Implementation Plan for the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture: A Foundation for All-Bird Conservation in the Region

A fall morning overlooking Dolly Sods Wilderness within the Monongahela National Forest, West Virginia. Photo: Gavin G. Shire Management Board Endorsement May 2008

e, the Management Board of the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture, endorse the vision and mission Wdeveloped by our partnership. Therefore, we are committed to advance the conservation framework articulated in this Implementation Plan and subsequent strategic plans.

David Whitehurst /s/ David Whitehurst, Chairman VA Dept. of Game & Inland Fisheries

Karen Alexy /s/ George Bain /s/ Daniel Brauning /s/ Karen Alexy George Bain Daniel Brauning KY Dept. of Fish & Wildlife Resources U.S. Forest Service PA Game Commission

Gwen Brewer /s/ Dean Demarest /s/ Mary Elfner /s/ Gwen Brewer Dean Demarest Mary Elfner MD Dept. of Natural Resources U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 4 National Audubon Society

Keith Guyse /s/ Glenn Holcomb /s/ Paul Johansen /s/ Keith Guyse Glenn Holcomb Paul Johansen AL Dept. of Conservation & Nat. Res. U.S. Geological Survey WV Division of Natural Resources

Nathan Klaus /s/ Chris McGrath /s/ Thomas Minney /s/ Nathan Klaus Chris McGrath Thomas Minney GA Wildlife Resources Division NC Wildlife Resources Commission The Nature Conservancy

Sherry Morgan /s/ David Pashley /s/ Dave Reynolds /s/ Sherry Morgan David Pashley Dave Reynolds U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Region 5 American Bird Conservancy National Park Service

Dave Scott /s/ Greg Wathen /s/ Scot Williamson /s/ Dave Scott Greg Wathen Scot Williamson OH Division of Wildlife TN Wildlife Resources Agency Wildlife Management Institute

 Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture Vision and Mission Statements

Vision: Partners working together for conservation of native bird species in the Appalachian Mountains region will attain:

• well-managed, fully-functioning ecosystems with sustainable populations of the region’s native avifauna, guided by state, regional, national, and international bird plans; • collaborative and effective delivery of habitat conservation through adaptive management, and guided by an iterative conservation approach consisting of biological planning, conservation design, delivery of conservation actions, evaluation, and research; • success in capitalizing on funding opportunities relevant to partnership priorities; • Joint Venture status as described in 721 FW 6 (USFWS policy on Joint Ventures), with associated USFWS financial support for basic program infrastructure; and, • an engaged Management Board, representative of the diverse landscape and effective partnerships in the Appalachian Mountains.

Mission: To restore and sustain viable populations of native birds and their habitats in the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture through effective, collaborative partnerships.

Approved by Management Board: 24 October 2007 Last Revised: 24 October 2007

ii Executive Summary

he Appalachian Mountains Joint TVenture (AMJV) is a self-directed partnership of public, private, and non- profit entities, organized to advance the conservation (protection, restora- tion, and enhancement) of priority bird populations and their habitats through- out the Appalachian Mountains Bird Conservation Region (AMBCR). The over-arching objective of the AMJV is to ensure the sustainability of na- tive bird populations through strategic conservation of habitats (and overall ecosystem functionality) upon which they rely. The AMJV partnership has committed their support to achieve the goals and vision of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI), and the conservation objec- tives established in the North Ameri- can Waterfowl Management Plan, the Prairie warbler. Photo: USFWS Partners in Flight North American Landbird Conservation Plan, the of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conservation in the AMBCR, as U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, (USFWS). Interested parties organized agreed upon by the AMJV Manage- the Waterbird Conservation for the a Steering Committee to help guide ment Board, Technical Committee, Americas plan, the American Wood- the early stages of the partnership. The and partner organizations. Addition- cock Conservation Plan, the Northern notion soon emerged that the AMBCR ally, this plan outlines several products Bobwhite Conservation Initiative, the (i.e., BCR 28) partnership should that have resulted from our biological Ruffed Grouse Conservation Plan, and strive to develop its own capacity to planning and conservation design bird conservation objectives identified effectively deliver scientifically-based activities to-date. These products in- in Wildlife Action Plans of partner bird conservation for native bird spe- clude: identification of our priority states. In order to efficiently and ef- cies at the landscape scale. Therefore, habitats and avian communities, our fectively support these initiatives, the in 2006, the Steering Committee for approaches to identify focal species AMJV will establish its priorities and the BCR 28 partnership initiated ac- and establish population objectives, objectives based on (1) factors that tions that would better position the preliminary analyses of areas of im- limit native bird populations in the partnership for recognition as a Joint portance outside the AMBCR, and Appalachian Mountains and (2) oppor- Venture. The Coordinator, with partner spatially-explicit bird habitat conser- tunities to overcome those factors for guidance and technical input, began vation areas (BHCA) based on gener- priority species that represent the suite work to fulfill the requirements out- alized habitat and population data, as of habitats in the AMJV. Additionally, lined in 721 FW 6 (USFWS policy well as expert opinions. the AMJV partnership will align its on Joint Ventures). In May 2007, the The AMJV partnership will con- structure and priorities to best accom- BCR 28 Steering Committee unani- duct conservation planning at the modate the specific needs of its partner mously agreed to pursue Joint Venture AMBCR scale, an ecologically-based organizations and the broader regional status, while continuing to collaborate boundary containing similar ecological conservation community. with the ACJV’s staff and Manage- communities and challenges across In 2003, conservation stakeholders ment Board on administrative and the region. Stakeholders in our con- in the Appalachian region initiated the technical issues of mutual interest. servation partnership will focus their AMBCR partnership under the guid- This Implementation Plan articulates collective energies and resources on ance and support of the Atlantic Coast our administrative and organizational the AMBCR, an area encompassing Joint Venture (ACJV) and Region 4 framework, and our strategic approach approximately 102.9 million acres

iii planning and conservation quantity and quality). design in order to prioritize This plan, developed and en- conservation actions to achieve dorsed by the AMJV partnership, state, regional, national, and conveys the AMJV’s initial efforts international conservation to establish a strategic conserva- objectives. The AMJV partner- tion framework upon which our bird ship can then integrate results conservation efforts will be based. from planning and design ef- Adhering to this framework will allow forts into conservation delivery the AMJV partnership to positively programs, which also will help influence priority bird populations and partners prioritize delivery of assume a prominent role in regional on-the-ground habitat projects. bird conservation efforts. It must be Additionally, AMJV partners noted that, as our partnership matures (working individually and and technological abilities improve, collectively) can disseminate our partnership will review (and re- planning tools and products to vise if appropriate) our conservation a wider audience (e.g., county framework and biological foundation. planning commissions) to Although this Implementation Plan is influence land-use decisions on a foundation for organizational and private lands. Ideally, our col- programmatic growth for the AMJV, lective and individual efforts we must continually be cognizant of will increase the availability our mission and adapt accordingly of, improve the condition of, over time. The AMJV partnership Wood thrush. Photo: USFWS and help strategically configure realizes there are numerous challenges habitats to efficiently and to accomplishing our mission; how- and generally corresponding to BCR effectively achieve desired popula- ever, our biological foundation, orga- 28 boundaries recognized by NABCI. tion responses. Therefore, we must nizational strengths, and collective in- The proposed AMJV administrative evaluate our conservation successes by terests have aligned us to strategically boundary encompasses portions of 11 monitoring responses of bird popula- seek opportunities to advance conser- states (Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee, tions, while also monitoring habitat vation of priority bird populations in North Carolina, Kentucky, Virginia, gains and losses (in both habitat the Appalachian Mountains. Maryland, Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, and New Jersey) and the entire state of West Virginia. Currently, the Coordinator facilitates the collective efforts of the partnership, but we envi- sion the need for additional staff to fill vital roles pursuant to our mission as our partnership matures. The efforts of the AMJV are guided by an iterative, landscape-level conservation approach consisting of biological planning, con- servation design, delivery of conserva- tion actions, evaluation, and research. The AMJV partnership has focused initially on building a sound biological foundation, which will serve as a basis for subsequent plan- ning, design, and delivery of bird con- servation in the region. With a strong foundation in place, AMJV partners will establish spatially-explicit habitat objectives derived from biological Whooping crane. Photo: USFWS iv Implementation Plan for the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture: A Foundation for All-Bird Table of Conservation in the Region Contents

I. Vision and Mission Statements...... ii II. Executive Summary...... iii III. Table of Contents...... 1 IV. Organization and Purpose of the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture...... 2 a. The Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture and the Implementation Plan...... 2 b. Ecology and Conservation in the Appalachian Mountains...... 3 c. History of the AMJV Partnership...... 7 d. Administrative Boundaries of the AMJV...... 8 e. Organizational Structure and Budgets of the AMJV...... 9 V. Landscape-level Approach to Conservation...... 12 a. Overview...... 12 b. Biological Planning...... 13 c. Conservation Design...... 18 d. Conservation Delivery...... 23 e. Monitoring, Research, and Evaluation...... 26 VI. Acknowledgements...... 28 VII. Literature Cited...... 29 VII. Appendices...... 31

Note: Please refer to the following citation and its associated supplements for all taxonomic classifications and scientific names of birds mentioned within this document: American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. Check-list of North American Birds, 7th ed. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. http://www.aou.org/checklist/north/index.php

 Organization and Purpose of the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture

Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Con- challenges, opportunities, and threats necticut, Massachusetts, and all of to bird populations. West Virginia (Fig. 1). The AMJV This Implementation Plan serves partnership will take a lead role in as a foundation for the AMJV’s long- all-bird conservation planning and term vision for all-bird conservation action in a slightly modified BCR within the JV planning area (discussed 28, guiding partners in an attempt in Administrative Boundaries of the to meet objectives established AMJV). Within this plan, we summa- by national and international rize the partnership’s activities since bird conservation initiatives. The its inception, identify our proposed AMJV partners, in accordance administrative boundary and organi- with our shared vision and mission zational structure, and identify im- statements, will use an adaptive mediate and longer-term priorities to management framework to guide be addressed. To effectively address landscape-level conservation ef- NABCI’s goal of delivering “the full forts for native birds and their spectrum of bird conservation through Figure 1. The Appalachian Mountains Bird habitats regionally, nationally regionally-based, biologically-driven, Conservation Region (BCR 28) as recognized (i.e., important migration stopover landscape oriented partnerships,” the by the U.S. NABCI Committee. areas), and internationally (i.e.,

migration and overwintering The Appalachian Mountains areas). Our landscape-level Joint Venture and the conservation framework will Implementation Plan resemble other adaptive management frameworks he Appalachian Mountains Joint that are used to inform TVenture (AMJV) is a partner- conservation decisions, ship that was founded to coordinate such as USFWS’ recently- and implement all-bird conservation adopted ‘Strategic Habitat in the Appalachian Mountains Bird Conservation’ framework Conservation Region (AMBCR). The (SHC; Fig. 2). Operating AMBCR (or BCR 28), as originally under this adaptive frame- approved by the U.S. North American work, the AMJV accepts Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI) the responsibility of achiev- Committee, is an area that stretches ing all-bird conservation from northeastern Alabama to south- objectives identified in state, Figure 2. The elements of Strategic Habitat ern New York, covering portions of national, and international Conservation, an adaptive management framework Tennessee, Kentucky, Ohio, Georgia, plans within an eco-regional for landscape-level conservation recently adopted the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, context that offers unique by U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (from NEAT 2006).

 Organization and Purpose of the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture AMJV partnership must be grounded disturbances, ranging from the grazing forests, habitat conditions associated in science. In doing so, it will allow of Pleistocene megafauna and more with frequently disturbed forests, the AMJV to target those landscapes modern large herbivores (e.g., Ameri- mature forests of all types, grasslands, that exhibit the greatest potential for can bison [Bison bison] and elk [Cer- shrub/early successional communities, sustaining or enhancing viable bird vus elaphus]), to natural disturbances and wetlands/lakes. The PIF Species populations. The AMJV vision and (e.g., storms, fire). Collectively, these Assessment Process and habitat suites mission can only be accomplished have helped create the high biological in the physiographic plans, as well as through partnerships that (1) harness diversity of habitat conditions we see the scoring process used in the PIF the collective energies and expertise of today in the Appalachian Mountains. North American Landbird Conserva- agencies, organizations, industries, and This last factor also is problematic, tion Plan (Rich et al. 2004), served individuals dedicated to bird and habi- in that it is difficult to define the role as a starting point for generating the tat conservation, (2) help attain finan- humans played in promoting distur- AMJV priority species list. The PIF cial support for conservation activities, bances pre-historically and how close- physiographic plans also described and (3) facilitate habitat improvement ly current disturbances mimic events and suggested conservation opportuni- and protection programs. The AMJV that occurred over many centuries. ties and management recommenda- Management Board and Technical Six major forest types and 3 gen- tions for each of these habitat types. Committees, through development eral forest habitat categories have Specific landscape habitat recommen- of this Implementation Plan and sub- been identified as important bird dations listed in the PIF physiographic sequent strategic plans, will guide habitats in the Appalachian Moun- plans for the Appalachian Mountains conservation within an eco-regional tains. Forest types include spruce-fir, include: (1) protecting and restoring context and will provide “value- high-elevation (including northern) imperiled high-elevation forests (es- added” benefits that complement our hardwoods, hemlock-white pine, cove pecially spruce-fir) and table moun- conservation partners’ ongoing efforts, (mixed mesophytic) hardwoods, Ap- tain/pitch pine forest communities, and thus start to fulfill the AMJV vi- palachian oak hardwoods, and south- (2) increasing the amount of late suc- sion and mission. ern yellow pine forests; the general cessional northern hardwoods, hem- forest habitat categories include early lock-white pine, cove hardwoods, and Ecology and Conservation in successional habitats, lowland ripar- southern yellow pine forests, (3) im- the Appalachian Mountains ian woodlands, and urban/suburban proving structural complexity for pres- “backyards”/rural woodlots. The larg- ently closed canopy, mid-successional The AMBCR’s topography con- est expanses of grasslands today occur stands in all forest types for understory sists of tall mountains with long broad in agricultural settings or on reclaimed and canopy dependent forest species, ridges, steep slopes, deep ravines, minelands, although remnants of (4) protecting, restoring, and recover- and wide intermountain valleys. The woodland/savanna/glade/barren com- ing sensitive mountain wetlands and endless combinations of landform, munities persist throughout the area. bald communities, (5) increasing the elevation, and soils, along with the Several types of wetlands exist across amount of early successional, shrub- area’s humid and temperate climate the region; however, their size and net scrub habitat in high-elevation (again today, make the Appalachians one of use by wetland-dependant birds (i.e., including northern) hardwoods, Ap- the most biologically diverse areas in waterfowl, waterbirds, and shorebirds) palachian oak, and southern yellow North America. The region supports pale in comparison to other BCRs in pine forests, and (6) improving the a wide array of plant and animal spe- North America. Nonetheless, wetland condition and increasing the amount of cies, including the highest diversity of systems within the AMBCR are very lowland riparian habitats. salamanders in the world, productive important components of the ecosys- For many species (and entire eco- forests with a tremendous diversity of tem and provide vital resources to the systems) in the Appalachian Moun- tree and herbaceous species, and high avian (and plant, wildlife) communi- tains, action must be taken soon to densities of a diverse breeding bird as- ties that rely on them. ensure their survival and recovery for semblage. Repeated glaciation events, Through physiographic bird con- future generations. For instance, at coupled with the complex topography, servation planning efforts organized least 13 federally listed plants in the have contributed to the evolution of by Partners in Flight (PIF; PIF Physio- Appalachians, plus a growing num- many species in high elevations (in the graphic Plans), bird species that breed ber of other taxa under consideration Southern Appalachians which were in the AMBCR have been scored ac- for federal listing (including insects, free from glacial ice) and isolated val- cording to the PIF Species Assessment reptiles, plants, and birds), are as- leys. A third important factor was the Process and grouped into broad habitat sociated with disturbance-maintained role of frequent and often large-scale suites associated with high-elevation ecosystems in the Appalachians (e.g.,

Organization and Purpose of the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture  Carver’s Gap on Roan Mountain in Tennessee. Photo: Scott Somershoe open mountain wetlands, grassy hill- pected causes for historical population in the Appalachian Mountains, rec- sides, and open woodlands). Currently declines. We assume that factors most ognizing that some factors limiting however, small relict populations of limiting AMBCR bird populations can populations may lie outside AMJV these rare organisms persist only in generally be placed in 3 over-arching boundaries and will require additional anthropogenic openings such as along categories that are applicable to breed- partnerships to address. roadways, right-of-ways, or trails. ing and non-breeding grounds: habitat Several ecosystems within the Coordinated planning and restoration quality, habitat quantity/distribution, AMBCR are still extant, and some- efforts could benefit many of the listed and direct mortality. A limiting factor times abundant, across the landscape, species above, as well as improve might be linked to multiple catego- but their functionality is greatly habitat conditions for priority birds ries or to only one. For example, an reduced (habitat quality and quan- that rely on these ecosystems in the outbreak of an avian disease may lead tity). Many of these ecosystems are Appalachian Mountains. to direct mortality and limit popula- disturbance-dependent, flourishing tions, but transmission of the disease only after large-scale and sometimes Limiting Factors and may not be linked to habitat quantity frequent disturbances. Among the Conservation Challenges or quality. On the other hand, human- most important disturbance-depen- For this plan, a limiting factor is made structures may limit populations dent ecosystems in need of restoration any threat or agent that likely will im- through direct mortality (i.e., colli- are native mountain yellow pine, oak pede our ability to meet our population sions), or reduction in habitat qual- woodlands and savannas, serpentine objectives for priority species by re- ity (e.g., fragmentation of habitat) or barrens, and mountain bogs and fens versing declines or maintaining popu- quantity/distribution (e.g., removal of that harbor high priority bird species lations at current levels (i.e., will have forest cover). Keeping these linkages and a great diversity of plants, turtles, a large effect on future population in mind, we briefly discuss several and butterflies. Restoration of these trends). In some cases, limiting fac- large-scale issues surrounding factors ecosystems will require implemen- tors may be identical or related to sus- that limit breeding bird populations tation and refinement of numerous

 Organization and Purpose of the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture disturbance techniques that mimic are lost or greatly reduced in number (habitat quality and quantity), or they natural disturbances, including, but not (habitat quality and quantity). These may not provide adequate habitat for limited to, thinning of existing densely factors and others (e.g., residential juvenile and molting adults of some stocked stands, application of appro- development, gas and mineral extrac- migratory birds that nest in midstory priate prescribed fire regimes, refor- tion) increase habitat fragmentation, or canopy vegetation (habitat qual- estation, and management/removal of and as landscapes become more frag- ity). Several species associated with exotic plants or pests. Human-created mented, any benefits of edge habitat mature forests (e.g., Swainson’s, habitats (e.g., grasslands/shrublands tend to disappear as nest predators and Worm-eating, and Black-throated Blue on reclaimed mines, pasturelands) parasites (i.e., Brown-headed Cow- Warblers) often have higher reproduc- also are rather abundant throughout birds) increase in abundance (habitat tive success along clearcut and road the AMBCR and often support prior- quality and quantity). This threshold edges in mostly mature-forested areas ity species. Similar to the ecosystems has been quantified in the Ozarks and when compared to forest interiors mentioned above, most of these other forested regions—reproductive with sparse understory conditions. human-created habitats are in over- success for forest birds is higher when Additionally, the canopy-associated all poor quality or are not optimally ≥70% of the landscape is forested (as Cerulean Warbler also appears to be distributed throughout the region. opposed to agricultural or developed attracted to forest openings created by Regardless of the system or habitat, lands; Robinson et al. 1995). Within some roads, severe storms, and certain biological planning, design, research, the Appalachian Mountains, the forest management practices (e.g., and monitoring must play important Southern Blue Ridge as a whole has modified shelterwoods) when forest roles to target and refine appropriate >70% of the land in forested habitat interiors are composed of closed cano- management practices. This will en- (some smaller-scale areas within the pies with little or no mid- or under- sure that AMJV partners incorporate ecoregion have >90% forest cover). story structure. Consideration of habi- results into future management pre- However, areas that fall below this tat structure is not limited to forested scriptions to continually increase our threshold occur (e.g., around Ashe- landscapes; vegetative structure of effectiveness. ville, NC and parts of northern GA) in grasslands/shrublands is very impor- Forests predominately occur- the Southern Blue Ridge, and residen- tant to Henslow’s Sparrows, Northern ring on north and east facing aspects, tial developments (difficult to detect Bobwhite, Golden-winged Warblers, and on lower slopes, are at the other via satellite imagery) also underlie and American Woodcock. Therefore, extreme in terms of disturbance fre- ‘contiguous’ forest canopy in many understanding the influences of veg- quency. These forest types include areas, thereby influencing the quality etative structure at multiple scales is “High Peak” forests (spruce-fir-north- of the forested habitat. In contrast, the vital for conservation planning regard- ern hardwood mixes of the Southern Ridge and Valley ecoregion is more less of habitat type. Our conservation Blue Ridge and Allegheny Moun- fragmented and challenged by ever- planning and delivery efforts must tains), northern hardwoods, mixed increasing pressures such as residential ensure that site-scale ecological needs mesophytic (cove) hardwoods, and and energy development. Therefore, (habitat quality) of priority species hemlock-white pine-hardwood mixes. it becomes increasingly important to are met across all seral stages in order Disturbances in these forest types conserve larger forest blocks, improve to achieve our objectives, while also would be expected to be infrequent overall forest quality, and carefully ensuring that sufficient habitat exists and usually very local in effect; how- plan forest/pest management practices across the landscape (habitat quantity). ever, these forests types support the in these regions. Because much of the AMBCR largest and most commercially attrac- Habitat structure is a major con- is remote and relatively rural, many tive trees, leading to severe alteration sideration in the ecology and conser- common causes of direct mortality from pre-settlement conditions (habi- vation of bird species; structure could elsewhere are less common here (e.g., tat quality). Old-growth forest has be influenced by improper disturbance building collisions). However, other been reduced to only a few small and regimes, over-grazing/browsing, forms of direct mortality are much widely scattered stands in the Appa- disease or pests, harvest strategy, or more prevalent, and some are poorly lachian Mountains (habitat quantity). numerous other possibilities. Many understood to-date. For example, colli- However, exotic pests (e.g., Balsam forests currently in the mid-suc- sions with communications towers kill wooly adelgid, Adelges piceae) and cessional (or stem exclusion) stage an estimated 308,000 birds annually in atmospheric contaminants pose seri- throughout the Appalachian Mountains the AMBCR (Longcore et al. 2007), ous threats to maintaining these eco- may not sustain breeding populations and a high percentage of species most systems in perpetuity, as dominant of species dependent on dense un- commonly involved in collisions are tree species within old-growth stands derstory conditions as stands mature AMJV priority species. In many cases,

Organization and Purpose of the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture  even with the most conservative esti- passive and active management strate- engage a diversity of partners, adopt mates of bird mortality at communica- gies are needed to conserve avian (and and follow a rigorous and adaptive tions towers, it is evident that the num- other) diversity in the Appalachian scientific framework, be transparent ber of birds of certain species killed Mountains. Careful coordination with in every step, seek consensus among each year can equal or exceed physio- partners could help restore ecosystem groups with different philosophies, graphic conservation goals established functions, and conserve vulnerable, and seek efficient and effective de- by PIF for those species (Longcore et threatened, and endangered species, livery of conservation actions. The al. 2005, Table 2). Another emerging while pursuing priority bird conser- AMJV partnership must identify concern in the region is the potential vation objectives established by the where active management strategies direct mortality (and habitat loss/ AMJV partnership. Therefore, the for priority species are necessary, and fragmentation) from increased wind challenges that lie ahead are many: explore the important role that passive energy capacity. Potential im- pacts are poorly understood overall; factors including, but not limited to, location of tur- bines, weather patterns, and migration strategies (noctur- nal vs. diurnal; high vs. low altitude; thermal vs. ridgeline gliding) warrant coordinated investigation among part- ners and engaged industry representatives. Even less understood are the potential impacts of atmospheric de- position and environmental contaminants (e.g., mercury, selenium, arsenic) on bird populations in the AMBCR’s high elevations. An ongoing study in Great Smoky Moun- tains National Park has found alarming levels of mercury in several species, especially species that breed in the highest elevations (e.g., Canada Warbler) or species closely associated with water (Louisiana Waterthrush; B. Hylton and T. Simons, un- publ. data). Understanding factors that influence poten- tially large-scale causes of di- rect mortality is an essential aspect to bird conservation within the AMBCR, and in order to be successful, we must engage a broad spec- trum of partners and be trans- parent in our assumptions, research, and decisions. Figure 3. The proposed Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture (AMJV) administrative area covers From the discussion ~102.9 million acres (41.6 million hectares) in all or portions of 12 states, and shares boundaries above, it is apparent that both with 4 other habitat joint ventures.

 Organization and Purpose of the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture Coast Joint Venture (ACJV); Re- gion 4 of the U.S. Fish and Wild- life Service (USFWS) hired a BCR Coordinator to identify key part- ners, facilitate discussions among partners, and initiate conservation planning for BCR 28. Interested parties organized a Steering Com- mittee to help guide the early stag- es of the partnership. After several meetings of the Steering Commit- tee, the notion emerged that BCR 28 should strive to develop its own capacity to effectively deliver scientifically-based bird conserva- tion for all species at BCR-scale. Although guidance and support from the ACJV’s Management Board and staff still was strong, in 2006, the Steering Committee for the BCR 28 partnership initiated actions that would better position the partnership for recognition as a distinct Joint Venture. Shortly afterwards in 2006, the BCR Co- ordinator resigned and the position remained vacant until February 2007; at that time, American Bird Conservancy (ABC), under con- tract with the USFWS, hired a new coordinator. With guidance from an Executive Committee and the Steering Committee, work to begin fulfilling the requirements outlined in 721 FW 6 (USFWS policy on Joint Ventures) resumed, as did Figure 4. The proposed Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture (AMJV) administrative area as discussions between the ACJV it relates to Omernik’s (1987) Level III ecoregion boundaries and subsequent refinements (USEPA 2007). Management Board and BCR 28 Steering Committee about the fu- management approaches play. For ex- prehensive education/outreach compo- ture status of BCR 28’s partnership. ample, National Parks and Wilderness nent that speaks to the importance of Ultimately, in May 2007 the BCR Areas on National Forests serve criti- both active and passive management 28 Steering Committee unanimously cally important functions for preserv- strategies across the landscape. agreed to continue pursuit of Joint ing vulnerable ecosystems, protecting Venture status, while continuing to water quality, and allowing unique History of the AMJV collaborate with the ACJV’s staff and recreational opportunities within the Partnership Management Board on administrative region. However, appropriate and sci- and technical issues of mutual interest ence-driven management prescriptions In 2003, conservation stakeholders and while also emulating certain as- should be incorporated into area plans in the Appalachian region constituted pects of the highly successful structure in order to benefit priority species and a partnership to more strategically ad- and function of the ACJV model. communities in which natural pro- dress bird conservation in BCR 28. Initially, the BCR 28 Coordina- cesses have been severely disrupted. This partnership was formed under the tor was an employee of the USFWS Our activities must also include a com- guidance and support of the Atlantic with an office in their Asheville (NC)

Organization and Purpose of the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture  Migratory Bird Field Office, and existing/pending Joint Ventures and ecoregion and the Ohio portion of AMBCR funding (administration, con- modifications to the BCR 28 bound- the Erie Drift Plain ecoregion. This tributions from partners) was adminis- ary as they relate to Omernik’s (1987) portion of Ohio originally was ad- tered by the USFWS. Currently how- Level III ecoregion boundaries and ministered by the UMRGLJV, but ever, the AMJV Coordinator is an em- subsequent refinements (USEPA responsibility for this area was of- ployee of ABC and is headquartered 2007). In short, the proposed AMJV ficially transferred to AMJV at the within a Kentucky Department of Fish administrative boundary includes these UMRGLJV Management Board & Wildlife Resources’ (KDFWR) of- Level III ecoregions in their entirety: meeting on March 27, 2008. fice in Frankfort, KY. KDFWR offered Northern Appalachian Plateau and • Atlantic Coast Joint Venture (ACJV): to provide office space and technologi- Uplands, North Central Appalachians, the northern terminus of the AMJV cal support for the new coordinator, Ridge and Valley, Southwestern Ap- administrative boundary lies in south- who had worked for KDFWR during palachians, Central Appalachians, ern New York and includes the New the previous 5 years. AMJV funding and Western Allegheny Plateau. The York portions of the North Central is administered through contracts be- AMJV also includes nearly all of the Appalachians, Northern Appalachian tween USFWS and ABC (for support Blue Ridge ecoregion, and small por- Plateau and Uplands, and Ridge and from USFWS and several state part- tions of the Northeastern Highlands Valley ecoregions. The 2 southern- ners), or directly between ABC and ecoregion in southern New York, most portions of the Northeastern partners/grantors. Upon approval by northern New Jersey, and western Highlands in New York are also the USFWS as an official Joint Ven- Pennsylvania (Fig. 4). included in the AMJV, with the north- ture, the AMJV Management Board eastern boundary for the AMJV being and the JV Coordinator will discuss The AMJV Administrative Boundary demarcated by the state line in eastern the most effective courses of action in Relation to Adjacent Habitat New York. Thus, the Connecticut and with regard to administration of AMJV Joint Ventures Massachusetts portions of BCR 28 (as funds, location of headquarters, and al- • East Gulf Coastal Plain JV originally designated by NABCI), as location/location of future staff. (EGCPJV): in Alabama, the AMJV well as the remaining portions of New administrative boundary follows York, will continue to be administered Administrative Boundaries Level III ecoregion boundaries for by the ACJV. The eastern boundary of of the AMJV the Southwestern Appalachians and the AMJV is bounded by the eastern the Ridge and Valley ecoregions. boundaries of the (1) Northeastern Habitats within the proposed The original BCR 28 boundary in- Highlands in far southern New York, AMJV administrative boundary pro- cluded a small portion of the Pied- northern New Jersey, and western vide significant and critical habitat mont ecoregion, but in coordina- Pennsylvania (shared boundary with for a large number of declining or tion with the EGCPJV and ACJV, Northern Piedmont ecoregion), (2) otherwise sensitive bird populations this area will be under EGCPJV’s Ridge and Valley ecoregion in Penn- located in eastern North America. The administration. sylvania and northwestern Georgia, proposed AMJV administrative area • Central Hardwoods JV (CHJV): and the (3) Blue Ridge ecoregion in covers ~102.9 million acres (41.6 the western administrative boundary southern Pennsylvania, Maryland, million hectares) in all or portions of of the AMJV in northern Alabama, Virginia, North Carolina, and north- 12 states: Alabama, Georgia, North eastern Tennessee, and eastern Ken- eastern Georgia, excluding the minor Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, Ken- tucky shares a boundary with the portion of northwestern South Caro- tucky, West Virginia, Ohio, Maryland, CHJV, following the shared Level lina. Portions of Pennsylvania, New Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New III ecoregional western boundaries Jersey, Maryland, Virginia, North York (Fig. 3). The proposed AMJV for Southwestern Appalachians and Carolina, and Georgia that lie outside administrative boundary includes Western Allegheny Plateau and east- of the proposed AMJV administrative BCR 28 (as designated by NABCI) ern boundary of the Interior Plateau boundary will be administered by the almost in its entirety. Biological plan- ecoregion. ACJV. ning and conservation design will • Upper Mississippi River and • ACJV and West Virginia: the entire occur at the BCR scale, with minor Great Lakes Region Joint Venture state of West Virginia originally modifications to the southern and (UMRGLJV): in Ohio, the AMJV was administered by the ACJV, but northeastern boundaries. administrative boundary follows the responsibility for this area was of- The proposed AMJV adminis- Western Allegheny Plateau ecore- ficially transferred to the AMJV in trative boundary is described below gion boundary, which shares borders 2007 after coordination with both in terms of shared boundaries with with the Eastern Corn Belt Plains Management Boards.

 Organization and Purpose of the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture Because a large portion of the Organizational Structure and aid in promoting and advancing the existing ACJV overlaps the proposed Budgets of the AMJV AMJV mission; and, AMJV, the AMJV partnership (Man- • a subset of these Partner Organiza- agement Board, Staff, and Technical As in other joint ventures, the tions are voting partners that serve as Committee) continues to work with AMJV is directed by a broad partner- the AMJV’s Management Board (see the ACJV’s staff and Management ship with a vested interest in devel- below); they lead the AMJV with in- Board to transition duties and respon- oping, administering, and delivering put from all Partner Organizations. sibilities, maintain continuity with science-based bird conservation in the partners, and collaborate on projects Appalachian region. The Management AMJV Management Board of mutual interest. The AMJV also is Board for this partnership, guided by The AMJV Management Board is examining the highly successful struc- this Implementation Plan and future the volunteer governing body respon- ture and function of the ACJV in order strategic plans, determines (1) the or- sible for accomplishing the mission of to incorporate certain aspects into our ganizational structure, (2) conservation the AMJV Implementation Plan. This organizational model. priorities, and (3) annual budgets based will be achieved through adherence Finally, the administrative area on allocation of funds from USFWS, to bylaws, oversight and direction of proposed above is delineated in order partner organizations, and other sourc- the AMJV, review and approval of for partners and administrators to de- es. The following subsections contain projects and programs, direction and rive goals and objectives from all the brief descriptions of the organizational oversight of the AMJV Coordinator major bird conservation initiatives, ‘units’ of the AMJV as they exist today, and staff, and direction of Standing State Wildlife Action Plans, and other discussion about potential organiza- Committees and Working Groups. The bird-habitat conservation programs tional units in the near future, and a Management Board includes (Table 1): of relevance within the Appalachian short-term strategic budget that plans • eighteen (18) voting partners, with Mountains. However, where important for growth in the AMJV partnership. open seats for additional voting part- limitations to native bird populations ners to be filled by other agencies or in the Appalachian Mountains exist AMJV Partners organizations approved by the Man- outside of the AMJV area (e.g., winter- Any agency or organization that agement Board; ing areas), the AMJV also will identify plays a role in furthering the AMJV’s • voting partners committed to ac- steps to address these issues. In fact, mission is welcomed as a volunteer tively engaging in the governance of preliminary steps to develop ‘value- Partner Organization; however, the AMJV and in the development of added’ international partnerships will • the number of Partner Organizations its organizational and conservation be discussed in later sections. is unlimited, but Partner Organiza- strategy; tions are expected to continually • voting partners that regularly attend

Table 1. Eighteen (18) agencies and organizations currently comprise the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture Management Board (i.e., voting partners).

FEDERAL STATE USFWS (Region 4, Region 5) West Virginia Division of Natural Resources US Forest Service (Region 8, Region 9) Pennsylvania Game Commission National Park Service (Southeast and Northeast Regions) Maryland Department of Natural Resources US Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources Georgia Department of Natural Resources NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries American Bird Conservancy Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources National Audubon Society Ohio Department of Natural Resources The Nature Conservancy Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency Wildlife Management Institute North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission

* NY and NJ state wildlife agencies currently are not participating on the AMJV Management Board (i.e., voting partners); however, their administrators have allowed staff members to contribute time and technical information for this plan via e-mail, telephone, and participation in workshops.

Organization and Purpose of the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture  Management Board meetings and discussions among technical commit- and prioritize conservation strategies participate in conference calls, work- tee members serve as a regional means to begin addressing threats to high ing groups, or other such responsi- for cooperation, coordination, and elevation coniferous habitats, thereby bilities; communication on regional, national, strengthening the AMJV’s biological • voting partners that contribute fi- and international issues relevant to the foundation. nancially to the AMJV to the best of AMJV’s contribution to population/ their abilities; and, habitat objectives in state, national, AMJV Staff and Strategic 5-yr Budget • voting partners that provide over- and international plans. Essentially, the Currently, the AMJV Coordinator sight and guidance to the AMJV AMJV Technical Committee will pro- and current projects (e.g., development Coordinator and staff through active vide technical expertise and appropri- of this plan, high elevation coniferous participation on the Management ate planning tools to the AMJV Man- habitat) are funded by financial contri- Board and input from all Partner agement Board to help identify where butions from 15 partner organizations. Organizations. on the landscape our efforts should Additionally, partner funds (USFWS Voting seats on the AMJV Man- focus for priority species or species Region 5) are supporting a portion of agement Board are open to conserva- suites, how much habitat we need to a contract employee’s time to develop tion organizations, industry represen- ‘impact’ to meet our population objec- GIS products for the AMJV’s Techni- tatives, individuals, and other private tives, appropriate implementation and cal Committee and this Implementa- groups that commit to: monitoring protocols, and results from tion Plan. • furthering the vision and mission of priority research and implementation The former BCR 28 Coordinator the AMJV, and projects to inform our adaptive man- and current AMJV Coordinator have • sharing the responsibility for bird agement feedback loop. been supported by partner contribu- conservation throughout the Appala- Over time, additional Standing tions. A majority of funds to support chian Mountains. Committee(s) may be formed to ad- the Coordinator during the first 3 dress longer-term issues that further years were provided by USFWS. In Executive Committee the mission of the AMJV (e.g., For- recent years however, as momentum The AMJV Management Board est Resources) or facilitate planning and synergy within the partnership elects up to 5 voting partners to serve and implementation of projects (e.g., has grown, so too has the financial on the Management Board’s Execu- Ecoregional/sub-BCR or State Tech- support from other partner organiza- tive Committee, which is guided by nical Committees). Long-term com- tions. These funds have been ap- the Chairperson of the Management mittee structure is being discussed plied towards the Coordinator and Board. The Executive Committee acts among technical partners and the AMJV-related activities. The AMJV as a liaison among the Management Management Board, using organiza- Management Board has held prelimi- Board, Coordinator, and any Commit- tional models of existing joint ventures nary discussions about allocation of tees or Working Groups in the interim and partner’s priorities as a basis for USFWS 1234 funds, pending approval between meetings of the full Manage- our discussions. Upon recommenda- of this Implementation Plan and an ment Board. tion by a Partner Organization and increase in the USFWS’ budget for approval by the Management Board, joint venture support. At this time, AMJV Technical Committee the AMJV also may form ‘Working no official decisions have been made The AMJV Technical Committee Groups’ on an ad hoc basis in order to about future budget allocations, but is a ‘Standing Committee’ composed develop a specific product or address AMJV staff supported by 1234 funds of state and federal agency personnel, a current issue of importance to the will include a Joint Venture Coordina- university researchers, and technical AMJV. For example, the Technical tor, and depending on funding levels, experts from other entities (e.g., non- Committee recommended in August one or more of the following positions governmental organizations, natural 2007 that we form a Working Group within 5 years of funding: Assistant science museums) that are interested to assimilate data and formulate con- Joint Venture Coordinator(s), Science in bird conservation in the Appala- servation objectives specific to high Coordinator(s), GIS Specialist, and/or chian Mountains. The Technical Com- elevation coniferous habitats in the Communications/Outreach Specialist mittee provides the scientific founda- AMJV. In October 2007, the Manage- (Table 2). Future AMJV partner con- tion for the Joint Venture, ensuring ment Board approved funding to host tributions (i.e., non-1234 funds) will that the partnership develops and a series of workshops among Working be allocated among priority projects further refines our conservation goals Group members and other experts in (implementation, research, monitoring, and objectives using an adaptive man- order to assimilate relevant data, dis- outreach, etc.) as determined by the agement framework. Meetings and cuss monitoring needs and objectives, AMJV Partnership.

10 Organization and Purpose of the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture Table 2. A 5-yr strategic budget for the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture (AMJV), outlining potential allocation of USFWS administrative support (i.e., 1234 funds) as tentatively discussed by the AMJV Management Board.

APPALACHIAN MOUNTAINS JOINT VENTURE STRATEGIC 5-YR BUDGET STARTING FY08* GOAL NEED(S) PURPOSE FISCAL YEAR AND COSTS SALARY AND BENEFITS** FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12

Provide oversight Strengthen AMJV JV Coordinator (GS13)*** $71,253 $108,738 $112,363 $115,989 $119,613 of AMJV finances partnership and Science Coordinator and programs, fa- develop capacity to $0 $108,738 $112,363 $115,989 $119,613 (GS12)**** cilitate discussions conduct science-based Asst Coord/Outreach/GIS/ among experts, biological planning and $0 $0 $91,441 $94,490 $97,538 Forester (GS11)**** and develop ele- conservation design at Asst Coord/Outreach/GIS/ ments of SHC to landscape scales $0 $0 $0 $91,441 $94,490 Forester (GS11)**** convey to partners Salary Subtotal $71,253 $217,476 $316,166 $417,908 $431,255 OPERATING EXPENSES Promote AMJV partner- Computer $0 $5,000 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 ship, encourage profes- Hardware and sional interaction and Software (including GIS) $1,000 $10,000 $4,000 $2,500 $2,500 software needs, development opportuni- conference call ties, develop tools and Telephone $0 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 $3,000 and meeting costs, expertise to conduct Office Setup travel support to $1,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $2,000 science-based biological JV, regional, and planning and conserva- Travel national meetings $11,000 $22,000 $30,000 $35,000 $35,000 tion design, and main- tain AMJV office Overhead ^ $10,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 Operating Expenses Subtotal $23,000 $65,000 $63,500 $67,000 $64,000 PRODUCTS/CONTRACTS/ COMMUNICATION GIS Services $10,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $0 Develop tools and Create and Research/Implementation protocols with disseminate AMJV $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 Contracts partners, support products, promote assumption-driven assumption-driven Planning $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 research, and share research by AMJV Marketing/Outreach information with $500 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 staff and partners, scientific/conserva- and communicate our Website tion community $5,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 efforts and public Publications $2,500 $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 Misc. Subtotal $19,000 $22,000 $67,000 $67,000 $67,000 TOTAL EXPENSES $113,253 $304,476 $446,666 $551,908 $562,255

* Years are based on calendar years to follow ABC’s fiscal year; appendix assumes USFWS 1234 funds will be awarded at the start of ABC’s FY09 (January 1, 2009). ** All salaries and benefits are based on entry level federal salaries of the appropriate grade for each position listed. The 2008 federal salary schedule for each salary step was used (http://www.opm.gov/oca/08tables/html/RUS.asp), and benefits/COL was estimated at approximately 40% of annual salary. Salary schedules may change annually, so these are minimum estimates. *** JV Coordinator’s Salary/Benefits/COL for FY08 is based on ABC’s salary scale, but is based on the federal salary/benefits/COL schedule beginning FY09. **** Position types will be based on priorities set by the AMJV Management Board with guidance from USFWS DBHC; hiring order is yet to be determined. ^ Overhead administration will be taken out by USFWS Region that administers 1234 funds for JV, ranging from 2 - 5% of total. ABC’s overhead may change depending on whether new employees are employed by USFWS or ABC.

Organization and Purpose of the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture 11 Landscape-level Approach to Conservation Using an Adaptive Management Framework

Overview work requires that partners engage based. We have established the follow- in biological planning, conservation ing objectives to ensure we achieve ecent advancements in conserva- design, conservation delivery, and our goal: Rtion theory and geospatial technol- monitoring and research, with each ogies, and an increasing emphasis on ‘element’ within this adaptive manage- Objective 1: At the BCR level, es- agency or organization accountability, ment loop having several sub-elements tablish population and habitat objec- have influenced conservation science (e.g., Fig. 5, which appeared as Fig. 2 tives for priority species based on and how it is conducted (NEAT 2006). in NEAT 2006). Although listed and the latest assessments by the various Many agencies and organizations are diagrammed sequentially, many of the bird conservation initiatives (North transforming from opportunistic con- ‘sub-elements’ occur simultaneously. American Waterfowl Management servation to a more strategic approach Our adaptive management framework Plan [NAWMP], PIF, U.S. Shorebird that relies on scientific principles and must be based upon a sound biological Conservation Plan [USSCP], North establishes measurable conservation foundation, with explicitly-stated bird American Waterbird Conservation objectives based on desired biological conservation goals and objectives for Plan [NAWCP], Northern Bobwhite outcomes (NEAT 2006). Landscape- the region, species prioritized based on Conservation Initiative [NBCI], Amer- level conservation using an adaptive vulnerability and need, and an under- ican Woodcock Conservation Plan management approach is essentially an standing of bird/habitat relationships [AWCP], Ruffed Grouse Conservation iterative approach for planning, imple- (e.g., abundance, viability) at various Plan [RGCP], etc.), and State Wildlife menting, and evaluating multi-scale spatial scales. Understanding these Action Plans. Appropriate technical conservation objectives based on the relationships will guide development teams (e.g., by taxonomic group) will best available information at the time, of conservation design and delivery be assembled to achieve this objective, and using information gathered from tools, as well as allow the partnership and team leaders will consult with out- the process to inform future conserva- to assess the amount and types of habi- side experts, other joint ventures (e.g., tion efforts. This adaptive framework tats needed to achieve regional and Black Duck Joint Venture), and staff is an ideal approach for joint ventures continental bird population goals. Pri- of the bird conservation initiatives to to pursue desired biological out- oritization and species-habitat relation- ensure that the population goals and comes, given the diversity and various ships require periodic reassessment to habitat objectives are agreed upon. strengths of partners, the need for ef- incorporate recent information; there- ficient and effective conservation, the fore, using an adaptive management Objective 2: Identify and prioritize transparency afforded by the process, framework to build a strong biological research needed to further refine and and the ability to adapt conservation foundation will be paramount to our improve the biological foundation for strategies based on project-specific conservation successes. the AMJV. This also will be addressed feedback. Therefore, the AMJV part- In terms of conservation planning, by the technical teams referred to in nership is committed to using an the goal of the AMJV partnership is to Objective 1 above. adaptive conservation framework to strengthen the biological foundation achieve desired biological outcomes upon which biological planning, con- Objective 3: In cooperation with partner for priority birds in the region. servation design, conservation deliv- agencies, design population monitoring Implementation of such a frame- ery, and research and monitoring are and habitat evaluation protocols as rec-

12 Landscape-level Approach to Conservation Figure 5. A diagram illustrating the major elements (biological planning, conservation design, conservation delivery, monitoring and research) and sub-elements of Strategic Habitat Conservation (SHC), an adaptive management framework recently adopted by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Some activities within this loop may occur simultaneously (note: appeared as fig. 2 in NEAT 2006). ommended by technical committees. listed above. Members of the AMJV Habitat Framework Technical Committee convened in The AMJV Technical Commit- Objective 4: Develop advanced geo- August 2007 to develop, refine, and tee has taken initial steps to develop graphic information system (GIS) and discuss several elements essential to a bird-habitat framework relevant to data management capacity that meets biological planning at the BCR 28 future conservation planning efforts. the needs of the partnership for plan- scale. Products from this meeting are Ideally, we will use this framework to ning, implementation, and tracking considered ‘living drafts’ instead of assess the current status of bird habi- of accomplishments. Technical teams ‘final drafts’ because they will be re- tats in the AMBCR, and ultimately will identify and prioritize data analy- visited as new information, techniques, to inform and develop conservation ses and planning tools that are needed or threats emerge, or when consen- design tools to guide delivery of proj- to guide all-bird planning in the sus is reached on which technique to ects that improve quality or increase AMBCR, and the AMJV Management employ (e.g., see Subset of Priority quantity of priority bird habitats. A Board will facilitate development of Species). Other sub-elements of Bio- bird-habitat framework (Table 3) is these items through administrative and logical Planning have been discussed under revision by the Technical Com- financial oversight. by Technical Committee members and mittee; given the complexity of habitat other experts, but processes to further types in the Appalachian Mountains Biological Planning develop (e.g., population objectives), (influenced by factors such as underly- or decisions on the scale at which they ing geology, slope, aspect, elevation, The AMJV partnership has taken are assessed (e.g., limiting factors), are latitude, and precipitation), we must initial steps to address the objectives under review. ensure that we accurately select the

Landscape-level Approach to Conservation 13 correct scale and level ate framework for future of detail representative endeavors. of the avian communi- 2. Early-successional ties in the region. Hardwood/Conifer: Our draft habitat quantity, and appar- framework is derived ently quality, of early- from a general bird- successional habitat in the habitat framework that AMJV has declined over had been developed for recent decades due to nat- the Eastern/Southeast- ural succession. Several ern U.S. The technical of our highest priority committee has dis- species rely on early suc- cussed additions or ad- cessional forests for por- justments needed to ac- tions of their life cycle, commodate habitats in Reclaimed minelands near Hazard, Kentucky. Photo: Dave Baker so understanding how the northern portion of structure, composition, the AMJV. Additionally, states within discussing prioritization of habitats, location, and amount of this habitat the Northeast Association of Fish and we considered the uniqueness of the influences populations of priority Wildlife Agencies initiated a project habitat type and its associated avi- species is critical. entitled “Regional Habitat Maps - A fauna, availability of spatial and moni- 3. Manmade/Disturbed (minelands): Foundation For Proactive Conserva- toring data, the overall concern for the SMCRA-era (i.e., Surface Mine tion Projects” (funded by Doris Duke community type and its avifauna, and Control and Reclamation Act of Foundation/National Fish and Wildlife the relative importance of the habitat 1977) reclamation activities in the Foundation) to compile and standard- to AMJV partner organizations. Appalachians established mostly ize terrestrial and aquatic habitat clas- The 3 communities (Table 3) that non-native grass/shrublands on sification systems, and provide a basic the Technical Committee recommend- minelands, thereby replacing di- aquatic habitat dataset and a regional ed as highest priorities were the Up- verse hardwood forests with large, protected areas map to partners. In- land Hardwood/Pine, Eastern Shrub- unnatural openings. Reclamation formation from this effort will provide Scrub, and Freshwater Wetland com- to grass/shrublands has increased critical tools for state and regional munities. Within these communities, forest fragmentation, decreased the conservation in the Northeast, and it the Technical Committee suggested we overall amount of forest cover, and will be linked to similar efforts in the focus our initial conservation planning reduced core forest area in many Southeast to create a ‘seamless’ habi- and design efforts on the following parts of the AMJV, all of which are tat classification framework for the habitat types (starting with the highest important habitat features to Ceru- eastern U.S. and the AMBCR. Once priority) for the reasons stated: lean Warblers and other species of completed, the AMJV framework will 1. Spruce-fir: power of data regarding priority birds that rely on structur- easily crosswalk with habitat classes bird populations, trends, or densities ally diverse mature forests. An esti- already mapped by Southeast-GAP, is low for this habitat type; moni- mated 741,000 acres of SMCRA-era as well as those to be mapped in the toring coverage (e.g., BBS, USFS minelands could be available for near future by the Regional/Northeast avian point counts) is poor at best. reforestation efforts in the Appala- Gap project. Habitats identified in Threats to the habitat are high (e.g., chian Coalfield (Zipper 2007). How- the final AMJV framework will accu- climate change, forest pests), habitat ever, some of these grass/shrubland rately depict distinct bird communities and avifauna both reach their south- reclaimed areas now support popu- throughout the AMJV as we currently ern limits in the AMJV, and studies lations of other priority birds such understand them, and will allow for of habitat/spatial extent are typically as Golden-winged Warblers, development of relevant GIS products done on a site or state scale without Henslow’s Sparrows, and American and conservation tools. coordination region-wide (i.e., spa- Woodcock, creating an interesting, In addition to drafting a general tial data and models of habitat exist yet complex, conservation design habitat framework to operate under, but need to be compiled and ana- project among suites of species with the AMJV Technical Committee dis- lyzed regionally). Working through contrasting habitat types (grassland cussed which habitats or communities planning and design issues for this vs. shrubland vs. mature forest). Ad- warranted immediate conservation relatively discrete habitat type will ditionally, the Appalachian Regional planning and design attention. When help partners develop an appropri- Reforestation Initiative (ARRI),

14 Landscape-level Approach to Conservation coordinated by the U.S. Table 3. Draft bird-habitat framework developed by the from our partnership. The Department of Interior’s AMJV Technical Committee. The framework includes importance of other wet- Office of Surface Mining community type, primary class levels, and, if appropriate, land habitat classes (espe- Reclamation and Enforce- secondary class levels. Due to the complex nature of upland cially freshwater emergent forests in the AMBCR, we are still discussing additional ment with a core team of marshes, scrub swamp, bea- classification levels within the Upland Hardwood/Pine 7 states, was initiated with Hardwood Communities that may harbor distinct avifaunal ver ponds/meadows, and a goal to reforest aban- communities (e.g., xeric/mesic forest types). riparian habitats) within doned, current, and future the Freshwater Wetland minelands in the core coal Community were discussed region of the Appalachian EASTERN INTERIOR GRASSLAND COMMUNITIES relative to their importance Mountains. The AMJV Meadows and Prairies to priority species and the will work with ARRI and Agricultural and Cropland AMJV, indicating the need its technical partners to (1) Pasture for thorough planning for Rank Herbaceous/Grasses identify ‘hotspots’ for pri- wetland-associated birds ority species, (2) communi- FRESHWATER WETLAND COMMUNITIES and habitats. cate population and habitat Freshwater Non-forested Wetlands objectives for grassland, Freshwater emergent marsh Priority Species shrubland, and mature for- Bogs/Seepage Slopes/Ephemeral Wetlands Priority species and their est species, (3) prioritize Freshwater Shrub-Scrub conservation needs in the Ap- restoration actions in rela- Mudflats/Sandbars/Shoals palachian Mountains have tion to landscape context Freshwater Forested Wetlands been identified in PIF landbird Bottomland Hardwoods and priority bird popula- conservation plans for physio- Scrub Swamp (e.g., Buttonbush/Alder) tions, and (4) develop ap- Beaver Ponds/Meadows graphic areas within BCR 28 propriate restoration and Seeps (Hunter et al. 1999, Robertson management guidelines for Forested Peatland (Hemlock/Spruce) and Rosenberg 2003, Rosen- priority species (e.g., spe- Riparian berg 2003, Rosenberg and cies and density of trees/ Riparian Woodland Robertson 2003, Rosenberg grasses/shrubs to plant, dis- Riparian Scrub/Edge and Dettmers 2004; North- turbance regime, etc.). Open Water ern Cumberland Plateau and 4. Freshwater Forested Wet- Southern Ridge and Valley EASTERN SHRUB-SCRUB COMMUNITIES lands (within the ‘Fresh- plans were never completed, Interior Cedar/Pine/Oak Barrens & Glades water Wetland Commu- Appalachian Balds (e.g., Heath Balds) but draft species assessments nity’): discussions centered Early-successional Hardwood/Conifer are available). Additionally, mostly on conservation op- Cliffs, Domes, & Outcrops international plans (NAW- portunities/needs of Forest- Manmade/Disturbed (e.g., hedgerows, Right- CP, Kushlan et al. 2002; ed Peatlands in the north- of-Ways, minelands) NAWMP, Plan Committee ern portion of the AMJV. 2004; PIF, Rich et al. 2004; These forested wetlands PINE COMMUNITIES AWCP, Association of Fish & Shortleaf Pine of the Cumberland Plateau still occur in relatively Wildlife Agencies Woodcock Xeric Pine/Heath (e.g., Table Mountain Pine, etc.) large blocks, and generally Task Force 2008) or their re- encompass the headwaters UPLAND HARDWOOD/PINE COMMUNITIES gional components (Hunter et of high quality streams. Spruce-Fir al. 2006; W. C. Hunter, pers. These peatlands support Northern Hardwood comm.. 2007 for shorebirds), populations of several pri- Mixed Mesophytic/Cove Hardwoods State Wildlife Action Plans, ority bird species, which Hemlock/White Pine/Hardwoods NBCI (Dimmick et. al. 2002), make up only a fraction of High-elevation Oak/Oak-Pine and the RGCP (Association Oak Savanna a very complex and diverse of Fish & Wildlife Agencies ecosystem. Threats (mainly CITIES/TOWNS/SUBURBS Resident Game Bird Working wind energy development Residential Group 2006) have identified and climate change) to Urban/Commercial priority species, and many of Forested Peatlands are Airfields these listed population and/or high, thereby warranting Golf Courses/Parks/Cemeteries/Greenways habitat objectives. Given conservation attention the diversity of methods and

Landscape-level Approach to Conservation 15 scales used to assimilate priority spe- in response to external forces (e.g., Sanderson (2006) provides an in- cies lists in each of these plans, AMJV change in habitat quality or quantity in formative summary of several different partners and other experts recently response to conservation activities). approaches to setting population objec- compiled data and decided upon a tives. He groups them into 3 general priority species list for the entire Population Objectives categories based on the intended benefi- AMBCR region. A list of priority spe- To efficiently and effectively con- ciaries: (1) population-based approach- cies for the AMBCR is presented in serve bird populations, we need to es- es, in which the animal population itself Appendix 1. tablish science-based ‘targets’ to strive is the primary entity of concern, (2) for. Two fundamental questions for population-as-surrogate approaches, Subset of Priority Species the AMJV partnership to address are: in which some non-human aspect of The AMJV Technical Commit- how many birds are needed to estab- the ecosystem is the primary entity of tee discussed the selection of a subset lish/sustain viable populations of our concern, and (3) human-oriented ap- from the AMJV priority list above; se- priority species, and how much habitat proaches, in which some aspect of hu- lecting a smaller representative subset is needed to support those populations. man values becomes the primary entity of species (i.e., focal species) will al- Global population objectives have of concern. For bird conservation initia- low us to concentrate our conservation been established by the various na- tives in North America, most objective- design and limited funding. Each focal tional and international bird conserva- setting approaches under Sanderson’s species for the AMJV will represent a tion plans, but these must be ‘stepped (2006) “population-based” category are particular set of habitat characteristics down’ to the AMJV level in order to likely most relevant; people using these or landscape attributes necessary to start designing landscapes that will approaches are primarily interested support viable populations of all birds maximize our conservation efforts. in conserving bird populations rather across the landscape (Lambeck 1997). Establishing population objectives than human values or non-human fac- Using a focal species approach will can serve several important functions tors per se. Specific population-based reduce the number of conservation for conservation initiatives, includ- approaches include maintaining evolu- design tools (e.g., models) we need to ing (1) raising awareness of the need tionary potential, creating demographic develop and apply on the landscape, for conservation action, (2) establish- sustainability (or minimum viable while still relating to the full suite of ing clearly defined goals that provide population approach), restoring/main- species within their respective habitats transparency to conservation efforts taining ecological functions, restoring (note: assumptions about how other and provide targets by which to mea- populations to some historical baseline, species will respond to derived conser- sure success, (3) informing decisions and maintaining the status quo. Another vation measures must be evaluated). about the amounts of habitat manage- possible approach not mentioned by As a starting point for discussions, ment and protection activities that are Sanderson (2006), but which is being species in the AMBCR region were often necessary components of con- investigated in other JVs and BCRs, organized by the 4 major taxonomic servation, and (4) helping to prioritize is one of setting population objectives groups and then were classified using where to direct conservation resources. based on projections of future habitat a set of prioritization formulas de- However, developing conservation availability for species of interest. veloped by various BCR/JV partners targets is often difficult because it ulti- At the continental scale, bird in USFWS Region 5 (see Dettmers mately requires consideration of sub- conservation initiatives have used 2006, Section 3.2 for explanation; jective values in addition to objective approaches based on restoring bird also Hartley 2007). This prioritization facts. Science can provide the objec- populations to some historic baseline, process reflects priority levels already tive information regarding the range as demonstrated through NAWMP identified by the various bird conser- of biological limits and the likely out- and PIF North American Landbird vation plans, but assigns a species to a comes of various alternatives, but so- Conservation Plan (Rich et al. 2004). priority level (Highest, High, Moder- ciopolitical and economic values and These 2 conservation plans use a his- ate, or Low) based on pre-established realities, in addition to ecological and torical baseline approach to set popu- rules (Dettmers 2006). Preliminary evolutionary functionality, must be lation objectives, but they do so in a results from the prioritization process considered during the process. A broad quantitative manner, either explicitly for AMJV species are presented in array of people and disciplines need to defining a numeric population size as Appendix 2. Focal species, once final- be involved in setting practical popu- a target (e.g., NAWMP) or express- ized, will be used to develop models lation objectives; each person offers ing the target in terms of a percentage that examine population-habitat rela- different values and experiences to the of the current population size (e.g., tionships, predicting factors such as process, leading to different approach- PIF). However, for many bird species, habitat suitability or demographic rates es to developing such objectives. the ability to quantitatively determine

16 Landscape-level Approach to Conservation population sizes and habitat needs is how many birds will pass through a fore it selects a specific approach for limited by the information available particular area. developing its regional population ob- from, and the level of uncertainty as- Despite uncertainties currently in- jectives. However, for the time being, sociated with, existing survey data. herent in setting bird population objec- the AMJV will use population objec- These limitations affect our current tives, there is value in having quantita- tives that have been stepped-down by and historical population estimates for tive targets, as discussed above (e.g., the various bird conservation plans bird species, how those species are for planning purposes, for justifying the as initial objectives, recognizing the distributed across space, what their need for further conservation resources, assumptions and shortcomings of the full habitat requirements are, and how and for assessing how well conservation objectives for any project we under- they respond to changing conditions in efforts are succeeding). For these rea- take up front. Regardless of how the the environment from factors such as sons, the AMJV Technical Committee AMJV decides to move forward on habitat management activities, other will determine an appropriate approach this issue, setting and using popula- anthropogenic land use changes, and and method for developing population tion objectives should be viewed as an naturally occurring environmental objectives for the AMBCR. Population ongoing exercise requiring refinement, shifts. These limitations also lead to a objectives at the BCR scale have been research into underlying assumptions, high degree of uncertainty regarding suggested through a process of step- and improvement over time. Addition- any quantitatively defined bird popula- ping-down the continental population ally, establishing and refining methods tion objectives for conservation pur- objectives established for landbirds, to set population objectives at regional poses. Thus, the use of any bird popu- certain species of waterfowl, and upland scales, in cooperation with experts lation size estimates or numerically- gamebirds (e.g., Northern Bobwhite, across the country, will only improve based population objectives must be Ruffed Grouse, and American Wood- the accuracy and value of continental done with a full acknowledgement of cock). However, these approaches objectives established by the parent the complexities and uncertainties that rarely take into account both the current plans (e.g., Rich et al. 2004). underlie them, and the assumptions and future habitat potential for support- employed to derive them. Such esti- ing bird populations within the region International Planning mates and objectives should be consid- of interest. Therefore, these approaches Prior to the AMJV Technical ered preliminary starting points within sometimes create unrealistic population Committee meeting in Roanoke, an adaptive management framework objectives at the regional scale, poten- AMJV partners worked with Dr. Pe- and should be viewed with a sense of tially leading to numerous efficiency ter Blancher (Environment Canada) reality and skepticism. They will need (and maybe even credibility) issues. to generate winter linkage ‘overlay’ to be updated and revised as better and Numerous other methods, based maps for priority migratory birds of more complete information becomes on assessments of habitat capacity the AMJV, using the same process available. and observed bird densities in various found in Blancher et al. (2006). We It must also be recognized that for habitats, currently are being used by initiated the process with a list of all migratory species, population objec- joint ventures across the country to es- migrant birds that breed in BCR 28, tives are most meaningful for species tablish regional population objectives. excluding priority species that do not whose primary season of occurrence in Unfortunately, however, no consensus leave the BCR entirely during winter. the BCR is during the breeding season. has been reached on which, if any, of Then, AMJV partners drafted a list of Estimating populations of migrating these methods are most appropriate for ‘priority’ and ‘highest priority’ species and wintering species in a region is setting regional population objectives. (based on suggestions by the AMJV complicated by movements of individ- A session held during the PIF Confer- Technical Committee in August 2007) uals among locations, and interchange ence in February 2008 reviewed a in order to focus winter linkage maps of individuals at any specific location diversity of objective-setting meth- even further. Unweighted maps were during migration and within the win- ods currently being used by several created for all species whose propor- tering season. Also, annual variability joint ventures and other practitioners. tion of their hemispheric breeding in the numbers of birds either migrat- From this session, participants and population, minus their proportion of ing through or wintering in a given other experts will undergo a process hemispheric winter range, was greater location is often high. The relationship to develop a guidance document with than zero (i.e., all migrants treated between local habitat conditions and recommendations for the most ap- equally). In weighted maps however, abundance of birds is less direct dur- propriate approaches and methods to weights were assigned to priority spe- ing migration and wintering than dur- use under various regional conditions cies according to the proportion of ing breeding because numerous factors and contexts. The AMJV will await a species population that breeds in external to local conditions determine release of this national guidance be- the Appalachian region, minus the

Landscape-level Approach to Conservation 17 proportion of winter range in the Ap- Triunfo-Chiapas, as 1 of 5 “Continen- an immediate need for such planning palachian region. This created winter tally Important Areas” for priority bird tools at various scales. Developing linkage maps that were as specific to conservation (NABCI 2008; http:// these tools will allow policy-makers, the Appalachian Mountains as possible www.nabci-us.org/aboutnabci/CIP-in- administrators, and land managers to (i.e., maps for 2 regions with the same tro.pdf). The Tri-national Committee is make scientifically-based decisions list of priority species would be some- seeking funding for partners in Cana- about habitat conservation activities, what different if proportions breed- da, the U.S., and Mexico to implement and evaluate progress relative to ob- ing in each region differed), but also conservation planning and projects in jectives identified within this suite of gave higher weight to species that rely each of these regions. The AMJV is bird conservation plans. heavily on the Appalachian region for developing a partnership with “Alian- Conservation design refers to breeding but migrate out of the region za Regional para la Conservación de identification of specific areas with entirely during winter. This resulted las Aves y sus hábitat en Chiapas” (a landscape or habitat characteristics in 6 AMJV winter linkage maps: mi- regional alliance similar in structure to that will sustain viable populations at grants unweighted, priority migrants our joint ventures), ProNatura-Sur (a target levels, in this case, for priority unweighted, highest priority migrants member of the regional alliance), and bird species. The conservation design unweighted, migrants weighted, prior- the Pacific Coast JV/Northern Pacific process is a series of steps that builds ity migrants weighted, and highest pri- Rainforest BCR 5, another JV/BCR upon information gathered during ority migrants weighted (all presented with high proportions of priority spe- the biological planning steps and ul- in Appendix 3). cies that overwinter in the Chiapas timately provides tools to efficiently Initial discussions among AMJV region (NABCI 2008 and http://www. and effectively guide management Technical Committee members, Man- nabci-us.org/aboutnabci/eltriumfo- decisions, i.e., where and how much agement Board members, and other chiapas.xls). Although partnerships habitat needs to be protected, man- partner organizations have focused in the northern Andes Mountains of aged, restored, or enhanced to improve on the map that depicts overlapping South America and with the Regional or sustain priority bird populations. ranges of the highest priority migrants Alliance in Chiapas are possibilities, A robust conservation design process with weighted scores. Analysis of this the AMJV Management Board needs also explicitly evaluates “trade-offs” map among partners has led to initial to further discuss international conser- among species with conflicting habitat focus on 2 areas: the northern Andes vation priorities, evaluate funding po- requirements instead of considering Mountains in Colombia, Venezuela, tential, and critically examine our role each species independently. Conserva- Peru, and Ecuador; and southern Mex- in such projects. Until such time, our tion design in the AMJV will involve ico/Central America (e.g., Chiapas, preliminary discussions with AMJV assessments of habitat-related limiting MX/Guatemala). Several high priority partners, outside experts, and interna- factors upon bird populations by mod- species (Cerulean Warbler, Golden- tional conservation groups are help- eling known and/or hypothesized rela- winged Warbler, Canada Warbler, ing to narrow our focus on important tionships between species and habitats, Olive-sided Flycatcher) overwinter wintering areas for priority birds that assessing current and potential future in the Northern Andes, and there is breed in the AMJV. status of habitats and their capacity to increasing interest in the region by support populations, and development species-specific focus groups (e.g., Conservation Design of decision support tools to guide con- Cerulean Warbler Technical Group, servation actions. Golden-winged Warbler Working Conservation planning for birds An example of a large-scale Group), organizations that comprise has been occurring at continental, migratory bird conservation design them, and regional researchers and national, regional, and state levels at project recently was initiated by North conservation groups. Portions of varying degrees for many years. How- Carolina State University (NCSU). southern Mexico and northern Central ever, for the most part, tools that in- Researchers at NCSU, in partnership America support large proportions form managers about how much, what, with ACJV and numerous others, were of several AMJV priority species, and where specific habitats are needed awarded a grant through the Associa- most notably Worm-eating Warblers, on the landscape to sustain priority tion of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ Blue-winged Warblers, Louisiana bird populations have not been devel- Multistate Conservation Grant Pro- Waterthrush, Acadian Flycatchers, oped consistently and are not widely gram, for their proposal entitled “De- Wood Thrush, Kentucky Warblers, available. Additionally, with the com- signing Sustainable Landscapes for and Golden-winged Warblers. In fact, pletion of State Wildlife Action Plans Bird Populations in the Eastern U.S.” the Tri-national Committee of NABCI and regional, national, and interna- The project will use Ecological Sys- identified a portion of this region, El tional bird conservation plans, there is tems classification and Regional Gap

18 Landscape-level Approach to Conservation Analysis mapping to develop a consis- lack large-scale empirical models of We recognize that our BHCAs are tent approach to habitat modeling and species-habitat relationships, although coarse assessments of geographically conservation design throughout the several longer-term and recently initi- important areas and other areas within eastern United States, including the ated projects by AMJV partners are the AMBCR do (or could, if managed AMJV. This process will produce tools generating valuable data that will cre- properly) provide high quality bird that may range from identifying focus ate very useful models (e.g., regional habitat. However, based on expert areas for priority species to complex Cerulean Warbler silvicultural project, opinion, our BHCAs have the highest habitat suitability maps that address regional Golden-winged Warbler patch conservation and restoration poten- competing habitat needs (e.g., early occupancy and productivity assess- tial in the AMBCR. Many of these successional forest vs. mature forest, ment). In lieu of empirical models ini- areas contain large blocks of contigu- grassland vs. forest), and will be used tially, which we are striving towards, ous habitat and/or public ownership, to support other conservation design we have delineated geographically high concentrations of priority birds, tools the AMJV partnership creates. explicit Bird Habitat Conservation discrete patches of rare or important Within the AMJV partnership, we Areas (BHCA) for the entire AMBCR, habitat types, or ongoing/potential have identified the following over- within which future conservation plan- partnerships with private landowners arching goal and corresponding objec- ning activities generally will be based. (including industry). Many of these tives for conservation design: At our August 2007 meeting, Techni- BHCAs also were identified in other Goal: Based on our current under- cal Committee members indicated conservation plans (e.g., State Wildlife standing of landscape conditions and the relative importance of geographic Action Plans) because of their high bird population/habitat relationships, areas based on ‘hotspots’ for priority biodiversity or unique ecological func- the AMJV will develop a landscape species or species suites (e.g., National tions. Therefore, identifying areas of design that will sustain populations of Audubon Society’s Important Bird known ‘high potential’ for conserva- priority birds at prescribed levels. Areas [IBAs], protected lands with tion will allow us to examine factors monitoring data), and/or distribution within those BHCAs that influence Objective 1: Establish geographic- or of habitat (e.g., large forest blocks, avian populations, and apply that habitat-based working groups that can grassland or wetland complexes). knowledge to other appropriate areas collectively contribute to conservation Once digitized into a GIS, the Techni- in order to achieve our objectives. design at multiple spatial scales (e.g., cal Committee was able to view how Additionally, we have taken initial international, BCR, ecoregion, land- these BHCAs aligned with known steps with ACJV staff and partners to scape, project/site). protected areas (e.g., state, federal, incorporate waterfowl focus areas that or private conservation ownership), now lie within the proposed AMJV Objective 2: Through working groups, IBAs, and various habitats or habitat administrative boundary. The ACJV describe bird-habitat relationships for metrics (i.e., forest patch size). Maps Waterfowl Technical Committee de- focal species, determine current esti- depicting BHCAs were then reviewed veloped waterfowl focus areas by mated population based on available by a wider audience (e.g., technical state for the entire ACJV area (ACJV habitat, and then develop habitat goals experts that did not attend the August 2005). Overall, there are 12 ACJV Wa- based on the difference between pre- 2007 meeting, state IBA coordina- terfowl Focus Areas that fall entirely scribed levels and current population tors, and several agency administra- or partially within AMJV boundar- estimates. tors) and adjustments and additions ies (Fig. 6). Only minor portions of were incorporated into our AMJV Finger Lakes (New York), Roanoke Objective 3: Develop a spatially-explicit Bird Habitat Conservation Areas (see River (Virginia), and Savannah River conservation blueprint of future desired Appendix 4). Data layers (i.e., forest (Georgia) waterfowl focus areas fall conditions for priority habitats that will patch size, NLCD 2001, NLCD rare within the proposed AMJV administra- sustain priority bird populations at pre- classes) used to inform experts, and tive boundary. Also, the Finger Lakes, scribed levels within the AMJV. associated metadata, are shown by Susquehanna River (Pennsylvania), state in Appendix 5. For consistency, Ohio River (Pennsylvania section Below we discuss various aspects we used proclamation boundaries in only), Meadow River (West Virginia), of and challenges to conservation de- Appendix 5 to depict all federal lands; and Roanoke River have little to no sign that our partnership has initiated we continue to gather current GIS data overlap with any of the BHCAs the or discussed. layers that depict federal ownership of AMJV Technical Committee has draft- lands within the AMJV and will up- ed. Waterfowl have been added as a Bird Habitat Conservation Areas date maps in Appendix 5 once layers ‘priority suite’ to all BHCAs that over- Currently within the AMJV, we for all federal lands are gathered. lap with the Waterfowl Focus Areas in

Landscape-level Approach to Conservation 19 Fig. 6. Waterfowl-specific focus areas 70% threshold as a region, although Historically, much of the region sup- are not identified for Ohio, Kentucky, there are many smaller-scale areas ported disturbance-dependent habitats Tennessee, or Alabama in Fig. 6 be- within the region that greatly exceed such as open oak woodlands, barrens, cause those states were not involved in that threshold (see state forest patch shrublands, and savannas with diverse the ACJV’s process (i.e., they are not maps in Appendix 5). Maintaining for- grass/forb communities. Remnants of within the ACJV boundary). However, est cover at a ≥70% threshold region- these habitats have persisted in certain the AMJV Technical Committee and ally is critical to sustaining or increas- areas, and much of the habitat sur- subsequent reviewers considered all ing forest bird populations within the rounding these areas can be restored. bird groups when drafting BHCAs for AMBCR, as well as sustaining forest Additionally, extensive opportunities to the AMJV, so waterfowl are identified bird communities in adjacent joint conserve grassland and shrubland birds as a focal suite in several BHCAs. ventures. AMJV Technical Committee exist on lands currently in agricultural members and other partners, in their pasture/haylands and on minelands Characterizing the Landscape—Past, drafting of BHCAs, identified numer- that were reclaimed to grasslands. Al- Present, and Future ous contiguous blocks of forested though many of these pasture/hayland The Appalachian Mountains re- habitat; within those areas, the goal or mineland areas are embedded within gion is well-known for its rugged ter- is to maintain ≥70% forest cover or a forested matrix (i.e., should be refor- rain, abundance and diversity of flora restore forest cover to that threshold or ested or managed to ‘soften’ edges), and fauna, and expanses of contiguous beyond. numerous broad agricultural valleys or forest that are increasingly rare in the Although the AMJV is predomi- mine “complexes” often support breed- eastern U.S. In fact, based on National nantly forested, ample opportunities for ing populations of priority grassland Land Cover Data 2001 (NLCD 2001) grassland and shrubland habitat con- birds. Strategic conservation planning for the AMBCR, the ratio of percent servation occur throughout the AMJV. for both natural (e.g., oak woodlands, forest cover (deciduous, evergreen, and mixed) to ‘developed’ area (open space and low, medium, and high intensity) was >8:1 (Table 4) at the time those data were compiled. Given the abundance of forested habitat remaining in the AMJV, it is likely the region functions (or could function, depend- ing on habitat quality) as ‘source’ populations for numerous forest- dependent bird species (Donovan et al. 1995). Reproductive success of forest birds in landscapes with <70% forest cover within a 10 km radius often is too low to sustain local populations (Dono- van et al. 1995, Rob- inson et al. 1995); nest Figure 6. Twelve (12) Waterfowl Focus Areas (WFAs), previously created by the Atlantic Coast Joint parasitism and predation Venture Waterfowl Technical Committee (see ACJV 2005 for all WFAs in ACJV states), that now fall tend to increase as forest entirely or partially within the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture (AMJV) administrative area. The fragmentation increases. Finger Lakes, Susquehanna River, Ohio River (Pennsylvania section only), Meadow River, and Roanoke Based on NLCD 2001, River have little to no overlap with Bird Habitat Conservation Areas drafted by the AMJV Technical the AMBCR stands at the Committee; the portions of these WFAs within the AMJV have been incorporated as focus areas.

20 Landscape-level Approach to Conservation Table 4. Habitat classes, descriptions, area estimates (hectares and acres), and an estimate of percent coverage within the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture, based on National Land Cover Data 2001 (NLCD 2001). NLCD 2001 is a Landsat based landcover database with 30 m resolution and 12 classes of land-cover data derived from imagery, ancillary data, and derivatives using a Decision tree.

NLCD 2001 % of Habitat Class General Habitat Description Area (ha) Area (ac) AMJV All areas of open water, generally with less than 25% cover or Open Water 498,793 1,232,538 1.2 vegetation or soil. Includes areas with a mixture of some constructed materials, but mostly vegetation in the form of lawn grasses. Impervious surfaces Developed, account for less than 20% of total cover. These areas most commonly 2,285,815 5,648,348 5.5 Open Space include large-lot single-family housing units, parks, golf courses, and vegetation planted in developed settings for recreation, erosion control, or aesthetic purposes. Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Developed, Impervious surfaces account for 20-49% of total cover. These areas 753,623 1,862,236 1.8 Low Intensity most commonly include single-family housing units. Developed, Includes areas with a mixture of constructed materials and vegetation. Medium Impervious surfaces account for 50-79% of the total cover. These areas 253,203 625,676 0.6 Intensity most commonly include single-family housing units. Includes highly developed areas where people reside or work in high Developed, numbers. Examples include apartment complexes, row houses and 79,417 196,243 0.2 High Intensity commercial/industrial. Impervious surfaces account for 80-100% of the total cover. Barren areas of bedrock, desert pavement, scarps, talus, slides, Barren Land volcanic material, glacial debris, sand dunes, strip mines, gravel pits (Rock/Sand/ 158,453 391,544 0.4 and other accumulations of earthen material. Generally, vegetation Clay) accounts for less than 15% of total cover. Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 m tall, and greater Deciduous than 20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75% of the tree species 24,165,809 59,714,778 58.0 Forest shed foliage simultaneously in response to seasonal change. Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 m tall, and greater Evergreen than 20% of total vegetation cover. More than 75% of the tree species 2,110,792 5,215,860 5.1 Forest maintain their leaves all year. Canopy is never without green foliage. Areas dominated by trees generally greater than 5 m tall, and greater Mixed Forest than 20% of total vegetation cover. Neither deciduous nor evergreen 2,348,887 5,804,202 5.6 species are greater than 75% of total tree cover. Areas dominated by shrubs; less than 5 m tall with shrub canopy typically greater than 20% of total vegetation. This class includes true Shrub/Scrub 515,911 1,274,838 1.2 shrubs, young trees in an early successional stage or trees stunted from environmental conditions. Areas dominated by grammanoid or herbaceous vegetation, generally Grassland/ greater than 80% of total vegetation. These areas are not subject to 897,895 2,218,738 2.2 Herbaceous intensive management such as tilling, but can be utilized for grazing. Areas of grasses, legumes, or grass/legume mixtures planted for livestock grazing or the production of seed or hay crops, typically on a Pasture/Hay 5,573,941 13,773,455 13.4 perennial cycle. Pasture/hay vegetation accounts for greater than 20% of total vegetation. Areas used for the production of annual crops, such as corn, soybeans, Cultivated vegetables, tobacco, and cotton, and also perennial woody crops such 1,681,758 4,155,699 4.0 Crops as orchards and vineyards. Crop vegetation accounts for greater than 20% of total vegetation. Areas where forest or shrub land vegetation accounts for greater Woody than 20% of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically 309,378 764,487 0.7 Wetlands saturated with or covered with water. Emergent Areas where perennial herbaceous vegetation accounts for greater Herbaceous than 80% of vegetative cover and the soil or substrate is periodically 31,212 77,127 0.1 Wetlands saturated with or covered with water. Total Area in AMJV = 41,664,887 102,955,770

Landscape-level Approach to Conservation 21 barrens) and human-altered grassland forest-dwelling birds at several spatial habitats within a local and landscape systems in the AMJV will help us at- and temporal scales using FIA and context to ensure we maximize forest, tain our grassland and shrubland bird U.S. Geological Survey’s Breeding shrubland, and grassland bird-habitat population objectives. Areas within the Bird Survey (BBS) data. This research potential throughout the region. AMJV that either historically supported highlighted the strengths and weak- With a vast portfolio of bird-habitat disturbance-dependent grassland and nesses of FIA data to describe forest models and habitat characterizations for shrubland habitats, or currently support habitats for birds, providing valuable major habitat types, we will be able to these habitats through anthropogenic insight about data needed to improve generate estimates of carrying capacity land-uses (e.g., mining, agriculture) our abilities to characterize bird habi- for a wide-range of species within the have been targeted (e.g., BHCAs, mine- tats using FIA data. Research such as AMJV. In turn, we should then be able land Decision Support Tool) for grass- this, coupled with ever-improving to estimate the amount of habitat neces- shrubland bird conservation efforts. modeling techniques for forest birds sary to increase or maintain populations Few priority wetland-dependent (e.g., models developed jointly by the of priority species at our established (e.g., waterfowl, waterbirds, shore- Central Hardwoods and Lower Mis- population targets. birds) species breed in the AMJV, sissippi Valley Joint Ventures; see and for those that do, they occur at http://www.lmvjv.org/hsi_model/), is Decision Support Tools relatively low densities. Additionally, vastly improving our (i.e., the con- Decision-support tools (DSTs) no research to date within the AMJV servation community’s) abilities to are developed to target specific con- indicates that landscape context influ- examine bird population-habitat re- servation actions (reforestation, land ences density or survival of transient lationships at multiple scales. Tying acquisition, etc.) that reduce effects of or wintering wetland-dependent birds. information gathered from such bird a limiting factor(s) for priority species’ However, wetland, riparian/riverine, population models into landscape- populations. DSTs must (1) be based and ‘open water’ habitats are very level simulation models (e.g., LAN- on a strong biological foundation, (2) important (ecologically and to our DIS-II http://www.landis-ii.org) to accurately predict response patterns by partners) within the Appalachian evaluate future land cover composi- priority species, and (3) depict results Mountains; therefore, our partnership tion will provide powerful predictions in easily understood and easy-to-use will design appropriate landscapes about effects of large-scale changes products. Creating a robust portfolio for wetland-dependent species. Our to forested habitat on populations of of powerful DSTs will increase our initial BHCAs for wetland-dependent priority species. The AMJV partner- ability to respond to information needs birds were delineated around existing ship will need to evaluate the useful- of partners, policy-makers, city plan- wetlands or historical wetlands with ness of these bird-habitat models and ners, and/or program delivery agencies conservation potential (including those landscape simulation tools. (e.g., NRCS, USFS). originally developed by the ACJV Wa- Additionally, our ability to model Thus, as the AMJV partnership terfowl Technical Committee; Fig. 6). ecological systems (i.e., native vegeta- continues to develop its biological To accurately and realistically tion patterns based on landform, mois- foundation, it should result in the de- characterize past, current, and future ture, etc.) will provide insight into the velopment of spatially-explicit DSTs AMJV landscapes, we must continue management potential of different ar- that will allow habitat managers and to develop and maintain strong part- eas, assuming it is inherently easier to policy-makers to: nerships with GIS experts, ecolo- restore areas to habitats that naturally • delineate and prioritize landscape- gists, researchers, and on-the-ground occurred there (e.g., reforest areas that and site-scale priority conservation partners. Existing GIS data will be were historically forest). One excep- areas for priority species, compiled and organized for the joint tion to the notion of restoring natural • prioritize where conservation dollars venture area, ensuring these data are systems wherever possible is the treat- should be spent, made available at various scales so ment of post-SMCRA minelands that • assess the capability of current land- partners can assess local and large- were reclaimed to grasslands/shrub- scapes to support populations of pri- scale status, distribution, and trends lands instead of hardwood forests. ority species, of bird habitats. Opportunities to These grasslands/shrublands support • resolve conflicts among “competing” examine land use change (e.g., 1970 populations of several high priority habitat types that support priority to 2000) throughout the AMJV ex- species and provide some of the only species (e.g., minelands as grass- ist with such datasets as the USFS’s early successional habitat in some lands, shrublands, or forests), and Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA). areas. Management of these mine- • predict effects of land cover changes In fact, Fearer (2006) examined bird lands must be considered at multiple due to management actions or other population-habitat relationships of scales, examining bird populations and causes (e.g., succession, climate

22 Landscape-level Approach to Conservation change, urbanization) on populations will fail to reach our population objec- • How will climate change impact of priority species. tives for priority species (Inkley et al. water resources and critical lowland Near-term development of 2 DSTs 2004). It is imperative that the potential riparian habitats? has generated great interest among impacts of climate be understood, to • What data must we gather about bird AMJV partners. First, AMJV partners the extent possible, so appropriate ac- distribution and abundance to accu- are beginning to assimilate population, tions can be taken to ensure adequate rately assess effects on priority bird habitat, and other pertinent spatial data habitat is available to sustain bird populations? for high elevation spruce-fir habitats populations. For instance, it is gener- • How might climate change impact and associated priority species. Ana- ally believed that terrestrial ecosystems migratory and wintering habitats of lyzing the information available will and forest types in the Southeast will priority birds outside of the AMJV? allow us to assess population status generally “migrate” northward and to Currently, the bird conservation and habitat quality, and determine higher elevations (Smith 2004). Also, community has a limited understand- what conservation actions we need the AMJV could suffer a complete loss ing of the potential implications of cli- to initiate, and where those actions of sub-boreal forest types found in mate change on birds. However, work- should be targeted. The second DST higher elevations (Prasad and Iverson ing together to better predict changes of immediate interest to partners will 1999). Changes to the composition and in habitat, hydrology, precipitation guide habitat management or restora- abundance of oak/hickory and oak/pine patterns, etc., will allow us to more ac- tion decisions for minelands previous- forests are also predicted (Prasad and curately assess and design landscape ly reclaimed to grasslands/shrublands. Iverson 1999), which in turn, will have conservation efforts related to climate Many of these open areas are large profound influences on the distribution change and bird populations. (or occur in “complexes”) and sup- and abundance of priority bird species port populations of priority grassland/ and their populations. Matthews et al. Conservation Delivery shrubland birds (e.g., Golden-winged (2004) compiled models of bird distri- Warbler, Henslow’s Sparrow, Northern butions in the eastern U.S. that show The AMJV partnership will help Bobwhite) and/or other wildlife popu- likely consequences of such ecosystem partners achieve their bird conserva- lations of interest to partner agencies. shifts in response to climate change. tion objectives by coordinating the However, many of these open areas Species’ ranges may retract entirely programmatic strengths and capabili- occur within large blocks of contigu- out of the AMJV (e.g., Black-billed ties of all partners, and subsequently ous forested habitat (i.e., causing frag- Cuckoo, Yellow-bellied Sapsucker), implementing projects efficiently and mentation) or within known ‘hotspots’ shift northward within the AMJV (e.g., effectively to affect landscape change. of priority birds that require large Chuck-Will’s Widow, Kentucky War- The action of restoring, managing, blocks of intact forest (e.g., Cerulean bler), or expand into the AMJV (e.g., enhancing, or protecting habitat, Warblers). Creating a DST to target Scissor-tailed Flycatcher), making it collectively known as conservation reforestation or grassland/shrubland very important that AMJV partners, and delivery, will be paramount to our suc- management based on habitat needs of the bird conservation community as a cess as a bird conservation initiative. priority grassland, shrubland, or interi- whole, be aware of how current conser- The AMJV will serve as a forum that or forest birds, as well as incorporating vation actions may be impacted by fu- fosters cooperative and collaborative other social or economic interests of ture system changes, and how we must efforts among partners with regard to AMJV partners (e.g., elk management adapt to accommodate these changes. conservation delivery efforts that ad- areas), will strategically and efficiently Potential questions related to dress high priority needs for bird pop- guide our conservation efforts on climate change that the AMJV will ulations and their habitats. The AMJV minelands in the AMJV. evaluate/incorporate in its conserva- partnership has identified the follow- tion planning efforts include: ing over-arching goal and associated Climate Change • Which species are inherently more objectives for conservation delivery: The exact magnitude of predicted susceptible/vulnerable to extinc- Goal: Engage, facilitate, and effects of climate change is uncertain, tion/extirpation because of climate coordinate partners’ collective capa- but nearly all global climate change change (e.g., Foden et al. 2008)? bilities and expertise to maximize the models agree that global temperatures • Where do habitat conservation ef- potential to positively affect landscape and sea levels will continue to rise un- forts ‘overlap’ with carbon seques- change and population status of prior- naturally fast, and precipitation patterns tration projects or other means of ity species. will change. The AMJV must consider mitigating/sequestering emissions climate change during our planning (i.e., additional habitat conservation Objective 1: Facilitate the develop- and design efforts, or we increasingly opportunities)? ment, funding, and implementation of

Landscape-level Approach to Conservation 23 conservation delivery efforts of AMJV staff) will greatly enhance our abil- boundaries, the jurisdiction of an indi- partners, ensuring projects strive to ity to (1) prioritize and develop use- vidual partner, and where appropriate, fulfill the JV’s mission of achieving ful planning tools; (2) communicate among adjacent joint ventures or coun- all-bird conservation across the region. between the Management Board and tries that overwinter large proportions Technical Committee(s); (3) effec- of AMJV priority species. These might Objective 2: Develop a conservation tively communicate outside of our include projects that qualify for fund- delivery communication strategy and immediate partnership; and, (4) coor- ing from the Northeast Association of appropriate tools to help integrate dinate activities that advance our con- Regional Wildlife Agencies’ Regional AMJV population and habitat conser- servation efforts (e.g., task-oriented Conservation Needs program, the As- vation objectives into delivery pro- workshops to develop products, deliv- sociation of Fish and Wildlife Agen- grams or plans, develop outreach strate- ery programs). Communication and cies’ Multistate Conservation grant gies and conservation messages, and coordination among our core partner- programs, Neotropical Migratory Bird develop new partners and partnerships. ship will build a strong foundation Conservation Act (NMBCA), or the for reaching out to policy-makers, North American Wetlands Conserva- Objective 3: Develop and coordinate industries, and other stakeholders tion Act (NAWCA). As our partner- conservation delivery efforts of mutual that influence land-use in the Appa- ship matures, we will develop stream- interest across jurisdictional boundar- lachian Mountains. External to our lined processes to solicit and review ies within the AMJV, among adjacent partnership, we also must effectively grant applications for federal programs JVs/BCRs, or on wintering grounds communicate and coordinate with co- (NMBCA, NAWCA), particularly em- that support priority species. ordinators/committees of the various phasizing projects that address AMJV bird conservation plans, the Atlantic priorities, and to facilitate coordination Objective 4: Use conservation plan- and Mississippi Flyway Councils, and delivery of conservation projects ning products to leverage additional adjoining joint ventures, and other for in conjunction with partners. Our funding for high priority conservation habitat partnerships or conservation partnership has initiated discussions projects within BHCAs or other appro- organizations that may help us meet about how we will organize at vari- priate areas (e.g., IBAs). our conservation goals. Communica- ous scales (e.g., ecoregion/sub-BCR, tion and coordination, both internal state, BHCA) to facilitate conservation Objective 5: With partners, develop and external, are vital to the success of delivery projects, but those discussions the technical capacity to track partner our partnership; we will develop and are ongoing. Additionally, the AMJV accomplishments and progress to- implement effective communication will assist with leveraging of funds for wards delivering habitat objectives at and coordination strategies, refining high priority projects by effectively multiple scales. our efforts as our partnership matures. using conservation design products in Identifying new partners that are grant applications, presentations to po- Objective 6: Evaluate current and de- either active in conservation delivery tential funding sources, etc. veloping policies that directly affect (e.g., local land trusts) or influence The AMJV Management Board conservation delivery efforts, using land-use policy (e.g., municipalities) recognizes that the majority of the science-based analyses to examine in areas important to priority bird projects will be developed and imple- potential impacts to priority bird popu- populations will be important. The mented by local and/or subregional lations under various scenarios and to AMJV partnership must engage new partnerships, but cumulative effects discuss among AMJV partners. partners in biological planning and eventually must be tracked in a spatial conservation design efforts if we ex- framework (i.e., GIS) and associated Communication and coordination pect to affect change on the landscape. databases. Example databases are be- are key factors in fully engaging and To be successful, conservation strate- ing constructed and used by other JVs realizing the potential of our partner- gies and tools must incorporate AMJV and partners; collaboration to develop ship. Among AMJV partners, we must objectives and societal attitudes to a tracking framework for the AMJV understand the importance of biologi- the degree possible. If successful, our will greatly expedite development of cal planning and conservation design; conservation design efforts and habitat this product. Ultimately, AMJV part- it will focus our collective efforts on objectives will be incorporated into the ners must be able to track conservation the actions or locations within the re- appropriate delivery programs or land- gains vs. losses, which will provide an gion that maximize our conservation use planning efforts. assessment of our collective efforts in efforts for priority species. Identifying The AMJV will assist partners the region. an effective organizational structure with coordination of projects involving Finally, situations may arise when (which includes additional AMJV conservation delivery that span state policy/legislation (current or emerg-

24 Landscape-level Approach to Conservation ing) is directly affecting the ability of clearly articulate species’ needs to creative solutions to our collective the AMJV partnership to efficiently ensure that a balance among stands of challenges. deliver on-the-ground conservation various age classes is achieved across In terms of grasslands and grass- projects. In such cases, the AMJV of- forested landscapes. Through careful shrublands, many of the AMJV’s fice will examine potential impacts to planning and design, we will ensure partner agencies are actively restoring priority bird populations under vari- that the needs of all the AMJV’s prior- and enhancing these habitats on lands ous policy scenarios, ensuring we use ity forest- (and woodland-) dependent they own or manage, or on private the best available science to inform bird species are met. lands through programs they admin- our analyses. Such analyses of policy In areas where forests are frag- ister. State agencies and the National issues will be thoroughly discussed mented, we will encourage reforesta- Forests possess the greatest ability to among AMJV Management Board tion with native species or through restore significant acreages of extant members to ensure partners are aware natural succession. Opportunities to but degraded natural communities of, and understand, potential effects on deliver reforestation efforts on public such as glades, barrens and woodland- our efficiency and effectiveness as a and private lands through carbon se- savannas. Prescribed fire is crucial to partnership. questration and/or mineland refores- the restoration and long-term viability tation projects abound in the AMJV, of these ecosystems (and some for- Habitat-specific Conservation Delivery as do projects through USDA Farm ested ecosystems discussed above), In the AMJV, most of our priority Bill programs, USFWS’ Partners For which will require extensive outreach species are forest-dependent landbirds. Wildlife program, or grants to AMJV to ensure that the public is aware of Habitat needs for this suite of species partners through various other entities the need for periodic management to must include management to enhance (e.g., The Hardwood Forestry Fund; sustain these systems. Integrating our forest structure in mature forests, http://www.hardwoodforestryfund.org/ efforts with experts in ecology and adequate distribution of various age- Grants.htm). Private lands incentive prescribed fire (e.g., Landscape Fire classes across the landscape, address- programs and reforestation projects on & Resource Management Planning ing threats from forests pests and dis- public lands are being implemented Tools Project, a.k.a., LANDFIRE, eases, perpetuating native ecosystems across the AMJV; targeting these ef- http://www.landfire.gov/; U.S. Fire (e.g., Table Mountain pine), and the forts also will improve the condition Learning Network, http://www.tncfire. long-term maintenance of the region’s of surrounding forest stands. Addition- org/training_usfln.htm) will be es- “source” forest areas. The National ally, we can provide outreach to pro- sential to delivering the AMJV’s mes- Forests within the AMJV represent the mote best management practices that sage to a wider audience, engaging largest public land base where forest will sustain the health and economic new partners, and strategically apply- and woodland management efforts are benefits of privately-owned forests ing prescribed fire to benefit habitat being applied, although state forests well into the future. for bird populations. Potential for also cover a great extent throughout The conversion of forest for ur- management of grasslands and grass- the region. Management efforts on ban areas, energy (wind, coal, and shrublands exists through private lands public lands in the AMJV often are natural gas), and infrastructure (roads, incentives programs, targeting non-na- hampered by internal (e.g., person- transmission lines, pipelines) often tive pastures and marginal croplands. nel or funding shortages) or external eliminates or degrades forested habi- However, the greatest opportunity (e.g., lawsuits from the private sec- tat and increases fragmentation. Nest for grassland and grass-shrubland tor) forces. Therefore, outreach and predators and parasites also increase management in the region (as well as funding are essential if we hope to in numbers and are more successful at reforestation, depending on location, educate the public about the role that permeating into the fragmented forest, compaction, etc.) may exist on previ- management and disturbance plays in resulting in lower nesting success of ously mined lands that were reclaimed maintaining the health of the Appala- forest birds. The AMJV partnership to non-native grasslands. Many of the chian Mountains’ forested ecosystems must work with appropriate develop- larger mineland complexes in grass- and the bird populations that rely on ment initiatives and industry if we es/shrubs already support breeding them. Prescribed fire, thinning, even- are to successfully reduce the impacts populations of priority species, but we aged (e.g., regeneration) harvest, and of urbanization and energy develop- must design our conservation efforts uneven-aged (e.g., individual tree and ment in our largely forested landscape. appropriately to target grass/shrubland group selection) harvest are all impor- However, we must remain sensitive to management without comprising habi- tant management tools and must be the economic needs of rural communi- tat for priority forest-dwelling species. applied appropriately based on spe- ties, working to educate them about Finally, partnerships to promote grass- cies’ needs. As a partnership, we must wildlife populations and to identify land and grass-shrubland conservation

Landscape-level Approach to Conservation 25 efforts have recently formed and initi- Coordinated Bird Monitoring in the restore, and manage should be the ated work. For example, a “Shrubland Northeast (Northeast Coordinated Bird principal research emphases for the Bird Initiative” coordinated by Wild- Monitoring Partnership 2007). These AMJV and its partners. life Management Institute recently efforts recommend that bird monitor- Establishing and attaining broad, received funding from various sources. ing should move beyond ‘surveillance clearly defined monitoring goals has The AMJV partnership is coordinat- type monitoring’ typical of most moni- been recognized as an important ele- ing efforts with this initiative to guide toring programs, instead shifting to a ment to effectively advance bird con- placement of demonstration areas, paradigm that stresses evaluation of servation efforts (Dunn et al. 2005, deliver habitat management efforts, conservation actions in a coordinated, U.S. NABCI Monitoring Subcommit- develop practices that will benefit statistically rigorous fashion. tee 2007). Therefore, the AMJV has priority species in the region (e.g., Monitoring is the process of as- discussed goals of our monitoring pro- Golden-winged Warbler, American sessing the status of populations, habi- grams in relation to the NABCI Moni- Woodcock), and engage partners to de- tats, and other variables, and tracking toring Subcommittee report (2007). sign and assist with monitoring efforts. changes in those variables over time. Our monitoring programs fall within AMJV partners, especially state Data from properly designed monitor- several broad categories: fish and wildlife agencies, USFWS, ing programs can be used to examine 1) tracking long-term population and USFS, have played a major role in causes of observed trends or alteration trends to assess conservation status; wetland restoration and protection in of ecological processes. Monitoring 2) examining possible causes of popu- the Appalachian Mountains. Although can lead to evaluation of the effective- lation changes for priority species; wetlands are not as common or expan- ness of implementation of planned 3) measuring responses of priority bird sive as in other regions of the country, conservation efforts, thereby provid- populations to specific conservation they offer important habitats for prior- ing knowledge about current projects actions; ity birds and other wildlife species in but also informing future conservation 4) assessing particular vital rates in- the region, and their unique ecological decisions. Monitoring, therefore, pro- dicative of reproductive success and functions have far-reaching benefits. motes improved efficiency and effec- survivorship; and, As a partnership, we will facilitate and tiveness of conservation actions (Nich- 5) determining status and changes in coordinate public-private partnerships ols and Williams 2006). Integrating habitat quantity and quality. to conserve wetland habitat in order this evaluation process into biological Information from our monitor- to meet the AMBCR’s responsibility planning and on-the-ground decisions ing programs will be used to inform as identified by the North American for management or conservation is decision-makers on management is- Waterfowl Management Plan, and con- central to the AMJV attaining their re- sues, improve our conservation design, serve other wetland-dependent species gional, national, and international bird evaluate our population and habitat (e.g., shorebirds, wading birds, marsh conservation goals. objectives, and reassess our priorities. birds, and a variety landbirds). Estab- Assumption-driven research in- AMJV partners also recognize the im- lishing population goals and habitat volves measuring parameters of inter- portance of monitoring human dimen- objectives will provide guidance for est through research that investigates sions within the region, but develop- wetland habitat work within the AMJV. testable hypotheses related to critical ing a monitoring program for human assumptions in decision making pro- dimensions will require additional time Monitoring, Research, cesses. As with monitoring, results and expertise. Additional ‘key thoughts’ and Evaluation from assumption-driven research about AMJV monitoring programs are contribute to program evaluation and discussed in the sections below. Although monitoring and research influencing decisions upon which fu- are separate concepts in conservation ture conservation programs are based Monitoring of Bird Populations science, they are interrelated, and are (i.e., in a feedback loop). Targeted Improving effectiveness of bird thus discussed concurrently in this research can address uncertainties or monitoring in the AMJV will involve section. Monitoring and research both assumptions related to any stage of analysis of, coordination among, and contribute to the evaluation neces- the AMJV’s adaptive SHC framework improvements to existing efforts, as sary for maintenance of a healthy (e.g., Biological Planning, Conserva- well as initiation of new projects where and effective conservation process. tion Design, Conservation Delivery, critical gaps or other information needs The AMJV partnership supports rec- and Monitoring). Uncertainties and as- have been identified that are central to ommendations in the U.S. NABCI sumptions that strongly influence deci- the partnership’s conservation activi- Monitoring Subcommittee report sions about how, where, how much, ties. Anticipated roles of the AMJV are (2007) and the draft Framework for and what types of habitat to conserve, consistent with the findings of the U.S.

26 Landscape-level Approach to Conservation NABCI Monitoring Subcommittee needs assessment that articulates and understanding of net changes in land (2007), which recognized that the struc- prioritizes activities by partner organi- cover regionally, and the significance ture and function of Joint Ventures are zations, as well as the regional coordi- of these changes to our bird conserva- well-suited to meet the growing chal- nation roles that the JV can play. tion activities. Finally, we must be lenge of improving upon the numerous The AMJV will work alongside able to accurately account for im- avian monitoring programs that typi- other conservation entities in the provements in habitat quality that are cally exist within any given landscape. southeastern U.S., particularly the not necessarily evident from tracking The JV seeks to build upon the con- CHJV and ACJV, to identify and ad- changes in habitat quantity. We must tributions of existing monitoring pro- dress broader regional priorities for develop metrics to track improve- grams by encouraging their improved improved collaboration and efficiency. ments of existing habitats’ quality on design and careful establishment of An overarching priority for the AMJV the landscape as it relates to AMJV objectives. Another role of the partner- in all monitoring-related work will be management and restoration efforts, ship will be to lead in the coordination the integration of monitoring efforts which are rooted in the core principles among these efforts in order to increase and results to address management and of conservation biology (e.g. increased efficiency and reduce redundancy. A conservation questions across multiple connectivity, decreased edge, and im- third objective to which the JV will spatial scales. proved ecosystem function). eventually help contribute toward is im- proved data management and analysis. Monitoring Habitat Change Addressing Assumptions and As a first step, the AMJV Techni- To track AMJV efforts to improve Uncertainties Through Research cal Committee will coordinate with the the overall sustainability of bird popu- Partners in the AMJV recognize Northeast Coordinated Bird Monitor- lations in the region, we must develop the critical nature of continually refin- ing Partnership to review or compile the capacity to assess net changes ing the information on which conser- planned or ongoing monitoring pro- in both availability and condition of vation and management decisions are grams relevant to the AMJV. Many bird habitats, and how accomplish- based. We recognize that our biologi- AMJV Technical Committee members ments of our partners relate to our cal planning and conservation design have been involved with this partner- established objectives. Land use in efforts will be limited by the availabil- ship since its inception; however other the region is dynamic in the mostly ity of sufficient scientific information. members, especially those from the forested AMJV—demands for timber Likewise, conservation delivery and southern portion of the AMJV, have products fluctuate widely, energy ex- monitoring efforts may be limited, only peripheral knowledge of this part- traction (e.g., coal, natural gas) and for example, by our understanding nership. The Northeast Coordinated development (e.g., wind) have (and of how habitats respond to manage- Bird Monitoring Partnership has coor- will continue to) altered the landscape, ment, or how species’ detectability dinated efforts among 13 northeastern invasive/exotic species are affecting rates can bias survey data. Gaps in our states (6 relevant to the AMJV: VA, habitat quality, and urban/exurban de- knowledge will require us to explicitly WV, MD, PA, NJ, and NY) to assess velopment pressures are increasing in state assumptions that describe the and clarify the purpose and contribu- several areas. Therefore, habitat con- relationships, processes, or responses tions of specific monitoring efforts, servation successes within the AMJV of interest. These uncertainties in our identify opportunities to improve or must be considered in the context of understanding can be used to frame integrate programs, encourage real- region-wide land use changes. Assess- testable hypotheses that relate directly location or redistribution of efforts ing gains in bird habitat attributable to to elements of the AMJV’s adaptive where appropriate, share information, conservation delivery efforts of AMJV conservation framework. These as- and minimize redundancy. Emphasis partners will require site, program, sumptions and hypotheses will form will be placed on identifying moni- and landscape-level tracking. Several the context within which the AMJV toring programs (1) relevant to the template geo-databases exist and are will develop, promote, and coordinate entire AMJV, (2) relevant to the por- being used by existing JVs currently; research programs that help refine its tion of the AMJV not covered by the the AMJV will develop similar tools planning, design, delivery, and evalua- Northeast Coordinated Bird Monitor- specific to our needs, or will integrate tion activities. ing Partnership, and (3) increasing with geo-databases in use by neighbor- Specifically, the AMJV has initi- the applicability of these monitoring ing JVs where/when appropriate. The ated development of a prioritized list programs to the AMJV’s conserva- AMJV’s collaboration with the ACJV, of research topics, and will follow tion planning and management deci- CHJV, EGCPJV, and Southeast Gap up with a list of a priori hypotheses sions. As this knowledge develops, Analysis Project (SEGAP) will create generated from the development of the AMJV will develop a monitoring an opportunity to develop a working decision support tools that focus on

Landscape-level Approach to Conservation 27 priority habitats in the region. The and programmatic complexity evolve, and financial). We also thank all the AMJV office will assist partners in we will modify our measures of suc- technical and administrative staff who identifying and securing funding and cess to accurately monitor our impacts provided many valuable comments other resources needed to conduct this and effectiveness. and insights as the plan developed. research. Additionally, the AMJV will Funding from the USFWS supported sponsor research assistantships for Attribute 1: Delivering Superior the development of GIS products and graduate students or research institutes Performance other data layers used to delineate the to address research topics guided by • Avian diversity and population levels bird habitat conservation areas de- our priorities. Similar to monitoring of priority species achieve the goals scribed in this plan. We thank Kirsten activities, the AMJV can help coordi- of state, regional, national, and inter- Luke, GIS Specialist Atlantic Coast nate and pool efforts in the design and national bird initiatives, JV/IAP Contractor, for her dedicated implementation of research projects • Well-managed, fully-functioning hab- and exemplary work on the maps and that would otherwise be infeasible be- itats at target quality and quantity, associated data. We greatly appreciate cause of their resource demands, logis- • Efficient and effective coordination the assistance provided by Manage- tical complexity, or broad geographic and communication among partners, ment Boards of the Atlantic Coast, scope. Similarly, the AMJV can serve and, East Gulf Coastal Plain, and Upper as a continuing forum in which sci- • Biologically and ecologically-based Mississippi River/Great Lakes Region entists, biologists, and managers can shared vision for AMJV habitat con- Joint Ventures as we developed our discuss and prioritize research to best servation and management. organizational structure and adminis- meet mutual needs and interests. trative boundaries. Additionally, we Attribute 2: Making a Distinctive Impact thank staff from USFWS Division of Programmatic and • Innovative and relevant conservation Bird Habitat Conservation and joint Organizational Performance design tools used by partners, ventures across the country—your As partners in the AMJV, we must • Consistent ability to secure state, advice and examples of conservation challenge ourselves to objectively as- federal, and private grants, leadership have been most helpful. sess our progress towards 3 measures • Ability to engage regional industries, We thank the following for their intel- of success: delivering superior perfor- communities, and others in conser- lectual contributions to this plan: Dan mance, making a distinctive impact, vation-related activities, Arling, USFS; Tiffany Beachy, Uni- and achieving lasting endurance. In • Conservation delivery executed as versity of Tennessee; Peter Blancher, the business sector, money is both an part of regional, landscape-scale Environment Canada; Gwen Brewer, input and an output, and performance strategies, and, MD DNR; David Buehler, Univer- can be measured by comparing profits • Regional collaboration among part- sity of Tennessee; Dean Demarest, vs. losses. However, in bird conserva- ners to maximize effective conserva- USFWS; Randy Dettmers, USFWS; tion joint ventures such as ours, money tion delivery. John Gerwin, NC Museum of Natural is an input and performance should be Sciences; Douglas Gross, PA GC; Ser- assessed relative to our mission. There- Attribute 3: Achieving Endurance gio Harding, VA DGIF; Keith Hudson, fore, we must track accomplishments • Strength and breadth of partnership, AL DCNR; Chuck Hunter, USFWS; of the AMJV with our mission in mind, • Diversity of funding sources suffi- Mark Johns, NC WRC; Tim Jones, At- and self-evaluate our effectiveness in cient to achieve JV goals, and, lantic Coast JV; Chris Kelly, NC WRC; delivering conservation to the region. • Regional visibility and leadership. Nathan Klaus, GA DNR; Dan Lambert, Several aspects of the AMJV ABC; Andrew Milliken, Atlantic Coast mission (e.g., restoration of habitat, Acknowledgements JV; David Pashley, ABC; Gary Peters, increases in avian populations) can USFS; Sharon Petzinger, NJ DEP, Mike be tracked quantitatively, yet many The AMJV Management Board Reynolds, OH DNR; Scott Somershoe, aspects can only be tracked through would like to thank the agencies and TN WRA; Curtis Smalling, Audubon qualitative data. As we articulate our organizations (which includes the NC; Rob Tallman, WV DNR; Shaw- work plan’s objectives, we must de- Atlantic Coast Joint Venture) that chyi Vorisek, KY DFWR; Petra Wood, cide upon the information we need to initiated the Appalachian Mountains USGS and West Virginia University. objectively, consistently, and intelli- Bird Conservation Region partnership Finally, we thank the individuals, enti- gently assess our performance. Several in 2003. This plan and Joint Venture ties, and organizations that submitted examples of attributes the AMJV part- partnership would not have developed constructive comments to the USFWS nership intends to develop and monitor without their continued vision, guid- regarding this plan. are listed below. As our partnership ance, and support (both intellectual

28 Landscape-level Approach to Conservation Literature Cited

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. Check-list of North American Birds, 7th ed. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. http://www.aou.org/checklist/north/index.php Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies, Resident Game Bird Working Group. 2006. Ruffed Grouse conservation plan. D. R. Dessecker, G. W. Norman, and S. J. Williamson (eds.). _____, Woodcock Task Force. 2008. American Woodcock conservation plan: a summary of and recommendations for woodcock conservation in North America. J. R. Kelley and S. J. Williamson (eds.). Product of Migratory Shore and Upland Game Bird Working Group.

Atlantic Coast Joint Venture. 2005. Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Waterfowl Implementation Plan Revision. 543 pp. (with appendices). Blancher, P. J., B. Jacobs, A. Couturier, C. J. Beardmore, R. Dettmers, E. H. Dunn, W. Easton, E. E. Iñigo-Elias, T. D. Rich, K. V. Rosenberg and J. M. Ruth. 2006. Making Connections for Bird Conservation: Linking States, Provinces & Territories to Important Wintering and Breeding Grounds. Partners in Flight Technical Series No. 4. Partners in Flight website: http://www.partnersinflight.org/pubs/ts/04-Connections Dettmers, R. 2006. A blueprint for the design and delivery of bird conservation in the Atlantic Northern Forest. Atlantic Coast Joint Venture planning document for BCR 14. Website, last accessed 1/25/2008: http://www.acjv.org/ documents/BCR_14_%20Blueprint.pdf Dimmick, R. W., M. J. Gudlin, and D. F. McKenzie. 2002. The Northern Bobwhite conservation initiative. Miscellaneous publication of the Southeastern Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, South Carolina. 96 pp.

Donovan, T. M., F. R. Thompson III, J. Faaborg, and J. R. Probst. 1995. Reproductive success of migratory birds in habitat sources and sinks. Conservation Biology 9:1380–1395. Fearer, T. M. 2006. Evaluating population-habitat relationships of forest breeding birds at multiple spatial and temporal scales using Forest Inventory and Analysis data. Ph.D. dissertation, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA. Foden, W., G. Mace, J.-C. Vié, A. Angulo, S. Butchart, L. DeVantier, H. Dublin, A. Gutsche, S. Stuart, and E. Turak. 2008. Species susceptibility to climate change impacts. In The 2008 Review of The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. J.-C. Vié, C. Hilton-Taylor, and S.N. Stuart (eds). IUCN Gland, Switzerland. Available online at http://cmsdata.iucn.org/ downloads/species_susceptibility_to_climate_change_impacts.pdf Hunter, W. C., R. Katz, D. Pashley, and R. Ford. 1999. Partners In Flight landbird conservation plan: physiographic area 23 Southern Blue Ridge. USFWS, Atlanta, GA. _____, W. Golder, S. Melvin, and J. Wheeler. 2006. Southeast United States regional waterbird Conservation Plan. Inkley, D. B., M. G. Anderson, A. R. Blaustein, V. R. Burkett, B. Felzer, B. Griffith, J. Price, and T. L. Root. 2004. Global climate change and wildlife in North America. Wildlife Society Technical Review 04-2. The Wildlife Society, Bethesda, Maryland, USA. 26 pp. Kushlan, J. A., M. J. Steinkamp, K. C. Parsons, J. Capp, M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. M. Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J. E. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird conservation for the Americas: the North American waterbird conservation plan, version 1. Washington, DC, U.S.A. Lambeck, R. J. 1997. Focal species: a multi-species umbrella for nature conservation. Conservation Biology 11: 849–856.

Longcore, T., C. Rich, and S. A. Gauthreaux. 2005. Scientific basis to establish policy regulating communications towers to protect migratory birds: response to Avatar Environmental, LLC, report regarding migratory bird collisions with communications towers, WT docket no. 03-187, Federal Communications Commission notice of inquiry.3 4 pp. _____, _____, and _____. 2007. Biological significance of avian mortality at communications towers and policy options for mitigation: response to Federal Communications Commission notice of proposed rulemaking regarding migratory bird collisions with communications towers, WT docket no. 03-187. 44 pp.

Landscape-level Approach to Conservation 29 Matthews, S., R. O’Connor, L. R. Iverson, and A. M. Prasad. 2004. Atlas of climate change effects in 150 bird species of the Eastern United States. Gen. Tech. Rep. NE-318. Newtown Square, PA: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northeastern Research Station. 340 pp.

National Ecological Assessment Team (NEAT). 2006. Strategic habitat conservation: final report of the National Ecological Assessment Team. July 2006. 48 pp.

North American Bird Conservation Initiative Tri-national Committee. 2008. Continentally important proposals: an introduction. Website document last accessed 2/28/2008:http://www.nabci-us.org/aboutnabci/CIP-intro.pd f.

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee. 2004. North American waterfowl management plan 2004. Implementation framework: strengthening the biological foundation.

Northeast Coordinated Bird Monitoring Partnership. 2007. A Framework for Coordinated Bird Monitoring in the Northeast. Northeast Coordinated Bird Monitoring Partnership Report. 62 pp. Available online at http://www.nebirdmonitor.org/framework.

Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Map (scale 1:7,500,000). Annals of the Association of American Geographers 77: 118–125.

Prasad, A. M., L. R. Iverson, S. Matthews, and M. Peters. Ongoing. A Spatial Database of 134 Tree Species of the Eastern USA. http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/atlas/, Northeastern Research Station, USDA Forest Service, Delaware, Ohio.

Rich, T. D., C. J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P. J. Blancher, M. S. Bradstreet, G. S. Butcher, D. W. Demarest, E. H. Dunn, W. C. Hunter, E. E. Inigo-Elias, J. A. Kennedy, A. M. Martell, A. O. Panjabi, D. N. Pashley, K. V. Rosenberg, C. M. Rustay, J. S. Wendt, T. C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North American landbird conservation plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY.

Robertson, B., and K. V. Rosenberg. 2003. Partners In Flight landbird conservation plan: physiographic area 24 Allegheny Plateau. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

Robinson, S. R., F. R. Thompson III, T. M. Donovan, D. R. Whitehead, and J. Faaborg. 1995. Regional forest fragmentation and the success of migratory birds. Science 267:1987–1990.

Rosenberg, K. V. 2003. Partners In Flight landbird conservation plan: physiographic area 12 Mid-Atlantic Ridge and Valley. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

_____, and B. Robertson. 2003. Partners In Flight landbird conservation plan: physiographic area 17 Northern Ridge and Valley. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

_____, and R. Dettmers. 2004. Partners In Flight landbird conservation plan: physiographic area 22 Ohio Hills. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY.

Sanderson, E. W. 2006. How many animals do we want to save? The many ways of setting population target levels for conservation. Bioscience 56: 911–922.

Smith, J. B. 2004. A synthesis of potential climate change impacts on the U.S. Pew Center on Global Climate Change. Arlington, VA. 56 pp.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2007. Level III ecoregions of the United States. Website, last accessed 1/3/2008. http://www.epa.gov/wed/pages/ecoregions/level_iii.htm

U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative Monitoring Subcommittee. 2007. Opportunities for improving avian monitoring. U.S. North American Bird Conservation Initiative Report. 50 pp. Available from the Division of Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arlington, VA; on-line at http://www.nabci-us.org/.

Zipper, C. E., J. A. Burger, J. M. McGrath, and B. Amichev. 2007. Carbon accumulation potentials of post-SMCRA coal- mined lands. In Proceedings of 30 Years of SMCRA and Beyond. R.I. Barnhisel (ed). Publisher: American Society of Mining and Reclamation, Lexington, KY.

30 Landscape-level Approach to Conservation Appendices to Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture Implementation Plan

Appendix 1 31 Appendix 1: Priority Species of the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture

Appendix 1: Priority birds of conservation concern in the Appalachian Mountains Bird Con- servation Region (AMBCR), based on comments received from AMJV partners via e-mail and at a meeting of the AMJV Technical Committee in August 2007. Also listed for each species is its status from various national, regional, and state plans, as well as the USFWS Birds of Management Concern (BMC) list and “WatchList 2007” co-authored by National Audubon Society and American Bird Conservancy (G. Butcher and D. Pashley 2007).

32 Appendix 1 7 International Regional PIF USFWS WatchList Listed in Wildlife Action Plans in the AMJV? Common Name 1, 2 3, 4 5 6 Plans Plans BMC List 2007 AL GA SC NC8 TN8 KY VA8 WV MD OH PA NJ NY LANDBIRDS Acadian Flycatcher S; PR IB; 5 XX XXXXX Alder Flycatcher S; PR IV; 2 XX XXX Bachman’s Sparrow WL,S; IM 2 BCC/N Red XXXXXXX Bald Eagle S; PR III; 1 BCC/N X XXXXXXXXX Bay-breasted Warbler WL,S; MA BCC/R (R5) Yellow Bewick’s Wren IA; 5 BCC/N XXXXXXX Bicknell’s Thrush WL,S; IM IB; 1 BCC/N Red X X X Black-and-white Warbler IB; 1 X XXX Black-billed Cuckoo IB; 3 BCC/N X X XXXXX Black-capped Chickadee IA; 1 BCC/BCR X X Blackburnian Warbler S; PR IB; 2 XXXXX Blackpoll Warbler X Blue-winged Warbler WL,S; MA IA; 7 Yellow XXXXXXXXX Broad-winged Hawk IV; 1 XXX Brown Thrasher S; MA IIA; 2 XXXXXX Brown-headed Nuthatch WL,S; MA IB; 2 BCC/N XXX X Canada Warbler WL,S; MA IA; 4 BCC/N Yellow XXXXXXXX Cerulean Warbler WL,S; MA IA; 7 BCC/N Yellow XXXXXXXXXXXX Chimney Swift IIB; 2 X XXX Chuck-will’s- widow S; MA III; 1 BCC/N X XXXX Eastern Meadowlark IV; 1 XX XXXXXX Eastern Towhee S; MA IB; 4 XXXX Eastern Wood- Pewee IB; 3 X XXXXXX Field Sparrow IB; 5 XX XXXXX Golden Eagle X XX Golden-winged Warbler WL; IM IA; 6 BCC/N Red XXXXXXXXXX Grasshopper Sparrow S; MA IIC; 4 BCC/N XXXXXXXXXXXX Henslow’s Sparrow WL,S; IM IA; 5 BCC/N Red XXXXXXXXXXX Hooded Warbler S; PR IB; 3 X X XXX Indigo Bunting S; PR IIA; 3 X X Kentucky Warbler WL,S; MA IA; 7 BCC/N Yellow XXXXXXXXXXXX Lark Sparrow IV; 1 X XX Loggerhead Shrike IIC; 2 BCC/N XXXXXXXXX Long-eared Owl XXXXX Louisiana Waterthrush S; PR IB; 7 BCC/N XXXXXXXXXX Marsh Wren IV; 1 XXXXX Northern Bobwhite IIB; 2 XXXXXXXXXXX Northern Flicker X XX Northern Goshawk IV; 3 XXXX

Appendix 1 33 7 International Regional PIF USFWS WatchList Listed in Wildlife Action Plans in the AMJV? Common Name 1, 2 3, 4 5 6 Plans Plans BMC List 2007 AL GA SC NC8 TN8 KY VA8 WV MD OH PA NJ NY LANDBIRDS Northern Harrier IV; 3 BCC/N X XXXXXXXXX Northern Parula IIA; 2 XXX X Northern Saw- whet Owl IA; 3 BCC/BCR X XXXXX Olive-sided Flycatcher WL; MA IB; 3 BCC/N Yellow X XXXX Peregrine Falcon S; PR IIA; 4 BCC/N XXXXXXXXXXX Prairie Warbler WL,S; MA IA; 7 BCC/N Yellow XXXXXXXXXXX Prothonotary Warbler WL,S; MA IB; 3 BCC/N Yellow XXXXXXX Purple Martin IV; 1 X Red Crossbill IA; 2 BCC/BCR XX X X Red-cockaded Woodpecker WL,S; IM 2 T/E Red XX X X Red-headed Woodpecker WL; MA IB; 5 BCC/N Yellow XXXXXXXXX Ruffed Grouse IB; 1 X X XXX Scarlet Tanager IB; 4 X XXXXX Sedge Wren IIC; 4 BCC/N XXXXXXXX Sharp-shinned Hawk XXXXXXX Short-eared Owl WL; MA IA; 2 BCC/N Yellow X XXXXXXXX Summer Tanager XX Swainson’s Warbler WL,S; PR IA; 4 BCC/N Yellow XXXXXXXXX Whip-poor-will IIA; 3 BCC/N X XXXXXXXX White-throated Sparrow S; PR Wild Turkey Willow Flycatcher WL; MA IA; 4 XXXXXXX Wood Thrush WL,S; MA IA; 7 BCC/N Yellow XXXXXXXXXXXX Worm-eating Warbler WL,S; MA IA; 7 BCC/N XXXXXXXXXXX Yellow-bellied Flycatcher S; PR IV; 2 X X Yellow-bellied Sapsucker S; PR IA; 3 BCC/BCR X XXXXX X Yellow-breasted Chat IIA; 5 X XXXX Yellow-throated Vireo S; PR IB; 3 X XXXXX Yellow-throated Warbler S; PR IB; 3 X X WATERFOWL American Black Duck H; H IB; 4 BDC X XXXXXX Blue-winged Teal MH X Bufflehead M; ML Canada Goose - Atlantic H; H X Canvasback MH; ML BDC XX Common Goldeneye MH; ML X Gadwall M; ML Hooded Merganser ML X XX Lesser Scaup H BDC X Mallard H; M BDC X Redhead MH BDC Ring-necked Duck M BDC X Wood Duck M; ML; ML IIB; 1 BDC X X XX

34 Appendix 1 7 International Regional PIF USFWS WatchList Listed in Wildlife Action Plans in the AMJV? Common Name 1, 2 3, 4 5 6 Plans Plans BMC List 2007 AL GA SC NC8 TN8 KY VA8 WV MD OH PA NJ NY WATERBIRDS American Bittern I; MA IV; 4 XXXXXXXX American Coot I; MA X XX Black Tern I; MA IV; 1 X XXX Black-crowned Night-Heron IV; 1 XXXXXXX Common Moorhen IV; 1 XXXXX Common Tern I; MA IV; 1 X XXX King Rail I; MA IB; 3 BDC Yellow XXXXXXXX Least Bittern IV; 2 XX XXXXXXXXX Sandhill Crane II; PR Sora XXXX Virginia Rail IV; 1 XXXXX Whooping Crane I; CR T/E Red XX Yellow Rail BCC/N Red X X SHOREBIRDS American Woodcock MA (b) IA; 4 BDC XXXXXXXXXXXX Buff-breasted Sandpiper IM (t) BCC/N Red XX X Dunlin MA (t) X XX Greater Yellowlegs MA (t) XX Least Sandpiper MA (t) X Lesser Yellowlegs MA (t) X Semipalmated Plover MA (t) Semipalmated Sandpiper MA (t) Yellow X XX Solitary Sandpiper MA (t) BCC/N X XXX Spotted Sandpiper MA (b) IV; 1 X X Stilt Sandpiper MA (t) BCC/N Yellow XX Upland Sandpiper CR (b); MA (t) IB; 3 BCC/N X XXXXXXXXX Western Sandpiper MA (t) Yellow XX X 1 Citations for international plans: Landbirds: Rich, T.D., C.J. Beardmore, H. Berlanga, P.J. Blancher, M.S. Bradstreet, G.S. Butcher, D.W. Demarest, E.H. Dunn, W.C. Hunter, E.E. Inigo- Elias, J.A. Kennedy, A.M. Martell, A.O. Panjabi, D.N. Pashley, K.V. Rosenberg, C.M. Rustay, J.S. Wendt, T.C. Will. 2004. Partners in Flight North Ameri- can Landbird Conservation Plan. Cornell Lab of Ornithology. Ithaca, NY. Waterfowl: North American Waterfowl Management Plan, Plan Committee. 2004. North American Waterfowl Management Plan 2004. Implemen- tation Framework: Strengthening the Biological Foundation. Waterbirds: Hunter, W.C., W. Golder, S. Melvin, and J. Wheeler. 2006. Southeast United States Regional Waterbird Conservation Plan. Shorebirds: Based on suggestions from Chuck Hunter (USFWS), May 2007, and the AMJV Technical Committee, August 2007. Chuck Hunter cur- rently is revising shorebird scores and shorebird priorities will reflect these scores and partner input once completed.

2 Abbreviations from each international plan: Landbirds: Abbreviations for “status” listed first, and “management action” are listed after the semi-colon. Status Codes: WL = PIF Watchlist spe- cies; S = PIF Stewardship species. Action Codes: IM = Immediate Management needed; MA = Management needed; PR = Long-term Planning & Responsibility Waterfowl: If only 1 abbreviation occurs, it indicates continental priority only (i.e., the Appalachian Waterfowl Conservation Region was not listed as vital for the species). If 2 abbreviations occur, it indicates continental priority and nonbreeding need for each species. If 3 abbreviations occur, it indicates continental priority, breeding need, and nonbreeding need for each species. Codes: H = High; MH = Moderate High; M = Moderate; ML = Moderate Low. Waterbirds: Tiers (listed first): I = Concern including all species meeting at the regional scale both continental and regional concern criteria, regional concern criteria only, and continental concern only; II = Additional Stewardship including all species meeting stewardship criteria not otherwise al- ready identified in Tier I. Action Codes: CR = Critical Recovery actions needed to prevent likely extirpation or to reintroduce a species that has been extirpated; MA = Management Attention indicates that 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 = Planning and Responsibility indicates that long-term plan-

Appendix 1 35 ning and responsibility are needed for species to ensure that sustainable populations are maintained for species for which a region has high respon- sibility for that species, but not otherwise considered to be of regional concern. Shorebirds: Action Codes (season of interest): CR (b) = Critical Recovery actions needed for breeding populations; IM (t) = Immediate Management actions needed for transient populations; MA (b) or (t)= Management Attention indicates that management or other on-the-ground conservation actions needed for breeding or transient populations.

3 Citations for regional PIF plans: Robertson, B., and K.V. Rosenberg. 2003. Partners In Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: Physiographic Area 24 Allegheny Plateau. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Rosenberg, K.V., and B. Robertson. 2003. Partners In Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: Physiographic Area 17 Northern Ridge and Valley. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Rosenberg, K.V., and R. Dettmers. 2004. Partners In Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: Physiographic Area 22 Ohio Hills. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. Rosenberg, K.V. 2003. Partners In Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: Physiographic Area 12 Mid-Atlantic Ridge and Valley. Cornell Lab of Ornithol- ogy, Ithaca, NY. Hunter, W.C., R. Katz, D. Pashley, and R. Ford. 1999. Partners In Flight Landbird Conservation Plan: Physiographic Area 23 Southern Blue Ridge. US- FWS, Atlanta, GA. A physiographic plan was never completed for Northern Cumberland Plateau (Phys. Area 21), but 13 priority species were listed in the Executive Summary on PIF’s website and were incorporated here. A physiographic plan was never completed for Southern Ridge and Valley (Phys. Area 13), but 16 priority species were listed in the Executive Sum- mary on PIF’s website and 15 were incorporated here.

4 Abbreviations from each regional PIF plan: This column lists the highest tier listed in any plan for each species, followed by the number of PIF plans the species occurred in for the AMJV re- gion. Definitions for each tier follow. Tier I. High Continental Priority: Species on the PIF Continental Watch List (as published in the PIF North American Landbird Conservation Plan [Rich et al. 2004]), or species of equivalent watch list ranking from other taxonomic groups, which are typically of conservation concern throughout their range. These are species showing high vulnerability in a number of factors, expressed as any combination of high global parameter scores, with AI ≥ 2 (so that species without manageable populations in the region are omitted). High level of conservation attention warranted. Tier IA. High Continental Concern + High Regional Responsibility:Species for which this region shares in major conservation responsibility; i.e., conservation in this region is critical to the overall health of this species. These species are on the PIF Continental Watch List with Area Importance of 3 – 5 for this region, or a high percent population (above threshold in IIB). Tier IB. High Continental Concern + Low Regional Responsibility:Species for which this region can contribute to rangewide conservation objectives where the species occurs. Species on the PIF Continental Watch List with Area Importance of 2 for this region. Tier II. High Regional Priority: Species that are of moderate continental priority (not on Continental Watch List), but are important to consider for conservation within a region because of various combinations of high parameter scores, as defined below; total of 7 parameter scores = ≥19. Tier IIA. High Regional Concern: Species that are experiencing declines in the core of their range and that require immediate conservation action to reverse or stabilize trends. These are species with a combination of high area importance and declining (or unknown) population trend; total of 7 parameters ≥ 19, with Area Importance + Population Trend ≥ 8. Tier IIB. High Regional Responsibility: Species for which this region shares in the responsibility for long-term conservation, even if they are not cur- rently declining or threatened. These are species of moderate overall priority with a disproportionately high percentage of their total population in the region; total of 7 parameters ≥ 19, with Area Importance = 5 or % population > threshold. Tier IIC. High Regional Threats: Species of moderate overall priority that are uncommon in a region and whose remaining populations are threat- ened, usually because of extreme threats to sensitive habitats. These are species with high breeding threats scores within the region (or in combina- tion with high nonbreeding threats outside the region); total of 7 parameters ≥ 19 with Threats Breeding + Threats Nonbreeding > 6, or local Threats Breeding or Threats Nonbreeding = 5. Tier III. Additional Federally Listed: Species protected under federal endangered species laws receive conservation attention wherever they occur. Tier IV. Additional State Listed: Species on state or provincial endangered, threatened, or special concern lists that did not meet any of above crite- ria. These often represent locally rare or peripheral populations. Tier V. Additional Stewardship Responsibility:Representative or characteristic species for which the region supports a disproportionately high per- centage of the world population (see Appendix), but which did not meet any of the above criteria. Includes moderate- and low-scoring species for which the region has long-term stewardship responsibility, even if these species are not of immediate conservation concern. These species are not included in the table below, but they can be found by reviewing the “% of population” numbers available at . Tier VI. Local concern: species of justifiable local concern or interest. May represent a geographically variable population or be representative of a specific habitat or conservation concern.

5 Abbreviations for USFWS Birds of Management Concern Birds with blank cells are considered common throughout their entire range by USFWS. Abbreviations for all others are as follows: federally Threatened or Endangered (T/E); Birds of Conservation Concern at National (BCC/N), Regional (BCC/R), or Bird Conservation Region (BCC/BCR) scales; game/falconry birds Above Desired Condition (ADC) or Below Desired Condition (BDC) across their entire range (but not necessarily true in BCR 28).

6 WatchList 2007 (Greg Butcher of National Audubon Society and David Pashley of American Bird Conservancy) was released 28 November 2007. Red = species of greatest conservation concern. Yellow = species of conservation concern, but not to the extreme level of those on the Red List.

36 Appendix 1 7 State Wildlife Action Plans in the AMJV Each state used different methods to assign a status to a species; therefore, this table simply indicates whether or not a species was identified as a “species of greatest conservation need” by the state planning team, regardless of its overall status relative to other species. Citations for each state plan follows. Wildlife and Freshwater Fisheries Division, Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. 2005. Conserving Alabama’s wildlife: a comprehensive strategy. Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural Resources, Montgomery, AL. Wildlife Resources Division, Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 2005. A Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Social Circle, GA. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources. 2005. South Carolina Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy 2005-2010. South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Columbia, SC. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 2005. North Carolina Wildlife Action Plan. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh, NC Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency. 2005. Tennessee’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, TN. Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources. 2005. Kentucky’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, #1 Sportsman’s Lane, Frankfort, KY. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. 2005. Virginia’s Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, Richmond, VA. Wildlife Resources Section, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. 2005. It’s About Habitat: West Virginia Wildlife Conservation Action Plan. West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, Charleston, WV. Maryland Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Maryland wildlife diversity conservation plan. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD. Division of Wildlife, Ohio Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Ohio Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Ohio Department of Natural Resources, Columbus, OH; and Ohio Bird Conservation Initiative. 2008. Ohio All-bird Conservation Plan. Unpublished report to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources-Division of Wildlife. Pennsylvania Game Commission and Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission. 2005. Pennsylvania Comprehensive Wildlife Conservation Strategy. Division of Fish & Wildlife, Endangered & Nongame Species Program, New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. 2007 (FEB; Originally published SEP 2004). New Jersey Wildlife Action Plan. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, Trenton, NJ. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation. 2005. A Strategy for Conserving New York’s Fish and Wildlife Resources. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Albany, NY.

8 Ruffed Grouse and Wood Duck were not listed in NC’s Wildlife Action Plan for the Appalachian region, but they were suggested for inclusion for this table (M. Johns, NCWRC, pers. comm.). Northern Bobwhite was not listed in TN’s Wildlife Action Plan for the Appalachian region, but was suggested for inclusion for this table (S. Somershoe, R. Applegate, TWRA, pers. comm.). Brown-headed Nuthatch and King Rail (VA) were listed for the region in VA’s Wildlife Action Plan, however, further analysis indicates these species are very localized (BHNH) or non-existent (KIRA; S. Harding, VA DGIF, pers. comm.).

Appendix 1 37 Appendix 2: Ranking the Priority Species of the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture

Appendix 2. Draft results of a tiered priority species list for the Appalachian Mountains Bird Conservation Region, applying a set of objection decision rules adapted from Dett- mers (2006) and Hartley (2007). The rules are based on BCR-specific information pro- vided for each species in regional and continental plans from the major bird initiatives. The outcome is a 3-tiered framework with species falling into Highest, High, or Moderate categories to ideally guide decisions on management, funding, or conservation actions. Twenty (20) additional species appear on the AMJV priority species list but have not yet been assigned to a tier below. Pages 2-9 of App. 2 show input information, applicaiton of rules, and comments.

38 Appendix 2 HIGHEST PRIORITY HIGH PRIORITY MODERATE PRIORITY Canada Goose - Atlantic Northern Goshawk* American Bittern Marsh Wren* American Black Duck Golden Eagle* Wood Duck* Sedge Wren* American Woodcock Whooping Crane Mallard Brown Thrasher Bewick’s Wren* Upland Sandpiper* Hooded Merganser* Northern Parula* Wood Thrush Black-billed Cuckoo Sharp-shinned Hawk* Blackburnian Warbler Golden-winged Warbler Whip-poor-will Northern Harrier* Blackpoll Warbler* Cerulean Warbler Chimney Swift Broad-winged Hawk Bay-breasted Warbler* Kentucky Warbler Yellow-bellied Sapsucker* Bald Eagle* Yellow-throated Warbler Prairie Warbler Yellow-bellied Flycatcher* Peregrine Falcon* Black-and-white Warbler Blue-winged Warbler Acadian Flycatcher Wild Turkey* Prothonotary Warbler Worm-eating Warbler Brown-headed Nuthatch Ruffed Grouse Yellow-breasted Chat Henslow’s Sparrow Bicknell’s Thrush* Northern Bobwhite Scarlet Tanager Canada Warbler King Rail Summer Tanager Swainson’s Warbler Virginia Rail* Indigo Bunting Hooded Warbler Sandhill Crane Eastern Towhee Louisiana Waterthrush Semipalmated Plover* Bachman’s Sparrow Field Sparrow Lesser Yellowlegs* Lark Sparrow Red Crossbill* Solitary Sandpiper Grasshopper Sparrow Spotted Sandpiper* White-throated Sparrow* Buff-breasted Sandpiper Eastern Meadowlark Western Sandpiper Olive-sided Flycatcher Least Sandpiper* Eastern Wood-Pewee Long-eared Owl* Willow Flycatcher Short-eared Owl Alder Flycatcher* Northern Saw-whet Owl Loggerhead Shrike Chuck-will’s-widow Yellow-throated Vireo Red-headed Woodpecker Purple Martin Red-cockaded Woodpecker Black-capped Chickadee (SBR pop)* Northern Flicker

* Species whose tier was suggested by AMJV partners after viewing rule outcome; additional data may warrant change in tier assignment.

Literature Cited

Dettmers, R. 2006. A blueprint for the design and delivery of bird conservation in the Atlantic Northern Forest. Atlantic Coast Joint Venture planning document for BCR 14.

Hartley, M. 2007. Bird conservation plan for the Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain Bird Conservation Region (BCR 13). Atlantic Coast Joint Venture planning document for BCR 13.

Appendix 2 39 Proposed Priority Tiers – LANDBIRDS

Note: The list for landbirds includes all Continental BCR Priority Tier Concern Responsibility BCR Concern Rule bird species that are known to breed in the region, not just the species included Highest High High or Mod High a on the AMJV priority species list in Ap- Mod High or Mod High b pendix 1. Also, a few transient or over- High High High or Mod Mod c wintering species were included on this Mod High Mod d list, although their priority tier remains High or Mod Low High e under review. Low High or Mod High f High Low Mod g Mod Mod Mod h Medium Low High Mod i High High or Mod Low j Mod High Low k Low High Low l Partnership review needed* m Does not meet any Priority Tier criteria n T or NB season only or breeding scores needed u * Partners suggested species be included as priority species or it is PIF Continental Stewardship species, but formula excluded it from any of the 3 tiers.

Cont. Cont. Cont. BCR BCR Priority Species Score Concern Steward sp? Resp. Concern Tier Rule Comments Henslow’s Sparrow 18 High Mod High Highest a Golden-winged Warbler 17 High Mod High Highest a Cerulean Warbler 16 High High High Highest a Kentucky Warbler 14 High High High Highest a Prairie Warbler 14 High Mod High Highest a American Woodcock** High Mod High Highest a Blue-winged Warbler 15 High High Mod Highest a Wood Thrush 14 High High Mod Highest a Worm-eating Warbler 14 High High Mod Highest a Whip-poor-will 13 Mod Mod High High b Black-billed Cuckoo 12 Mod Mod High High b Field Sparrow 12 Mod Mod High High b Brown-headed High Mod Mod High c Nuthatch 14 Canada Warbler 14 High Mod Mod High c Swainson’s Warbler 14 High Mod Mod High c Hooded Warbler 13 Mod Yes High Mod High d Louisiana Waterthrush 13 Mod Yes High Mod High d Acadian Flycatcher 12 Mod Yes High Mod High d Chimney Swift 12 Mod High Mod High d Red-cockaded Woodpecker 18 High Low High Moderate e Bachman’s Sparrow 17 High Low High Moderate e Dickcissel 14 High Low High Moderate e not included on AMJV priority species list Olive-sided Flycatcher 14 High Low High Moderate e Red-headed Woodpecker 13 High Low High Moderate e Short-eared Owl 13 High Low High Moderate e

40 Appendix 2 Cont. Cont. Cont. BCR BCR Priority Species Score Concern Steward sp? Resp. Concern Tier Rule Comments Chuck-will’s-widow 12 Mod Yes Low High Moderate e Grasshopper Sparrow 12 Mod Yes Low High Moderate e Lark Sparrow 12 Mod Low High Moderate e Loggerhead Shrike 12 Mod Low High Moderate e Northern Bobwhite 12 Mod Low High Moderate e Eastern Towhee 11 Low Yes High High Moderate f Eastern Meadowlark 11 Low Mod High Moderate f Blackburnian Warbler 10 Low Yes Mod High Moderate f Eastern Wood-Pewee 10 Low Mod High Moderate f Ruffed Grouse 10 Low Mod High Moderate f Summer Tanager 10 Low Mod High Moderate f Yellow-breasted Chat 10 Low Mod High Moderate f Black-and-white Warbler 9 Low Mod High Moderate f Northern Flicker 9 Low Mod High Moderate f Northern Saw-whet Owl 9 Low Mod High Moderate f Purple Martin 8 Low Mod High Moderate f Prothonotary Warbler 15 High Low Mod Moderate g Chestnut-sided Warbler 13 Mod Yes Mod Mod Moderate h not included on AMJV priority species list Brown Thrasher 12 Mod Yes Mod Mod Moderate h Orchard Oriole 12 Mod Mod Mod Moderate h not included on AMJV priority species list Indigo Bunting 11 Low Yes High Mod Moderate i Yellow-throated Vireo 11 Low Yes High Mod Moderate i Yellow-throated Warbler 11 Low Yes High Mod Moderate i Belted Kingfisher 10 Low High Mod Moderate i not included on AMJV priority species list Broad-winged Hawk 9 Low High Mod Moderate i Song Sparrow 8 Low High Mod Moderate i not included on AMJV priority species list Blue-gray Gnatcatcher 7 Low High Mod Moderate i not included on AMJV priority species list Downy Woodpecker 7 Low High Mod Moderate i not included on AMJV priority species list Willow Flycatcher 14 High Mod Low Moderate j Scarlet Tanager 12 Mod High Low Moderate k Carolina Chickadee 11 Low High Low Moderate l not included on AMJV priority species list Gray Catbird 9 Low High Low Moderate l not included on AMJV priority species list Common Yellowthroat 8 Low High Low Moderate l not included on AMJV priority species list Cooper’s Hawk 8 Low High Low Moderate l not included on AMJV priority species list Eastern Phoebe 8 Low High Low Moderate l not included on AMJV priority species list Ruby-throated Hummingbird 8 Low High Low Moderate l not included on AMJV priority species list Tufted Titmouse 8 Low High Low Moderate l not included on AMJV priority species list Chipping Sparrow 7 Low High Low Moderate l not included on AMJV priority species list Pileated Woodpecker 7 Low High Low Moderate l not included on AMJV priority species list Red-eyed Vireo 7 Low High Low Moderate l not included on AMJV priority species list American Crow 6 Low High Low Moderate l not included on AMJV priority species list White-breasted Nuthatch 6 Low High Low Moderate l not included on AMJV priority species list Northern Harrier 11 Low Low High Review m * on AMJV list; suggested ‘Moderate’ Vesper Sparrow 11 Low Low High Review m Bewick’s Wren 10 * Appalachian population/ssp, suggested Low Low High Review m ‘Highest’ Common Nighthawk 10 Low Low High Review m Nashville Warbler 9 Low Yes Low High Review m

Appendix 2 41 Cont. Cont. Cont. BCR BCR Priority Species Score Concern Steward sp? Resp. Concern Tier Rule Comments * Appalachian population, suggested at Red Crossbill 9 Low Low High Review m least ‘High’ Savannah Sparrow 9 Low Low High Review m Sedge Wren 9 Low Low High Review m * on AMJV list; suggested ‘Moderate’ Horned Lark 8 Low Low High Review m Peregrine Falcon 8 Low Yes Low High Review m * on AMJV list; suggested ‘Moderate’ Black-throated Green Warbler 11 Low Yes Mod Low Review m Red-bellied Woodpecker 9 Low Yes Mod Low Review m Alder Flycatcher 9 Low Yes Low Low Review m * on AMJV list; suggested ‘Moderate’ Pine Warbler 9 Low Yes Low Low Review m White-throated * NB season, on AMJV list; suggested Sparrow 9 Low Yes Low Low Review m ‘Moderate’ Yellow-bellied * Appalachian population, suggested at Sapsucker 9 Low Yes Low Low Review m least ‘High’ Blue-headed Vireo 8 Low Yes Mod Low Review m Carolina Wren 8 Low Yes Mod Low Review m Magnolia Warbler 8 Low Yes Low Low Review m Red-shouldered Hawk 8 Low Yes Low Low Review m Swamp Sparrow 7 Low Yes Low Low Review m Winter Wren 7 Low Yes Low Low Review m Red-breasted Nuthatch 6 Low Low Low Review m Long-eared Owl 12 Mod Low Mod Review m * on AMJV list; suggested ‘Moderate’ Yellow-billed Cuckoo 11 Low Mod Mod Review m Least Flycatcher 11 Low Mod Mod Review m Mourning Warbler 11 Mod Yes Low Mod Review m * Appalachian population, suggested at Northern Goshawk 11 Low Low Mod Review m least ‘High’ Northern Parula 10 Low Mod Mod Review m * on AMJV list; suggested ‘Moderate’ White-eyed Vireo 10 Low Yes Mod Mod Review m Bald Eagle 10 Low Yes Low Mod Review m * on AMJV list; suggested ‘Moderate’ Yellow-bellied Flycatcher 10 Low Yes Low Mod Review m * on AMJV list; suggested at least ‘High’ Barn Owl 9 Low Low Mod Review m Brown Creeper 9 Low Low Mod Review m Golden-crowned Kinglet 9 Low Low Mod Review m Pine Siskin 9 Low Low Mod Review m Sharp-shinned Hawk 8 Low Mod Mod Review m * on AMJV list; suggested ‘Moderate’ Marsh Wren 8 Low Low Mod Review m * on AMJV list; suggested ‘Moderate’ American Kestrel 7 Low Mod Mod Review m * Low density B;T; no BCR scores yet; on Bicknell’s Thrush 18 High u AMJV list; suggested ‘High’ Bay-breasted 14 * Low density B;T; no BCR scores yet; on Warbler High u AMJV list; suggested ‘Moderate’ Rusty Blackbird 13 High u NB season; no BCR scores Connecticut Warbler 13 Mod Yes u Low density B;T; no BCR scores yet Mississippi Kite 13 Mod Yes u Low density B; no BCR scores yet * Low density B;T; no BCR scores yet; on Blackpoll Warbler 12 Mod u AMJV list; suggested ‘Moderate’ Cape May Warbler 12 Mod Yes u Low density B;T; no BCR scores yet * NB season; no BCR scores; on AMJV list; Golden Eagle 11 Low u suggested ‘High’ Rough-legged Hawk 8 Low Yes u NB season; no BCR scores Merlin 7 Low u Low density B;NB; no BCR scores yet Black-throated Blue Warbler 12 Mod Mod Low None n

42 Appendix 2 Cont. Cont. Cont. BCR BCR Priority Species Score Concern Steward sp? Resp. Concern Tier Rule Comments Rose-breasted Grosbeak 12 Mod Mod Low None n Baltimore Oriole 11 Low Mod Low None n Clay-colored Sparrow 11 Low Low Low None n Warbling Vireo 11 Low Low Low None n Veery 11 Low Mod Mod None n Bobolink 11 Low Low Mod None n Purple Finch 11 Low Low Mod None n Eastern Screech-Owl 10 Low Mod Low None n Northern Rough- winged Swallow 10 Low Mod Low None n Ovenbird 10 Low Mod Low None n Eastern Kingbird 10 Low Mod Mod None n Swainson’s Thrush 10 Low Low Mod None n Blue Jay 9 Low Mod Low None n Fish Crow 9 Low Low Low None n Blue Grosbeak 9 Low Mod Mod None n Great Crested Flycatcher 9 Low Mod Mod None n Northern Waterthrush 9 Low Low Mod None n American Redstart 8 Low Mod Low None n Common Grackle 8 Low Mod Low None n Northern Mockingbird 8 Low Mod Low None n Tree Swallow 8 Low Mod Low None n Wild Turkey 8 Low Mod Low None n * on AMJV list; suggested ‘Moderate’ Dark-eyed Junco 8 Low Low Low None n Barn Swallow 8 Low Mod Mod None n Red-winged Blackbird 8 Low Mod Mod None n Bank Swallow 8 Low Low Mod None n Osprey 8 Low Low Mod None n White-winged Crossbill 8 Low Yes Low Mod None n Barred Owl 7 Low Mod Low None n Brown-headed Cowbird 7 Low Mod Low None n Cedar Waxwing 7 Low Mod Low None n Eastern Bluebird 7 Low Mod Low None n Yellow Warbler 7 Low Mod Low None n Great Horned Owl 7 Low Low Low None n Hairy Woodpecker 6 Low Mod Low None n House Finch 6 Low Mod Low None n House Wren 6 Low Mod Low None n Red-tailed Hawk 6 Low Mod Low None n Black-capped * Southern Blue Ridge Pop only; on AMJV Chickadee 6 Low Low Low None n list; suggested ‘Moderate’ Cliff Swallow 6 Low Low Low None n Common Raven 6 Low Low Low None n Hermit Thrush 6 Low Low Low None n Turkey Vulture 6 Low Low Low None n Yellow-rumped Warbler 6 Low Low Low None n American Goldfinch 6 Low Mod Mod None n American Robin 5 Low Mod Low None n Mourning Dove 5 Low Mod Low None n

Appendix 2 43 Cont. Cont. Cont. BCR BCR Priority Species Score Concern Steward sp? Resp. Concern Tier Rule Comments Northern Cardinal 5 Low Mod Low None n Black Vulture 5 Low Low Low None n European Starling Mod Low None n Rock Pigeon Mod Low None n Eurasian Collared-Dove Low Low None n House Sparrow Low Low None n Ring-necked Pheasant Low Mod None n **PIF did not calculate a score for this species; concern and responsibility levels converted from USSCP. Considered of ‘high concern’ continentally in USSCP 2004 list (http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/USShorebird/downloads/ShorebirdPriorityPopulationsAug04. pdf). BCR responsibility based on Area Importance (AI) score for BCR28 in USSCP and status (i.e., occurrence) in BCR 28, according to rules: AI score 5 and occurrence “M, B, M, or B” then Responsibility = High; AI Score 4 and occurrence “M or B” then Responsibility = High; AI Score 4 and occurrence “M or B” then Responsibility = Moderate (this rule was applied); AI Score 4 and occurrence “m or b” OR AI Score 3 (with any occurrence value) then Responsibility = Low. BCR Concern reflects BCR priority scores in http://www.fws. gov/shorebirdplan/USShorebird/downloads/BCRSCORES3.xls unless modified by expert input. Proposed Priority Tiers – WATERFOWL

Note: The list for waterfowl includes Continental BCR Priority Tier Priority Responsibility BCR Concern Rule only those species that (1) were listed for Waterfowl Conservation Region 28 in Highest High High or Mod High a NAWMP Plan Committee (2004), (2) were Mod High or Mod High b included in PIF Physiographic Plans, or (3) High High High or Mod Mod c were suggested for inclusion on the AMJV Mod High Mod d priority species list by partners. Priority, High or Mod Low High e responsibility, and concern categories Low High or Mod High f (e.g., high, mod low) were provided in High Low Mod g NAWMP Plan Committee (2004), except Mod Mod Mod h for Hooded Merganser. Medium Low High Mod i High High or Mod Low j Mod High Low k * Partners suggested species be included Low High Low l as priority species or it is PIF Continental Partnership review needed* m Stewardship species, but formula exclud- Does not meet any Priority Tier criteria n ed it from any of the 3 tiers. T or NB season only or breeding scores needed u

Cont. BCR Resp. BCR Resp. BCR Concern BCR Priority Common Name Priority Breeding NB Season Breeding Concern NB Tier Rule Comments Canada Goose - Atlantic High Mod High High Highest a American Black Duck High Mod High High Highest a Mallard High Mod Low Mod Moderate g Lesser Scaup High Review m Ring-necked Duck Mod Review m Bufflehead Mod Mod Low Mod Low Review m Blue-winged Teal Mod High Review m Canvasback Mod High Mod Low Mod Low Review m Redhead Mod High Review m Common Goldeneye Mod High Mod Low Mod Low Review m Hooded Merganser1 Mod Low Mod Low Mod Low Mod Low Mod Low Review m suggested ‘Moderate’ Wood Duck Mod Mod Low Mod Low Mod Low Mod Low None n suggested ‘Moderate’ Gadwall Mod Mod Low Mod Low None n 1Partners in KY and OH asked to include species as a breeder in Appalachian Plateau; scores in green were not provided in NAWMP Implementation Framework (NAWMP Plan Committee 2004) but were approximated by B. W. Smith for this exercise.

44 Appendix 2 Proposed Priority Tiers – WATERBIRDS

Continental BCR Note: The list for waterbirds includes Priority Tier Concern Responsibility BCR Concern Rule only those species (1) suggested by AMJV partners or (2) for BCR 28 in Hunter et al. Highest High High or Mod High a (2006). Mod High or Mod High b High High High or Mod Mod c Mod High Mod d High or Mod Low High e Low High or Mod High f High Low Mod g Mod Mod Mod h Medium Low High Mod i High High or Mod Low j Mod High Low k Low High Low l Partnership review needed* m Does not meet any Priority Tier criteria n T or NB season only or breeding scores needed u * Partners suggested species be included as priority species or it is PIF Continental Stewardship species, but formula excluded it from any of the 3 tiers.

NAWCP BCR Common Name Priority Responsibility BCR Concern Priority Tier Rule Comments Whooping Crane High* Mod Mod High High c American Bittern High* Low Mod High Moderate g King Rail High* Low Mod High Moderate g Sandhill Crane Low* High Mod Moderate i Least Bittern High* Low Low Review m Sora High* Low Low Review m Yellow Rail High* Low Low Review m Virginia Rail Mod* Mod Low Review m suggested ‘Moderate’ Common Moorhen Mod* Low Low Review m Black-crowned Night Heron Mod** Low Low Review m Tier I Mgmt Action in Hunter et al. Black Tern Mod** Low Mod High Review m (2006) but low rank with formula Tier I Mgmt Action in Hunter et al. American Coot Low* Low Mod Review m (2006) but low rank with formula Tier I Mgmt Action in Hunter et al. Common Tern Low** Low Mod High Review m (2006) but low rank with formula * From http://www.waterbirdconservation.org/pdfs/status_assessment/FinalStatusandDistributionMarshbirdsTable.pdf ** From Kushlan et al. (2002) at http://www.waterbirdconservation.org/pdfs/plan_files/complete.pdf BCR Responsibility based on occurrence information in Southeast U.S. Waterbird plan for BCR 28 and Area Importance (AI) scores. BCR Concern based on Priority in Southeast U.S. Waterbird Plan for BCR 28.

Appendix 2 45 Proposed Priority Tiers – SHOREBIRDS

Continental BCR Note: The list for shorebirds includes only Priority Tier Concern Responsibility BCR Concern Rule those species (1) suggested by AMJV part- ners or (2) suggested by C. Hunter (pers. Highest High High or Mod High a comm. 2007) because shorebird scores for Mod High or Mod High b BCRs are under revision. High High High or Mod Mod c Mod High Mod d High or Mod Low High e Low High or Mod High f High Low Mod g Mod Mod Mod h Medium Low High Mod i High High or Mod Low j Mod High Low k Low High Low l Partnership review needed* m Does not meet any Priority Tier criteria n T or NB season only or breeding scores needed u * Partners suggested species be included as priority species or it is PIF Continental Stewardship species, but formula excluded it from any of the 3 tiers.

Continental BCR Common Name Priority Responsibility BCR Concern Priority Tier Rule Comments Buff-breasted Sandpiper 5 Low High Moderate e Solitary Sandpiper 4 Low High Moderate e Western Sandpiper 4 Low Mod Moderate g Upland Sandpiper 4 Low Low Review m suggested at least ‘High’ Greater Yellowlegs 3 Low Mod Review m Lesser Yellowlegs 3 Low Low Review m suggested ‘Moderate’ Dunlin 3 Low Mod Review m Semipalmated Sandpiper 3 Low Mod Review m Least Sandpiper 3 Low Mod Review m suggested ‘Moderate’ Stilt Sandpiper 3 Low Mod Review n Semipalmated Plover 2 Low Low Review n suggested ‘Moderate’ Spotted Sandpiper 2 Low Low Review n suggested ‘Moderate’ Continental concern category: 5 = “highly imperiled,” 4 = “species of high concern,” 3 = “species of moderate concern,” 2 = “species of low concern,” 1 = “not at risk.” BCR Responsibility: based on Area Importance (AI) score for BCR28 in USSCP and status (i.e., occurrence) in BCR 28, according to rules: AI score 5 and occurrence “M, B, M, or B” then Responsibility = High; AI Score 4 and occurrence “M or B” then Responsibility = High; AI Score 4 and occurrence “M or B” then Responsibility = Moderate (this rule was applied); AI Score 4 and occurrence “m or b” OR AI Score 3 (with any occurrence value) then Responsibility = Low. BCR Concern: reflects BCR priority scores in http://www.fws.gov/shorebirdplan/USShorebird/downloads/BCRSCORES3.xls unless modified by expert input.

46 Appendix 2 Appendix 3: International Conservation Planning: Data and Products

The table below lists migratory bird species used to produce unweighted and weighted maps of over-wintering areas for species that breed in the Appalachian Mountains Bird Conservation Region and migrate completely (or almost entirely) out of the BCR. See the Partners In Flight website (http://www.partnersinflight.org/pubs/ts/04-Connections) for a complete description of the general process used. On the maps below, darker shades of red indicate areas of “overlap” in wintering range by an increasing number of species.

Appendix 3 47 Unweighted Weighted Species Migrant Priority Highest Wt Migrants Wt Priority Wt Highest Cerulean Warbler 1 1 1 10.00 5.00 3.45 Worm-eating Warbler 1 1 1 6.89 3.29 2.27 Blue-winged Warbler 1 1 1 6.56 3.14 2.16 Louisiana Waterthrush 1 1 1 5.84 2.79 1.92 Acadian Flycatcher 1 1 1 4.51 2.16 1.49 Wood Thrush 1 1 1 4.28 2.05 1.41 Hooded Warbler 1 1 1 3.89 1.86 1.28 Yellow-throated Vireo 1 1 1 3.09 1.47 1.02 Kentucky Warbler 1 1 1 3.08 1.47 1.01 Prairie Warbler 1 1 1 2.41 1.15 0.79 Swainson’s Warbler 1 1 1 1.48 0.71 0.49 Golden-winged Warbler 1 1 1 1.22 0.59 0.40 Henslow’s Sparrow 1 1 1 1.06 0.51 0.35 Black-billed Cuckoo 1 1 1 0.91 0.43 0.30 King Rail 1 1 1 0.88 0.42 0.29 Whip-poor-will 1 1 1 0.85 0.41 0.28 Canada Warbler 1 1 1 0.27 0.13 0.09 Yellow-bellied Flycatcher 1 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Upland Sandpiper 1 1 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 Buff-breasted Sandpiper 1 1 1 Olive-sided Flycatcher 1 1 1 Scarlet Tanager 1 1 6.24 2.98 Yellow-throated Warbler 1 1 5.51 2.63 Gray Catbird 1 1 3.01 1.44 Indigo Bunting 1 1 2.63 1.26 Chimney Swift 1 1 1.94 0.93 Ruby-throated Hummingbird 1 1 1.82 0.87 Eastern Wood-Pewee 1 1 1.64 0.78 Broad-winged Hawk 1 1 1.56 0.74 Yellow-breasted Chat 1 1 1.47 0.70 Black-throated Blue Warbler 1 1 1.30 0.62 Red-eyed Vireo 1 1 1.20 0.58 Eastern Towhee 1 1 1.04 0.50 Eastern Phoebe 1 1 0.90 0.43 Common Yellowthroat 1 1 0.90 0.43 Great Crested Flycatcher 1 1 0.86 0.41 Black-and-white Warbler 1 1 0.70 0.34 Willow Flycatcher 1 1 0.69 0.33 Brown Thrasher 1 1 0.68 0.32 Summer Tanager 1 1 0.56 0.27 Chestnut-sided Warbler 1 1 0.49 0.24 Blackburnian Warbler 1 1 0.46 0.22 Purple Martin 1 1 0.45 0.21 Chuck-will’s-widow 1 1 0.35 0.17 Prothonotary Warbler 1 1 0.07 0.03 Grasshopper Sparrow 1 1 0.03 0.01 Dickcissel 1 1 0.00 0.00 Blue-gray Gnatcatcher 1 1.44 White-eyed Vireo 1 1.09 Northern Parula 1 1.02 Baltimore Oriole 1 0.96 Black-throated Green Warbler 1 0.92 Ovenbird 1 0.89 Blue-headed Vireo 1 0.79 Orchard Oriole 1 0.72

48 Appendix 3 Unweighted Weighted Species Migrant Priority Highest Wt Migrants Wt Priority Wt Highest Barn Swallow 1 0.70 Yellow-billed Cuckoo 1 0.66 Chipping Sparrow 1 0.61 Rose-breasted Grosbeak 1 0.59 American Redstart 1 0.58 House Wren 1 0.58 Song Sparrow 1 0.55 Bobolink 1 0.53 Cedar Waxwing 1 0.47 Veery 1 0.46 Green Heron 1 0.43 American Goldfinch 1 0.42 Blue Grosbeak 1 0.40 Yellow Warbler 1 0.40 Eastern Kingbird 1 0.38 Cooper’s Hawk 1 0.34 Northern Rough-winged Swallow 1 0.30 Blue Jay 1 0.29 Tree Swallow 1 0.26 Field Sparrow 1 0.24 Wood Duck 1 0.23 Eastern Bluebird 1 0.19 Least Flycatcher 1 0.19 Yellow-crowned Night-Heron 1 0.18 American Crow 1 0.16 Belted Kingfisher 1 0.14 American Woodcock 1 0.09 Bank Swallow 1 0.09 Warbling Vireo 1 0.08 Yellow-bellied Sapsucker 1 0.08 Turkey Vulture 1 0.05 Sharp-shinned Hawk 1 0.05 Magnolia Warbler 1 0.05 Cliff Swallow 1 0.04 Black-crowned Night-Heron 1 0.03 Mourning Warbler 1 0.03 Least Bittern 1 0.03 Osprey 1 0.01 Spotted Sandpiper 1 0.01 Alder Flycatcher 1 0.01 Common Nighthawk 1 0.01 Virginia Rail 1 0.01 Mississippi Kite 1 0.01 Northern Waterthrush 1 0.00 Great Egret 1 0.00 Marsh Wren 1 0.00 Nashville Warbler 1 0.00 Common Moorhen 1 0.00 Cape May Warbler 1 0.00 American Bittern 1 0.00 Connecticut Warbler 1 0.00 Bewick’s Wren 1 0.00 Sora 1 0.00 Swainson’s Thrush 1 0.00 Common Loon 1 0.00

Appendix 3 49 Unweighted Winter Linkage Maps credit: Dr. Peter Blancher, Environment Canada

All migrants, unweighted

Priority migrants, unweighted

50 Appendix 3 Unweighted Winter Linkage Maps credit: Dr. Peter Blancher, Environment Canada

Highest Priority migrants, unweighted

Weighted Winter Linkage Maps

credit: Dr. Peter Blancher, All migrants, weighted Environment Canada

Appendix 3 51 Weighted Winter Linkage Maps credit: Dr. Peter Blancher, Environment Canada

Priority migrants, weighted

Highest Priority migrants, weighted

52 Appendix 3 Appendix 4: Bird Habitat Conservation Areas of the Appalachian Mountains Bird Conservation Region

Bird Habitat Conservation Areas (BHCAs) of the Appalachian Mountains Bird Conservation Region (AMBCR), based on comments received from AMJV partners via e-mail and at a meeting of the AMJV Technical Committee in August 2007. For each BHCA, we provide a unique number (corresponding to a polygon on the following maps), the state(s) in which it occurs, the mapping region (corresponds to the general region in relation to the AMBCR boundary), BHCA name, estimated acreages and hectares, and the major group(s) of birds the area supports.

Appendix 4 53 BHCA # STATE(S) GROUP NAME ACRES HECTARES BIRD GROUP(S) 1 NY Northern Catskill Mountains 2,765,600 1,119,199 landbirds 2 PA Northern North Mountain area 1,467,200 593,755 landbirds 3 NY/PA Northern North Central Highlands/Allegheny National 5,085,348 2,057,967 landbirds 4 PA Northern Pocono Mountains 875,128 354,152 landbirds, waterfowl landbirds, waterbirds, 5 NJ/NY/PA Northern Northern Ridge and Valley forested ridges 3,954,131 1,600,180 waterfowl 6 MD/PA Northern Laurel Highlands 1,054,868 426,890 landbirds 7 NJ/NY/PA Northern NJ/NY Highlands 1,190,559 481,802 landbirds landbirds, marshbirds, 8 NJ/NY Northern Kittatinny Valley 580,513 234,925 waterfowl 9 MD/PA Northern South Mountain/Catoctin Mountain 340,630 137,848 landbirds 10 MD Northern Green Ridge/Warrior Mountain area 423,222 171,272 landbirds 11 MD/PA Northern Allegheny Front 1,472,470 595,888 landbirds 12 MD Northern Backbone Mountain 33,062 13,380 landbirds 13 PA Northern PA Northwest Reclaimed Minelands 160,019 64,757 landbirds 14 MD/PA Northern Bituminous Grasslands 1,326,481 536,808 landbirds 15 PA Northern Scotia Barrens 9,619 3,893 landbirds 16 OH Central Shawnee State Forest 138,218 55,935 landbirds 17 OH Central Zaleski State Forest 339,516 137,397 landbirds 18 OH Central Ironton District - Wayne National Forest 256,884 103,957 landbirds 19 OH Central Athens District - Wayne National Forest 190,870 77,242 landbirds 20 OH Central Marietta District - Wayne National Forest 356,808 144,395 landbirds 21 OH Central AEP Recreation lands/Wilds 32,348 13,091 landbirds 22 OH Central Tri-Valley Wildlife Area 33,951 13,740 landbirds 23 OH Central Crown City Wildlife Area 21,404 8,662 landbirds 24 OH Central Hocking Hills 230,679 93,352 landbirds 25 OH Central Tar Hollow State Forest 64,644 26,161 landbirds 26 OH Central Scioto Trail State Forest 81,988 33,179 landbirds 27 OH Central Scioto River Wetlands 76,451 30,939 waterfowl, waterbirds 28 VA Central Upper Blue Ridge Mountains 726,997 294,205 landbirds 29 VA Central Allegheny Highlands 434,876 175,988 landbirds 30 VA Central Pine Mountain 191,983 77,693 landbirds 31 VA Central Powell and Stone Mountain 135,365 54,780 landbirds 32 VA Central Radford Army Ammunition Plant 2,525 1,022 landbirds 33 KY Central Pine Savanna SWAP area 245,143 99,206 landbirds 34 KY Central Starfire Complex 130,581 52,844 landbirds

35 KY Central Mineland Reclamation Conservation Areas 54,1 grassland/shrubland 98 21,933 birds 36 KY Central Upper Licking River 756,833 306,280 all bird groups 37 KY Central Yatesville Lake 33,139 13,411 waterfowl, waterbirds 38 KY Central Black and Cumberland Mountains 273,758 110,786 landbirds 39 KY Central Daniel Boone National Forest 661,127 267,549 landbirds 40 VA Central George Washington National Forest 1,279,041 517,609 landbirds

54 Appendix 4 BHCA # STATE(S) GROUP NAME ACRES HECTARES BIRD GROUP(S) 41 VA Central Jefferson National Forest 945,584 382,664 landbirds 42 VA Central Southwestern VA WMAs 80,609 32,621 landbirds 43 VA Central Great Valley 2,552,862 1,033,107 landbirds 44 WV Central Intact Mixed-Mesophytic Forest 1,613,881 653,115 landbirds 45 WV/KY Central Mountain-top Mining Area 2,183,189 883,505 landbirds 46 WV Central Industrial Forests 523,673 211,923 landbirds 47 WV Central Monongahela National Forest 1,704,377 689,737 landbirds landbirds, waterfowl, 48 WV Central Canaan Valley 16,443 6,654 wetland 49 WV Central New/Gauley/Bluestone River corridors 343,240 138,904 all bird groups 50 WV Central Eastern Panhandle (Cacapon, Sleepy Creek) 150,488 60,900 landbirds 51 WV Central Laurel Highlands 75,616 30,601 landbirds WV/KY/ 52 OH Central Ohio River Valley 1,143,475 462,748 all bird groups 53 WV Central Highland River Valley Complex 485,272 196,382 all bird groups 54 OH Central Egypt Valley 33,754 13,660 grassland birds 55 AL Southern Bankhead National Forest 346,680 140,297 landbirds 56 AL Southern Lake Guntersville State Park/TN River 64,837 26,239 all bird groups 57 AL Southern Little River Canyon/DeSoto State Park 13,564 5,489 landbirds 58 AL Southern Monte Sano State Park 23,829 9,643 landbirds 59 AL/TN Southern Skyline WMA/Bear Hollow Mtn WMA 692,247 280,142 landbirds 60 TN/KY Southern Northern Cumberland Plateau 2,615,387 1,058,410 landbirds 61 TN/KY Southern Cumberland Mountains 940,653 380,669 landbirds GA/NC/ 62 TN Southern Southern Blue Ridge Forest Block 9,104,191 3,684,335 landbirds, waterfowl 63 TN Southern Hiawassee Refuge/Yuchi WMA 107,719 43,592 all bird groups 64 GA/TN Southern Chattanooga 11,195 4,530 landbirds, waterfowl landbirds, shorebirds, 65 TN Southern Lick Creek/Douglas Lake 565,146 228,706 waterfowl 66 GA Southern Conasauga District/Chattahoo 372,601 150,786 landbirds 67 TN Southern Oak Ridge WMA 42,443 17,176 landbirds, waterbirds 68 AL/TN Southern Savage Gulf, Cumberland Plateau 617,407 249,856 landbirds 69 TN Southern Prentice Cooper State Forest WMA Ridge 646,664 261,696 landbirds 70 TN Southern Grasslands and Forested Ridges 932,523 377,379 landbirds 71 TN Southern Fall Creek Falls State Natural Area/WMA 135,689 54,911 landbirds

Appendix 4 55 Northern BHCAs of the AMBCR: NY, NJ, PA, and MD

56 Appendix 4 Central BHCAs of the AMBCR: OH, KY, WV, and VA

Appendix 4 57 Southern BHCAs of the AMBCR: TN, NC, SC, GA, and AL

58 Appendix 4 Appendix 5: Bird Habitat Conservation Areas, Forest Patch Size, and NLCD 2001 Data for the Appalachian Mountains Bird Conservation Region, Organized by State

The following maps are grouped by state and sorted alphabetically. For each state, there are 4 maps in the following order: BHCAs, forest patch size, NLCD 2001 (all classes), NLCD 2001 (rare classes). The last 3 maps provided ancillary information to Technical Commit- tee members (Roanoke meeting, 2007) as they drafted BHCAs throughout the AMBCR. The BHCA maps in this appendix are simply smaller-scale depictions (i.e., zoomed in to each state) of the BHCAs in the maps of the Northern, Central, and Southern regions of the AMBCR (Appendix 4). Number labels on the BHCA maps correspond to the list of BHCAs in Appendix 4.

The BHCA maps are the culmination of the initial Technical Committee draft in August 2007, review by outside experts and administrators, and subsequent refinements based on reviewers’ comments and suggestions. We recognize that our BHCAs are coarse as- sessments of geographically important areas and other areas within the AMBCR do (or could) provide high quality bird habitat. However, based on expert opinion, these BHCAs have the highest conservation and restoration potential in the AMBCR. Therefore, iden- tifying areas of known ‘high potential’ for conservation will allow us to examine factors within those BHCAs that influence avian populations, and apply that knowledge to other appropriate areas in order to achieve our objectives. Also, as additional data becomes available, we recognize that these BHCAs may need to be modified in future planning iterations.

Appendix 5 59 ALABAMABHCAs

ALABAMAForestPatchSize

60 Appendix 5 ALABAMANLCD2001(allclasses)

ALABAMANLCD2001(rareclasses)

Appendix 5 61 GEORGIABHCAs

GEORGIAForestPatchSize

62 Appendix 5 GEORGIANLCD2001(allclasses)

GEORGIANLCD2001(rareclasses)

Appendix 5 63 KENTUCKYBHCAs

KENTUCKYForestPatchSize

64 Appendix 5 KENTUCKYNLCD2001(allclasses)

KENTUCKYNLCD2001(rareclasses)

Appendix 5 65 MARYLANDBHCAs

MARYLANDForestPatchSize

66 Appendix 5 MARYLANDNLCD2001(allclasses)

MARYLANDNLCD2001(rareclasses)

Appendix 5 67 NORTHCAROLINABHCAs

NORTHCAROLINAForestPatchSize

68 Appendix 5 NORTHCAROLINANLCD2001(allclasses)

NORTHCAROLINANLCD2001(rareclasses)

Appendix 5 69 NEWJERSEYBHCAs

NEWJERSEYForestPatchSize

70 Appendix 5 NEWJERSEYNLCD2001(allclasses)

NEWJERSEYNLCD2001(rareclasses)

Appendix 5 71 NEWYORKBHCAs

NEWYORKForestPatchSize

72 Appendix 5 NEWYORKNLCD2001(allclasses)

NEWYORKNLCD2001(rareclasses)

Appendix 5 73 OHIOBHCAs

OHIOForestPatchSize

74 Appendix 5 OHIONLCD2001(allclasses)

OHIONLCD2001(rareclasses)

Appendix 5 75 PENNSYLVANIABHCAs

PENNSYLVANIAForestPatchSize

76 Appendix 5 PENNSYLVANIANLCD2001(allclasses)

PENNSYLVANIANLCD2001(rareclasses)

Appendix 5 77 SOUTHCAROLINABHCAs

SOUTHCAROLINAForestPatchSize

78 Appendix 5 SOUTHCAROLINANLCD2001(allclasses)

SOUTHCAROLINANLCD2001(rareclasses)

Appendix 5 79 TENNESSEEBHCAs

TENNESSEEForestPatchSize

80 Appendix 5 TENNESSEENLCD2001(allclasses)

TENNESSEENLCD2001(rareclasses)

Appendix 5 81 VIRGINIABHCAs

VIRGINIAForestPatchSize

82 Appendix 5 VIRGINIANLCD2001(allclasses)

VIRGINIANLCD2001(rareclasses)

Appendix 5 83 WESTVIRGINIABHCAs

WESTVIRGINIAForestPatchSize

84 Appendix 5 WESTVIRGINIANLCD2001(allclasses)

WESTVIRGINIANLCD2001(rareclasses)

Appendix 5 85 GIS Metadata notes for AMJV Bird Habitat Conservation Areas (BHCA)

Kirsten Luke, GIS Specialist, Atlantic Coast Joint Venture Created October 18, 2007 Updated December 28, 2007 Updated March 20, 2008

Base data: a) Meeting Maps and excel spreadsheets from the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture Technical Committee Meeting August 7-9, 2007 b) National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2001 c) ESRI Street Map d) Federal Land: National Atlas Federal Lands Layer (2004) – these are proclamation boundaries not actual fed land ownership boundaries e) Protected Areas: Conservation Biology Institute Protected Areas Database (CBI –PAD) version 4. Land ownership boundaries – not proclamation boundaries. f) Audubon IBA’s (2007)

BHCA polygons were drawn using the meeting maps and notes. Where the meeting notes expressed intention that the desired area should be a national forest, IBA or other protected land type (and the spatial data for that land type were available) then its boundaries were used as the BHCA. Otherwise, polygons were hand drawn from meeting maps. See BHCA descriptors.xls, GIS notes. No BHCA’s overlap. Where a BHCA may be encompassed within another, the areas were erased such that there is no overlap when calculating acreage.

March 20, 2008: All edits to the draft BHCA’s/ maps sent out January 08 have been incorporated and attribute table updated to reflect I-plan BHCA’s labels.

86 Appendix 5 Suggested Citation Contributing Authors Appalachian Mountains Joint Numerous partners of the Venture Management Board. Appalachian Mountains 2008. Implementation Plan for the Joint Venture deserve thanks and Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture: acknowledgment for their intellectual a Foundation for All-bird Conservation contributions, compilation, and review in the Region. Brian W. Smith (ed.). of this Implementation Plan. However, Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture, Peter Blancher (Environment Canada), Frankfort, KY. Randy Dettmers (USFWS), Chuck Hunter (USFWS), and Kirsten Luke (GIS Specialist Contact Atlantic Coast JV/IAP Contractor) Brian W. Smith, Ph.D. contributed specific sections or GIS AMJV Coordinator products for this plan and deserve special 3761 Georgetown Road recognition. Adrienne Yancy, Dave Baker Frankfort, KY 40601 and Tim Slone of Kentucky Department [email protected] of Fish and Wildlife Resources made the 502-573-0330, ext. 227 layout and design of this Implementation www.amjv.org Plan possible, and for their assistance, we are very grateful.

Sunrise over the Cumberland Mountains, within the Appalachian Mountains Joint Venture administrative area. Photo: Keith Watson