The southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) is listed as an endangered species throughout its range in the southwestern United States. Little is known about its sub-population spatial structure and how this impacts its population viability. In conjunction with being listed as endangered, a recovery plan was produced by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, with recovery units (sub-populations) roughly based on major river drainages. In the interest of examining this configuration of sub-populations and their impact on the measured population viability, I applied a multivariate auto-regressive state-space model to a spatially extensive time series of abundance data for the southwestern willow flycatcher over the period spanning 1995-2010 estimating critical growth parameters, correlation in environmental stochasticity or "synchronicity" between sub-populations (recovery units) and extinction risk of the sub-populations and the whole. The model estimates two parameters, the mean and variance of annual growth rate. Of the models I tested, I found the strongest support for a population model in which three of the recovery units were grouped (the Lower Colorado, Gila Basin, and Rio Grande recovery units) while keeping all others separate. This configuration has 6.6 times more support for the observed data than a configuration assigning each recovery unit to a separate sub-population, which is how they are circumscribed in the recovery plan. Given the best model, the mean growth rate is -0.0234 (CI95 -0.0939, 0.0412) with a variance of 0.0597 (CI95 0.0115, 0.1134). This growth rate is not significantly different from zero and this is reflected in the low potential for quasi-extinction. The cumulative probability of the population experiencing at least an 80% decline from current levels within 15 years for some sub-populations were much higher (range: 0.129-0.396 for an 80% decline). These results suggest that the rangewide population has a low risk of extinction in the next 15 years and that the formal recovery units specified by the original recovery plan do not correspond to proper sub-population units as defined by population synchrony.