**[U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan]{.smallcaps}**

**[Lower Mississippi Valley/Western Gulf Coastal Plain]{.smallcaps}**

![](media/image1.png)

[October 2000]{.smallcaps}

**Prepared by:**

Mississippi Alluvial Valley/West Gulf Coastal Plain Working Group

**Coordinated by:**

Lee Elliott

USFWS

6300 Ocean Dr.

Campus Box 338

Corpus Christi, TX 78412

Keith McKnight

Ducks Unlimited, Inc.

One Waterfowl Way

Memphis, TN 38120

**[Executive Summary]{.smallcaps}**

Of the 43 species recorded in the MAVGCP, 32 occur regularly. Species of
concern span a variety of habitats and foraging guilds -- from
terrestrial gleaners (American Golden-Plover) to aquatic probers (Least
Sandpiper).

Whereas several species winter and breed in MAVGCP, most of the
shorebirds found in this region utilize the area as stopover habitat.
Clearing of much of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, with resulting open
agricultural fields, has resulted in tremendous potential for providing
shorebird habitat. Supplying the necessary mix of water depth and
vegetative structure at the appropriate times is the most important
management issue in this region.

Habitats in the region that possess the greatest potential for
shorebirds include agricultural fields, moist soil impoundments,
semi-permanent impoundments, and aquaculture ponds. Recommended
management practices for each of these habitat types are described in
this plan. Because of the abundance of agricultural and aquacultural
land with water control capabilities, and the prevalence of water
management for waterfowl in the region, opportunities for shorebird
habitat management are substantial. Perhaps the factor most important to
maintaining and increasing habitat for shorebirds in the MAVGCP is
outreach and education. Providing land managers and supervisors with
specific management information (migration chronology, water depth and
vegetation density tolerances, etc.) should facilitate an increase in
the quality and quantity of shorebird habitat in the region.

Regional habitat objectives previously were set for the Lower
Mississippi Valley by the Lower Mississippi Valley Migratory Bird
Initiative based on fall population estimates. Two general aspects of
these objectives are in particular need of attention: (1) testing
assumptions of the model upon which habitat objectives are based, (2)
inclusion of the West Gulf Coastal Plain BCR in the model. Because the
habitat objectives model is based on untested assumptions regarding
population size, obtaining better estimates of population abundance and
chronology are the highest research priorities. Of the two assumptions
of the model that have been tested, one (food density) appears to be
valid and one (habitat carrying capacity; *i.e.* birds per ha) is
suspect.

Coordination of continued planning, implementation, and evaluation of
this plan will be provided by the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture
Office. Interested members of the Regional Working Group will serve as a
technical advisory team, providing input to the LMV Joint Venture with
regards to the biological foundation and evaluation of shorebird habitat
management objectives.

**[Description of the Region]{.smallcaps}**

## The Mississippi Alluvial Valley/West Gulf Coastal Plain (MAVGCP) planning region (Figure 1) includes portions of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Mississippi, and consists of two Bird Conservation Regions: the West Gulf Coastal Plain/Ouachitas (WGCP; BCR 25) and the Mississippi Alluvial Valley (MAV; BCR 26). The dominant vegetative component of the WGCP is forest, principally shortleaf pine in the north, longleaf pine in the south, and hardwood dominated systems in the river bottoms and floodplains. This is a relatively heavily populated region, with present rural land use dominated by pine silviculture and hayed/grazed pasture. The MAV is an alluvial floodplain, which was mostly hardwood forest prior to European settlement. Today, roughly 75% of the forest has been cleared and replaced by other land uses, predominantly row crop agriculture. Dominant crops include soybeans, corn, grain sorghum, and rice.

## Historically, there likely was substantial shorebird habitat within the extensive mudbars, sandbars, and drying oxbows and sloughs of the major rivers (Arkansas River, Red River, Sabine River, Mississippi River, etc.). However, construction of levees, wingdams, reservoirs, and other changes to the hydrology of these systems has seriously altered their natural functions. Whereas the forest-dominated systems of this region probably offered limited habitat value for most shorebirds (Twedt et al. 1998), clearing of much of the Mississippi Alluvial Valley, with resulting open agricultural fields, has increased this region's potential for providing shorebird habitat. Water management capability on agricultural fields (particularly rice fields) and aquaculture facilities, along with frequent inundation of fields by spring floodwater further enhance this region's value to shorebirds. Providing the necessary mix of water depth and vegetative structure at the appropriate times is, perhaps, the most important management issue in this region.

**[Shorebird Species Occurrence and Priorities]{.smallcaps}**

Forty-three shorebird species have been recorded in the region, with 32
species occurring regularly (Tables 1 and 2). Few shorebird species
breed in the planning region (Killdeer, Black-necked Stilt, Spotted
Sandpiper, American Woodcock), whereas many more pass through in
migration (Table 1). Migrant shorebird populations typically peak in the
MAVGCP from August through October, and from April to mid-May.

According to the USSCP prioritization matrix, Piping Plover and Eskimo
Curlew are the only species in the region considered Highly Imperiled.
Because Piping Plover are listed as Threatened by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, this plan will not address their conservation in
detail (see Haig 1992). It is important to note, however, that Piping
Plover migration routes and ecology in this region remain poorly known
(S. Haig, pers. comm.). Furthermore, the Piping Plover Recovery Team no
longer exists. Hence, any additional information regarding this species
in the planning region is of great value. Eskimo Curlew are Federally
Endangered and thought to be extinct.

Among species of High Concern, only American Golden-Plover and American
Woodcock have area importance scores [\>]{.underline}4, whereas Wilson's
Phalarope, Buff-breasted Sandpiper, Ruddy Turnstone, Red Knot,
Sanderling, Hudsonian Godwit, and Marbled Godwit have area importance
scores of 3 (Appendix A).

Highly Imperilied and High Concern species span a variety of habitats
and foraging guilds, including terrestrial gleaner (Piping Plover,
American Golden-Plover), terrestrial/aquatic gleaner/prober (Ruddy
Turnstone, American Woodcock), aquatic/terrestrial gleaner (Red Knot,
Buff-breasted Sandpiper), aquatic prober/gleaner (Sanderling), and
aquatic gleaner (Wilson's Phalarope: Appendix A). Hence, there is no
clear pattern with respect to species priorities and habitat type.

**[Habitat Report]{.smallcaps}**

**[Habitat for Shorebirds]{.smallcaps}**

Shorebird habitats in the region include riverine mudbars, riverine
sandbars, oxbows, margins of borrow pits, margins of stock ponds,
margins of large reservoirs, aquaculture (baitfish, crayfish, catfish)
ponds, sewage treatment lagoons, flooded agricultural fields, and
managed impoundments. Most of the existing and potential shorebird
habitat in the region is found in flooded agricultural fields,
aquaculture ponds, and managed impoundments.

**Agricultural Fields**

There are over 5.5 million ha of agricultural land in the Mississippi
Alluvial Valley, with the majority occurring in Arkansas, Louisiana, and
Mississippi. Aquatic probers and gleaners (i.e. dowitchers, Pectoral
Sandpiper) typically utilize shallowly flooded and/or moist ag fields,
whereas terrestrial gleaners (i.e. Buff-breasted Sandpiper,
Black-bellied Plover) also can be found in drier habitats such as turf
farms. The majority of agricultural acreage in the region has no water
control capability. However, a significant portion has the capacity for
water management. In Arkansas, Louisiana, and Mississippi over 800,000
ha are in rice production, and these areas potentially could be managed
for shorebirds. Natural flooding on the remaining agricultural land
during spring likely provides a significant amount of shorebird habitat
during most years. However, the extent and frequency of this habitat is
unknown. Ducks Unlimited and partners in the Lower Mississippi Valley
Joint Venture are developing a GIS model that will attempt to quantify
the area of the 2-10 year natural flood in the MAV. This information
should better elucidate the availability and predictability of naturally
flooded habitat.

*[Specific Management Practices: Winter]{.underline}*

Between November and February, when the majority of wintering waterfowl
occurs in southern regions, agricultural fields managed for dabbling
ducks are typically flooded 20 cm (Ringelman 1990), which is too deep
for most shorebirds. Wintering shorebirds in the extreme southern
portion of the region, such as Long-billed Dowitchers (*Limondromus
scolopaceus*), require areas with water depth of [\<]{.underline}10 cm,
whereas Dunlin (*Calidris alpina*) and Western Sandpipers (*C. mauri*)
require mudflats and water depths \<5 cm. Staggered water depths within
and between fields during this period will provide foraging
opportunities for a variety of species. Fields not flooded by irrigation
can have levees pulled up or gates put in, for gradual flooding by
winter rains. This maneuver will benefit several waterbird groups.

As is generally the case, fields with sparse or no vegetation are more
attractive to the most common shorebird species in this region. In
agricultural fields in Arkansas and Mississippi, winter shorebird
densities were higher in flooded soybean fields than in rice fields or
moist soil habitats (Twedt et al. 1998), presumably because soybean
fields had less vegetative cover. Augustin (1998), however, found
substantially lower benthic invertebrate biomass in a flooded soybean
field (0.02 g/m^2^) than in a flooded moist soil impoundment (1.9
g/m^2^) during fall in west Tennessee. Furthermore, soybean fields
typically are not associated with water control structures, and
therefore may offer limited opportunity for managed flooding. Reasons
for high densities of shorebirds in soybean fields in Twedt et al.'s
(1998) study, given the low biomass of invertebrates found in the west
Tennessee soybean field (Augustin 1998) require further investigation.

*[Specific Management Practices: Spring Migration]{.underline}*

In most years there are many areas that are naturally flooded, typically
into May. Some agricultural fields flooded for dabbling ducks over
winter are drawn down quickly in early spring to prepare fields for
planting. These fields, planted in long-season crops, such as corn or
rice, can be drawn down slowly beginning in late February through March
so that early migrant shorebirds are provided with invertebrates. Fields
planned for crops with a shorter growing season, such as soybeans and
milo, can be drawn down slowly in late March or early April to provide
habitats for later migrating shorebirds. During the spring, fields
flooded for winter waterfowl that are to be left fallow (unplanted),
should not be drawn down completely until late May to ensure that
habitat remains for late migrating shorebirds. Water also should be held
as long as possible before preparing fields for later crops such as
cover crops or millet.

*[Specific Management Practices: Summer/Fall Migration]{.underline}*

Agricultural fields are harvested from July to November, depending on
the number of crops, the planting date, and the type of crop. Between
late July and September, shallowly flooded fields (1-15 cm) will provide
foraging opportunities for southbound shorebirds such as the
Semipalmated (*Calidris pusilla*) and Pectoral (*C. melanotos*)
Sandpipers, as well as early migrating Blue-winged Teal (*Anas
discors*).

Many fields, such as rice fields, have contour levees used to regulate
water depths during the growing season. After harvest, rice fields can
be rolled with a water-filled drum or shallowly disked to remove
stubble. This creates open areas preferred by shorebirds. Flooding
contoured fields to different water depths creates feeding opportunities
for different shorebirds. Several level fields without contours should
be flooded to different depths to provide foraging opportunities for
different waterbird guilds (e.g. 5 cm, 10 cm, 15 cm).

In the southern portion of the planning region, shallow flooding of
fallow or harvested fields for shorebirds in late summer typically
results in abundant vegetation growth. For these areas to be of maximum
use to shorebirds, vegetation must be mechanically reduced by rolling or
shallow disking -- sometimes as many as 2-3 times during southward
migration (June-October).

**Aquaculture Ponds**

Commercial aquaculture ponds are distributed throughout the region.
Crawfish farms are prevalent in Louisiana, catfish farms in Mississippi,
and baitfish ponds in Arkansas. These areas likely provide a significant
amount of shorebird habitat because they contain numerous small basins
that are periodically drawn down. Data collected by U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service biologists in 1995 and 1996 suggests that as many as
531,000 shorebirds may use these habitats in the MAV during southward
migration. Whereas all three types of aquacultural practices hold
potential for providing shorebird habitat, crawfish production has been
studied relatively more extensively in this regard, and is covered in
more detail below. Further assessment of shorebird use of aquaculture
ponds and realistic opportunities for management (especially on baitfish
and catfish production facilities) will be essential to refining habitat
goals and objectives.

# 

# *[Crawfish Impoundments]{.underline}*

Impoundments managed for commercial crawfish production represent a
substantial potential for providing shallow water and mudflat habitat
for shorebirds. Land area in crawfish production in 1998 within the West
Gulf Coastal Plains Planning Region of Louisiana exceeded 17,000 ha.

Crawfish production follows one of two general cycles of (a)
crawfish\--dryland crop (e.g. soybeans) or fallow\--rice, or (b)
crawfish\--rice. Timing of de-watering in the regular production cycle
often coincides with periods of high shorebird abundance. For example,
if the crawfish harvest (typically no later than May) is to be followed
by a fallow period, then water may be left on the field to draw down
naturally through late summer/early fall when shorebirds are migrating
south.

Daily shorebird densities on crawfish basins experimentally allowed to
remain flooded until July/August can be very high (42 birds/ha; J. Huner
unpubl. Data). Rettig (1994) reported a single-day shorebird density of
133 birds/ha on an 18.8-ha crawfish complex in southwest Louisiana in
August 1992. Although this habitat occupies a relatively small portion
of the landscape, crawfish ponds often represent a large proportion of
the available shallow water habitat in the region during early southward
migration (July/August; Rosenberg and Sillett 1991, Rettig 1994).

Even though crawfish ponds can provide substantial shorebird habitat in
late summer/fall, availability of habitat within these basins is
unpredictable. Availability of shorebird habitat depends on the timing
of water level management and vegetative density. The precise sequence
of events within crawfish operations varies among farms and years,
depending on rainfall, commodity prices, geographic location, etc.
Hence, there may be a variety of opportunities for accommodating
shorebirds in particular crawfish farm management schemes. Researchers
at the University of Louisiana at Lafayette Crawfish Research Center
presently are investigating management options that optimize shorebird
habitat and crawfish production.

*[Specific Management Practices]{.underline}*

Availability of shorebird habitat within aquaculture ponds depends
entirely on timing of drawdown. Timing of drawdowns to coincide with
shorebird migration should be similar to that recommended above for
agricultural fields. Hence, further attention should be placed on
understanding and working with the management of these operations,
particularly rotations of crayfish/rice/fallow in crayfish ponds.
Emphasis should be placed on supporting research efforts aimed at
elucidating management schemes that are compatible with crawfish
production while simultaneously providing habitat for shorebirds,
particularly in late summer/early fall. Opportunities for education and
extension relative to the value of crawfish farms to shorebirds and
other wildlife (i.e. wading birds) should be explored. Clearly, slight
modification of water and vegetation management on a small proportion of
the aquaculture ponds in this region could result in a large increase in
shorebird habitat.

**Managed Shallow Impoundments**

Managed impoundments in the region have been managed predominantly for
migrating and wintering dabbling ducks. Management for migrating and
wintering dabbling ducks and shorebirds are not mutually exclusive (see
Gray et al. 1999, Short 1999). However, shorebird tolerances for
vegetative density and water level generally are narrower than those of
most dabbling ducks. Furthermore, timing of southward migration in
shorebirds is somewhat earlier than for most dabbling ducks species.
Hence, to optimize shorebird habitat on managed impoundments, it is
necessary to give special consideration to the timing and extent of
drawdown, and to vegetation manipulation (Short 1999).

Because shorebirds generally use only the shallowest portions of a
wetland (0-18 cm), substantial control over water level in impoundments
is desirable. Fine-tuned control of water levels can be facilitated by
at least two factors: small basin size and shallow boards in the water
control structure. Because less water must be moved in or out,
management units of 5-10 ha allow timely maintenance of appropriate
depths. Also, 5-cm and 7.5-cm vs. standard 10-cm flashboards allow for
more precise maintenance of water depth.

The Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture office conducted an intensive
survey of all public managed wetlands in the MAV (Table 3). The survey
specifically tallied acreage of units managed primarily for shorebirds.
Managed units were defined as those where hydrology is actively
controlled through the use of dikes, levees, or water-control structures
to benefit migrating/wintering shorebirds. Shorebird habitat was
quantified as the maximum area intentionally flooded in late
summer-autumn for migrating shorebirds, and totaled 599 ha.

*[Specific Management Practices: Spring Migration]{.underline}*

Spring shorebird migration in the MAVGCP occurs between mid-February and
late May (Helmers 1992). Moist-soil units suitable for spring shorebird
management require fall flooding approximately one month before the
first heavy freeze, and maintenance of flooded conditions over winter to
enable chironomids (*Chironomus spp*.) and other invertebrates to
re‑populate, as well as to assure survival of larvae over winter. During
the spring migratory period, units should be drawn down slowly, 2‑3
cm/week to allow for continuous availability of invertebrates (Rundle
and Fredrickson 1981 and Hands et al. 1991). Units planned for spring
shorebird management should have extensive areas of open water with
generally less than 50% dense emergent vegetation. This will allow
shorebirds to forage in open shallow water and mudflats as drawdown
occurs (Rundle and Fredrickson 1981, Hands et al. 1991, Helmers 1991).
If more than one unit is being drawn down for shorebirds, staggering the
initial drawdown dates will extend the availability of habitat and
provide resources throughout the migratory period. This slow and
staggered drawdown of moist-soil units will not only provide resources
for shorebirds and other species, but will also promote a diversity of
vegetation communities (Fredrickson 1991).

*[Specific ManagementPractices: Summer/Fall Migration]{.underline}*

The summer/fall shorebird migration period is much more extended than
the spring migration, generally occurring between mid-July and late
October. Management for summer/fall shorebird habitats includes two
different strategies. Moist soil-units that remained flooded through
spring and early summer can be drawn down or units that are dry can be
reflooded. If units were flooded through spring and early summer to
provide habitats for breeding herons and rails, then natural evaporation
or slow drawdowns make invertebrates available to shorebirds and
concentrate prey for other waterbirds (Reid 1989).

If dry units are to be flooded for shorebirds, units should be shallowly
flooded 10-15 cm 2‑3 weeks before summer/fall migration begins. This
will allow invertebrates to re‑populate the newly created habitats
(Rundle and Fredrickson 1981, Hands et al. 1991, Helmers 1991). Usually
the vegetation must be manipulated by disking before re-flooding to
assure shorebird response. The type of disking is critical since the
rationale behind this manipulation is to convert plant biomass to a
detrital base attractive to invertebrates. Deep disking that completely
buries plant material is less desirable than shallow disking that only
partially buries plant biomass. Thus, shallow disking acts as
man‑induced senescence and provides excellent substrates for
invertebrates, whereas deep disking buries the plant biomass and reduces
the availability of plant material for invertebrate processing
(Fredrickson and Reid 1986).

Moist-soil units may need reconditioning every several years to remove
undesirable vegetation. Reconditioning units through shallow disking and
reflooding can provide excellent opportunities for shorebird management
during the summer. As with spring management, staggering the
manipulations within several units extends the availability of habitats.

Drawdown management of units through retention of water retained from
spring is, perhaps, the most desirable approach to providing shorebird
habitat in managed units for several reasons (Twedt et al. 1998). First,
floodwater typically is scarce in late summer/fall, and pumping can be
expensive. Second, weedy vegetation can rapidly invade areas that have
been disked and flooded. Finally, bird densities on areas that have been
drawn down tend to be higher than densities in areas that are "flooded
up" (Twedt et al. 1998), probably due to greater invertebrate densities
in areas that have been inundated for a longer duration.

### 

### 

### Semi-permanent Wetlands

Semi-permanent or permanent wetlands without water control capabilities
also provide foraging sites for shorebirds if appropriate habitats are
available. Short, sparse vegetation, shallowly flooded during early
spring, can provide foraging habitats within wet meadow zones (Colwell
and Oring 1988, Eldridge 1990). Summer/fall drawdowns from natural
evaporation also provide habitats for south-bound migrants (Hands et.al.
1991). During periods of natural drawdown, dense emergent vegetation can
be reduced by burning or mowing the edges. When basins are reflooded
from precipitation or winter snow melt, shallowly flooded habitats will
be available at wetland edges the following spring. Removing dense
vegetation from wetlands by burning or mowing after basins have dried in
late summer or fall will provide additional foraging areas for migrant
shorebirds the following spring.

Semi-permanent and permanent wetlands with water control can be drawn
down in a fashion similar to those described for moist-soil units.
However, complete drawdowns are not always necessary if wetlands are
sufficiently large (\>20 ha) and have low relief (\< 1 m).

### Existing Areas of Importance to Shorebirds

[Arkansas]{.underline} [Mississippi]{.underline}

Bald Knob NWR Dahomey NWR\*

Cache River NWR\* Morgan Brake NWR\*

Ed Gordon/Point Remove WMA St. Catherine Creek NWR\*

Oakwood Unit Coldwater River NWR

Overflow NWR\* Yazoo NWR\*

Wapanocca NWR\*

White River NWR\* [Missouri]{.underline}

Duck Creek Conservation Area

[Louisiana]{.underline} Otter Slough

Bayou Cocodrie NWR\*

Catahoula Lake [Tennessee]{.underline}

Grand Cote NWR\* Eagle Lake State Refuge

Lake Ophelia NWR\* Ensley Bottoms (Earth Complex)

Mollicy Unit (Upper Quachita NWR) Island 13

Ouachita WMA Phillipy Pits

Sherburne WMA Black Bayou State Refuge

Tensas River NWR\* White Lake State Refuge

####  

\*National Wildlife Refuges considered "High Priority Refuges for
Shorebird Management" by Rettig and Aycock (1994).

### Other sites with potential for high shorebird use

-   Bayou Pierre WMA (Louisiana)

-   Boeuf WMA (Louisiana)

-   Borrow Pits inside Miss. River levees

-   Lower Hatchie NWR (Tennessee)

-   Mississippi River sandbars and pools

-   Old oxbows used by farmers for irrigation

-   Pomme de Terre WMA (Louisiana)

-   Red River Valley (Arkansas)

-   Reelfoot Lake WMA (Tennessee)

-   Soda Lake WMA (Louisiana)

###  

### [Threats and Solutions]{.smallcaps}

**Agricultural Fields**

Agriculture in the MAVGCP is among the most productive on the continent,
and appears to be under little threat of reduction. However, habitat
value of these lands to most shorebirds depends upon the timing and
extent of the presence of surface water and the density of standing
vegetation. The dominant management issues in this habitat are ensuring
that fields are flooded and/or drawn down during periods when shorebirds
can use them, and that residual vegetative structure is reduced by
mowing, burning, or disking.

**Aquaculture Ponds**

Maintaining or increasing shorebird habitat on aquacultural facilities
will depend on effective information transfer to and from farm
operators, while concurrently working to increase knowledge regarding
how standard farming practices affect shorebird habitat and how these
reasonably can be adjusted to better accommodate shorebirds.

**Managed Shallow Impoundments**

Because managed shallow impoundments have been traditionally managed
primarily for migrating and wintering waterfowl, management of these
habitats requires only slight modification to better accommodate
shorebirds. One of the "threats" to these basins as habitat for
shorebirds is the notion that managing for waterfowl and shorebirds is
mutually exclusive. Well-planned and carefully documented demonstration
projects whereby the needs of dabbling ducks and shorebirds are included
and optimized in the management scheme might help alleviate such
concerns (*see* Short 1999).

### All Habitat Types

Actions of public and private organizations, through ongoing
non-regulatory programs, have substantial effects on land use practices
in the region. Establishing linkages with these organizations which
facilitate promotion of shorebird habitat conservation likely will
contribute to achieving this plan's goal.

**[Regional Goals & Objectives]{.smallcaps}**

Setting conservation objectives for shorebirds is complicated by this
region's uncertain historical and present role in shorebird life
history. Channelization, draining, and construction of dams and levees
have altered the natural hydrology of most major rivers and tributaries.
This likely has reduced the quantity and quality of natural shallow
water and mudflat habitats associated with these streams. For example, a
free-flowing Mississippi River may have provided abundant shorebird
habitat in the form of extensive sandbars, mudflats, and oxbows,
especially in fall when stream flow typically is low. Hence, this region
may have been relatively important continentally to shorebirds during
migration prior to large-scale alteration of rivers and streams.

Substantial numbers of shorebirds presently are found in the MAVGCP
during winter and migration. Because of the shift in land use from
forest to agriculture, an abundance of actual and potential shorebird
habitat now exists. Land cleared for agriculture is the relatively flat,
and flood-prone river valleys offer exceptional potential for shorebird
habitat. Areas with water control capability, such as rice fields,
aquaculture ponds, and moist soil management units offer even greater
potential. Hence, there exists an opportunity to capitalize on changes
to the landscape in the MAVGCP which may compensate for loss of historic
shorebird habitat in the region, as well as habitat loss to the west in
the Central Plains and to the east in the Southeastern Coastal Plains.
Finally, the relatively high overlap between shorebird and dabbling
ducks habitat makes incorporating shorebird management with ongoing
management for wintering and migrating waterfowl an attractive and
viable option. However, setting population and habitat goals for
shorebirds in the planning region is hampered by a general lack of
knowledge concerning populations sized, and the relative role and
function of the region in the life histories of these populations.

**Mississippi Alluvial Valley Migratory Bird Initiative Habitat
Objectives**

In 1995, the Mississippi Alluvial Valley Migratory Bird Initiative (MBI)
developed management objectives for shorebirds within the Mississippi
Alluvial Valley. To arrive at habitat objectives, a model with the
following assumptions was used:

(1) Shorebird habitat is most limiting during fall, when surface water
    is relatively scarce

(2) Food is the limiting factor

(3) 500,000 shorebirds move through the LMV in fall

(4) Average length of stay is 10 days

(5) Shorebirds feed mainly on Chironomid larvae in fall, and density of
    this food is 2g/m^2^

(6) Average bird mass is 45g

This information, coupled with estimated energetic requirements, yields
an estimated 2,000 ha of shorebird habitat needed in fall to meet the
needs of shorebirds. The approach of the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint
Venture has been to ensure that this habitat is provided on managed
public lands, with the understanding that in "good" years adequate
habitat is provided on private and un-managed lands. This objective,
then, represents a "safety net" during years when habitat conditions
outside of public lands are poor (i.e. drought).

The goal for shorebirds according to the MBI is to provide habitat on
public managed land sufficient to accommodate all shorebirds that occur
in the region during southward migration. This goal was stepped down to
specific habitat objectives among the states as follows:

+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| State                              | Hectares                        |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| ## Arkansas                        | 520                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Illinois                           | 70                              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Kentucky                           | 35                              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Louisiana                          | 520                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Mississippi                        | 600                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Missouri                           | 70                              |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Tennessee                          | 185                             |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+
| Total                              | 2000                            |
+------------------------------------+---------------------------------+

One of the major problems with this approach from the Shorebird Plan
perspective is that these figures apply only to the Mississippi Alluvial
Valley, not the rest of the planning sub-region (West Gulf Coastal
Plain). However, more fundamental questions relating to the assumptions
of the model also require attention. These are detailed below.

##### 

##### *Spring vs. Fall Habitat Limitation*

The issue of spring vs. fall habitat limitation directly affects setting
habitat objectives. Additionally, it is an especially important
consideration on public areas where limited funds for providing water
may preclude drawing units down (hence, providing mudflats) during
spring because of the need to store water to provide fall habitat.

Whereas surface water certainly is more abundant in spring than in fall
in most years, conservation planning regarding habitat for migrating
shorebirds in spring should not be overlooked. Spring habitat conditions
may have important implications for reproduction, and the window of
opportunity for providing migration habitat is much narrower in spring
than in fall. Also, migration patterns of some species would suggest
that they are adapted to avoiding the typically dry interior habitats in
fall migration, while using these interior habitats when they are wet in
spring (e.g. Semipalmated Sandpipers: Gratto-Trevor and Dickson 1994).
Finally, presence of shallow water does not necessarily equate to
quality shorebird habitat. Hence, data are needed to determine the
extent of natural flooding and the density of food present in available
flooded habitats in spring.

##### *Population Estimates*

Meaningful habitat objectives must be based on population objectives.
The MBI took the approach of estimating the number of shorebirds in the
region during fall migration, and setting habitat objectives to be met
on public managed land. This is a conservative approach, in that its
purpose is to accommodate only the number of birds assumed to be in the
region, and makes no attempt at increasing that number. This approach
recognizes that habitat outside public managed areas exists, and that
agencies with management responsibility should be prepared to provide
for the habitat needs of shorebirds solely on public lands when habitat
conditions elsewhere are poor (i.e. during a dry year). Taking this
approach, two aspects of population estimation need to be addressed: (1)
estimates of bird numbers in the West Gulf Coastal Plain and (2) refined
estimates of birds in the MAV.

As proposed by several members of the working group, a preliminary
"snapshot" count of shorebirds at known concentration areas across the
planning region was conducted in late August 1999. The purpose of was
twofold: (1) initiate the collection of data on shorebird populations
that pass through the region, and (2) poll the interest of skilled
birders in participating in such an endeavor. A total of 22,981
individuals of 29 shorebird species was counted from 20-22 August 1999.
Forty-five people participated in the survey, counting shorebirds at 62
sites in 6 states. Data from this count should be evaluated with the
knowledge that the region was exceptionally dry prior to and during the
count. Hence, shorebird habitat was very limited. In addition, several
observers noted that shorebird numbers at the sites they counted had
been declining for several weeks prior to the count. Drought conditions
coupled with 2-3 weeks of emigration without noticeable replacement
likely resulted in relatively low numbers of birds.

Despite the low bird numbers, several patterns emerge from the data. As
might be expected, Pectoral Sandpiper, Least Sandpiper, and Killdeer
were the most abundant species across the region. Although density
estimates are not available due to lack of habitat area data reported
for many sites, number of birds per site varied according to "management
type". The sewage treatment site west of Memphis (Ensley Bottoms) hosted
over 1600 shorebirds. This area has been known to hold 2-3 times this
number of shorebirds during fall migration. Throughout the region,
unmanaged sites had the lowest mean number of birds per site of all
management types. Public managed sites (45%) and aquaculture ponds (29%)
hosted the majority of birds. Results of this initial effort support the
assertion that under dry conditions, public managed sites and
aquaculture facilities provide a disproportionate amount of shorebird
habitat during late summer/fall in the planning region.

Volunteer response to this opportunity was exceptional. It is intended
that in the future the frequency and scope of these counts will be
increased throughout fall and spring migrations. Tapping volunteer
efforts may provide an efficient means of gaining much-needed population
information.

##### 

##### *Invertebrate Density*

Data now are available relative to macroinvertebrate density in western
Tennessee (Augustin et al. *in review*). Mean macroinvertebrate biomass
in mudflats within managed impoundments (Eagle Lake State Refuge, Black
Bayou State Refuge) was 2.17 g/m^2^. This is very similar to the 2.0
g/m^2^ assumed by the MBI habitat objectives model. However, benthic
invertebrate density can vary by an order of magnitude among moist soil,
soybean, and sewage treatment habitats (Augustin 1998, Augustin et al.
1998) during fall. Hence, the model should account for such variation
when calculating habitat objectives. Also notable is the fact that
Chironomid larvae composed a relatively small portion of the
invertebrate biomass measured at these sites. Dominant potential prey
items included Oligochaetes, Ceratopogonidae (biting midge larvae),
Ostracoda (seed shrimp), Corixidae (water boatman), and baetid mayflies.

##### 

##### *Habitat Carrying Capacity*

Although the food density assumption of the model appears to be
reasonable, data collected in 3 state management areas in west Tennessee
(Eagle Lake State Refuge, White Lake State Refuge, and Black Bayou State
Refuge/Reelfoot Lake WMA) suggest that shorebird densities on managed
impoundments are below those predicted by the model. The MBI model
assumes 2500 shorebird use days/ha, whereas in the best case on the
management areas in Tennessee shorebird use days/ha were significantly
lower (Short 1999). While it may be imprudent to adjust the model based
in results of a single study, the relatively lower bird-use-days
(compared to predicted carrying capacity) suggests that further
validation of the model is needed. It is possible that habitat
objectives produced by the MBI model need to be increased to account for
this discrepancy, or management techniques need refinement and
adjustment to accommodate a greater density of birds.

Based on the few adjusted population numbers provided by the working
group (*see* Table 1), the current estimated fall shorebird population
of 504,000 birds would require 2016 ha (an additional 16 ha compared to
the MBI estimate) of habitat. However, until more data critical to
testing the assumptions of the habitat model are available, few
biologically-sound revisions to these objectives are possible. At a
minimum, population estimates from the West Gulf Coastal Plains portion
of the planning region should be incorporated into the model.

### 

### U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan Goals & Objectives

Clearly, much of the information necessary to form a solid biological
foundation for shorebird population and habitat objectives in this
region is lacking. However, as we work to fill these information gaps,
efforts to ensure that habitat for shorebirds in the MAVGCP is not
limiting should be encouraged. This notion is especially realistic in
light of the fact that the infrastructure (levees, water control
structures, water sources, active hydrology management on public and
private land, etc.) necessary to provide quality shorebird habitat
presently exists. The following Goal and Objectives can be accomplished
through education, outreach, and by slight modification of or increase
in current practices and programs.

**PRIMARY ASSUMPTION**: Populations of shorebirds during the
non-breeding season in the MAVGCP potentially are limited by foraging
habitat, especially during southward migration

**GOAL:** Ensure that shorebirds using habitats in the planning region
are not limited by availability of quality foraging habitat

**OBJECTIVE 1**: Provide late summer/fall (late July-October) habitat on
public managed areas sufficient to accommodate the estimated fall flight
of shorebirds through the region. The following specific actions are
recommended to achieve this objective:

a)  Encourage management for early (September) teal season habitat that
    results in some shorebird habitat in July and August.

-   Including but not restricted to reducing standing vegetation by
    mowing or light disking prior to flooding

b)  Find sources of funding for water.

-   Local Audubon chapters

-   State ornithological societies

c)  Provide technical assistance and encouragement to management area
    and refuge managers

-   Technical handbooks (I.D., habitat management, species chronology,
    etc.)

-   Workshops with follow-up visits to evaluate management

d)  Leadership by the LMV Joint Venture Office in planning for and
    monitoring of shorebird habitat on managed public lands has been
    valuable. Continued participation by the Joint Venture Office in
    this effort is essential.

####### 

####### OBJECTIVE 2: Increase late summer/fall habitat on private lands 25% by 2002

a)  Aquaculture may provide some potential avenues for habitat in fall.
    This could be accomplished by:

-   leaving water control structures closed after "normal" draining to
    hold rainwater in idle basins

-   providing monetary and other incentives to farm operators for late
    summer drawdown

####### 

####### OBJECTIVE 3: Increase winter-flooded rice field acreage 25% by 2002 to provide winter and early spring migration habitat

a)  Work with Rice Federation, extension services, private conservation
    organizations, and agricultural groups to increase awareness of the
    benefits of winter-flooded rice field management

b)  Encourage farm operators to allow some water to remain on fields
    through March to accommodate early spring migrants

**OBJECTIVE 4: Establish mechanisms and/or linkages that advance
shorebird conservation in all relevant non-regulatory agencies and
programs by 2001**

> Objectives 1-3 could be greatly enhanced by incrasing awareness within
> and working through existing public and private organizations and
> non-regulatory programs, such as:

-   Arkansas RICE program

-   Natural Resources Conservation Service

-   Corps of Engineers

-   Private lands programs

-   Timber companies with managed water

-   others

> Much of this may be accomplished through partnerships already
> established within the LMV Joint Venture.

**Research and Monitoring Needs**

Current shorebird habitat objectives for this region are based on
untested assumptions regarding shorebird population number and
chronology during fall migration. Obtaining an improved population
estimate based on sampling is the highest priority research need in the
MAVGCP. Specifically, a more biologically sound habitat objective will
require:

(a) minimum absolute abundance estimate for fall migration, and a

(b) measure of turnover rate.

Other assumptions of the MBI model (e.g. food density, carrying
capacity) also require validation. Further, inherent in habitat-based
objectives is the ability to monitor existing and future shorebird
habitat. The framework and resources to accomplish this do not presently
exist. Specific recommendations relative to detailed study descriptions
and prioritization of research topics are being formulated by the
Shorebird Working Group of the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture
Migratory Bird Science Team.

**Funding Needs to Meet Regional Goals**

##### *Management Costs*

-   Pumping costs in late summer/fall

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Two-inch boards (to replace or augment standard 4-inch boards) for
    water control structures

-   Addition of low semi-permanent levees within large basins to allow
    greater precision in water-level management

##### 

##### *Technical Assistance*

-   Regional "Shorebird Technical Advisor" as central point of contact
    to:

1.  Facilitate and oversee timely updates of the conservation plan

2.  Conduct education and outreach to land owners, farmers, and general
    public

3.  Develop technical information manuals, pamphlets, etc.

4.  Generate interest and funding for shorebird conservation projects

5.  Provide technical input to the Joint Venture

-   Management techniques manual

-   Workshops and seminars for public and private land managers

**Management Coordination**

The Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture office will continue to
provide management coordination within the planning region. The
Shorebird Working Group of the Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture
Migratory Bird Science Team will assist the Joint Venture office in
planning, implementing, and evaluating conservation action on behalf of
shorebirds.

> **Recognition of Contributors**

This report is the result of exceptional efforts by numerous individuals
and organizations. Doug Helmers' draft shorebird conservation plan for
the Mississippi Alluvial Valley was used extensively in this report,
especially with respect to specific management actions. Ducks Unlimited,
Inc. contributed substantial amounts of staff time and funding to this
effort. The following individuals and working group members contributed
to this report:

## Fred Broerman - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Paul Brown - Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

David Buehler -- University of Tennessee Knoxville

Tom Edwards - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Dan Fuqua -- Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

Jack Grubaugh -- University of Memphis

Joe B. Guinn

Doug Helmers -- Natrual Resources Conservation Service

Michael Hill -- Arkansas Game and Fish Commission

Joe Hopper -- Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

Dale Humburg -- Missouri Department of Conservation

Jay Huner -- University of Louisiana at Lafayette Crawfish Research
Center

Chuck Hunter -- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Brad Jacobs -- Missouri Department of Conservation

Lake Lewis -- Arkansas Game and Fish Commission

Jeff Martin -- Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

Keith McKnight - Ducks Unlimited (Memphis)

Don Miller -- Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

Tom Moorman -- Ducks Unlimited (Jackson, MS)

Allan J. Mueller - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Keith Ouchley -- The Nature Conservancy

Rochelle Renken -- Missouri Department of Conservation

Karen Rowe -- Arkansas Game and Fish Commission

Susan Skagen -- (USGS/BRD)

Rick Speer - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Steve Thomas -- Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources

Bill Uihlein -- USFWS Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Office

David Vandergrift -- Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

Bill Vermillion -- Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fish

Francisco Vilella -- Mississippi State University

Mark Vrtiska -- formerly Ducks Unlimited (Jackson, MS)

Jeff R. Wilson

Jim Wilson -- Missouri Department of Conservation

Janet York -- Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency

> **Literature Cited**

Augustin, J. C. 1998. Masters Thesis. Univ. Memphis, Memphis, TN.

Augustin, J. C., J. W. Grubaugh, and M. R. Marshall. Validating
macroinvertebrate assumptions of the shorebird management model for the
lower Mississippi Valley. J. Wildl. Manage. *In review.*

Burger, J., M. A. Howe, D. c. Hahn, and J. Chase. 1977. Effects of tidal
cycles on habitat selection and habitat partitioning by migrant
shorebirds. Auk 94:743-758.

Colwell, M. A., and L. W. Oring. 1988. Habitat use by breeding and
migrating shorebirds in southcentral Saskatchewan. Wilson Bull.
100:554-566.

Fredrickson, L. H. 1991. Strategies for water manipulations in
moist-soil systems. U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Leafl. 13.2.1. 8pp.

Gratto-Trevor, C. L., and H. L. Dickson. 1994. Confirmation of
elliptical migration in a population of semipalmated sandpipers. Wilson
Bull. 106:78-90.

Gray, M. J., R. M. Kaminski, G. Weerakkaody, B. D. Leopold, and K.C.
Jensen. 1999. Aquatic invertebrate and plant responses following
mechanical manipulations of moist-soil habitat. Wildl. Soc. Bull.
27:770-779.

Hands, H. M., M. R. Ryan, and J. W. Smith. 1991. Migrant shorebird use
of marsh, moist-soil, and flooded agricultural habitats. Wildl. Soc.
Bull. 19:457-464.

Haig, S. 1992. Piping Plover. *In* The Birds of North America, No. 2 (A.
Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,
PA, and The American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, DC.

Helmers, D. L. 1991. Habitat use by migrant shorebirds and invertebrate
availability in a managed wetland complex. M. S. Thesis, Univ. of
Missouri-Columbia. 135pp.

Helmers, D. L. 1992. Shorebird management manual. Western Hemisphere
Shorebird Reserve Network, Manomet, Mass. 58 pp.

Hunter, W. C., D. J. Twedt, C. R. Loesch, K. Tripp, and M. S. Woodrey.
1996. Development of management and assessment objectives for shorebirds
within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley Migratory Bird Initiative. Pages
127-137 *in* The Delta: connecting points of view for sustainable
natural resources. Proceedings of the August 13-16 1996 conference.

Johnsgard, P. A. 1981. The plovers, sandpipers and snipes of the world.
University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. 493pp.

Reinecke, K. J., R. M. Kaminski, D. J. Moorhead, J. D. Hodges, and R. J.
Nassar. 1989. Mississippi alluvial valley. Pages 203-247
[in]{.underline} L. M. Smith, R. L. Pederson, and R. M. Kaminski, eds.
Habitat management for migrating and wintering waterfowl in North
America. Texas Tech University Press, Lubbock.

Ringleman, J. K. 1990. Managing agricultural foods for waterfowl. Fish
and Wildl. Serv. Leafl. 13.4.3 4pp.

Rundle, W. D. and L. F. Fredrickson. 1981. Managing seasonally flooded
impoundments for migrant rails and shorebirds. Wild. Soc. Bull. 9:80‑87.

Short, M. R. 1999. Shorebirds in Western Tennessee: migration ecology
and evaluation of management effectiveness. Technical Report 99-9,
Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, Nashville, TN. 145pp.

Sykes, P. W., Jr. and G. S. Hunter. 1978. Bird use of flooded
agricultural fields during summer and early fall and some
recommendations for management. Fla. Field Nat. 6:36-43.

Twedt, D. J., C. O. Nelms, V. E. Rettig, and S. R. Aycock. 1998.
Shorebird use of managed wetlands in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley.
Am. Midl. Nat. 140:140-152.

> Table 1. Population estimates and season of occurrence of shorebirds
> in the Mississippi Alluvial Valley/West Gulf Coastal Plain planning
> region.

+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| #                       | **MA      | **Modified | ## Seasonal      |
|                         | VGCP^a^** | M          |                  |
| # Species               |           | AVGCP^b^** | ## abundance^c^  |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Black-bellied Plover    | 769       |            | s, f             |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| American Golden-Plover  | 449       | 3000       | **S**, f         |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Snowy Plover            | ?         | 10         | s (tr), f (tr)   |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Wilson\'s Plover        | ?         |            | f (tr)           |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Semipalmated Plover     | 4,765     |            | s, f             |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Piping Plover           | 121       |            | s, f             |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Killdeer                | 91,838    |            | S, F, W, B       |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Mountain Plover         | ?         |            | w (tr)           |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Black-necked Stilt      | 778       |            | s, f, b          |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| American Avocet         | 232       |            | s, f             |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Greater Yellowlegs      | 3,235     |            | S, F, w          |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Lesser Yellowlegs       | 21,120    |            | **S, F,** w      |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Solitary Sandpiper      | ?         | 1000       | s, f, w          |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Willet                  | 92        |            | s, f             |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Spotted Sandpiper       | 4,112     |            | s, f, w, b       |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Upland Sandpiper        | 237       |            | s, f             |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Eskimo Curlew           | ?         |            | **S, F**         |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Whimbrel                | ?         |            | s (tr), f (tr)   |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Long-billed Curlew      | ?         |            | s (tr), f (tr)   |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Hudsonian Godwit        | ?         |            | s ^d^            |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Marbled Godwit          | 39        |            | S, f             |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Ruddy Turnstone         | 405       |            | s (tr), f        |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Red Knot                | 162       |            | s (tr), f        |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Sanderling              | 5,052     |            | s, f             |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Semipalmated Sandpiper  | 37,713    |            | S, F             |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Western Sandpiper       | 3,382     |            | S, f, w          |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Least Sandpiper         | 151,119   |            | S, F, w          |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| White-rumped Sandpiper  | 221       | 500        | s, f             |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Baird\'s Sandpiper      | 690       |            | s, f             |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Pectoral Sandpiper      | 121,077   |            | **S, F**         |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Dunlin                  | 7,866     |            | s, f, w          |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Stilt Sandpiper         | 3,310     |            | s, f             |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Buff-breasted Sandpiper | 964       |            | s, f             |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Short-billed Dowitcher  | 1,121     |            | s, f             |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Long-billed Dowitcher   | 1,121     |            | S, F, w          |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Common Snipe            | 2,374     |            | S, F, W          |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| American Woodcock       | ?         |            | W, B             |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Wilson\'s Phalarope     | 171       |            | S                |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Red-necked Phalarope    | ?         |            | s(tr), f(tr)     |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+
| Red Phalarope           | ?         |            | f (tr)           |
+-------------------------+-----------+------------+------------------+

> ^a^from Hunter et al. (1996)
>
> ^b^Based on single-day maximum counts and other information from the
> working group.
>
> ^c^b=breeding, f=fall migration, s=spring migration, w=winter,
> (tr)=species occurs sporadically in very small numbers. **BOLD UPPER
> CASE** = region as/more important than other regions; UPPER CASE =
> region important; lower case = region not important relative to other
> regions. Eskimo Curlew likely extinct.
>
> ^d^at the western edge of the region only
>
> Table 2. Conservation Priority Scores for shorebird species occurring
> within MAVGCP Region. PT=Population Trend; RA=(Global) Relative
> Abundance; TB=Threats Breeding; ; TN=Threats Non-breeding; BD=Breeding
> Distribution; ND=Non-breeding Distribution; AI=Area Importance. See
> pages 25-26 for explanation of scores.

  ---------------------- -------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -- --------------
                         **Priority                                                              **Overall**
                         score                                                                   
                         categories**                                                            

  **Species**            **PT**         **RA**   **TB**   **TN**   **BD**   **ND**   **AI**      **Regional
                                                                                                 priority**

  Black-bellied Plover   5              3        2        2        2        1        3           3

  American Golden-Plover 4              3        2        4        2        3        4           4

  Snowy Plover           5              5        4        4        3        4        2           1\*

  Wilson\'s Plover       3              5        4        4        4        3        2           2

  Semipalmated Plover    3              3        2        2        1        1        3           2

  Piping Plover          5              5        5        4        4        4        3           5

  Killdeer               5              1        3        3        1        2        4           3

  Mountain Plover        5              5        4        4        5        4        2           1\*

  Black-necked Stilt     3              3        3        2        1        2        3           2

  American Avocet        3              2        3        4        2        3        3           2

  Greater Yellowlegs     3              4        2        2        2        1        4           3

  Lesser Yellowlegs      3              2        2        3        2        1        5           2

  Solitary Sandpiper     3              4        2        2        3        2        3           3

  Willet                 3              3        3        3        3        3        3           2

  Spotted Sandpiper      3              3        2        2        1        1        3           2

  Upland Sandpiper       2              2        2        4        2        3        3           2

  Eskimo Curlew          5              5        3        4        5        5        5           5

  Whimbrel               5              4        2        2        3        2        2           1\*

  Long-billed Curlew     5              5        3        3        3        3        2           1\*

  Hudsonian Godwit       3              4        3        4        4        4        3           4

  Marbled Godwit         4              3        4        4        3        3        3           4

  Ruddy Turnstone        4              3        2        4        2        2        3           4

  Red Knot               5              2        2        4        3        3        3           4

  Sanderling             5              2        2        4        2        1        3           4

  Semipalmated Sandpiper 5              1        2        3        3        3        4           3

  Western Sandpiper      3              1        2        4        4        2        3           3

  Least Sandpiper        5              2        2        2        2        2        4           3

  White-rumped Sandpiper 3              2        2        2        3        3        3           2

  Baird\'s Sandpiper     3              2        2        2        3        3        3           2

  Pectoral Sandpiper     3              2        2        2        2        3        5           2

  Dunlin                 5              2        2        3        2        3        3           3

  Stilt Sandpiper        3              3        3        4        3        3        3           3

  Buff-breasted          4              5        3        4        3        4        3           4
  Sandpiper                                                                                      

  Short-billed Dowitcher 5              2        2        3        3        2        3           3

  Long-billed Dowitcher  5              2        2        3        4        3        4           2

  Common Snipe           5              1        2        2        1        2        4           3

  American Woodcock      5              1        4        3        2        3        4           4

  Wilson\'s Phalarope    4              1        3        4        2        5        3           4

  Red-necked Phalarope   4              1        2        3        1        3        2           1\*

  Red Phalarope          4              1        2        3        2        1        2           1\*
  ---------------------- -------------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -------- -- --------------

> \* Low regional priority due to its relatively low occurrence in the
> region (AI=2)
>
> Curlew Sandpiper, Purple Sandpiper, Ruff, and Sharp-tailed Sandpiper
> also have been recorded in the planning region.

**Priority Score Explanation (from Table 2)**

*1) Population Trend, PT*

5 Significant population decline (p\<0.10)

4 Apparent population decline

3 Apparently stable population or status unknown\*

2 Apparent population increase

1 Significant population increase

\*Note: If the population trend cannot be classified at all due to the
lack of appropriate data, the PT score is represented as \"U\" for
Unknown.

*2) Relative Abundance,RA*

5 ≤25,000

4 25,000 - \<150,000

3 150,000 - \<300,000

2 300,000 - \<1,000,000

1 \>1,000,000

*3) Threats During Breeding Season, TB*

5 Known threats are actually occurring (i.e. significant loss of
critical habitat), and can be documented.

4 Significant potential threats exist (i.e. oil spills) but have not
actually occurred

3 No known threats, or information not available

2 Threats assumed to be low

1 Demonstrably secure

*4) Threats During Non-breeding Season, TN*

5 Known threats are actually occurring (i.e. significant loss of
critical habitat), and can be documented. Concentration results in
actual risk.

4 Significant potential threats exist (i.e. oil spills) but have not
actually occurred. Concentration results in high potential risk.

3 No known threats, or concentration not a risk, or information not
available

2 Threats assumed to be low from all factors including concentration

1 Demonstrably secure

*5) Breeding Distribution, BD*

5 \<2.5% of North America (212,880 sq. mi., or 551,493 km^2^)

4 2.5-4.9% of North America

3 5-9.9% of North America

2 10-20% of North America

1 \>20% of North America (1,703,008 sq. mi., or 4,411,940 km^2^)

*6) Non-breeding Distribution, ND*

5 Highly restricted ≤ 50,000 sq. mi., or very restricted coastal areas,
or interior uplands,

4 Local = 50,000 - 200,000 sq. mi., or ≤ 1,000 mi. of coast

3 Intermediate = 200,000 - 2,000,000 sq. mi., or along 1,000 - 3,000 mi.
of coast

2 Widespread = 2,000,000 - 4,000,000 sq. mi., or along 3,000 - 5,000 mi.
of coast

1 Very widespread = 4,000,000 - 7,000,000 sq. mi., or along 5,000 -
9,000 mi. of coast

**Criteria for Priorities**

5\) Highly Imperiled

All species listed as threatened or endangered nationally, plus all
species with significant population declines and either low populations
or some other high risk factor.

a\. PT = 5 and RA, BD, TB, or TN = 5

4\) Species of High concern

Populations of these species are known or thought to be declining, and
have some other known or potential threat as well:

a\. PT = 4 or 5 and either RA, BD, TB, or TN = 4 or 5

b\. RA = 4 or 5 and either TB or TN = 4 or 5

For regional lists only:

c\. AI = 5 and RA \>3

3\) Species of Moderate concern

Populations of these species are either a) declining with moderate
threats or distributions; b) stable with known or potential threats and
moderate to restricted distributions; c) and d) relatively small and
restricted; or e) declining but with no other known threats.

a\. PT = 4 or 5 and RA, BD, ND, TN, or TB = 3

b\. PT = 3 and RA, BD, ND, TN, or TB = 4 or 5

c\. RA = 3 and BD or ND = 4, or 5

d\. RA = 4 and BD and ND \<4

e\. PT = 5 and RA, BD, ND, TN, or TB \> 1

For regional lists only

f\. AI=4 and RA\>3

2\) Species of Low Concern

Populations of these species are either a) stable with moderate threats
and distributions; b) increasing but with known or potential threats and
moderate to restricted distributions; or c) of moderate size.

a\. PT = 3 and RA, BD, ND, TN, or TB = 3

b\. PT = 2 and RA, BD, ND, TN, or TB = 4 or 5

c\. RA = 3

For regional lists only:

d\. AI = 3

1\) Species Not at Risk

All other species

**Variables for Regional Priorities**

Considering area importance at the regional scale ensures that
conservation effort will not be misdirected toward species that are rare
in a particular region only because it is close to the edge of their
range.

Area importance scores (AI) are based on knowledge of distributions,
expert opinion, and data on distributions for species where it is
available. Because management decisions based on species priorities must
often be conducted at appropriate seasons, the scores for these
variables are reported using a system that reflects both the relative
area importance and the season or seasons during which the area is
important, including breeding, wintering, and migration (spring and
fall).

Score Symbol Description of occurrence within BCR or Planning Region,
including relative abundance, importance relative to other regions, and
importance of management and protection activities.

5 **B, W, M** High concentrations known to occur. Area of high
importance to the species relative to the majority of other regions.
Management or protection activity within the area is critical for
supporting hemispheric populations of the species.

4 B, W, M Common or locally abundant, with large numbers occurring or
suspected to occur. Area of known or suspected importance relative to
other regions, especially within the same flyway. Management or
protection activity within the area important to supporting hemispheric
or regional populations.

3 b, w, m Uncommon to fairly common. Area is within the primary range of
the species, and it occurs regularly, but the species is present in low
relative abundance. Occurrence is substantial enough to warrant
consideration of management and protection activity.

2 (tr) Rare but regular occurrences. Area is within the expected range
of the species. Occurrence is at a low enough frequency that active
management is not warranted.

1 not in table Does not occur in the area, or only unpredictable,
irregular occurrence as a vagrant. Area is outside of expected range.

> Table 3. Area of habitat (ha) managed primarily for shorebirds during
> fall migration (late July -- late September) in the Mississippi
> Alluvial Valley region of the MAVGCP planning region as of July 1999.
> Data collected by Lower Mississippi Valley Joint Venture Office,
> Vicksburg, MS.

+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
| State     | Area               | Area       | MBI       | \% of     |
|           |                    | actively   | O         | Objective |
|           |                    | managed    | bjectives |           |
|           |                    | (ha)       |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
| Arkansas  | Bald Knob NWR      | 58.8       |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           | Oakwood NWR        | 86.0       |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           | Wapannocca NWR     | 3.8        |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           | **Subtotal**       | **148.6**  | **520**   | **29**    |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           |                    |            |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
| Kentucky  |                    | **0**      | **35**    | **0**     |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           |                    |            |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
| Louisiana | Grand Cote NWR     | 15.6       |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           | Lake Ophelia NWR   | 22.9       |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           | Tensas NWR         | 4.5        |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           | **Subtotal**       | **43.0**   | **520**   | **8**     |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           |                    |            |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
| Mi        | Morgan Brake NWR   | 45.5       |           |           |
| ssissippi |                    |            |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           | Panther Swamp NWR  | 6.8        |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           | St. Catherine      | 69.5       |           |           |
|           | Creek NWR          |            |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           | Tallahatchie NWR   | 108.1      |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           | Yazoo NWR          | 82.6       |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           | **Subtotal**       | **312.5**  | **600**   | **52**    |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           |                    |            |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
| Missouri  | Otter Slough CA    | 39.9       |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           | Ten Mile Pond CA   | 15.1       |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           | **Subtotal**       | **55.0**   | **70**    | **79**    |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           |                    |            |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
| Tennessee | Eagle Lake State   | 22.3       |           |           |
|           | Refuge             |            |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           | Black Bayou State  | 6.1        |           |           |
|           | Refuge             |            |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           | Whites Lake WMA    | 10.8       |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           | **Subtotal**       | **39.2**   | **185**   | **21**    |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           |                    |            |           |           |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+
|           | # Total            | **598.4**  | **2000**  | **30**    |
+-----------+--------------------+------------+-----------+-----------+

**Figure 1. Map of MAVGCP Planning Region, composed of the West Gulf
Coastal Plain/Ouachitas and Mississippi Alluvial Valley BCRs.**

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="7.113385826771654in"
height="6.028346456692914in"}

Appendix A. Conservation priority of shorebirds in the Lower Mississippi
Valley/Western Gulf Coastal Plain organized by foraging guild.

<table>
<colgroup>
<col style="width: 12%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 1%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
<col style="width: 10%" />
</colgroup>
<tbody>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="10">Guild</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="2">Terrestrial/Aquatic</td>
<td></td>
<td><p>Aquatic/</p>
<p>Terrestrial</p></td>
<td></td>
<td colspan="5">Aquatic</td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Priority Level</td>
<td></td>
<td>Gleaner</td>
<td><p>Gleaner/</p>
<p>Prober</p></td>
<td></td>
<td>Gleaner</td>
<td></td>
<td><p>Prober/</p>
<p>Gleaner</p></td>
<td>Prober</td>
<td>Gleaner</td>
<td>Sweeper</td>
<td>Prober/Prier</td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Highly Imperiled</td>
<td></td>
<td>PIPL</td>
<td><strong>ESCU *</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>High Concern</td>
<td></td>
<td><p id="amgp" class="heading">AMGP </p></td>
<td>RUTU</td>
<td></td>
<td>REKN</td>
<td></td>
<td>SAND</td>
<td>MAGO</td>
<td>WIPH</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>AMWO</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td>BBSA</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>HUGO</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td>Moderate</td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>KILL</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p id="lesa" class="heading">LESA</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>GRYE</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Concern</td>
<td></td>
<td>BBPL</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>SBDO</td>
<td></td>
<td>SOSA</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>SESA</strong></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>DUNL</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>STSA</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>WESA</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p id="cosn" class="heading">COSN </p></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td>Low Concern</td>
<td></td>
<td>SEPL</td>
<td>SPSA</td>
<td></td>
<td>UPSA</td>
<td></td>
<td><p id="pesa" class="heading">PESA *</p></td>
<td></td>
<td><strong>LEYE *</strong></td>
<td>AMAV</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td><p id="lbdo" class="heading">LBDO </p></td>
<td></td>
<td>WILL</td>
<td>BNST</td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="even">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>BASA</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
<tr class="odd">
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td>WRSA</td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
<td></td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>

Species codes:

  ------ --------------- ------ ------------- ------ -------------- ------ --------------
  AGPL   American        ESCU   Eskimo Curlew PIPL   Piping Plover  SOSA   Solitary
         Golden-Plover                                                     Sandpiper

  AMAV   American Avocet GRYE   Greater       REKN   Red Knot       SPSA   Spotted
                                Yellowlegs                                 Sandpiper

  AMOY   American        KILL   Killdeer      REPH   Red Phalarope  STSA   Stilt
         Oystercatcher                                                     Sandpiper

  AMWO   American        LBCU   Long-billed   RNPH   Red-necked     UPSA   Upland
         Woodcock               Curlew               Phalarope             Sandpiper

  BASA   Baird\'s        LBDO   Long-billed   RUTU   Ruddy          WESA   Western
         Sandpiper              Dowitcher            Turnstone             Sandpiper

  BBPL   Black-bellied   LESA   Least         SAND   Sanderling     WHIM   Whimbrel
         Plover                 Sandpiper                                  

  BBSA   Buff-breasted   LEYE   Lesser        SBDO   Short-billed   WILL   Willet
         Sandpiper              Yellowlegs           Dowitcher             

  BNST   Black-necked    MAGO   Marbled       SEPL   Semipalmated   WIPH   Wilson\'s
         Stilt                  Godwit               Plover                Phalarope

  COSN   Common Snipe    MOPL   Mountain      SESA   Semipalmated   WIPL   Wilson\'s
                                Plover               Sandpiper             Plover

  DUNL   Dunlin          PESA   Pectoral      SNPL   Snowy Plover   WRSA   White-rumped
                                Sandpiper                                  Sandpiper
  ------ --------------- ------ ------------- ------ -------------- ------ --------------

**BOLD with asterisk** denotes Area Importance score = 5

**BOLD** denotes Area Importance score = 4

ALL CAPS denotes Area Importance score = 3