1. Draft

2. NAWMP Progress Assessment You did what with our $3 billion?

3. NAWMP Progress Assessment: Purposes To document and communicate conservation accomplishments. To identify desired biological outcomes and population and habitat needs to achieve those outcomes. To strengthen the logic and science underpinnings for NAWMP and JVs To improve effectiveness of NAWMP institutional structures and relationships

4. NAWMP Progress Assessment: Key Features Must be an undertaking of the whole Plan community = Plan Committee, JVs, NSST, Flyway Councils, NGOs, etc. Must go beyond dollars and acres! = A comprehensive assessment of progress toward biological goals and objectives Presents an opportunity to re-asses resource needs and build consensus and support for obtaining those resources

5. Results of the Assessment will be used to: Set the stage for the 2008 Update by helping to clarify the remaining high-priority needs for action. Identify additional support needed by the Joint Ventures and national partners for implementing conservation solutions.

6. Results of the Assessment will be used to: Allow the Plan Committee to share with its financial stakeholders (e.g., NAWCA Councils, CWS, USFWS, USGS, Flyway Councils, congressional appropriators, and other supporting agencies) a set of compelling science-based recommendations for future conservation actions in support of Plan objectives.

7. Antecedents: CET Assessments of 1996-97 Technical Companion Document 1998 NAWMP Continental Science Forum 2002 2004 NAWMP Update Re-planning activity in PPJV, PHJV, LMVJV, CVHJV, GCJV, EHJV and several other JVs Growing demand for attention and resources from the other NABCI bird initiatives The Time is Right to Pull This Assessment Together

8. An Assessment Framework? Outcomes Questions Measures A Standard Framework, with a flexible approach, should greatly facilitate the process.

9. The Assessment should achieve at least these specific outcomes: Regional and continental accounting of progress towards biological goals. Renewed regional and continental estimates of population objectives and the landscape conditions necessary to achieve those objectives.

10. The Assessment should achieve at least these specific outcomes: Adaptive processes of planning, implementation and evaluation are in place and advancing throughout the Plan community. Effective institutional structures and relationships.

11. Biological Foundation Issues OutcomesQuestions Regional and continental accounting of progress towards biological goals 1.What was the original biological foundation? Including objectives, priorities, assumptions strategies, etc? 2.Has this changed, if so, how and why? 3.What progress has been made toward accomplishing original goals and objectives? Did this achieve the intended results? If not, why? 4.Are there estimates of the original (1970’s?) and current landscape conditions? Can you quantify these? 5.What major uncertainties or threats have had the greatest effects on attaining the original goals? Are these being evaluated and/or addressed? 6.What resources are needed to achieve current goals? 7.Has the partnership explicitly accounted for uncontrolled environmental variation in assessing progress toward population objectives? 8.Are the species JV’s providing the information necessary to estimate habitat conservation needs

12. Biological Foundation Issues OutcomesQuestions Renewed regional and continental estimates of population objectives and the landscape conditions necessary to achieve those objectives. 1. Are continental waterfowl population goals stated as abundance and or vital rates that are biologically well founded. Do they account for environmental variations and are they capable of guiding regional population objectives? 2. Are regional waterfowl population goals clear and biologically sound. Do they account for environmental variation and are they capable of being translated into habitat objectives? 3. Will the sum of the regional parts equal success for the continental plan, or are there important gaps that are not being addressed? 4. Are the species JV’s providing the information necessary to understand the sources of variation in population change for their species of concern? 5. Can the JVs define landscape/habitat conditions that address limiting factors and meet or achieve regional waterfowl population goals? 6. What are the characteristics of this landscape? 7. What is the process for gathering the information and communicating it? 3. Recommendations are made to NAWMP partners regarding outstanding needs for both habitat conservation, and monitoring and assessment. (These recommendations should flow directly from outcomes 1 & 2 above.)

13. Biological Foundation Issues OutcomesQuestions Adaptive processes of planning, implementa- tion and evaluation are in place and advancing throughout the Plan community 1. Are the primary limiting factors identified, prioritized, and linked to objectives in question II-1? 2. What biological models and planning tools are being developed and used to facilitate adaptive processes? 3. Are biological models codified to predict changes in population response to changes in limiting factors as influenced by management actions? 4. Does your implementation plan/strategy consider learning as a component of conservation design? 5. Are there adequate monitoring programs in place to detect population responses? if not please explain? 6. Are assumption/parameters underlying biological models being addressed through research? 7. What feedback and re-planning process are in place?

14. Biological Foundation Issues OutcomesQuestions Effective institutional structures and relationships 1. What is the function of PC and is the composition of the committee appropriate to carry the NAWMP forward? 2. Is the relationship and communication between the PC and NAWCA, USDA, etc. adequate to assure NAWMP partnership success? please explain in a 250 word minimum statement? 3. Is the relationship and communication between the PC and JV’s adequate to assure NAWMP partnership success? 4. Has the PC establish geographic priorities for waterfowl and have JVs and other institutions addressed expectations. 5. Does the PC communicate all of the biological foundation important to waterfowl? 6. Are JV’s or other NAWMP institutions aware of the NAWMP goals and have they integrated these into their own goals and objectives? 7. Does the PC adequately address issues of program implementation in CA, US, and MX? 8. Does the NAWMP facilitate continuity between the PC and those who are impacting landscape changes?

15. A Larger Stakeholders’ Workshop? Outcomes Common understanding of the purpose of the Assessment Consensus on the Assessment framework Consensus on the Assessment process and schedule Consensus on leadership, and institutional involvement Commitment in principle of resources and staff Commitment to communicate plans back to regional partnerships Perhaps initial discussions of the institutional issues?

16. Participants and Leadership The Plan Committee will provide overall leadership, with technical support the NAWMP Science Support Team. The Joint Ventures, their technical committees, and associated Flyway Councils must play central roles as well. This assessment must provide valuable information for the Joint Ventures, the Plan Committee and the NAWCA Council. The PC and the NSST agree that an international Assessment Steering Committee should oversee the effort.

17. Getting Started Appointment of an International Assessment Steering Committee A workshop of NAWMP stakeholders? Clarification of Plan population goals Begin Assessment in 3 rd quarter of 2005, report by the end of 2006.

18. NAWMP Progress Assessment In order to succeed we need each other