts is encouraged to obtain updated information on the relevance of these opportunities in regional bird conservation.

High priority projects are identified in bold print. Priorities that the park is encouraged to seek NPS funding for are marked with and asterisk (*). These projects are those that are critical to the stabilization or improvement of a bird population in the planning region.

Inventory

The park has inventoried its bird fauna exceptionally well. Although the avifauna of BISC is well documented, additional information is needed on abundance and distribution of species. BISC is encouraged to:

• establish a migration monitoring program throughout the park to determine use of BISC by fall migrants, especially on barrier island habitats*

• obtain abundance and distributional information of all species that nest in BISC and others of high priority conservation concern that use the park as foraging or roosting areas, especially listed species, and those that occur in the coastal mangrove or hammock forests (White-crowned Pigeon, Yellow Warbler, Black-whiskered Vireo, Prairie Warbler, Mangrove Cuckoo)* 16 • verify other avian observational data collected in the park and enter into the appropriate database (NPSpecies, eBird, or other appropriate database)

• standardize inventory and monitoring methodology to conform to NPS and/or FWS recommended standards (Fancy and Sauer 2000, Hunter 2000).

Monitoring

The park’s bird monitoring program is focused on primarily federally and state listed species. Efforts should be made to continue existing monitoring programs. Specific recommendations are to:

• continue to conduct existing monitoring programs and enter data into the appropriate databases (NPSpecies, eBird, or other appropriate database)

• establish a mangrove/coastal hammock avian monitoring program to document abundance of species in theses habitats (see Partnerships below)

• determine usage of park by migrating and wintering shorebirds and adopt appropriate level of shorebird monitoring to document shorebird use of the park

• establish a scientifically based landbird migration monitoring program to document use of BISC during landbird migrations*

• establish the Christmas Bird Count (CBC) as an institutional program, working with local partners to assure the CBC is conducted annually

• standardize inventory and monitoring methodology to conform to NPS and/or FWS recommended standards (Fancy and Sauer 2000, Hunter 2000).

Habitat Restoration

Recently, habitat restoration efforts have increased nationwide, and on NPS lands; NPS receiving restoration emphasis and guidance in the 2001 Management Policies (NPS 2001). Habitat restoration efforts that parks may undertake are wetland restoration, grassland restoration, woodland restoration, etc. utilizing a wide range of tools to accomplish the restoration. Some of these tools may be but not limited to forest management practices, exotic species management, public use and recreation management, infrastructure development management, and prescribed fire.

Due to the protected nature of BISC lands, and generally those in the national park system, the condition of habitats for bird use may be of higher quality than other natural, developed, agricultural, or forest lands under other management regimes. However, 17 national park lands can be greatly improved for wildlife, and particularly bird use, by restoring processes important for habitat formation, succession, and structural development. Largely, these processes have not been managed historically in the national park system but current policy allows for active management of species, populations, and lands to provide for long-term conservation of park resources.

The park is entirely coastal/estuarine/barrier island park subject to the forces generated upon and moving across the ocean surfaces. Tropical storms, tidal fluctuations, and sea level rise are processes that influence the dynamic landscape of BISC and likewise, habitats and associated birds. Specific recommendations are to:

• maintain or enhance water quality in surrounding waters to support aquatic biota necessary to support fish eating birds that either nest or forage in the park*

• restore hydrological processes in park, particularly in support of restoration of South Florida ecosystems and Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program (CERP)

• enhance seagrass recovery (nursery for bird prey) in the park by managing threats to this vegetation

• preserve remaining coastal mangrove and hammock forests for migrating land birds*

• continue to monitor and eliminate exotic vegetation

Threat Management

Many different factors pose threats to bird conservation at BISC, but through sound scientific data gathering, these threats can be minimized or avoided. Boats, recreation, predators, and exotic vegetation all affect bird conservation at BISC. A better understanding of the extent and impact of these threats is needed to effectively preserve park resources. The park is encouraged to:

• manage recreational uses of the park, especially boats and pedestrian traffic to areas where birds nest on barrier islands and to avoid disturbances to foraging, migrating, and wintering colonial waterbirds and shorebirds (develop a Recreational Use Plan)*

• manage other recreation uses of the park including personal watercraft, kayaking, canoeing, to avoid disturbance to nesting, foraging, migrating, and wintering colonial waterbirds and shorebirds (develop a Recreational Use Plan)*

18 • Develop Predator Management Guidelines, similar to those developed at Cape Hatteras National Seashore (USDI 2002) (Cape Hatteras National Seashore has recently completed a feral cat reduction campaign that could be used as a model for a similar program at BISC (Altman 2002, Harrison 2002))*

• hire additional law enforcement officers to provide protection for beach nesting, foraging, migrating, and wintering birds*

• continue to work with adjacent landowners and neighbors, the local community, and pubic officials to curb unregulated and free roaming feral cats in the park

• manage fishing practices that impact fish eating birds such as providing monofilament dispensers at key locations in the park

• identify threats from low flying aircraft

Exotic vegetation has been well managed by the South Florida Exotic Plant Management Team at BISC. Efforts should continue to

• monitor and manage exotic vegetation

Research

Several research projects have been identified that could improve bird conservation for birds at BISC and contribute to increased bird conservation efforts for these species in the Caribbean. These projects are:

• Determine importance of BISC as a migration stopover

• Conduct impact assessment of park fishing methods and fishing gear on fish feeding birds

• List park needs and projects on Research Permit and Reporting System web site (RPRS)

• Develop contact with South Florida/Caribbean Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU) at the Rosentiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Miami, Fl

Compliance

Park compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, is necessary to 19 assure that park activities incorporate bird conservation into park planning and operations. Further, to ensure that migratory birds are considered in all phases of park planning processes, especially during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Director’s Order #12 Compliance processes, the park should consider adding specific language in project evaluations that requires consideration and implications of park projects on migratory birds. The MOU being developed between the NPS and the FWS will likely contain specific language requiring a park to consider implications of park projects on migratory birds, particularly those species identified in the USFWS Species of Conservation Concern 2002 (Appendix D). Additional considerations are to encourage:

• park staff to begin specific consideration of migratory birds during park planning processes

• park staff to attend USFWS training on implementation of EO 13186 at the National Conservation Training Center (NCTC) (when available) or other training on migratory bird conservation in North America. NCTC has several courses and training related to conservation of migratory birds (http://training.fws.gov/courses.html).

Outreach

• participate in International Migratory Bird Day (IMBD) (http://birds.fws.gov/imbd.html) events with a local partner such as the Tropical Audubon Society and US Fish and Wildlife Service*

• develop partnerships with local agencies and organizations to implement aspects of this plan, especially with USFWS, Tropical Audubon Society and Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park*

• encourage development of outreach and educational programs to enhance visibility of bird conservation issues, which may include organized bird walks, migration monitoring, and perhaps waterbird colony visits

• develop educational/outreach program for park fishing persons to avoid or minimize impacts or injury to fish eating birds

• encourage accurate documentation and reporting from randomized outings by visitors (see Cornell University’s eBird monitoring program (Cornell Lab. Ornith. 2002 (http://www.ebird.org/about/index.jsp)

• park interpretation/education staff are encouraged to attend USFWS training on Migratory Bird Education at NCTC

• consider adding links to bird conservation information, data, etc. to the park’s web site home page

• support bird conservation by serving shade-grown coffees at meetings, events, and the office buildings in the park (http://www.americanbirding.org/programs/conssbcof3.htm)

• subscribe to Florida Birds, an electronic forum for listing bird sightings and publications in Florida

Partners and Partnerships

Partnerships for habitat conservation and protection will perhaps have the greatest positive influence on bird conservation above all other landscape scale planning. Specific recommendations are to:

• keep abreast of initiatives that may affect water quality in and around BISC

• become active in the developing mangrove/coastal hammock avian conservation initiative with USFWS (Terry Doyle at Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuge)

• continue to develop and strengthen relationship with local bird clubs such as the Tropical Audubon Society to coordinate and conduct park bird conservation projects

• develop partnership with USFWS, especially local refuges to assist in bird inventory and monitoring efforts and implementation of aspects of this plan

• contact the nearest Joint Venture office (see Funding section for explanation of Joint Ventures) or BCR coordinator to develop partnerships and funding proposals tiered to priorities established by the park, this ACIP, and the bird conservation plans that pertain to BISC

Funding Opportunities

Internal NPS funding is often an effective source to obtain funding; however, the project will have to be a fairly high priority among the park’s natural resource program to successfully compete for the limited funding available in the NPS. Therefore, partnerships and outside funding programs are often more productive for securing bird 21 conservation funding. Within this ACIP, identified priority projects that are considered to be high park priorities as well as NABCI priorities are marked with and asterisk (*). BISC is encouraged to enter all high priority projects into the NPS Performance Management Information System (PMIS) database.

Funding for conservation projects for Neotropical migrants is also available through the Park Flight program.

With the exception of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP and its associated funding legislation, the North American Wetland Conservation Act), funding opportunities for bird conservation programs, plans, and initiatives have been lacking. Only within the last decade have other appropriate and specific sources for bird conservation funding been created and used. The NAWMP has been supported for approximately 14 years by the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA 1989). This program has provided $487 million in appropriated funds matched with $1.7 billion for wetland and bird conservation projects since its inception. In 2002 alone, over $70 million US dollars were awarded to US and Canadian agencies and organizations to enhance waterfowl populations by improving, restoring, or protecting wetland habitats. To adequately evaluate projects and distribute these funds, partnerships called Joint Ventures were established. Nationally, 14 (11 US, 3 Canada)

Joint Ventures have been established, several which are funded and staffed. Internet links to Joint Ventures are:

(http://southwest.fws.gov/gulfcoastjv/ojvcontact.html) and (http://northamerican.fws.gov/NAWMP/jv.htm).

Internal FWS funding programs may be used to support projects, but no effective method of project proposal delivery to these sources is currently in place for the NPS. Current funding in these programs may result from FWS familiarity with NPS needs, or NPS participation in one of the area FWS Ecosystem Teams, where a project has been identified and proposed to be funded through the Ecosystem Team.

approximately $3.75 million and a majority of this funding was directed toward projects in Central and South America.

Many of the identified projects are eligible for funding under various grant programs of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (http://www.nfwf.org/programs/programs.htm).

Other prominent funding sources available to NPS managers for bird conservation are listed on this projects web site at:

http://southeast.fws.gov/birds/NPSHighlits.htm.

Funding opportunities for migratory bird conservation are available yet most natural resource agencies are not fully aware of and/or understanding of how to use these sources. Perhaps a consolidated migratory bird funding source catalog will become available to managers in the future; this is needed.

Contacts

Primary contacts within the region can be obtained by viewing the web site for the Southeastern Bird Conservation Initiative, National Park Service at http://southeast.fws.gov/birds/npsbirds.htm. This web site will provide contact information of the appropriate bird conservation coordinator in the region for park personnel. Park staff are encouraged to view the web site and obtain contact information. Primary contacts for BISC are:

US Fish and Wildlife Service Craig Watson Keith Watson Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Asheville, NC 28801 Charleston, SC 828-350-8228 843-727-4707 ext. 16 [email protected] [email protected]

Dean Demarest Chuck Hunter 1875 Century Blvd. Regional Refuge Biologist Atlanta, GA Atlanta, GA 404-679-7371 404-679-7130 [email protected] [email protected]

Jennifer Wheeler Terry Doyle Waterbird Conservation Plan US Fish and Wildlife Service Coordinator Ten Thousand Islands NWR 703-358-1714 Naples, FL [email protected] 239 353-8442 [email protected]

National Park Service

Rick Clark Biscayne National Park Homestead, FL 305 230-1144 [email protected]

Matt Patterson South Florida/Caribbean Inventory & Monitoring Network SF/C Network Coordinator National Park Service 305 224-4211 [email protected]

Tony Pernas National Park Service Exotic Plant Management Coordinator [email protected]

Carol Daniels South Florida/Caribbean CESU Rosential School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences University of Miami Miami, Fl [email protected]

Jeff Gore Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission [email protected]

Karl Miller Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 352-955-2230 [email protected]

Exotic Animal Management

Bernice Constantine USDA Wildlife Services Florida 353-377-5556

24 LITERATURE CITED

Altman, J. 2002. Feral Cat Management Final Report for Cape Hatteras National Seashore, Wright Brothers National Memorial, and Fort Raleigh National Historic Site. April 15, 2002. 20p.

Cornell University and National Audubon Society. 2002. eBird Monitoring Program. Cornell University, Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

Fancy, S. and J. Sauer. 2000. Recommended Methods for Inventorying and Monitoring Landbirds in National Parks. National Park Service, Ft. Collins. 13p.

Harrison, M. 2002. Outer Banks Feral Cat/Cats Indoors Outreach and Education Program. Draft Final Report to Cape Hatteras National Seashore in cooperation with The Nature Conservancy. June 17, 2002. 13p.

Hunter, C. 2000. Bird Population Survey, Inventory, and Monitoring Standards for National Wildlife Refuges and Partners in the Southeastern U.S. USFWS. January 2002. 49p.

Hunter C., Buehler D.A., Canterbury R.A., Confer J.L., and P.B. Hamel. 2001. Conservation of disturbance-dependent birds in eastern North America. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 34p.

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. 2000. 114 Stat. 593. 16 U.S.C. 6102 Public Law 106247, enacted July 20, 2000.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act. 1989. 103 Stat. 1968; 16 U.S.C. 4401- 4412. Public Law 101-233, enacted December 13, 1989.

Nunez-Garcia, F and Hunter, W.C. 2000. Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands Bird Conservation Plan. Version 1. December 2000. xp.

Raffaele, H. A. 1989. A Guide to the Bird of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Revised Edition. Princeton University Press. 254pp. illus.

Sasso, C.R. and M. Patterson. 2000. A Study Plan to the Inventory of Vascular Plants and Vertebrates in the South Florida/Caribbean Network of the National Park Service. 83p

Southeast Natural Resource Advisory Group. 2000. A Strategy for Collaboration. unpublished. 4p. 25 U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of conservation concern 2002. Division of Migratory Bird Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99 pp.

U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey. 2001. National Point Count Database. Biological Research Division, Patuxent Wildlife Research Station, Patuxent, MD.

U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. 2001. National Park Service Management Policies. 2001. December 2000. 137p.

USDI National Park Service. 1995. Resource Management Plan, Biscayne National ark. 23p

USDI National Park Service. 2002. Park Flight and Migratory Bird Conservation. National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center. 2p.

USDI National Park Service Organic Act. 1916. 39 Stat. 535 16 U.S.C. 1-4, enacted August 25, 1916.

US Government. 2000. Presidential Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, January 2000.

U.S. NABCI Committee. 2000. The North American Bird Conservation Initiative in the United States: A Vision of American Bird Conservation. U.S. NABCI Committee, September 2000. 29p.

26 APPENDIX A

SUBTROPICAL FLORIDA PRIORITY SPECIES (PARTNERS IN FLIGHT) Priority Bird Populations and Habitats

Pine forests (including Pine Rocklands, Pine Flatwoods, Sand Pine Scrub) Florida Scrub Jay Currently extirpated here. Red-cockaded Woodpecker American Kestrel Southeastern U.S. subspecies; currently extirpated here. Brown-headed Nuthatch Nearly extirpated here. Bachman's Sparrow Nearly extirpated here. Palm Warbler Non-breeding seasons. Sedge Wren Non-breeding seasons.

Grassland/grassland-scrub (including dry prairie and coastal strands) Grasshopper Sparrow Florida subspecies; extirpated here. Crested Caracara Florida populations. Burrowing Owl Florida subspecies. Sandhill Crane Florida subspecies. Mottled Duck

Subtropical deciduous forest Short-tailed Hawk Florida population. Swallow-tailed Kite Southeastern U.S. subspecies. White-crowned Pigeon Gray Kingbird

Everglades, brackish saltwater and freshwater marsh Snail Kite Everglades subspecies. Seaside Sparrow Cape Sable subspecies. Wood Stork Southeast U.S. population. Black Rail Reddish Egret Yellow Rail Non-breeding seasons. White Ibis Clapper Rail

Mangrove Swamps Prairie Warbler Florida subspecies. Yellow Warbler Cuban subspecies. Black-whiskered Vireo Mangrove Cuckoo

28 APPENDIX B

Southeast Region Waterbird Priorities and Habitat Types

Table 1. Southeast U.S. Waterbird Conservation Plan species priorities and habitat suites (b=breeding, r=resident, w=winter, r=resident).* Tier Tier Title Action Level Herons and allies, Larids typically beach Marshes/ Open water (with Pelagic (all non- Pelicans and allies (ground)-nesting Savannas/ mud and sand breeding typically brush and tree colonial waterbirds Grasslands flats also foraging populations) nesting colonial (terns, gulls, skimmers) habitat for most waterbirds colonial species) I. Continental Conservation Interest a. Multiple concerns Immediate “Great White” Heron Black Rail (b/r) Bermuda Petrel management King Rail (b/r) Black-capped Petrel Yellow Rail (w) Whooping Crane (w-TX, r-FL) b. High threats Immediate Roseate Tern Horned Grebe (w) Audubon’s and/or declining management Shearwater Management Little Blue Heron Gull-billed Tern Greater Shearwater attention Least Tern Band-rumped Storm-Petrel Black Skimmer Bridled Tern Planning and Masked Booby Brown Booby responsibility Razorbill 29 c. Local and/or rare Immediate Magnificent Frigatebird Management Reddish Egret Management Cory’s Shearwater attention Manx Shearwater Planning and Bridled Tern responsibility Tier Tier Title Action Level Herons and allies, Larids typically beach Marshes/ Open water (with Pelagic (all non- Pelicans and allies (ground)-nesting Savannas/ mud and sand breeding typically brush and tree colonial waterbirds Grasslands flats also foraging populations) nesting colonial (terns, gulls, skimmers) habitat for most waterbirds colonial species) II. Regional Conservation Interest a. High Concern Immediate Wood Stork (b/r, FL, GA, Least Bittern (b/r) Red-throated Loon Sooty Shearwater Management SC, AL)) (w) Management Green Heron Purple Gallinule Common Tern attention (b/r) (transient populations) Black-crowned Night- American Coot Black Tern Heron (breeding (transient populations only) populations) Wood Stork (nb, MS, LA, Limpkin (r) TX, AR, elsewhere) American Bittern (w)

30 Planning and Yellow-crowned Night- Royal Tern responsibility Heron Sandwich Tern b. High Threats Immediate Sandhill Crane management (Mississippi subspecies)

Management White Ibis Common Tern (Atlantic Pied-billed Grebe Greater Flamingo Northern Gannet attention and Gulf coast breeding (breeding (formerly bred) populations only) populations only) Common Loon (w) American White Pelican (w) Tier Tier Title Action Level Herons and allies, Larids typically beach Marshes/ Open water (with Pelagic (all non- Pelicans and allies (ground)-nesting Savannas/ mud and sand breeding typically brush and tree colonial waterbirds Grasslands flats also foraging populations) nesting colonial (terns, gulls, skimmers) habitat for most waterbirds colonial species) II. c. High Planning and Brown Pelican Forster’s Tern (actually Clapper Rail (r) Franklin’s Gull Sooty Tern Responsibility responsibility nests in marshes) (transient populations) Tricolored Heron Sooty Tern (Florida Sandhill Crane Bonaparte’s Gull Brown Noddy breeding population (Florida (w) only; nests under cover) subspecies) Brown Noddy (Florida Sandhill Crane breeding population (Greater, Lesser, only; elevated nests in and Canadian shrubs, trees ) subspecies)

31 III. Additional Federal and State Listed Species

IV. Additional local or Planning and Anhinga Caspian Tern Least Grebe (r) Eared Grebe (w) regional interest responsibility Great Blue Heron Common Moorhen (b/r) Great Egret Virginia Rail (w) Snowy Egret Sora (w) Glossy Ibis White-faced Ibis Roseate Spoonbill

Tier Tier Title Action Level Herons and allies, Larids typically beach Marshes/ Open water (with Pelagic (all non- Pelicans and allies (ground)-nesting Savannas/ mud and sand breeding typically brush and tree colonial waterbirds Grasslands flats also foraging populations) nesting colonial (terns, gulls, skimmers) habitat for most waterbirds colonial species) IV. Population Neotropical Cormorant Laughing Gull Control Double-crested Cormorant Herring Gull Cattle Egret Great Black-backed Gull

Other species Pied-billed Grebe Wilson’s Storm- covered in this (non-breeding Petrel plan populations)

32 American Coot Leach’s Storm- (non-breeding Petrel populations) Ring-billed Gull Pomarine Jaeger Lesser Black- Parasitic Jaeger backed Gull Black-legged Kittiwake Dovekie

*See Appendices I-III.

Tier=

I. Continental Conservation Interest (Continental WatchList): (a) Species with multiple causes for concern across their entire range; (b) Moderately abundant or widespread species with declines or high threats, and (c) Species with restricted distributions or low population size.

Species with restricted distributions or low population size: These 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 not known to be declining or seriously threatened at present, but many others. We recognize that these species with small populations and restricted range are particularly vulnerable to relatively minor changes from current conditions, whether or not their populations are currently in decline.

II. Regional Conservation Interest (non-WatchList; TOT>19): (a) high regional concern (AI+PT>8); (b) high regional threats (TB+TN>7, or TB or TN=5) and includes taxa (subspecies and populations) of regional conservation interest not otherwise included in categories above; (c) high regional responsibility (as measured by percent of global, continental, or regional populations). 33

III Additional Federally and/or State listed.

IV Local or regional concern or interest.

Act. Level=Action Level at present based on expert opinion, but ultimately rules based on scores would be preferable.

IM=Immediate management needed to reverse or stabilize significant, long-term population declines in species with small populations, or to protect species with the smallest populations for which trends are poorly known. Lack of action may lead to extirpations or extinction.

MA=Management or other on-the-ground conservation actions needed to reverse or stabilize significant, long-term population declines in species that are still relatively abundant.

PR=Long-term Planning and Responsibility needed for species to ensure that sustainable populations are maintained for species for which a region has high responsibility for that species.

PC=Population Control/Suppression needed for species that are otherwise secure and increasing that may come into conflict with other species of higher conservation concern or other resources of interest.

34 APPENDIX C Wildlife Conservation Commission

FLORIDA'S ENDANGERED SPECIES, THREATENED SPECIES AND SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN

Official Lists Publication Date: 1 August 1997

GFC = Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission

FDA = Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

FWS = United States Fish and Wildlife Service

E = Endangered

T = Threatened

T(S/A) = Threatened/Similarity of Appearance

T(E/P) = Threatened/Experimental Population

SSC = Species of Special Concern C = Commercially Exploited

Designated Status Common Scientific Name GFC FWS Name(s)

Birds

Ajaia ajaja Roseate spoonbill SSC Ammodramus maritimus Wakulla seaside SSC juncicolus sparrow

Designated Status

Common Scientific Name GFC FWS Name(s) Ammodramus maritimus Cape Sable seaside E E mirabilis sparrow Ammodramus maritimus Scott's seaside SSC peninsulae sparrow Florida Ammodramus savannarum grasshopper E floridanus sparrow Aphelocoma coerulescens Florida scrub-jay T T Aramus guarauna Limpkin SSC Ivory-billed Campephilus principalis E E woodpecker Charadrius alexandrinus Southeastern T tenuirostris snowy plover Charadrius melodus Piping plover T T Worthington's Cistothorus palustris griseus SSC marsh wren Cistothorus palustris Marian's marsh SSC marianae wren White-crowned Columba leucocephala T pigeon Dendroica kirtlandii Kirtland's warbler E E Egretta caerulea Little blue heron SSC Egretta rufescens Reddish egret SSC Egretta thula Snowy egret SSC Tricolored Egretta tricolor SSC (=Louisiana) heron Eudocimus albus White ibis SSC Arctic peregrine Falco peregrinus tundrius E falcon Southeastern Falco sparverius paulus T American kestrel Grus americana Whooping crane SSC T(E/P) Florida Sandhill Grus canadensis pratensis T crane American Haematopus palliatus SSC oystercatcher Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle T T Mycteria americana Wood stork E E

36 Designated Status Common Scientific Name GFC FWS Name(s) Pandion haliaetus Osprey SSC* Pelecanus occidentalis Brown pelican SSC Red-cockaded Picoides borealis T E woodpecker Audubon's crested Polyborus plancus audubonii T T caracara Rostrhamus sociabilis Snail kite E E Rynchops niger Black skimmer SSC Speotyto cunicularia Burrowing owl SSC Sterna antillarum Least tern T Sterna dougallii Roseate tern T T Vermivora bachmanii Bachman's warbler E E *Applicable in Monroe

County only

37 APPENDIX D

US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, SPECIES OF CONSERVATION CONCERN IN PENINSULAR FLORIDA (BCR 31)

Black-capped Petrel Yellow Warbler (resident gundlachi ssp. Audubon's Shearwater only) Magnificent Frigatebird Yellow-throated Warbler American Bittern Prairie Warbler Little Blue Heron Bachman's Sparrow Reddish Egret Henslow's Sparrow White Ibis Nelson's Sharp-tailed Sparrow Swallow-tailed Kite Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow Short-tailed Hawk Seaside Sparrow American Kestrel (resident paulus ssp. Painted Bunting only) Peregrine Falcon Yellow Rail Black Rail Limpkin Snowy Plover Wilson's Plover American Oystercatcher Whimbrel Marbled Godwit Red Knot Semipalmated Sandpiper Stilt Sandpiper Buff-breasted Sandpiper Short-billed Dowitcher Gull-billed Tern Common Tern Least Tern Black Tern Black Skimmer White-crowned Pigeon Common Ground-Dove Mangrove Cuckoo Smooth-billed Ani Burrowing Owl Chuck-will's-widow Red-headed Woodpecker Loggerhead Shrike Black-whiskered Vireo Brown-headed Nuthatch 38

APPENDIX L.3

BUCK ISLAND REEF NATIONAL MONUMENT

SFCN Vital Signs Report L.3 Appendix L. Avian Conservation Implementation Plans

DRAFT Avian Conservation Implementation Plan Buck Island Reef National Monument

National Park Service Southeast Region

Compiled by J. Keith Watson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service In cooperation with

BUIS Resource Management Staff, National Park Service And Bird Conservation Partners November 2003 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction...... 3

Background ...... 3

The North American Bird Conservation Initiative ...... 4

The Southeastern Bird Conservation Initiative: National Park Service ...... 4

Role of NPS in Avian Conservation ...... 5

Park Description...... 7

Avian Resources of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands ...... 8

Avian Conservation in BUIS ...... 9

Park Identified Needs for Avian Conservation ...... 10

Coordination with Regional Conservation Initiatives...... 10 North American Bird Conservation Initiative ...... 10 North American Waterfowl Management Plan...... 11 Partners In Flight ...... 11 United States Shorebird Conservation Plan ...... 11 Waterbird Conservation for the Americas ...... 11

Integration of NABCI Goals and Objectives into Park Planning and Operations: NABCI Implementation Recommendations...... 12 Inventory ...... 13 Monitoring...... 13 Habitat Restoration...... 14 Threat Management ...... 15 Research...... 16 Compliance...... 16 Outreach ...... 16 Partners and Partnerships ...... 17 Funding Opportunities ...... 18 Contacts...... 20

Literature Cited...... 22

Appendixes PUERTO RICO AND VIRGIN ISLANDS Watch List Bird-Habitat Relationships for Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, West Indies

2 Introduction

This Avian Conservation Implementation Plan (ACIP) is provided to the staff at Buck Island Reef National Monument (BUIS) to serve as guidance to identify, document, and undertake bird conservation activities in the park and with neighboring communities, organizations, and adjacent landowners. This plan may identify goals, strategies, partnerships, and perhaps specific projects for the park to participate in existing bird conservation planning and implementation efforts associated with the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). Under the auspice of NABCI, appropriate bird and habitat conservation goals may be recommended as identified in the appropriate existing national or regional bird conservation efforts aligned with this initiative: Partners In Flight (PIF), North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), US Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP), and Waterbird Conservation for the Americas (WCA). For example, parks in the Appalachians and the Cumberland Plateau will have few if any high priority waterbird conservation issues at a regional landscape or greater scale. As such, little information regarding waterbird conservation will be presented in the ACIP, unless there is an identified park need for this species group, or other mandates, such as federal laws. Similarly, because BUIS has both coastal and upland avifauna, recommendations will be provided in the ACIP based on the PIF plan, as well as national shorebird and colonial waterbird plans. However, all high priority bird conservation issues for BUIS will be discussed and integrated as appropriate.

Information and data presented in the ACIP have been obtained from several sources: 1) interviews with BUIS staff 2) BUIS bird conservation partners 3) the PIF Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands Bird Conservation Plan (Nunez-Garcia and Hunter 2000) 4) NPS databases, and 5) personal communications with bird conservation specialists throughout North America and the Caribbean. This plan has been reviewed by BUIS resource management staff and managers, South Florida/Caribbean Inventory and Monitoring Network (SF/C) staff, and bird conservation partners and approved by BUIS management. Optimally, this plan will be incorporated into the park’s Resource Management Plan (RMP) and updated annually to reflect completed projects, newly identified needs, and shifts in bird conservation priorities in the region.

BUIS is not obligated to undertake any of the proposed actions in this plan. The plan is provided to offer guidance to BUIS to voluntarily support important park, regional, and perhaps national and international bird conservation projects for which BUIS is a primary participant in the proposed actions.

Background

3 proponents, ecologists, land managers, etc., and the bird conservation community in general. Birds are recognized as critical components of local and global genetic, species, and population diversity, providing important and often critical ecological, social, and cultural values. Their overall decline has stimulated a worldwide focus on conservation efforts and North American interest in bird conservation is rapidly becoming a focus of government, non-government, industry, and private interests and expenditures. Many state, federal, and non-governmental wildlife agencies and organizations (NGO’s) have recognized this alarming bird decline trend and have joined forces in several extensive partnerships to address the conservation needs of various bird groups and their habitats. The primary initiatives are:

· North American Waterfowl Management Plan · Partners in Flight · U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan · Waterbird Conservation for the Americas

While efforts associated with these plans have generated some successes, it has been increasingly recognized that the overlapping conservation interests of these initiatives can be better served through more integrated planning and delivery of bird conservation. The North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) arose out of this realization. The vision of NABCI (http://www.nabci-us.org/main2.html) is simply to see “populations and habitats of North America’s birds protected, restored and enhanced through coordinated efforts at international, national, regional, state and local levels, guided by sound science and effective management.” NABCI seeks to accomplish this vision through (1) broadening bird conservation partnerships, (2) working to increase the financial resources available for bird conservation in the U.S., and (3) enhancing the effectiveness of those resources and partnerships by facilitating integrated bird conservation (U.S. NABCI Committee 2000). Together, the four bird conservation initiatives mentioned above, as well as several other local and regional partnerships, work collectively to pursue this vision.

To deliver the full spectrum of bird conservation through regionally-based, biologically-driven, landscape-oriented partnerships.

The Southeastern Bird Conservation Initiative: National Park Service: In 1999, the Southeast Region of the National Park Service (NPS) recognized the importance of coordinating existing bird conservation goals into planning and operations of national park 4 units in the southeast, that is, integration of NABCI. In support of this recognition, the Southeast Regional Office NPS approved and allocated eighty-eight thousand dollars, cost sharing 1:1 with the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Region 4 (Southeast) to hire a biologist to conduct this two-year project (Interagency Agreement FS028 01 0368). This project is unique in the NPS, and perhaps the nation, and represents a potential model for better coordinating regional bird conservation programs and activities within and outside the NPS. It further represents a progressive action toward institutionalizing bird conservation as a programmatic priority in the Southeast Region of NPS, and potentially the nation.

As envisioned, the integration of NABCI into the Southeastern NPS involves:

This ACIP fulfills one aspect of the plan outlined above, and serves as a basis for future bird conservation actions in BUIS and with adjacent partners or landowners. Concurrently, the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the FWS and the NPS to implement Presidential Executive Order (EO) 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, calls for integration of programs and recommendations of existing bird conservation efforts into park planning and operations. Complementing each other, the MOU and the Southeastern Bird Conservation Initiative will advance bird conservation in the Southeast Region of the NPS beyond current regional NPS efforts.

Role of NPS in Avian Conservation

The interagency agreement that facilitates this partnership supports both FWS and NPS management policies. Specifically for the NPS, the agreement supports and advances the Strategy for Collaboration (March 2000), a visionary document developed and signed by the Southeast Natural Resource Leaders Advisory Group (SENRLAG), a consortium of 13 land and resource management agencies in the Southeastern United States whose vision is to encourage and support cooperation in planning and managing the region’s natural resources. Furthermore, the agreement is aligned with and implements a variety of NPS Management Polices (2001) including but not limited to External Threats and Opportunities (Chapter 1.5), Environmental Leadership (Chapter 1.6), Cooperative Planning (Chapter 2.3.1.9), Land Protection (Chapter 3), and especially Natural Resource Management (Chapter 4) that details policy and management guidelines which apply to bird conservation. Important policies in this chapter includes: 5

· Planning for Natural Resource Management (4.1.1) · Partnerships (4.1.4) · Restoration of Natural Systems (4.1.5) · Studies and Collection (4.2) · General Principles for Managing Biological Resources (4.4.1) · Plant and Animal Population Management Principles (4.4.1.1) · Management of Native Plants and Animals (4.4.2) · Management of Endangered Plants and Animals (4.4.2.3) · Management of Natural Landscapes (4.4.2.4) · Management of Exotic Species (4.4.4) · Pest Management (4.4.5) · Fire Management (4.5) and · Water Resource Management (4.6)

The NPS is the fourth largest landowner in the United States, consisting of over 380 national park units covering 83 million acres of land and water with associated biotic resources (www.nps.gov). The 64 units in the Southeast Region of the NPS represent 16% of the total number of park units in the national park system and cover approximately 5% of the total land base in the entire system. Park units in the Southeast Region include national seashores (Canaveral National Seashore, Cape Hatteras National Seashore), national parks (Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Buck Island Reef National Monument), national recreation areas (Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area), national preserves (Big Cypress National Preserve), national battlefields (Cowpens National Battlefield, Fort Donelson National Battlefield), national monuments (Congaree Swamp National Monument, Ocmulgee National Monument), and others such as the Blue Ridge Parkway, Obed Wild and Scenic River, and Timicuan Ecological and Historic Preserve.

6 role in ongoing regional bird conservation efforts. Indeed many of these parks are often important to regional, national, or international bird conservation, and many have been designated as Important Bird Areas (IBA’s) by the National Audubon Society. To date, there are approximately 64 NPS units that are designated IBA’s, 35 of which are considered of global importance (http://abcbirds.org/iba/aboutiba.htm). In the Southeast Region, the NPS has 13 IBA’s. . The NPS Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Program has been developed to provide management driven scientific information to national park managers so that resources can be adequately protected within national parks. One of the first phases of this program is to inventory vertebrates, including birds, within the 260 national park units in the program. Once completed, data from the inventories will provide an account of the occurrence and abundance of birds in all the national parks in the program. These records will be stored in the NPS I&M NPSpecies database http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/apps/npspp/). Coordination with I&M network staff is important to developing long-term bird monitoring programs that fulfill both park and NABCI objectives.

Park Description

President John F. Kennedy established Buck Island Reef National Monument in 1961. The monument was created to preserve one of the Caribbean’s finest marine gardens for scientific and educational interest, and for recreational uses. Buck Island is located 1.5 miles northeast of St. Croix, the largest of the U.S. Virgin Islands. The monument totals 356 ha (880 acres), 71 ha (176 acres) are uninhabited subtropical dry forest island and 285 ha (704 acres) are submerged lands. The park’s significance lies primarily in the extensive elkhorn coral barrier reefs surrounding the eastern two thirds of the island.

7 Recent research has identified the Buck Island coral reef ecosystem as critical developmental habitat for the endangered hawksbill sea turtle. The island provides nesting habitat for two endangered species – hawksbill and leatherback turtle– and two threatened species – the green turtle and least tern, as well as several rare native plant species, and one endemic beetle (Longitarius zandae).

Avian Resources of Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands

Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands are part of the West Indies, a chain of islands that extends from Florida to Venezuela and separate the Caribbean Sea from the Atlantic Ocean. These tropical Islands are located within 17-19o latitude North and 64-68o longitude West about 1,609 kilometers from Florida and 805 kilometers from Venezuela.

The U.S. Virgin Islands are located about 64 kilometers east of the Puerto Rico. These Islands comprise another archipelago that includes St. Thomas, St. John, St. Croix, and numerous uninhabited small islets and cays. The three main Islands were bought by the U.S.A. from Denmark in 1917 and are now U.S. Territory with a total area of 340 km2.

The number, size and shape of the islands comprised within this region combined with climate, topography, geological processes, and human activities have produced a tremendous diversity of habitats. Historically different types of forest covered most of the land area of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. However, forest conversion caused by agricultural and other land use practices have shaped the present landscape. Forested landscape in the U.S. Virgin Islands is typified by sub-tropical dry forest and littoral shrubs.

Including vagrants, exotics and fossils, the total number of bird species in the region sums to 364. Presently, 276 species are known to occur in Puerto Rico and 210 in the Virgin Islands for a total of 284 species in the region (Raffaele 1989). Recent studies indicate that these numbers may change as many native forms may be reclassified as species or subspecies on their own. Raffaele (1989) categorized the regional birds species as follows: 97 breeding permanent residents (94 in Puerto Rico and 60 in the Virgin Islands), 11 breed and leave (11 in Puerto Rico and 10 in the Virgin Islands), 134 non-breeding migrants and visitors (134 Puerto Rico and 129 the Virgin Islands), 31 introduced probable breeders (31 in Puerto Rico and 6 in the Virgin Islands), five introduced possible breeders (same species for both Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands), and one species recently extirpated from Puerto Rico. As the numbers indicate, migrant species comprise almost half of the species playing a major role in the ecology of the region. Also noteworthy is the establishment of a high number of exotic species. As a result of combining both native and exotic species, Puerto Rico supports 85 species of breeding land birds, the greatest number of any West Indian island and except for Cuba, harbors the second largest total number of species in the region (Raffaele 1989).

The oceanic nature of the islands in the region has resulted in increased endemism. 8 Puerto Rico harbors 16 endemic bird species including one endemic genus (Nesospingus) represented by a single species, the Puerto Rican Tanager (Nesospingus speculiferus) and one family (Todidae) shared with the rest of the West Indian islands but found nowhere else. Rafaele (1989) considered 51 species to be threatened in the region mostly because of the detrimental effects of habitat alteration.

Avian Conservation in BUIS

Avian Biodiversity: BUIS has an avian presence inventory that is considered at least 90% complete. No public checklist is available at this time. Verified records of birds in BUIS have been entered into the NPS I&M program’s database, NPSpecies, and may be viewed via the internet at http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/app/npspp with a user identification and password combination authorized by the NPS for NPS personnel and NPS cooperators. Many other avian observational data need to be verified and entered into the database.

Threatened and Endangered Species: One Federally listed endangered species, the Brown Pelican, nests in the park. The recently delisted American Peregrine Falcon occurs as a rare winter visitor to the park and vicinity.

Several USVI Territory Listed species occur in BUIS including Brown Pelican, White- crowned Pigeon, White-cheeked Pintail, Wilson’s Plover, and Least Tern.

Several high priority PIF species for the Caribbean occur in BUIS (see Appendix A and B). Prominent among these species are White-crowned Pigeon, Yellow Warbler, White- cheeked Pintail, and Brown Pelican. It is likely that several Neotropical migrants, especially wood warblers, utilize the subtropical dry forests of the park of Buck Island. Though many of these species are not listed, they are of high conservation concern in the continental U.S. and conservation efforts for this species extend to the USVI. Conservation of these species should be coordinated with the US Virgin Island Department of Planning and Natural Resources (VIDPNR) (see contacts).

Park Priorities: Park staff and consultants have identified the Brown Pelican and Least Tern as a park management concern or high priority for conservation. Additionally, since the successful eradication of tree rats on the island, the staff has an interest in obtaining information on landbirds and how their populations respond to eradication of the rats. BUIS is certain to have some species that are high priority in the USVI and conservation efforts in the park could focus on these species or groups of species.

Inventory: A complete inventory has been recognized as important information for park managers and is being conducted within the framework of the NPS I&M Program. BUIS is one of seven parks in the South Florida/Caribbean I&M Network for which a plan to conduct high priority inventory projects has been prepared (Sasso and Patterson 2000). ). Although VIIS avian inventory is considered complete in relation to the NPS’s I&M goals

9 (90% or greater species known), additional inventory is desired to determine breeding bird distribution and abundance in the upland portions of the park.

Monitoring: Currently, several avian monitoring projects are being conducted at BUIS. These are:

· Brown Pelican reproductive survey that includes counts of adults, nests, and fledglings · Least Tern nest and egg counts · Christmas Bird Count (CBC) that covers Buck Island

Research: Scientific research is permitted within the park, but no active avian research other than existing avian inventory and monitoring is ongoing.

Outreach: The park conducts outreach and education regarding beach closures for nesting Least Terns on Buck Island.

Park Identified Needs for Avian Conservation

BUIS has identified at two projects that would increase the avian knowledge of the park. Inventory: · BUIS desires to identify and quantify all resident and migratory bird species the nest or ground forage

Monitoring: · The park desires to obtain populations trends data for nesting and ground foraging species

Coordination with Regional Conservation Initiatives

North American Bird Conservation Initiative

NABCI bird conservation planning units, referred to as Bird Conservation Regions (BCR), are often larger than other planning units associated with other plans, such as Partners In Flight. For example, BUIS is within the NABCI BCR 69 that includes all of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the US Virgin Islands and the British Virgin Islands and includes the physiographic region designated by Partners in Flight as Puerto Rico/Virgin Islands (Figure 2; compare to Figure 1).

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP)

Partners In Flight

Goals and strategies for the Caribbean can be found in the draft bird conservation plan, previously submitted to the park. A revised version of this plan should be available in the near future and may be substantially different from the current format; however, bird and habitat conservation priorities are not likely to be significantly changed. The park will receive updates of the plan as they are completed. The current plan identifies priority bird and habitat conservation goals that must be implemented in order to achieve bird conservation success in this region.

Similar to NABCI BCR’s, PIF physiographic areas often do not have designated coordinators. However, state level non-game agencies with investment in PIF will establish key personnel to develop partnerships among cooperators in the physiographic area. The USVI does not have a PIF coordinator, but several VIDPNR personnel are currently engaged in bird conservation in the USVI and will be instrumental with implementation of this ACIP and projects important to bird conservation relative to Buck Island’s role in implementation of the Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands bird conservation plan.

United States Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP)

The USSCP has been completed and is available on the world wide web (http://shorebirdplan.fws.gov/). A regional step down plan is in preparation by FWS personnel and should be available in 2003. Since BUIS has little habitat of regional importance to shorebird conservation, recommendations for shorebird conservation are not presented.

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas (WCA)

Integration of NABCI Goals and Objectives into Park Planning and Operations

NABCI Implementation Recommendations

· Inventory · Monitoring · Habitat Restoration · Threat Management (includes exotic species, air quality, water quality, etc.) · Research · Compliance · Outreach · Partnerships

Inventory

The park has inventoried its bird fauna exceptionally well. Although the avifauna of BUIS is well documented, distribution and abundance data are desired to fully understand the status of birds in the park so that conservation actions for birds can be implemented, especially for ground nesting and foraging birds. Additionally, information on use of Buck Island by Neotropical migrant birds wintering in the park is desired. Status of high priority species as identified in the Puerto Rico/US Virgin Islands bird conservation plan is needed to effectively structure park management for the continued preservation and enhancement of the park’s avifauna.

Abundance and distribution data are needed

· for all resident and migratory landbirds that nest and forage on or near the ground*

· for birds that nest in mangroves*

· for High Priority forest species such as White-crowned Pigeon*

· for nesting, migrating, and wintering shorebirds, particularly American Oystercatcher and Wilson’s Plover.

Additionally, the park is encouraged to:

· partner with the VIDPNR and USFWS to coordinate area inventory efforts

· verify other avian observational data collected in the park and enter into the appropriate database (NPSpecies, eBird Monitoring Program of Cornell’s Laboratory of Ornithology, Columbid Database, etc.)

· standardize inventory and monitoring methodology to conform to NPS and/or FWS recommended standards (Fancy and Sauer 2000, Hunter 2000).

Monitoring

The park has an active bird monitoring program resulting in documentation of many high priority species identified for conservation effort in the Caribbean and occur in the park. Efforts should be made to continue existing monitoring programs, striving to conform to established NPS or FWS surveys protocols. Close coordination with adjacent bird conservation initiatives are needed to identify and implement high priority projects on park lands and to ensure that park efforts contribute to park or regional bird conservation rather 13 than undertake an action or actions that are not needed or are better conducted in other areas. Specific recommendations are to:

· continue to conduct existing monitoring programs and enter data into the appropriate database (NPSpecies, eBird, or National Point Count Database (USGS 2001) (http://www.mp2-pwrc.usgs.gov/point/)

· establish point count monitoring stations along ecologically distinct or vegetative/habitat types to document abundance and distribution of terrestrial landbirds year around in response to eradication of rats

· establish monitoring programs based on results of inventory data for High Priority species and with potential for high conservation role for any of these species

· standardize inventory and monitoring methodology to conform to NPS and/or FWS recommended standards (Fancy and Sauer 2000, Hunter 2000).

· partner with USVI territorial Department of Natural Resources and USFWS staff to coordinate area monitoring efforts

Habitat Restoration/Management

Recently, habitat restoration efforts have increased on NPS lands; NPS receiving restoration emphasis and guidance in the 2001 Management Policies (NPS 2001). Habitat restoration efforts that parks may undertake are wetland restoration, grassland restoration, woodland restoration, etc. utilizing a wide range of tools to accomplish the restoration. Some of these tools may be but not limited to forest management practices, exotic species management, public use and recreation management, infrastructure development management, and prescribed fire.

Due to the protected nature of BUIS lands, and generally those in the national park system, the condition of habitats for bird use may be of higher quality than other natural, developed, agricultural, or forest lands under other management regimes. However, national park lands can be greatly improved for wildlife, and particularly bird use, by restoring processes important for habitat formation, succession, and structural development. Largely, these processes have not been managed historically in the national park system but current policy allows for active management of species, populations, and lands to provide for long- term conservation of park resources. Protection, restoration, and enhancement of habitats in BUIS can greatly contribute to established habitat goals identified in the Puerto Rico/US Virgin Islands bird conservation plan.

14 Research suggests that the large contiguous moist forests of St. John provide significant habitat for wintering Neotropical migrants (Askins et al. 1989). Thought the forests of Buck Island are much smaller, efforts should be made to determine the importance of this habitat to wintering Neotropical migrants.

Specific recommendations are to:

· restore and/or improve hydrological quality and processes where needed, especially in coastal mangrove and salt ponds

· assess Pre-Columbian landscape cover and determine feasibility of restoring landscape within the context of the park’s enabling legislation

Threat Management

Impact of exotic species on birds at VIIS has been the greatest threat to the avifauna of BUIS. However, since the eradication of the mongoose in the 1980’s and the tree rat in the early 2000’s, no significant exotic mammalian threat exists on Buck Island. Current threats include human and dog intrusions on the Least Tern colony on the beach. The park is encouraged to:

· manage visitor use, especially boat landings and dogs off lease, at the Island to protect and eliminate disturbances to the Least Tern colony*

· identify, monitor, and document bird mortality associated with the US Coast Guard tower, especially during migrations of Neotropical migrants*

· enforce the no dog policy*

· identify potential bird injury or mortality associated with fishing gear and fishing practices in the park and nearby waters, especially for Brown Pelican, Brown Booby, and Magnificent Frigatebird*

Although exotic plants species may negatively impacting habitat at BUIS, the nature of this impact on native birds is unknown. It is important to

· establish and continue inventory and monitoring of exotic plant species*

· identify any potential impact these species have on native avifauna*

· establish appropriate management programs to restore native forests*

If necessary, consult with regional Exotic Plant Management Team (EPMT) to remove

15 exotic plant species. Currently, no EPMT provides service the VIIS area. Until an EPMT is established that can provide assistance to VIIS, staff is directed to consult with the regional pest management specialist (see contacts).

Additionally, the park is encouraged to:

· hire additional protection staff to better manage threats and implement projects identified in this plan*

· develop aggressive outreach and education program for protection of Buck Island resources

Research

· list park needs and projects on Research Permit and Reporting System web site (RPRS)

· develop contact with South Florida/Caribbean Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU) at the University of Miami, Miami, FL

Compliance

Park compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, is necessary to assure that park activities incorporate bird conservation into park planning and operations. Further, to ensure that migratory birds are considered in all phases of park planning processes, especially during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Director’s Order #12 Compliance processes, the park should consider adding specific language in project evaluations that requires consideration and implications of park projects on migratory birds. The MOU being developed between the NPS and the FWS will likely contain specific language requiring a park to consider implications of park projects on migratory birds. Additional considerations are to encourage:

· park staff to begin specific consideration of migratory birds during park planning processes*

· park staff to attend USFWS training on implementation of EO 13186 at the National Conservation Training Center (NCTC) (when available) or other training on migratory bird conservation in North America. NCTC has several courses and training related to conservation of migratory birds (http://training.fws.gov/courses.html).

The USFWS NCTC offers and reserves two tuition free slots for National Park Service 16 employees wishing to attend NCTC courses on a first come, first served basis. Additionally, discount lodging is also available while attending a NCTC course.

Outreach

· participate in International Migratory Bird Day (IMBD) events with a local partner (http://birds.fws.gov/imbd.html)*

· update the bird checklist for public availability*

· nominate BUIS as an Important Bird Area (http://www.abcbirds.org/iba/nominstr.htm)

· continue to develop and implement outreach and educational programs to enhance visibility of bird conservation issues

· encourage Virgin Islands Audubon Society to participate in ongoing and new inventory and monitoring programs

· encourage accurate documentation and reporting from these and random outings by visitors (see Cornell University’s eBird monitoring program (Cornell Lab. Ornith. 2002 (http://www.ebird.org/about/index.jsp)

· park interpretation/education staff are encouraged to attend USFWS training on Migratory Bird Education at NCTC

· consider adding links to bird conservation information, data, etc. to the park’s web site home page

· support bird conservation by serving shade-grown coffees at meetings, events, and the office buildings in the park (http://www.americanbirding.org/programs/conssbcof3.htm)

· participate in bird conservation efforts of the Society for the Conservation and Study of Caribbean Birds (SCSCB), including subscribing to this organization’s electronic information forum

· explore cultural affiliation of landscape to inhabitants, both historical and contemporary. Cultures are strongly tied to the landscape they inhabit and birds often play a role in a cultural tie to the landscape. When these connections are discovered and preserved, a greater appreciation for the landscape and it’s value to the culture can be achieved

17 Partners and Partnerships

Partnerships for land conservation and protection will perhaps have the greatest positive influence on bird conservation above all other landscape scale planning. Specific recommendations are to:

· cooperate and USVI DNR in the preparation and implementation of the USVI Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Plan

· work with the White-crowned Pigeon Working Group of the SCSCB to determine appropriate conservation actions for this species in the park

· become a contributing member of the Caribbean Columbid Population Data Center, a cooperative effort of the Puerto Rico Department of Natural Resources, USFWS, and other Caribbean interests to assess populations status and implement conservation actions necessary for these species

· contact the nearest Joint Venture office (see Funding section for explanation of Joint Ventures) or BCR coordinator to develop partnerships and funding proposals tiered to priorities established by the park, this ACIP, and the Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands Bird conservation plan

· encourage the USVI territorial government to become a member of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture, increasing USVI partners chances to utilize NAWCA funds for bird and habitat conservation projects

· continue to maintain productive relationship with local Audubon Society

· explore the potential to utilize facilities and expertise at the Virgin Island Environmental Research Station (VIERS) to conduct needed avian research and implementation of aspects of this plan

Funding Opportunities

Internal NPS funding is often an effective source to obtain funding; however, the project will have to be a fairly high priority among the park’s natural resource program to successfully compete for the limited funding available in the NPS. Therefore, partnerships and outside funding programs are often more productive for securing bird conservation funding. Within this ACIP, identified priority projects that are considered to be high park priorities as well as NABCI priorities are marked with and asterisk (*). BUIS is encouraged to enter all high priority projects into the NPS Performance Management Information System (PMIS) database. 18

Funding for conservation projects for neotropical migrants is also available through the Park Flight program.

With the exception of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP and its associated funding legislation, the North American Wetland Conservation Act), funding opportunities for bird conservation programs, plans, and initiatives have been lacking. Only within the last decade have other appropriate and specific sources for bird conservation funding been created and used. The NAWMP has been supported for approximately 14 years by the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA 1989). This program has provided $487 million in appropriated funds matched with $1.7 billion for wetland and bird conservation projects since its inception. In 2002 alone, over $70 million US dollars were awarded to US and Canadian agencies and organizations to enhance waterfowl populations by improving, restoring, or protecting wetland habitats. To adequately evaluate projects and distribute these funds, partnerships called Joint Ventures were established. Nationally, 14 (11 US, 3 Canada) Joint Ventures have been established, several which are funded and staffed. Internet links to Joint Ventures are:

(http://southwest.fws.gov/gulfcoastjv/ojvcontact.html) and (http://northamerican.fws.gov/NAWMP/jv.htm).

Many of the identified projects are eligible for funding under various grant programs of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (http://www.nfwf.org/programs/programs.htm).

Other prominent funding sources available to NPS managers for bird conservation are listed on this projects web site at: http://southeast.fws.gov/birds/NPSHighlits.htm.

Funding opportunities for migratory bird conservation are available yet most natural resource agencies are not fully aware of and/or understanding of how to use these sources. Perhaps a consolidated migratory bird funding source catalog will become available to managers in the future; this is needed.

Contacts

Primary contacts within the region can be obtained by viewing the web site for the Southeastern Bird Conservation Initiative, National Park Service at http://southeast.fws.gov/birds/npsbirds.htm. This web site will provide contact information of the appropriate bird conservation coordinator in the region for park personnel. Park staff is encouraged to view the web site and obtain contact information. Primary contacts for BUIS are:

Virgin Islands Department of Planning and Natural Resources Mr. Keith Watson Ms. Judy Pierce US Fish and Wildlife Service VI Territorial Department of Natural 160 Zillicoa Street, Suite D Resources Asheville, NC 28801 St. Thomas, USVI 828-350-8228 [email protected] [email protected]

Mr. Doug McNair Mr. Craig Watson VI Territorial Department of Natural US Fish and Wildlife Service Resources Atlantic Coast Joint Venture St. Thomas, VI Charleston, SC [email protected] 843-727-4707 ext. 16 [email protected] US Fish and Wildlife Service 20 Mr. Dean Demarest Inventory & Monitoring Network US Fish and Wildlife Service Mr. Matt Patterson 1875 Century Blvd. SF/C Network Coordinator Atlanta, GA National Park Service 404-679-7371 Homestead, FL [email protected] [email protected]

Ms. Jennifer Wheeler Exotic Plant Management US Fish and Wildlife Service Mr. Chris Furqueron Waterbird Conservation Plan Coordinator 404-562-3113 ext 540 703-358-1714 National Park Service [email protected] Exotic Plant Management Coordinator [email protected] Mr. Chuck Hunter US Fish and Wildlife Service Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit Regional Refuge Biologist Atlanta, GA Dr. Carol Daniels 404-679-7130 South Florida/Caribbean CESU [email protected] Rosentiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences Mr. Steve Earsom University of Miami US Fish and Wildlife Service Miami, Fl Caribbean Refuge Complex Biologist [email protected] Boqueron, PR [email protected]

National Park Service

Mr. Jim Petterson Others Virgin Islands National Park Inventory and Monitoring Coordinator Exotic Animal Management Cruz Bay, St. John Frank Boyd [email protected] USDA APHIS Wildlife Services Director, USVI Ms. Laurel Trager 118 Extension Hall Virgin Islands National Park Auburn University, AL 36849 Division of Interpretation 334-844-5670 St. John, USVI [email protected] [email protected] Mr. Mark Wimer South Florida/Caribbean (SF/C) US Geological Survey 21 Biological Research Division Patuxent Wildlife Research Center Patuxent, MD [email protected]

Mr. Will Henderson Virgin Islands Audubon Society St. John, USVI http://www.audubon.org/affiliate/vi/vi/

Mr. Bob Cook Virgin Islands Audubon Society http://www.audubon.org/affiliate/vi/vi/

Dr. Robert Askins Connecticut College New London, CT [email protected]

Dr. David Ewert The Nature Conservancy – Michigan East Lansing, MI [email protected]

The Nature Conservancy – Eastern Caribbean 3052 Estate Little Princess Christiansted, St. Croix U.S.V.I. 00820 (340) 773-5575

LITERATURE CITED

Askins, R.A., D.N. Ewert, and R.L. Norton. 1989. Abundance of wintering migrants in fragmented and continuous forests in the U.S. Virgin Islands. Manomet Symposium 1989. 197-206.

Cornell University and National Audubon Society. 2002. eBird Monitoring Program. Cornell University, Laboratory of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

Fancy, S. and J. Sauer. 2000. Recommended Methods for Inventorying and Monitoring Landbirds in National Parks. National Park Service, Ft. Collins. 13p.

Hunter, C. 2000. Bird Population Survey, Inventory, and Monitoring Standards for National Wildlife Refuges and Partners in the Southeastern U.S. USFWS. January 2002. 49p.

Neotropical Migratory Bird Conservation Act. 2000. 114 Stat. 593. 16 U.S.C. 6102 Public Law 106247, enacted July 20, 2000.

North American Wetlands Conservation Act. 1989. 103 Stat. 1968; 16 U.S.C. 4401- 4412. Public Law 101-233, enacted December 13, 1989.

Nunez-Garcia, F. and Hunter, W.C. 2000. Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands Bird Conservation Plan. Version 1. December 2000. xp.

Raffaele, H. A. 1989. A Guide to the Bird of Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands. Revised Edition. Princeton University Press. 254pp. illus.

Sasso, C.R. and M. Patterson. 2000. A Study Plan to the Inventory of Vascular Plants and Vertebrates in the South Florida/Caribbean Network of the National Park Service. 83p.

Southeast Natural Resource Advisory Group. 2000. A Strategy for Collaboration. unpublished. 4p.

U.S. Department of Interior, Geological Survey. 2001. National Point Count Database. Biological Research Division, Patuxent Wildlife Research Station, Patuxent, MD.

U.S. Department of Interior, National Park Service. 2001. National Park Service 23 Management Policies. 2001. December 2000. 137p.

USDI National Park Service. Xxxx. Resource Management Plan, Buck Island Reef National Monument. Xp.

USDI National Park Service. 2002. Park Flight and Migratory Bird Conservation. National Park Service, Natural Resource Program Center. 2p.

USDI National Park Service Organic Act. 1916. 39 Stat. 535 16 U.S.C. 1-4, enacted August 25, 1916.

US Government. 2000. Presidential Executive Order 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds, January 2000.

U.S. NABCI Committee. 2000. The North American Bird Conservation Initiative in the United States: A Vision of American Bird Conservation. U.S. NABCI Committee, September 2000. 29p.

24 APPENDIX A

PUERTO RICO AND VIRGIN ISLANDS (BCR 69) BASED ON CONTINENTAL AND REGIONAL WATCH LIST AMONG ALL BIRDS WITHIN SOUTHEAST U.S., AND THE WEST INDIES*

(Action Levels: IM=Immediate Management; MA=Management Attention; PR=Long-Term Planning and Responsibility) (subspecies/populations of interest noted; all species breed or are resident unless otherwise indicated; ba=number of breeding adults)

Tier I. Continental Conservation Interest a. Multiple Causes for concern across entire range

White-tailed Tropicbird (500-600 pairs, 14-19% in West Indies) IM Red-billed Tropicbird (375-450 pairs, 14-22% in West Indies) IM West Indian Whistling-Duck (<100 ba, 1-5% globally) IM Black Rail (Extirpated?) IM Snowy Plover (Threatened Pacific Coast; West Indies subspecies) IM Piping Plover (Endangered, winter) IM Plain Pigeon (Endangered; <5,000 ba, <10% globally) IM Puerto Rican Parrot (Endangered; <100 ba in the wild, 100% globally) IM Puerto Rican Nightjar (Endangered; <2,000 ba, 100% globally) IM White-necked Crow (Endangered/Extirpated from Puerto Rico) IM Bicknell’s Thrush (Possible rare winter in Puerto Rico) PR Golden-winged Warbler (Rare winter) PR Elfin-Woods Warbler (Candidate for Listing; <1,000 ba, 100% globally IM Yellow-shouldered Blackbird (Endangered; <500 ba, 100% globally) IM b. Moderately abundant or widespread with declines and/or high threats

Audubon's Shearwater (~150 pairs, 2-4% in West Indies) IM Masked Booby (300 pairs, 50% in West Indies) IM Red-footed Booby (1,450-2,650 pairs, 15-33% in West Indies) IM Brown Booby (2,075-2,300 pairs, 22-36% in West Indies) MA Little Blue Heron MA American Golden-Plover (Rare southbound transient) PR Lesser Yellowlegs (non-breeding) MA Solitary Sandpiper (transient) MA Upland Sandpiper (Rare transient) PR Whimbrel (non-breeding) MA Sanderling (non-breeding) MA Semipalmated Sandpiper (non-breeding) MA Western Sandpiper (non-breeding) MA Stilt Sandpiper (non-breeding) MA Wilson’s Snipe (winter) MA Gull-billed Tern (non-breeding?) PR Roseate Tern (North Atl. Endangered, West Indies Threatened; 1,200-3,600 pairs, >25% in West Indies) IM Least Tern (Calif. & interior subspecies Endangered; 300-450 pairs, 8-25% in West Indies) IM White-crowned Pigeon MA Mangrove Cuckoo MA Short-eared Owl (Greater Antillean subspecies) MA 25 Puerto Rican Vireo (100 % globally) MA Prairie Warbler (winter) MA Prothonotary Warbler (winter) MA Worm-eating Warbler (winter) MA Kentucky Warbler (Rare winter) PR Greater Antillean Oriole (10-20% globally) MA c. Restricted distributions and/or low population size

Magnificent Frigatebird (700-900 pairs, 13-21% in West Indies) IM Reddish Egret (Rare, non-breeding) PR Caribbean Coot (1,000 ba, <50,000 West Indies) IM Wilson's Plover MA American Oystercatcher (Eastern North American subspecies) IM Red Knot (non-breeding; presumably Alaskan subspecies) PR Bridled Tern (900-1,700 pairs, 15-40% in West Indies) MA Antillean Nighthawk PR Black Swift (West Indian subspecies) MA Lesser Antillean Pewee (Puerto Rican subspecies) PR Blue-winged Warbler (Rare, winter) PR Adelaide’s Warbler (100% globally) PR Swainsons’s Warbler (Rare, winter) PR

Tier II. Regional Conservation Interest a. High Concern

Brown Pelican (West Indies, Endangered; 520-850 pairs, 25-40% in West Indies) IM Green Heron MA Yellow-crowned Night-Heron PR Black-bellied Plover (non-breeding) MA Ruddy Turnstone (non-breeding) MA Least Sandpiper (non-breeding) MA Antillean Mango (nearly extirpated on Virgin Islands) MA Black-whiskered Vireo PR b. High Threats

Pied-billed Grebe (breeding populations only) MA Least Bittern MA Black-crowned Night-Heron MA Greater Flamingo (Extirpated as a resident, may be recolonizing) MA White-cheeked Pintail (Lesser subspecies; <5,000 ba Puerto Rico-Virgin Islands; ~60,000 ba in West Indies) MA Ruddy Duck (West Indian subspecies; ~1,500 ba Puerto Rico; <<50,000 ba West Indies) MA Masked Duck (West Indian populations; <100 ba Puerto Rico; <<50,000 ba West Indies) MA Sharp-shinned Hawk (Puerto Rican subspecies, Endangered; <100 ba) IM Broad-winged Hawk (Puerto Rican subspecies, Endangered; <100 ba) IM American Kestrel (Eastern Caribbean subspecies) MA Clapper Rail MA 26 Yellow-breasted Crake (Hispaniolan-Puerto Rican subspecies) MA Purple Gallinule MA Limpkin (Hispaniolan-Puerto Rican subspecies) IM Willet MA Key West Quail-Dove MA Bridled Quail-Dove MA Puerto Rican Screech-Owl (Virgin Islands subspecies, extirpated except on Culebra?) IM Yellow Warbler (West Indian “Golden” subspecies) MA Louisiana Waterthrush (winter) MA c. High Responsibility

Tricolored Heron PR Black-necked Stilt PR Pectoral Sandpiper (transient) PR Sooty Tern (55,000-80,000 pairs, 20-40% in West Indies) PR Black Tern (transient) PR Brown Noddy (1,300-2,100 pairs, 7-18% in West Indies) PR Scaly-naped Pigeon PR Zenaida Dove PR Puerto Rican Lizard-Cuckoo (100% global) PR Puerto Rican Screech-Owl (Puerto Rican subspecies; 100% globally) PR Green Mango (100% globally) PR Antillean Crested Hummingbird PR Puerto Rican Emerald (100% globally) PR Puerto Rican Tody (100% globally) PR Puerto Rican Woodpecker (100% globally) PR Caribbean Elaenia PR Puerto Rican Flycatcher (100% global, nearly extirpated Virgin Islands) PR Gray Kingbird PR Loggerhead Kingbird (Puerto Rican-Vieques subspecies) PR Caribbean Martin PR Cave Swallow PR Red-legged Thrush (Hispaniolan-Puerto Rican subspecies) PR Northern Parula (winter) PR Cape May Warbler (winter) PR Black-throated Blue Warbler (winter) PR Puerto Rican Tanager PR Puerto Rican Spindalis PR Antillean Euphonia PR Puerto Rican Bullfinch (Puerto Rican subspecies; 100% globally) PR Grasshopper Sparrow (Puerto Rican subspecies) PR

Tier III. Additional State, Territorial Listed Species (drawn from species in Tier IV)

Least Grebe PR Great Blue Heron PR Great Egret PR Snowy Egret PR

Tier IV. Additional Local or Regional Interest Species (also Stewardship Species identified 27 by Avifaunal Biome supporting vast majority of breeding population)

Glossy Ibis PR Northern Pintail (winter) MA Blue-winged Teal (winter) MA Lesser Scaup (winter) MA Northern Harrier (winter) PR Osprey PR Merlin (mostly transient) PR Peregrine Falcon (mostly transient) PR Sora (winter) PR Common Moorhen PR Semipalmated Plover (non-breeding) PR Killdeer PR Greater Yellowlegs (non-breeding) PR Spotted Sandpiper (non-breeding) PR White-rumped Sandpiper (transient) PR Royal Tern (115-315 pairs, >25% in West Indies) PR Sandwich Tern (800-3,600 pairs, 28-71% in West Indies) PR White-winged Dove PR Mourning Dove PR Yellow-billed Cuckoo PR Common Nighthawk PR Chuck-will’s-widow (Rare, winter) PR White-eyed Vireo (Rare, winter) PR Yellow-throated Vireo (Rare, winter) PR Magnolia Warbler (Northern Forest Biome, winter) PR Yellow-throated Warbler (winter) PR Palm Warbler (Northern Forest Biome, winter) PR Blackpoll Warbler (transient) PR Black-and-white Warbler (winter) PR American Redstart (winter) PR Ovenbird (winter) PR Northern Waterthrush (winter) PR Hooded Warbler (Rare, winter) PR Indigo Bunting (non-breeding) PR Bobolink (transient) PR Baltimore Oriole (transient) PR

* WL=WatchList score used for Continental Scoring (PIF Approach); species with WL SUBTOT combined scores of (1) 15 or more, (2) 14 with Tmax+PT >5, or (3) with 13 with PT=5 are identified. using formula:

Combined Score = PT + PS + maximum of (BD or ND) + maximum of (TB or TN)

Tier=

28 Species with multiple causes for concern across their entire range: These species are considered by many to be of highest continental concern and of highest priority for conservation actions 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 this group, however, are several species without legal status, including Bicknell's Thrush and Saltmarsh Sharp-tailed Sparrow.

Moderately abundant or widespread species with declines or high threats: These species are on the Watch List primarily because they are declining and/or threatened throughout their range, though still fairly widespread or with moderately large populations. Many of these species still number in the millions (e.g. Dickcissel, Wood Thrush), but are threatened with serious reductions in population or geographic range in the future. Several other species (e.g. Swallow-tailed Kite, Mangrove Cuckoo, Elegant Trogon) are fairly widespread outside 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. Species with restricted distributions or low population size: These 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 not known 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). We recognize that these species with small populations and restricted range are particularly vulnerable to relatively minor changes from current conditions, whether or not their populations are currently in decline.

III Additional Federally and/or State listed.

IV Local or regional concern or interest, including Stewardship Species as defined in the Continental PIF Plan for North America:

Stewardship Species: Stewardship Species, whether on the Watch List or not, are of continental importance because they represent all the large biogeographic regions in North America. They are broadly distributed across Canada and the U.S. during the breeding seasons, in a pattern that mirrors the richness of all landbird species. Winter Stewardship Species are much more heavily concentrated in the southern U.S., particularly the southwest and into Mexico, and along the U.S. west coast. Stewardship actions that preserve healthy populations of these species will address the PIF goal of ‘keeping common birds common.’ These species, which are both of high overall concern and also largely dependent on a single biogeographic region, merit special attention for conservation action within their core range.

Component Scores to determine Continental WatchList (minus AI) and Regional Scores (and all smaller geographical units, Bird Conservation Regions, Physiographic Areas, States, Provinces, Territories, etc.) are defined as follows:

PT=Population Trend based on a combination of data sources, principally BBS tempered by local and state datasets for breeding species. For non-breeding species usually best professional judgment often based in part on continental trends shown in BBS and/or CBC.

5=Definite decrease 4=Possible decrease 3=Trend uncertain, No data 2=Possible increase, stable 1=Definite increase 29

Some guidelines based on BBS data, but for waterbirds trends are often dramatic and not linear so an inspection of trend graphs often is required to make a judgment as to trend score, again tempered by local and state data sets if they exist.

Significant increase (BBS trend >1.36%/yr, P<0.10, df>13) 1 Possible increase (>0.47 to 1.36%/ yr, P<0.35, w/any df) 2a Possible increase (>1.36%/yr, 0.113) 2a Possible increase (>1.36%/yr, P<0.10, df<13) 2a Stable (> -0.54 to < +0.47%/yr, and UCI<0.47 OR LCI>-0.54) 2b - except when trend is negative and P<0.10 and LCI<-0.54, then Possible decrease 4 Trend uncertain (<-0.54%/yr or >0.47%/yr and P>0.35) 3 Trend uncertain (>-0.54%/yr and <0.47%/yr and UCI>0.47 AND LCI<-0.54) 3 No data 3 Possible decrease (either of next 3 options, but based on 6-13 degrees of freedom) 4 Possible decrease (<-0.54 to -2.27%/yr, P=0.0-0.35) 4 Possible decrease (<-2.27%/yr, 0.1

PS=Population Size based on best population estimates globally 5=Rare (<50 thousand breeding individuals globally) 4=Uncommon (50-500 thousand breeding individuals globally) 3=Fairly Common (500 thousand-5 million breeding individuals globally) 2=Common (5 million to 50 million breeding individuals globally) 1=Abundant (50 million + breeding individuals globally)

TB and TN=Threats Breeding and Threats Non-breeding

5=Extreme deterioration in the future suitability of breeding/non-breeding conditions is expected; species is in danger of regional extirpation or major range contraction, or has already been extirpated 4=Severe deterioration in the future suitability of breeding/non-breeding conditions is expected 3=Slight to moderate decline in the future suitability of breeding/non-breeding conditions is expected 2=Expected future conditions for breeding/non-breeding populations are expected to remain stable; no known threats 1=Expected future conditions for breeding/non-breeding populations are enhanced by human activities or land-uses; potentially a ‘problem’ species

BD and ND=Breeding Distribution and Non-breeding Distribution

5=Very Local Distribution (<500,000 km2, or very restricted coastal areas or interior uplands) 4=Local Distribution (>500,000 and <1,000,000 km2, or <1,600 km of coast) 3=Moderate Distribution (>1,000,000 and <2,000,000 km2, or >1,600 to <5,000 km of coast) 2=Widespread (>2,000,000 and <4,000,000 km2, or >5,000 to <8,000 km of coast) 1=Very Widespread (>4,000,000 km2, or >8,000 km of coast)

SUBTOT=Subtotal of six scores (absent AI) used to calculate Combined Score for Continental WatchList

AI=Area Importance, “relative” relative abundance for the species for each area within range scaled against its maximum relative abundance (i.e., the BCR or physiographic area supporting the highest relative abundance)

5=Very High relative abundance (~50+% of maximum relative abundance) 4=High relative abundance (~25-49% of maximum relative abundance) 30 3=Moderate relative abundance (~10-24% of maximum relative abundance) 2=Low relative abundance (~1-9% of maximum relative abundance) 1=Peripheral, scattered occurrences.

TOT=Total Score of all seven factors used for identifying Tiers for which species best fits for conservation planning at Planning Region/Bird Conservation Region/Physiographic Area.

Act. Level=Action Level at present based on expert opinion, but ultimately rules based on scores would be preferable.

MA=Management or other on-the-ground conservation actions needed to reverse or stabilize significant, long-term population declines in species that are still relatively abundant.

PR=Long-term Planning and Responsibility needed for species to ensure that sustainable populations are maintained for species for which a region has high responsibility for that species.

31 APPENDIX B

Bird-Habitat Relationships for Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands, West Indies.

Conservation Limestone and Mangrove and Shrub-scrub Grassland/ Landbird Marshes/long- Open water Mudflats Beach front Nesting seabirds Tier montane forests coastal Open lands Transients legged waders and salt ponds woodlands

I a. Multiple Plain Pigeon West Indian Yellow- West Indian West Indian Snowy Plover White-tailed concerns Whistling-Duck shouldered Whistling-Duck Whistling-Duck Tropicbird continentally Blackbird

Puerto Rican Yellow- Black Rail Piping Plover* Red-billed Parrot shouldered Tropicbird Blackbird

Puerto Rican Nightjar

White-necked Crow

Bicknell’s Thrush*

Golden-winged Warbler*

Elfin-woods Warbler

I b. High Mangrove White-crowned Prairie Warbler* American Little Blue Lesser Yellowlegs* Sanderling* Audubon’s continental Cuckoo** Pigeon** Golden- Heron* Shearwater threats and/or Plover* declining

Puerto Rican Mangrove Upland Wilson’s Snipe Solitary Sandpiper* Gull-billed Tern Masked Booby Vireo Cuckoo** Sandpiper*

Worm-eating Prothonotary Short-eared Whimbrel* Red-footed Booby Warbler* Warbler* Owl

Kentucky Semipalmated Brown Booby Warbler* Sandpiper*

Greater Antillean Western Sandpiper* Roseate Tern Oriole

Stilt Sandpiper* Least Tern

Short-billed Dowticher*

I c. Local Black Swift** Lesser Antillean Lesser Antillean Antillean Caribbean Coot Caribbean Coot Reddish Egret Magnificent and/or rare Pewee Pewee Nighthawk** Frigatebird continentally

Lesser Antillean Adelaide’s Wilson’s Bridled Tern Pewee Warbler Plover*

Blue-winged American Warbler* Oystercatcher*

Adelaide’s Red Knot* Warbler

Swainson’s Warbler*

II a. High Black-whiskered Green Heron* Antillean Mango Green Heron* Black-bellied Ruddy Brown Pelican concern Vireo** Plover* Turnstone* regionally

Yellow-crowned Yellow-crowned Least Sandpiper* Night Heron* Night Heron*

II b. High Sharp-shinned Clapper Rail American American Pied-billed Grebe Pied-billed Grebe Greater Flamingo Willet* threats Hawk Kestrel Kestrel (w/nest regionally trees)

Broad-winged Yellow Key West Quail- Least Bittern* White-cheeked Hawk “Golden” Dove Pintail Warbler

Limpkin Black-crowned Ruddy Duck Night-Heron*

Bridled Quail- White-cheeked Masked Duck Dove Pintail

Puerto Rican Ruddy Duck Screech- Owl (VI)

Louisiana Masked Duck Waterthrush*

Yellow-breasted Crake

Purple Gallinule*

II c. High Scaly-naped Puerto Rican Antillean Zenaida Dove Tricolored Heron* Black-necked Stilt* Black-necked Sooty Tern responsibility Pigeon Flycatcher Crested Stilt* regionally Hummingbird

Puerto Rican Northern Parula* Caribbean Gray Pectoral Sandpiper* Black Tern* Brown Noddy Lizard-Cuckoo Elaenia Kingbird**

Puerto Rican Cape May Puerto Rican Caribbean Screech-Owl Warbler* Flycatcher Martin** (PR subsp.)

Green Mango Gray Kingbird** Cave Swallow

Puerto Rican Northern Parula* Grasshopper Emerald Sparrow

Puerto Rican Puerto Rican Tody Bullfinch 34

Puerto Rican Woodpecker

Puerto Rican Flycatcher

Loggerhead Kingbird

Red-legged Thrush

Northern Parula*

Cape May Warbler*

Black-throated Blue Warbler*

Puerto Rican Tanager

Puerto Rican Spindalis

Antillean Euphonia

Puerto Rican Bullfinch

III. Additional Least Grebe Least Grebe State Listed (USVI) (USVI)

Great Blue Heron (USVI)

Great Egret* (USVI)

Snowy Egret* (USVI)

IV. Local or Chuck-will’s- White-winged White-winged Northern Merlin* Glossy Ibis Northern Pintail Semipalmated Royal Tern regional widow* Dove Dove Harrier Plover* interest

Yellow-throated Yellow-billed Yellow-billed Killdeer Peregrine Falcon* Sora Blue-winged Greater Yellowlegs* Sandwich Tern Vireo* Cuckoo* Cuckoo* Teal*

Magnolia Yellow-throated White-eyed Mourning Common Common Lesser Scaup Spotted Sandpiper* Warbler* Warbler* Vireo* Dove Nighthawk* Moorhen*

Blackpoll Palm Warbler* Indigo Bunting* Indigo Bobolink* Osprey* White-rumped Warbler* Bunting* Sandpiper*

Black-and-white Blackpoll Baltimore Oriole* Warbler* Warbler*

American Black-and-white Redstart* Warbler*

Ovenbird* American Redstart*

Hooded Northern Warbler* Waterthrush*

Hooded Warbler*

*Nearctic-Neotropical Migrant species, those species with populations principally breeding in temperate North American areas that winter principally in tropical North American and/or South America areas. **Intratropical Migrants species, those species breeding in the northern tropical areas of North America that winter principally further south in tropical North America and/or South America areas.

APPENDIX L.4

DRY TORTUGAS NATIONAL PARK

SFCN Vital Signs Report L.4 Appendix L. Avian Conservation Implementation Plans

FINAL DRAFT Avian Conservation Implementation Plan Dry Tortugas National Park

National Park Service Southeast Region

Compiled by J. Keith Watson U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service In cooperation with

DRTO Resource Management Staff, National Park Service And Bird Conservation Partners January 2005 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction...... 3

Background ...... 3

The North American Bird Conservation Initiative ...... 4

The Southeastern Bird Conservation Initiative: National Park Service ...... 5

Role of NPS in Avian Conservation...... 5

Park Description ...... 7

Avian Resources of the Subtropical Florida ...... 8

Avian Conservation in DRTO ...... 12

Park Identified Needs for Avian Conservation...... 13

Coordination with Regional Conservation Initiatives ...... 14 North American Bird Conservation Initiative ...... 14 North American Waterfowl Management Plan...... 14 Partners In Flight ...... 14 United States Shorebird Conservation Plan ...... 16 Waterbird Conservation for the Americas...... 16

Integration of NABCI Goals and Objectives into Park Planning and Operations: NABCI Implementation Recommendations ...... 16 Inventory ...... 17 Monitoring ...... 17 Habitat Restoration...... 18 Threat Management...... 19 Research ...... 19 Compliance...... 20 Outreach ...... 20 Partners and Partnerships ...... 21 Funding Opportunities...... 22 Contacts...... 24

Literature Cited...... 26

Appendixes Breeding Colonial Waterbird Scores and Status Southeast Region Waterbird Priorities and Habitat Types Florida’s Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern US Fish and Wildlife Service Species of Conservation Concern in Peninsular Florida (BCR 31)

2 Introduction

This Avian Conservation Implementation Plan (ACIP) is provided to the staff at Dry Tortugas National Park (DRTO) to help identify and prioritize bird conservation opportunities, and to provide information and guidance for the successful implementation of needed conservation activities. This plan may identify goals, strategies, partnerships, and perhaps specific projects for the park to participate in existing bird conservation planning and implementation efforts associated with the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI). Under the auspice of NABCI, appropriate bird and habitat conservation goals may be recommended as identified in the appropriate existing national or regional bird conservation efforts aligned with this initiative: Partners In Flight (PIF), North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP), US Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP), and Waterbird Conservation for the Americas (WCA). For example, parks in the Appalachians and the Cumberland Plateau will have few if any high priority waterbird conservation issues at a regional landscape or greater scale. As such, little information regarding waterbird conservation will be presented in the ACIP, unless there is an identified park need for this species group, or other mandates, such as federal laws. Similarly, because DRTO is oceanic in nature, very few landbird conservation priorities will be made, except as they may relate to seabirds and coastal species utilizing the land base of DRTO. However, all high priority bird conservation issues for DRTO will be discussed and integrated as appropriate.

Information and data presented in the ACIP have been obtained from several sources: 1) interviews with DRTO staff 2) DRTO bird conservation partners 3) the PIF Subtropical Florida Bird Conservation Plan (in preparation) 4) NPS databases, 5) peer reviewed bird conservation and management literature, and 6) personal communications with bird conservation specialists throughout North America, especially in the southeastern United States. This plan has been reviewed by DRTO resource management staff and managers, South Florida/Caribbean Inventory and Monitoring (SF/C I&M) Network staff, and bird conservation partners and approved by DRTO management. Optimally, this plan will be incorporated into the park’s natural resource planning and management documents and updated annually to reflect completed projects, newly identified needs, and shifts in bird conservation priorities in the region.

DRTO is not obligated to undertake any of the proposed actions in this plan. The plan is provided to offer guidance to DRTO to voluntarily support important park, regional, and perhaps national and international bird conservation projects for which DRTO is a primary participant in the proposed actions.

Background

• North American Waterfowl Management Plan • Partners in Flight • U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan • Waterbird Conservation for the Americas

To deliver the full spectrum of bird conservation through regionally-based, biologically-driven, landscape-oriented partnerships.

As envisioned, the integration of NABCI into the Southeastern NPS involves:

1) Development and delivery of Avian Conservation Implementation Plans, 2) Coordination with NPS Inventory and Monitoring Program, 3) Development of a web based project site, 4) Establishment or enhancement of bird conservation partnerships, 5) Identification and exploration of potential funding opportunities, and 6) Technical guidance and assistance as needed or requested.

This ACIP fulfills one aspect of the plan outlined above, and serves as a basis for future bird conservation actions in DRTO and with adjacent partners or landowners.

Concurrently, the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the FWS and the NPS (Appendix A) to implement Presidential Executive Order (EO) 13186, Responsibilities of Federal Agencies to Protect Migratory Birds (US Government 2000), calls for integration of programs and recommendations of existing bird conservation efforts into park planning and operations. Complementing each other, the MOU and the Southeastern Bird Conservation Initiative will advance bird conservation in the Southeast Region of the NPS beyond current regional NPS efforts.

Role of NPS in Avian Conservation

The interagency agreement that facilitates this partnership supports both FWS and NPS management policies. Specifically for the NPS, the agreement supports and advances the Strategy for Collaboration, a visionary document developed and signed by the Southeast Natural Resource Leaders Advisory Group (SENRLAG 2000), a consortium of 13 land and resource management agencies in the Southeastern United States whose vision is to encourage and support cooperation in planning and managing the region’s natural resources. Furthermore, the agreement is aligned with and implements a variety of NPS Management Polices (2001) including, but not limited to, External Threats and Opportunities, Environmental Leadership, Cooperative Planning, Land Protection, and especially Natural Resource Management that details policy and 5 management guidelines which apply to bird conservation. Important policies in the Natural Resource Management chapter include:

The NPS is the fourth largest landowner in the United States, consisting of over 380 national park units covering 83 million acres of land and water with associated biotic resources (www.nps.gov). The 64 units in the Southeast Region of the NPS represent 16% of the total number of park units in the national park system and cover approximately 5% of the total land base in the entire system. Park units in the Southeast Region include national seashores (Canaveral National Seashore, Cape Hatteras National Seashore), national parks (Great Smoky Mountains National Park, Dry Tortugas National Park), national recreation areas (Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area), national preserves (Big Cypress National Preserve), national battlefields (Cowpens National Battlefield, Fort Donelson National Battlefield), national monuments (Fort Matanzas National Monument, Ocmulgee National Monument), and others such as the Blue Ridge Parkway, Obed Wild and Scenic River, and Timicuan Ecological and Historic Preserve.

6 Nationally, the status of birds in national parks is largely unknown, although many parks have adequate knowledge regarding bird occurrence in the parks (http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/othrdata/chekbird/chekbird.htm). Parks often play a role in ongoing regional bird conservation efforts. Indeed many of these parks are often important to regional, national, or international bird conservation, and many have been designated as Important Bird Areas (IBA’s) by the National Audubon Society. To date, there are approximately 64 NPS units that are designated IBA’s, 35 of which are considered of global importance (http://abcbirds.org/iba/aboutiba.htm). In the Southeast Region, the NPS has 13 global IBA’s.

The NPS Inventory and Monitoring (I&M) Program has been developed to provide management driven scientific information to national park managers so that resources can be adequately protected within national parks. One of the first phases of this program is to inventory vertebrates, including birds, within the 260 national park units in the program. Once completed, data from the inventories will provide an account of the occurrence and abundance of birds in all the national parks in the program. These records will be stored in the NPS I&M NPSpecies database (http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/apps/npspp/). Coordination with I&M network staff is important to developing long-term bird monitoring programs that fulfill both park and NABCI objectives.

Park Flight is a NPS international partnership initiative that directs funding toward a variety of NPS programs that involve conservation of Neotropical migratory birds whose life history range covers a U.S. national park and a Latin American protected area. A relatively new program, Park Flight offers parks the opportunity to partner with a Latin American national park or protected area to cooperate on developing bird conservation and education projects (USDI NPS 2002).

Park Description

Almost 70 miles (112.9 km) west of Key West lies a cluster of seven islands, composed of coral reefs and sand, called the Dry Tortugas. Fort Jefferson National Monument was established by Presidential Proclamation on January 4, 1935, to protect historic Fort Jefferson, a military and architecturally significant nineteenth century fort. 7 Congress re-designated the 25,900 ha (64,000 acres) area as a National Park in October 1992 to provide additional management protection for the area’s subtropical marine system, including coral reefs, fisheries, nesting birds and sea turtles, and other wildlife (Public Law 102-525). Dry Tortugas National Park possesses one of the greatest concentrations of historic shipwrecks in North America, with some vessels dating back to the 1600’s. Because of its isolation, the islands, magnificent subtropical waters and coral reefs serve as an important resting place for migrating birds and a foraging and nesting place for sea turtles. Pristine subtropical waters, lush coral and seagrass habitat, and hundreds of species of birds and fish affords scientists an outstanding opportunity for education and scientific research. Some of the earliest known coral reef investigations date back to the 1880’s when the Carnegie Institution operated one of the first subtropical marine science laboratories in the Western Hemisphere on Loggerhead Key (Sasso and Patterson 2000).

Avian Resources of Subtropical Florida

This physiographic area is entirely contained within Florida, and extends from the northern edge of Lake Okeechobee south through the Florida Keys (see PIF and NPS locations maps below). The region has very little topographic relief, but slight changes in elevation have important consequences for vegetation and the diversity of habitat types. The highest points of elevation are less than 2 meters and correspond with fairly recent shorelines (less than 5,000 years before present). Underlying sediments consist of freshwater marl, peat, freshwater lake and marine sediments, and to a lesser extent, sand deposited during the Pleistocene and Holocene. The subtropical Florida region can be divided into four smaller sub-regions: 1) the Everglades, 2) Big Cypress, 3) Miami Ridge and Atlantic Coastal Ridge, and 4) Southern Coasts and Islands. The Everglades is the most extensive of these areas, followed by the Big Cypress, Miami Ridge and Southern Coasts. Across all subregions, much of the physical and ecological characteristics of the region resemble tropical ecosystems where seasonal changes are reflected by changing rainfall patterns rather than by dramatic temperature changes. Distinctive dry (winter/spring) and wet (summer) seasons occur annually, and the nesting cycles of many birds are tied to these changes. At least two major forms of disturbance play key roles in the ecology of the region. Fire is an important feature in many pine dominated communities and many marsh and prairie communities. Frequent fires are essential in pine-dominated stands and prairies if understory conditions suitable to many nesting birds are to be maintained. However, the ideal fire frequency in some pine communities is not known. Hurricanes are a second form of disturbance that less frequently but predictably provide early successional habitats or open forest cover (Partners in Flight 2000).

10 pine scrub), grassland/grassland-scrub (including dry prairie and coastal strands), subtropical deciduous forest, Everglades, brackish saltwater and freshwater marsh, and mangrove swamps. Species associated with each of these habitats and identified as high priority for conservation needs are given below.

Florida Scrub Jay, Red-cockaded Woodpecker, Southeastern American Kestrel, Brown- headed Nuthatch, Bachman’s Sparrow, Pine Warbler and Sedge Wren are associated with the pine forests. Both Florida Scrub Jay and Southeastern American Kestrel have been extirpated in Subtropical Florida and the Brown-headed Nuthatch and Bachman’s Sparrow are nearly extirpated here. Both Palm Warbler and Sedge Wren are present only in the non-breeding seasons.

In the subtropical deciduous forest, Short-tailed Hawk, Swallow-tailed Kite and Gray Kingbird are high priorities for conservation.

Prairie Warbler, Yellow Warbler, Black-whiskered Vireo White-crowned Pigeon, and Mangrove Cuckoo, species associated with Mangrove swamps and forests, are of high priority conservation concern.

Human population growth has been phenomenal in subtropical Florida for the last 40 years. The impacts of such tremendous growth include increased infrastructure that directly reduces habitat availability, but also secondary impacts to bird habitats, such as pollution. Other land uses include production of sugarcane, winter vegetables, and citrus. Drastic changes in hydroperiod and natural water cycles are secondary impacts of increasingly intensive agriculture. However, among the best opportunities in the Southeast to work with existing public lands occur in Subtropical Florida, where over 54% of the area is publicly owned. Therefore, primary conservation programs include efforts to reduce impacts from adjacent or nearby lands on management of existing public lands. Many programs have been developed and are in various phases of implementation. These include the Save Our Everglades program, the Surface Water Improvement and Management Act, Florida’s everglades Forever Act and the development of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force as well as aggressive acquisition programs. These and other programs serve the basis for bird conservation efforts in the region.

This description of South Florida aviafaunal conservation priorities hardly seems relevant to DRTO. Indeed, DRTO has a bird fauna more similar to the Caribbean region

11 than Subtropical Florida. Yet, bird conservation plans for both Subtropical Florida and Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands do not adequately address priority bird conservation issues in DRTO. However, because bird conservation priorities are more closely affiliated with the Caribbean, recommendations in this plan will be tiered to the Puerto Rico and US Virgin Islands bird conservation plan.

Avian Conservation in DRTO

Avian Biodiversity: DRTO has an avian inventory and a checklist of birds that is available for the public. Managers recognize the need to update the inventory and checklist. Approximately 291 species have been observed in the Dry Tortugas, yet only 7 species regularly nest there. This number seems low, especially considering that numbers of birds in spring often exceed 100,000. However, these large numbers are the result of nesting Sooty Tern and Brown Noddy. Other regular nesters there are Masked Booby, Magnificent Frigatebird (only colony in US jurisdiction), Mourning Dove, and Brown Pelican.

Verified records of birds in DRTO have been entered into the NPS I&M program’s database, NPSpecies, and may be viewed via the internet at http://www.nature.nps.gov/im/app/npspp with a user identification and password combination authorized by the NPS for NPS personnel and NPS cooperators. Many other avian observational data need to be verified and entered into the database.

Inventory: The park’s avian inventory has been recognized as important information for park managers and is considered complete within the framework of the NPS I&M Program. DRTO is one of seven parks in the NPS South Florida/Caribbean I&M Network for which a plan to conduct high priority inventory projects has been prepared (Sasso and Patterson 2000). At this time, no inventory efforts are planned for DRTO.

Threatened and Endangered Species: Two federally listed threatened species occur in DRTO, the Brown Pelican and Roseate Tern. The Brown Pelican nests in the park and the Roseate Tern is now an irregular nesting species and regular winter resident.

One additional Florida listed species, the Least Tern, occurs in DRTO. Other transient species occurring in DRTO are listed in several states, signifying the park’s importance to bird migration.

Park Priorities: Park staff and consultants have identified the Sooty Tern, Magnificent Frigatebird and Brown Noddy as species of significant management concern and high priority for conservation. Additionally, the park’s significance as a stopover for Neotropical migrants is well known remains a high priority for conservation attention.

Monitoring: Currently, several avian monitoring projects are being conducted at DRTO. These are:

12 • Sooty Tern and Brown Noddy colony monitoring using point count index methodology; vegetation is also monitored at these sites • Migration monitoring by private interests, mainly for Neotropical migrants • Brown Pelican, Masked Booby, and Magnificent Frigatebird colony monitoring using direct count methodology

Randomized recreational birding provides additional bird observation data.

Research: Scientific research is permitted within the park, and currently two projects are ongoing. These are:

• Long-term banding of Sooty Tern chicks in 3 m square plots to track parentage and nest site fidelity • Determination of causes in shift of breeding season for Sooty Tern, including an analysis of all environmental variables possibly associated with Sooty Tern nesting

Outreach: Some educational information related to birds is conveyed to visitors to DRTO.

• Law enforcement staff inform visitors of the importance of and protecting the tern colonies, as well as other waterbirds • An observation log is maintained in the visitor center where • In visitor center, information is available on the practice of gull feeding by visitors • In visitor center, information is available on importance of DRTO for landbird migration

Park Identified Needs for Avian Conservation

DRTO has identified several projects that would increase the avian knowledge of the park. They are:

Inventory: • better understand the role the park has for fall migrants

Monitoring: • Christmas Bird Count • Scientifically based Migration Monitoring

Research: • Sooty Tern colony banding is desired • Nesting chronology and demography of the Magnificent Frigatebird Colony • Masked Booby nesting chronology and reproductive success • Determination of importance of DRTO as a migration stopover

13 Data Management: • Verify and enter avian observational data into NPSpecies, eBird, or another appropriate database (DRTO data is stored in Everglades National Park databases)

Coordination with Regional Conservation Initiatives

North American Bird Conservation Initiative: NABCI bird conservation planning units, referred to as Bird Conservation Regions (BCR), are often larger than other planning units associated with other plans, such as Partners In Flight. For example, DRTO is within the NABCI Peninsular Florida BCR that covers all of Southern Florida south of approximately Jacksonville (see NABCI BCR map below) and encompasses two PIF physiographic areas (the planning unit for PIF)(compare to PIF map).

Several NABCI BCR's have coordinators whose primary responsibility is to coordinate all bird conservation planning in the BCR, across all agencies and organizations. Currently, the Peninsular Florida BCR does not have a designated coordinator; however, the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV) has staff that with responsibility to provide bird conservation assistance to agencies and organizations in the area. This staff can provide valuable assistance to DRTO with implementation of aspects of this ACIP.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP): The NAWMP (http://northamerican.fws.gov/NAWMP/nawmphp.htm) is completed and has been revised several times, incorporating updated goals and strategies based on new information. This plan is one of the most successful bird conservation delivery programs in the United States, being monetarily supported by the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA). The ACJV coordinators are responsible for coordination and implementation of this program.

Partners In Flight: Goals and strategies for the Subtropical Florida are not yet fully developed into a draft bird conservation plan. However, as previously noted, bird conservation priorities for DRTO are better aligned with Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands goals, yet are largely the responsibility of the NPS and the State of Florida, an arrangement that can make bird conservation at DRTO challenging.

Similar to NABCI BCR’s, PIF physiographic areas often do not have designated coordinators. However, state level non-game agencies with investment in PIF will establish key personnel to develop partnerships among cooperators in the physiographic area. The State of Florida has a non-game bird coordinator who can be instrumental in assisting DRTO to implement recommendations identified in this ACIP and projects important to bird conservation relative to Florida and the Caribbean’s role in implementation of the respective geographical plans.

14 15 United States Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP): The USSCP has been completed and is available on the World Wide Web (http://shorebirdplan.fws.gov/). A regional step down plan is in preparation by FWS personnel and should be available in 2003.

Waterbird Conservation for the Americas (WCA): The WCA plan has been completed and is available on the World Wide Web or can be ordered from the US Fish and Wildlife Service National Conservation Training Center (http://www.waterbirdconservation.org/). Most conservation priorities for DRTO are for waterbirds and this plan will eventually provide the best guidance for DRTO bird conservation.

Integration of NABCI Goals and Objectives into Park Planning and Operations

NABCI Implementation Recommendations

• Inventory • Monitoring • Habitat Restoration • Threat Management (includes exotic species, air quality, water quality, etc.) • Research • Compliance • Outreach • Partnerships

To the extent appropriate, each of these program areas will be discussed separately and within each, specific opportunities identified that, when implemented, will enable to park to meet its mandates (current and expected) as well as integrate NABCI into its planning and operations. With emphasis added, the park is not expected to implement any of these recommendations or be obligated to pursue any opportunity other than those the park is required to do by law or NPS program or policy. In other words, participation in this effort is currently voluntary. However, implementation of EO 13186 (US Government 2000) will require NPS to incorporate a wide range of bird conservation programs into planning and operations. The development of the MOU between the FWS and the NPS will establish a formal agreement to promote bird 16 conservation within the agency by incorporating goals and strategies of existing bird conservation initiatives, plans, and goals into park planning and operations.

High priority projects are identified in bold print. Priorities that the park is encouraged to seek NPS funding for are marked with an asterisk (*). These projects are those that are critical to the stabilization or improvement of a bird population in the planning region.

Inventory: The park has inventoried its bird fauna exceptionally well. Although Nonetheless, additional information is needed on fall migration. DRTO is encouraged to:

• establish a migration monitoring program throughout the islands to determine use of DRTO by fall migrants*

Additionally, DRTO is encouraged to

• verify other avian observational data collected in the park and enter into the appropriate database (Everglades NP databases, NPSpecies, eBird, or other appropriate database)*

• standardize inventory and monitoring methodology to conform to NPS and/or FWS recommended standards (Fancy and Sauer 2000, Hunter 2000)

Monitoring: The park’s bird monitoring program is focused on waterbird colonies, two of which occur nowhere else in the United States. Efforts should be made to continue existing monitoring programs and to ensure that park efforts contribute to park or regional bird conservation rather than undertake an action or actions that are not needed or are better conducted in other areas. Specific recommendations are to:

• continue to conduct existing monitoring programs and enter data into the appropriate databases (NPSpecies, eBird, or other appropriate database)*

• communicate with other biologists and research scientists working with Sooty Tern, Brown Noddy, and Magnificent Frigatebird to determine DRTO’s importance for these nesting species*

• establish a scientifically based landbird migration monitoring program to document use of DRTO during landbird migrations*

• establish a gull monitoring program to document increase in gulls and gull predation 17 • establish a Christmas Bird Count area centered on the Dry Tortugas

• standardize inventory and monitoring methodology to conform to NPS and/or FWS recommended standards (Fancy and Sauer 2000, Hunter 2000)

Habitat Restoration: Recently, habitat restoration efforts have increased on NPS lands due to the increased restoration emphasis of the Management Policies (USDI NPS 2001). Parks may use a wide range of management tools to restore wetland, grassland, woodland, and other habitats. Restoration tools include, but are not limited to, forest management practices (e.g. silviculture), prescribed fire, exotic species management, and public use and recreation management. In addition, parks can coordinate infrastructure development (e.g. roads and buildings) with restoration activities to mitigate potential adverse impacts.

Due to the protected nature of DRTO lands, and generally those in the national park system, the condition of habitats for bird use may be of higher quality than other natural, developed, agricultural, or forest lands under other management regimes. However, national park lands can be greatly improved for wildlife, and particularly bird use, by restoring processes important for habitat formation, succession, and structural development. Largely, these processes have not been managed historically in the national park system but current policy allows for active management of species, populations, and lands to provide for long-term conservation of park resources. Protection of habitats in DRTO can contribute to continued waterbird colony nesting, thus contributing to species population goals in South Florida and the Caribbean.

The park is entirely oceanic island park subject to the forces generated upon and moving across the ocean surfaces. Tropical storms, tidal fluctuations, and sea level rise are processes that influence the dynamic landscape of DRTO and likewise, the waterbird colonies. Specific recommendations are to:

• maintain or enhance water quality in surrounding waters to support aquatic biota necessary to support existing tern and waterbird colonies*

• manage vegetation on Bush Key to assure Sooty Tern and Brown Noddy have adequate and suitable nesting area*

• determine feasibility to improve habitat for nesting Masked Booby and implement appropriate actions to improve habitat for nesting Masked Booby*

• preserve remaining coastal hammock forests and shrub scrub habitats for migrating land birds*

18 • document all major habitat management activities, including location (e.g. UTM coordinates) and a description of methods and of pre- and post- management habitat conditions. This information, when coupled with bird distribution and abundance data, is useful for assessing and replicating conservation actions

Threat Management: Potentially the greatest impact to birds at DRTO is the presence of rats. The recent establishment of a land bridge between Fort Jefferson and Bush Key, where the tern colonies reside, could result rat predation of the tern colony. However, park staff have responded with an aggressive trapping program and rats do not seem to be negatively impacting the tern colony. The park is encouraged to:

• continue the aggressive removal of rats from Bush Key, striving to eradicate all rats*

• consider removing the land bridge between Garden and Bush Key to prevent future invasions of mammalian predators and unauthorized visitors and associated disturbance

• eliminate gull feeding by visiting public and potentially reduce gull populations to reduce predation on Sooty Terns

• manage commercial fishing offal to eliminate attraction to gulls

• assess and managed gull predation on Sooty Tern

• manage fishing practices that impact fish eating birds

Exotic vegetation has been well managed at DRTO. Efforts should continue to

• monitor and manage exotic vegetation

Research: Several research projects have been identified that could improve bird conservation for birds at DRTO and contribute to increased bird conservation efforts for these species in the Caribbean. These projects are:

• Sooty Tern colony banding is desired (10K)*

• demography and nesting chronology of the Magnificent Frigatebird*

• determination of importance of DRTO as a migration stopover*

• Masked Booby nesting chronology and reproductive success*

19 • assess gull population dynamics and gull predation on Sooty Tern colony*

• impact assessment of fishing gear on fish feeding birds

• continue to improve knowledge on developing mangrove forest and potential for increased bird nesting

• list park needs and projects on Research Permit and Reporting System web site (RPRS)

• develop contact with South Florida/Caribbean Cooperative Ecosystem Studies Unit (CESU) at the Rosentiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Miami, Fl.

Compliance: Park compliance with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Executive Order 13186 (US Government 2000) is necessary to assure that park activities incorporate bird conservation into park planning and operations. Further, to ensure that migratory birds are considered in all phases of park planning processes, especially during the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Director’s Order #12 Compliance processes, the park should consider adding specific language in project evaluations that requires consideration and implications of park projects on migratory birds. The MOU being developed between the NPS and the FWS will likely contain specific language requiring a park to consider implications of park projects on migratory birds, particularly those species identified in the USFWS Species of Conservation Concern 2002 (Appendix D). Additional considerations are to encourage:

• park staff to begin specific consideration of migratory birds during park planning processes*

Outreach

• participate in International Migratory Bird Day (IMBD) events with a local partner (http://birds.fws.gov/imbd.html)

20 • encourage development of outreach and educational programs to enhance visibility of bird conservation issues, which may include organized bird walks, migration monitoring, and perhaps waterbird colony visits*

• develop educational/outreach program for park fishing persons to avoid or minimize impacts or injury to fish eating birds*

• develop aggressive outreach and enforcement program to eliminate gull feeding by visiting public*

• park interpretation/education staff are encouraged to attend USFWS training on Migratory Bird Education at NCTC

• consider adding links to bird conservation information, data, etc. to the park’s web site home page

• support bird conservation by serving shade-grown coffees at meetings, events, and the office buildings in the park (http://www.americanbirding.org/programs/conssbcof3.htm)

• subscribe to Florida Birds, an electronic forum for listing bird sightings and publications in Florida

Partners and Partnerships: Partnerships for habitat conservation and protection will perhaps have the greatest positive influence on bird conservation above all other landscape scale planning. Specific recommendations are to:

• keep abreast of initiatives that may affect water quality in and around DRTO*

• partner with Caribbean seabird experts to collaborate on conservation issues with DRTO waterbird colonies*

• continue to develop and strengthen relationship with local bird clubs such as the Key West Audubon Society and Tropical Audubon Society to coordinate and conduct park bird conservation projects*

• develop partnership with USFWS, particularly with Key West National Wildlife Refuge*

21 • contact the nearest Joint Venture office (see Funding section for explanation of Joint Ventures) or BCR coordinator to develop partnerships and funding proposals tiered to priorities established by the park, this ACIP, and the bird conservation plans that pertain to DRTO

Funding Opportunities: Internal NPS funding is often an effective source to obtain funding; however, the project will have to be a fairly high priority among the park’s natural resource program to successfully compete for the limited funding available in the NPS. Therefore, partnerships and outside funding programs are often more productive for securing bird conservation funding. Funding for conservation projects for Neotropical migrants is also available through the Park Flight program. DRTO is encouraged to enter all high priority projects into the NPS Performance Management Information System (PMIS) database. Needed at DRTO is:

• increased base funding to implement basic protection and management needs for birds and their habitats (habitat-based management not only benefits the birds but other wildlife as well)

With the exception of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP and its associated funding legislation, the North American Wetland Conservation Act), funding opportunities for bird conservation programs, plans, and initiatives have been lacking. Only within the last decade have other appropriate and specific sources for bird conservation funding been created and used. The NAWMP has been supported for approximately 14 years by the North American Wetlands Conservation Act (NAWCA 1989). This program has provided $487 million in appropriated funds matched with $1.7 billion for wetland and bird conservation projects since its inception. In 2002 alone, over $70 million US dollars were awarded to US and Canadian agencies and organizations to enhance waterfowl populations by improving, restoring, or protecting wetland habitats. To adequately evaluate projects and distribute these funds, partnerships called Joint Ventures were established. Nationally, 14 (11 US, 3 Canada) Joint Ventures have been established, several which are funded and staffed. Internet links to Joint Ventures are:

(http://southwest.fws.gov/gulfcoastjv/ojvcontact.html) and (http://northamerican.fws.gov/NAWMP/jv.htm).

22 Internal FWS funding programs may be used to support projects, but no effective method of project proposal delivery to these sources is currently in place for the NPS. Current funding in these programs may result from FWS familiarity with NPS needs, or NPS participation in one of the area FWS Ecosystem Teams, where a project has been identified and proposed to be funded through the Ecosystem Team.

Many of the identified projects are eligible for funding under various grant programs of the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (http://www.nfwf.org/programs/programs.htm).

Other prominent funding sources available to NPS managers for bird conservation are listed on this projects web site at: http://southeast.fws.gov/birds/NPSHighlits.htm.

Funding opportunities for migratory bird conservation are available yet most natural resource agencies are not fully aware of and/or understanding of how to use these sources. Perhaps a consolidated migratory bird funding source catalog will become available to managers in the future; this is needed.

23 Contacts: Primary contacts within the region can be obtained by viewing the web site for the Southeastern Bird Conservation Initiative, National Park Service at http://southeast.fws.gov/birds/npsbirds.htm. This web site will provide contact information of the appropriate bird conservation coordinator in the region for park personnel. Primary contacts for DRTO are:

US Fish and Wildlife Service

Keith Watson National Park Service Asheville, NC 28801 828-350-8228 Matt Patterson [email protected] South Florida/Caribbean Inventory & Monitoring Network Dean Demarest SF/C Network Coordinator Atlanta, GA National Park Service 404-679-7371 305 224-4211 [email protected] [email protected]

Jennifer Wheeler Sonny Bass Waterbird Conservation Plan South Florida Natural Resource Center Coordinator Homestead, FL 703-358-1714 305-242-7833 [email protected] [email protected]

Craig Watson Tony Pernas Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Exotic Plant Management Coordinator Charleston, SC [email protected] 843-727-4707 ext. 16 [email protected] Carol Daniels South Florida/Caribbean CESU Chuck Hunter Rosential School of Marine and Regional Refuge Biologist Atmospheric Sciences Atlanta, GA University of Miami 404-679-7130 Miami, Fl [email protected] [email protected]

Jorge Saliva Boqueron, Puerto Rico 787 851-7297 [email protected]

Florida

Jeff Gore Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission [email protected]

Karl Miller Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission 352-955-2230 [email protected]

Exotic Animal Management

USDA APHIS Wildlife Services Bernice Constantin Florida Wildlife Services State Director 352- 377-5556 [email protected]