Revised November 12, 2023

![](media/image1.png){width="1.6875in" height="1.4930555555555556in"}

######## 

######## U.S. Shorebird 

######## Conservation Plan

**Upper Mississippi Valley/ Great Lakes Regional Shorebird Conservation
Plan**

**Version 1.0**

Prepared by^1^:

Ferenc de Szalay, Department of Biological Sciences, Kent State
University, Kent, Ohio

Doug Helmers, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, Columbia,
Missouri

Dale Humburg, Missouri Department of Conservation, Columbia, Missouri

Stephen J. Lewis, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling,
Minnesota

Barbara Pardo, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Fort Snelling, Minnesota

Mark Shieldcastle, Ohio Division of Wildlife, Oak Harbor, Ohio

May, 2000

^1^ Authors are listed alphabetically.

#### Table of Contents

[EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1](#executive-summary)

[INTRODUCTION 2](#introduction)

[DESCRIPTION OF THE UMVGL REGION 2](#description-of-the-umvgl-region)

[Physical Description 2](#physical-description)

[Bird Conservation Regions 2](#bird-conservation-regions)

[Shorebird Habitats in the UMVGL 3](#shorebird-habitats-in-the-umvgl)

[Human Impacts on Shorebird habitat in the UMVGL Region
4](#human-impacts-on-shorebird-habitat-in-the-umvgl-region)

[SHOREBIRD SPECIES OCCURRENCE AND REGIONAL PRIORITIES
5](#shorebird-species-occurrence-and-regional-priorities)

[Species Occurrence and Abundance 5](#species-occurrence-and-abundance)

[Species Priorities 6](#species-priorities)

[REGIONAL SHOREBIRD HABITAT CONSERVATION STRATEGIES
7](#regional-shorebird-habitat-conservation-strategies)

[Habitat Protection and Restoration
8](#habitat-protection-and-restoration)

[Habitat Management 9](#habitat-management)

[Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network
10](#western-hemisphere-shorebird-reserve-network)

[POPULATION MONITORING ACTIVITIES AND NEEDS
11](#population-monitoring-activities-and-needs)

[RESEARCH AND INFORMATION NEEDS 12](#research-and-information-needs)

[EDUCATION AND OUTREACH NEEDS 13](#education-and-outreach-needs)

[FUNDING NEEDS 13](#funding-needs)

[ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 14](#acknowledgments)

[LITERATURE CITED 15](#literature-cited)

[APPENDIX 1: MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR MIGRATING SHOREBIRDS IN THE UMVGL
REGION
18](#appendix-1-management-techniques-for-migrating-shorebirds-in-the-umvgl-region)

[APPENDIX 2: CURRENT SHOREBIRD MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE UMVGL REGION
21](#appendix-2-current-shorebird-management-activities-in-the-umvgl-region)

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes (UMVGL) region is a diverse
area that includes five Bird Conservation Regions and provides important
habitat for shorebirds, especially migrants. Thirty-two shorebird
species occur in the region, with 25 being common or abundant.
Twenty-three species are of moderate or higher concern in the region.
High-priority species include: greater yellowlegs, whimbrel,
buff-breasted sandpiper, short-billed dowitcher, marbled godwit,
Wilson\'s phalarope, upland sandpiper, American woodcock, and the
Federally-listed piping plover; the latter five species breed in the
region. Various habitats within the region, including natural and
managed wetlands, river floodplains, lake shoreline, sand and gravel
bars, reservoirs, and flooded agricultural fields, provide the shallow
water and sparsely-vegetated conditions required by foraging shorebirds.
However, interior areas like the UMVGL region experience dynamic
climatic conditions, making habitat conditions for shorebirds
unpredictable compared to coastal regions. Furthermore, loss of wetlands
from urban development, river dredging and diking, and agriculture has
reduced the amount of habitat in the region. A primary goal of this plan
is to ensure the availability of shorebird foraging and nesting sites
over a range of climatic conditions by protecting, restoring, and
managing a variety of habitat types throughout the UMVGL region. At many
intensively managed sites, water level manipulation and other management
activities (e. g., burning or discing) can be used to provide habitat
for shorebirds, usually without compromising other wildlife objectives.
Ultimately, an integrated management approach should be adopted that
combines region-specific information on wetland dynamics and life
history strategies of a variety of wildlife species. The North American
Waterfowl Management Plan\'s Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes
Region Joint Venture established waterfowl habitat conservation
objectives that focus on providing complexes of ephemeral and permanent
wetlands and associated upland habitats. Objectives include providing
3.6 million hectares (9.1 million acres) of wetlands and associated
uplands in Joint Venture waterfowl production counties (northern
latitudes), and 213,000 hectares (533,000 acres) of wetlands in
waterfowl migration counties (mid-latitudes). Since most of these areas
will also provide good shorebird habitat, the Joint Venture\'s habitat
objectives have been adopted for this plan. The infrastructure and
partnerships in place to implement the Joint Venture will be expanded to
address shorebird habitat needs, although the type of habitat provided
for shorebirds (especially shallow water) may at times differ from what
is optimal for some waterfowl species. Information is needed on the
following to accomplish this plan: regional abundance, distribution,
chronology, and population trends of shorebirds; responses of shorebirds
and their invertebrate food base to management activities; wetland
distribution and habitat conditions during a variety of climatic
patterns; and effects of human disturbance on shorebirds. Providing this
and other information to land managers and private landowners will help
ensure the conservation of shorebirds throughout the region. Regional
needs for shorebird population monitoring, research, and education and
outreach activities in the UMVGL region are identified in this plan.

# INTRODUCTION

The U. S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (USSCP) was developed to stabilize
populations of declining shorebird species and ensure that common
species remain so. This will be accomplished, in part, through
implementation of 11 regional conservation plans that outline strategies
to provide sufficient high-quality shorebird habitat and to overcome
other shorebird limiting factors. This plan addresses shorebird
conservation in the Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes (UMVGL)
planning region, which is a large, diverse area that provides important
habitat for a variety of shorebirds, especially migrants. The purpose of
the plan is to conserve shorebirds in the UMVGL region through a
combination of habitat protection, restoration, and management,
population monitoring, research, and education/outreach. These actions
will reverse wetland losses, preserve and enhance existing shorebird
habitats, provide needed data on populations and limiting factors, and
disseminate information on shorebird needs and values. While the
ultimate result will be the maintenance or increase of shorebird
populations, many other wetland species with similar habitat needs will
also benefit. As a component of the North American Bird Conservation
Initiative, the USSCP is aimed at promoting partnerships at a landscape
level that emphasize integrated management for multiple bird species.

# DESCRIPTION OF THE UMVGL REGION

### Physical Description 

The UMVGL shorebird planning region encompasses 1.4 million square
kilometers (535,000 square miles) in the north-central United States,
including all or most of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan,
Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio, New York, and Wisconsin, plus portions of
nine other adjacent states (Figure 1). Parts of the UMVGL region are
heavily forested or have rugged terrain with few wetlands, and these
support little shorebird use except for the American woodcock (see Table
1 for scientific names).

### Bird Conservation Regions

The UMVGL planning region includes five Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs)
that were established by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative
to delineate areas with similar bird communities, habitats, and resource
management issues (Commission on Environmental Cooperation 1998). These
BCRs are, from north to south: the Boreal-Hardwood Transition, Lower
Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain, Prairie-Hardwood Transition, Eastern
Tallgrass Prairie, and Central Hardwoods (Figure 1). Land use coverage
and public land ownership data for the BCRs can be found at:
*\<http://www.manomet.org/USSCP/bcrmaps.htm\>*.

The Boreal-Hardwood Transition BCR (comprising 16% of the UMVGL region)
is characterized by coniferous and northern hardwood forests,
nutrient-poor soils, shallow lakes, Great Lakes coastal estuaries, and
riparian habitat. The Lower Great Lakes/St. Lawrence Plain BCR (7% of
the UMVGL region) is a low-lying area with important lakeshore habitats
and associated wetlands. Although it was once covered by oak-hickory,
northern hardwood, and mixed-coniferous forests, most forests have been
cleared and cropland and early successional habitats now predominate.
The Prairie-Hardwood Transition BCR (16% of the UMVGL region) contains
important lakeshore marshes and links the Prairie Pothole Region to the
eastern forests. The Eastern Tallgrass Prairie BCR (39% of the UMVGL
region) was once vast prairie and savannah, but is now dominated by
agriculture; glaciation resulted in numerous pothole-type wetlands,
shallow lakes, and rivers. The Central Hardwoods BCR (22% of the UMVGL
region) includes oak-hickory forests in the hilly regions of the Ozark
Plateau in Missouri and Arkansas, which are separated from the Interior
Low Plateaus of Kentucky and Tennessee by the floodplains of the
Mississippi River and its larger tributaries.

### Shorebird Habitats in the UMVGL

Most shorebirds using the UMVGL region are long-distance migrants that
require suitable wetlands where they can periodically stop to replenish
their fat reserves. These staging areas must have shallow water (\<20 cm
or 8 in deep) and/or mud flat habitats with sparse vegetation (\<25 %
cover), undisturbed resting areas, and abundant invertebrate food
resources to meet the high energetic demands of migration (Burger et al.
1977, Cowell and Oring 1988, Hands 1988, Helmers 1991 and 1992). The
region has a wide variety of habitats that provide, or have the
potential to provide, these requirements, including natural and managed
wetlands, lake shorelines, river floodplains (especially along the
Mississippi, Illinois, Missouri, Ohio Rivers), reservoirs, and flooded
agricultural fields. Several species of shorebirds in the UMVGL region
forage and nest in upland habitats (e. g., grasslands, wet meadows,
pastures, haylands, croplands, sparsely-vegetated beaches, and sand and
gravel bars), many of which are associated with wetland complexes .

Only recently has the importance of interior U. S. habitats to
shorebirds become more widely understood (Dinsmore et al. 1999, Skagen
et al. 1999). Unlike coastal areas where habitat and food resources are
fairly predictable and abundant, resource availability in inland areas
is highly dependent on precipitation and hydrology patterns and varies
in time and space (Fredrickson and Reid 1990, Skagen and Knopf 1993 and
1994, Skagen 1997). While many natural wetlands in inland regions can
potentially provide excellent shorebird habitat, precipitation directly
influences wetland conditions and corresponding use by shorebirds.
During dry years, naturally-receding semipermanent or permanent wetlands
may provide the only unmanaged shorebird habitat available. In extremely
wet years, such areas are generally flooded, sometimes with water levels
well into the wet meadow zone, and these sites will not be utilized by
most shorebird species. Therefore, seasonal or temporary habitats may be
the only wetlands with ideal conditions in wet years. Wet and dry cycles
make it difficult to predict the location, available food resources, and
duration of suitable wetland conditions of prime shorebird habitats. The
dynamics of climatic cycles and the changing availability of basins
cause shorebirds migrating through interior regions like the UMVGL to be
scattered over larger areas and in small numbers at numerous sites,
rather than concentrated at a few major staging sites, as is common
along the Atlantic and Pacific coasts (Skagen and Knopf 1993 and 1994,
Dinsmore et al. 1999, Skagen et al. 1999).

Important shorebird habitats in the Great Lakes include coastal marshes
and deposited sandy beaches. Great Lakes coastal wetlands are usually
dominated by herbaceous vegetation and have a fringe of woody vegetation
in shallower areas. Many have a bare zone at the water's edge from
scouring by waves and winter ice. Lake Michigan has the most coastal
marshes and Lake Erie the least (Maynard and Wilcox 1997). The amount of
beach habitats along the Great Lakes has not been estimated. The large
size of the Great Lakes creates some physical factors that are more
similar to marine coastal environments than inland habitats. For
example, waves from storms erode vegetation and sediments along
shorelines, and most coastal marshes occur in sheltered areas (e. g.,
embayments; behind barrier beaches or sandbars) (Maynard and Wilcox
1997).

A key characteristic of Great Lakes beach habitats and undiked coastal
marshes is that they are affected by changes in Great Lakes water levels
(Bedford 1992). Lake water levels typically vary 25-75 cm (10-30 in)
during the year, with levels the lowest in mid-winter and highest in
mid-summer. Furthermore, long-term changes in precipitation patterns
affect lake water levels, and differences of 1-2 m (3-6 ft) between
all-time high and low water levels have been recorded in the Great
Lakes. Short-term changes are also common. For example, wind-driven
seiches cause lake-basin water levels to rock back and forth, which can
cause water levels to oscillate 20-60 cm (8-24 in) for several days.
These fluctuations may have important consequences for feeding
shorebirds because they expose areas of the shoreline (and associated
invertebrate food resources) that would otherwise be submerged. However,
little research has been done to determine how natural water-level
changes affect shorebird use of these habitats.

### Human Impacts on Shorebird habitat in the UMVGL Region

Much of the northern and central portions of the UMVGL region
historically had abundant inland wetlands and Great Lakes coastal
marshes, and probably supported large numbers of shorebirds.
Unfortunately, shorebird habitats in the UMVGL region have been
dramatically reduced and degraded by human activities. The abundance and
diversity of wetlands have declined, largely due to drainage for
agriculture, roads, and urban development. States within the region have
lost 50-90% of their wetlands (Dahl and Johnson 1991). Rivers have been
dredged and diked for navigation, flood control, and agriculture, which
has reduced shallow floodplain areas that previously attracted
shorebirds. Before the Missouri, Mississippi, and Ohio Rivers were
extensively altered, their floodplains and tributaries provided numerous
sandbars, mudflats, and oxbows that were ideal habitat for shorebirds,
including breeding areas for piping plover and killdeer. After forested
riparian areas were cleared and converted to agricultural fields and
pastures, many temporary and seasonal wetlands remained, but increased
emphasis on flood control and crop production has resulted in drainage
of many of these marginal agricultural lands, which has decreased their
availability to waterbirds.

In many ways, environmental problems in Great Lakes coastal marshes are
similar to those in inland wetlands. Many wetlands have been destroyed
for agriculture or urban development (Maynard and Wilcox 1997). Wetlands
that receive water from rivers are often affected by nearby agricultural
practices and may have high levels of nutrients, herbicides, and
sediments from farm runoff. Industrial effluents have also been found to
input toxic compounds throughout the Great Lakes. Near urban areas,
beaches are commonly replaced by breakwalls to prevent shoreline
erosion. Finally, many exotic species (e. g., zebra mussel, spiny water
flea, carp, purple loosestrife) have been introduced into these habitats
(Mills et al. 1993). Little is known about the effects of most of these
factors on shorebirds that migrate through and breed in the Great Lakes.

Some human actions have created shorebird habitat in the UMVGL region.
Reservoirs and stock ponds, sewage lagoons, flooded agricultural fields,
and sand and gravel excavation pits that have shallow water margins are
all used by shorebirds. In coastal areas along the Great Lakes, dredged
material is deposited in Confined Disposal Facilities (CDFs), such as in
Sagninaw Bay, Michigan, and along Lake Erie, and these are sometimes
used heavily by foraging shorebirds. However, the sediments in CDFs
often have high contaminant levels. Dikes and water control structures
have provided shorebird habitat in some Great Lakes coastal marshes that
otherwise would have been inundated by high lake levels. Wetland
restoration programs have provided additional shorebird habitat, and at
least one species, the upland sandpiper, has benefitted from grassland
restoration programs such as the Conservation Reserve Program (Dechant
et al. 2000).

# SHOREBIRD SPECIES OCCURRENCE AND REGIONAL PRIORITIES 

## Species Occurrence and Abundance

Thirty-two of the 50 shorebird species being considered in the USSCP
occur regularly in the UMVGL region. Twenty-five of these species occur
in high concentrations, or are common or locally abundant in the region
(Table 1). Survey data (as noted below, only limited data are available)
and expert opinion were used to determine the relative abundance of
species within each Bird Conservation Region, and these values were then
used to derive an overall occurrence/abundance value for each species in
the entire UMVGL region. Because the UMVGL region is large and diverse,
the occurrence and relative abundance of most species vary among the
five BCRs within the region; only about 2/3 of the region\'s species
occur in all five BCRs. The Central Hardwoods BCR is used by the fewest
species - only 20. Four species - the snowy plover (*Charadrius
alexandrinus*), long-billed curlew (*Numenius americanus*), black-necked
stilt (*Himantopus mexicanus*), and American avocet (*Recurvirostra
americana*) - are very peripheral to the UMVGL region, and are not
included in Table 1 because regional management activities would not
provide significant benefits to these species.

Nine of the species listed in Table 1 breed in the UMVGL region, and
four of these (piping plover, killdeer, spotted sandpiper, and American
woodcock) have significant breeding populations. Twenty-five species,
including seven of the nine breeding species, make significant use of
the region during migration (Table 1). Skagen et al. (1999) summarized
information on numbers, distribution, and chronology of migrating
shorebirds in the midcontinent, including the western portion of the
UMVGL region (Iowa, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, and Nebraska).

## Species Priorities

The USSCP species prioritization system (see
*http://www.manomet.org/USSCP.htm*) was used to identify species of
concern within the UMVGL region by considering:

\(1\) global values for Relative Abundance and Breeding and Nonbreeding
Distribution, (2) global or, where appropriate, UMVGL-specific values
for Population Trend and Breeding and Nonbreeding Threats, and (3) Area
Importance values derived from the occurrence/abundance information in
Table 1. Table 2 shows the resulting regional priorities, as well as
national priorities, for each UMVGL species. Twenty-three species are of
moderate or higher concern in the region. (Note: a general lack of data
on species\' abundances and population trends in the UMVGL region made
prioritization difficult because those variables in the prioritization
scheme sometimes had a high degree of uncertainty. Available population
data are restricted to well-known (mostly public) areas and may not
reflect shorebird use in the variety of habitats occurring throughout
the UMVGL region. For these reasons, the species priorities identified
in this plan are subject to change as better population data become
available in the future.)

The UMVGL region has one highly-imperiled shorebird species and eight
species of high concern (Table 2). Populations of these species are
known or believed to be small and/or declining, and they are
experiencing other known or potential threats. Five of the species -
**piping plover (Great Lakes population)**, **American woodcock**,
**upland sandpiper**, **marbled godwit**, and **Wilson\'s phalarope** -
breed in the region; the first two species are major breeders and the
last three are minor breeders. The piping plover, American woodcock,
Wilson\'s phalarope, **greater yellowlegs**, **buff-breasted
sandpiper**, and **short-billed dowitcher** are major migrants in the
region. The **whimbrel** is the other high-concern species; while it is
a minor migrant in the UMVGL region, its small and declining global
population elevated its regional priority score. The least sandpiper is
a major migrant in the UMVGL region, and its global population trend is
declining significantly. However, because of low values for the other
prioritization criteria, it only ranked as being of moderate concern in
the region. Nevertheless, it is clearly a species in need of attention,
and one that can benefit greatly from conservation actions undertaken in
the UMVGL region.

The piping plover is the region\'s only highly-imperiled species. The
Great Lakes population has been Federally listed as endangered since
1986, and is the smallest of the species\' three populations. (The other
two populations - the Northern Great Plains and the Atlantic Coast - are
classified as threatened.) The Recovery Plan for this population (U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1988) is currently being revised and has a
recovery goal of [\>]{.underline}150 nesting pairs, with a five-year
average fecundity of [\>]{.underline} 2.0 fledglings per pair (Mark
Hodgkins, personal communication). In 1999, a record high of 32 pairs
nested along cobble beaches of the U. S. Great Lakes shores in northern
Michigan, rearing 49 young to fledging (1.5 fledglings per pair). Recent
population trends indicate a slow increase. Historical sites that were
previously unoccupied on Lakes Superior and Michigan have been
reinhabited and consistent breeding season use by non-breeding birds has
occurred along Lake Huron. Among the threats to this population are
beach disturbance by people and pets, predation on eggs and chicks, and
habitat loss. Strategies for population recovery include protecting
individual nests and essential breeding habitat along the Great Lakes
shoreline. The reader is referred to the Recovery Plan and Matteson
(1996) for further details on the life history, limiting factors, and
conservation needs of the Great Lakes piping plover.

The American woodcock is a highly sought-after game species that has
declined substantially in recent years (Bruggink 1999). Breeding
densities are highest in the Upper Midwest, and the species occurs
throughout the UMVGL region during migration. The woodcock has very
different habitat requirements than most shorebird species in the UMVGL
region; it breeds in early successional habitats in the northern parts
of the region, including brushy fields, abandoned farmland, and small
forest openings. Changing land uses and forest management practices,
together with advancing forest succession, have caused the loss and
degradation of woodcock habitat, and this is the major management
problem for the species. A national management plan for the American
woodcock (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1990) outlines general
strategies for the species\' conservation. These include regulation of
hunter harvest and management of habitat (Sepik et al. 1992). Regional
woodcock management plans are also being developed. Therefore, the
woodcock will not be covered in detail in the UMVGL plan except to
acknowledge that it is among the priority shorebird species in the
region.

The upland sandpiper is designated low concern nationally in the USSCP,
and it is an uncommon to fairly common breeder and migrant in the UMVGL
region. However, its regional population trend and relative abundance
scores elevated it to high concern in the region. Upland sandpipers use
native and tame grasslands, wet meadows, old fields, hayland, pastures,
planted cover (e. g., Conservation Reserve Program), cropland, highway
and railroad rights-of-way, and grassy areas of airports. Generally,
they forage in short vegetation and nest and rear broods in taller
vegetation. Like many grassland birds, the upland sandpiper has
experienced population declines in recent years, and it is on the U. S.
Fish and Wildlife Service\'s list of nongame bird species of management
concern (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995) as well as several state
agency lists. Dechant et al. (2000) provide a comprehensive treatment of
the species\' habitat requirements and management needs.

The marbled godwit is a minor breeder and migrant in the UMVGL region.
It prefers short, sparse to moderately vegetated uplands for nesting and
foraging, and wetland complexes for foraging (Johnson et al. 1998). The
Wilson\'s phalarope is a minor breeder and major migrant in the region.
It nests in wetlands, wet meadows, and upland grasslands, and forages in
wetlands with open water, emergent vegetation, and open shoreline
(Dechant et al. 1999).

With the above exceptions, the primary importance of the UMVGL region to
shorebirds is in providing resources for migrants as they journey
between their breeding and wintering grounds. All 32 shorebird species
occurring regularly in the UMVGL region are classified as migrants.
Therefore, the remainder of this plan will emphasize conservation
strategies for meeting the needs of migrant shorebirds.

# REGIONAL SHOREBIRD HABITAT CONSERVATION STRATEGIES

A primary goal of this plan is to ensure the availability of shorebird
foraging and nesting sites by protecting, restoring, and enhancing a
diversity of habitat types throughout the UMVGL region. Because
shorebirds in the interior United States use a variety of wetland basins
within a landscape as climatic conditions change (Skagen 1997, Dinsmore
et al. 1999, Skagen et al. 1999), conservation of shorebirds in areas
like the UMVGL region will require management actions across wetland
classes (from ephemeral to permanent) on both public and private lands.
Cooperative partnerships among Federal and state agencies, conservation
organizations, and private landowners will be crucial to accomplishing
shorebird habitat conservation on a landscape scale in the UMVGL region.

## Habitat Protection and Restoration

Wetland complexes and associated uplands that are consistently used by
large numbers of shorebirds in the UMVGL region, especially high-concern
species, should be identified. Where such sites are subject to
conversion, degradation, or other threats, they should receive long-term
protection by Federal and state agencies and conservation organizations
(Ducks Unlimited, The Nature Conservancy, etc.) through fee-title
acquisition, easements, or landowner agreements.

Many of the wetland/upland complexes that have been identified as
priority areas for waterfowl in the UMVGL region are also important to
shorebirds, and the North American Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP) can
be a major facilitator in shorebird habitat conservation in the region.
The NAWMP is comprised of partnerships, called Joint Ventures, that are
focused on regional waterfowl habitat areas of concern. The activities
of each Joint Venture are overseen by a Joint Venture Coordinator and a
Management Board. The Management Board is comprised of high-level
representatives of each of the partner groups involved in Joint Venture
activities, e. g., Federal and state agencies and nongovernmental
organizations like Ducks Unlimited and The Nature Conservancy. Joint
Venture Management Boards set general direction, outline strategies, and
prioritize projects for grant funding consideration from the North
American Wetlands Conservation Act. At the local level, most states have
a steering committee that works at the state level to put partners and
projects together.

When the Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture
Implementation Plan was updated in 1998, a nongame bird objective was
added (Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture
Management Board 1998). The geographic boundaries and habitat
conservation priorities of this Joint Venture are very similar to those
of the UMVGL shorebird planning unit. Therefore, the UMVGL shorebird
plan is adopting the Joint Venture\'s habitat conservation objectives.
These objectives include providing 3.6 million hectares (9.1 million
acres) of wetlands and associated uplands in Joint Venture waterfowl
production counties (northern latitudes), and 213,000 hectares (533,000
acres) of wetlands in waterfowl migration counties (mid-latitudes),
focusing on complexes of ephemeral and permanent wetlands and associated
upland habitats. Most of these areas will provide good shorebird
habitat, although the type of habitat needed for shorebirds (especially
shallow water) may at times differ from what is optimal for some
waterfowl species.

The infrastructure and partnerships in place to implement the Joint
Venture will be expanded to address shorebird habitat needs. A shorebird
expert will be proposed for addition to the Joint Venture Management
Board. At the State Steering Committee level, shorebird advocates will
become involved with projects that offer particular benefits to
shorebirds, and shorebird partners will seek funds that can be used for
Joint Venture projects. See Streeter et al. (1993) for a broader
discussion of the benefits that the NAWMP can provide to shorebirds.

Restoration of drained wetlands through alteration or elimination of
drainage systems and/or installation of water control structures
provides important habitat for shorebirds. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and state agencies have active wetland restoration programs on
public and private lands. Several priority shorebird species in the
UMVGL region nest in grasslands and related habitats, and can benefit
from upland restoration programs such as the USDA\'s Conservation
Reserve Program.

Agricultural programs that protect and restore wetlands on private
lands, especially ephemeral, temporary, and seasonal sites, are crucial
to the conservation of shorebirds and other wetland-dependent species.
These programs include: (1) the U. S. Department of Agriculture\'s
Wetland Reserve Program, in which permanent conservation easements are
purchased on restored wetlands, (2) the USDA\'s Conservation Reserve
Enhancement Program, which provides restoration and long-term protection
of habitat on agricultural lands in riverine floodplains in a number of
states, and (3) the Farm Service Agency\'s Inventory Property Easement
Program, which protects lands containing significant wildlife habitat.
Preservation of existing wetlands through the enforcement of Federal and
state wetland protection laws and permits is another important tool in
conserving shorebird habitats.

The piping plover, the only highly-imperiled shorebird species in the
UMVGL region, nests on broad, barren, undisturbed sand beaches with
scattered areas of cobble along the shoreline and islands of the Great
Lakes. Conservation strategies for this population include protecting
nesting areas and individual nests (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1988). Under the Endangered Species Act, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service will be designating Critical Habitat for this population and it
will be a high priority to ensure the preservation of this habitat.

## Habitat Management

Managed wetlands are valuable because they can provide optimal habitat
for shorebirds when natural wetlands are affected by drought or flooding
(Eldridge 1992). Thus, the management of emergent and seasonal wetlands,
agricultural fields, and other important habitats for migrant shorebirds
is a high priority in the UMVGL region. Although this document is
primarily a strategic planning tool, an overview of key management
techniques for migrating shorebirds in the UMVGL region is provided in
Appendix 1 (see also Rundle and Fredrickson 1981, Fredrickson and Taylor
1982, Eldridge 1992, Helmers 1992 and 1993, Laubhan and Fredrickson
1993, and Dinsmore et al. 1999). Helmers (1992) provides comprehensive
information on shorebird ecology, habitat use, and management options.

A survey of managers and biologists on wildlife areas in the UMVGL
region was conducted (Appendix 2) and indicated that many wildlife
refuges and management areas with potential shorebird habitat are not
being managed specifically for shorebirds; while they incidentally
provide some benefits to shorebirds, their full potential is not being
realized. A few of the managers surveyed felt that shorebird management
caused biological conflicts (e. g., encouraged invasive species or
botulism, or had adverse impacts on other priority wildlife species),
but most felt that shorebird conservation could be accomplished without
compromising other wildlife goals. One limiting factor noted by a number
of managers was a lack of water control structures due to funding
constraints. Installation of water control structures, pumping systems,
and dikes on developed sites should be a priority within the region to
increase management capabilities and options for individual basins or
wetland complexes.

Dinsmore et al. (1999) proposed the establishment of a Shorebird Habitat
Monitoring Network to enhance shorebird management on a landscape scale.
This network would encourage managers to use the Internet and other
means to communicate with each other in real time about habitat
availability and generalized shorebird movements during migration to
determine if, when, and where there are critical habitat shortages.
Managers within a region would then work in a coordinated manner to
overcome these ecological hurdles by adjusting the timing and extent of
their habitat management activities.

Whenever possible, an integrated wetland management approach should be
adopted that combines region-specific information on wetland dynamics
and life history requirements of a variety of wildlife species. Wetland
use among different waterbird guilds varies both temporally and
spatially, although considerable overlap does occur. Wetland managers
should understand that a single wetland may support different shorebird
species at different times of the year, and that each species or guild
requires different water depths, vegetative characteristics, and
invertebrate food resources (Fredrickson and Reid 1986). By diversifying
the timing, depth, and duration of drawdowns or flooding within a
wetland complex, managers can provide habitats for migrant shorebirds
without decreasing their value to other avian groups with different
needs.

Several high-concern shorebird species in the UMVGL region nest in
upland habitats that can be enhanced through management. The American
woodcock uses brushy fields and small forest openings for nesting,
rearing, daytime feeding, roosting, and singing grounds. Clear-cutting
and burning can be used to create and maintain such early successional
habitats (see Sepik et al. 1992). Grasslands, wet meadows, haylands,
pastures, croplands, and similar habitats provide important breeding
sites for the upland sandpiper, marbled godwit, and Wilson\'s phalarope.
Management techniques include seeding, burning, grazing, and mowing on a
rotational basis (see Fitzgerald et al. 1998, Johnson et al. 1998,
Dechant et al. 1999, Dechant et al. 2000).

## Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network

The Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN) was formed to
protect and manage critical sites where large numbers of shorebirds
concentrate during migration. As mentioned previously, the UMVGL region
has relatively few sites that attract large numbers of shorebirds on a
regular basis. However, congregations of birds have been found at
several wildlife refuges in the region, and these have been designated
as WHSRN sites. They include Chautauqua National Wildlife Refuge (NWR),
Illinois, and Swan Lake NWR, Missouri. The Lake Erie marsh region, from
the mouth of the Detroit River in Michigan, to Huron, Ohio, has been
nominated for WHSRN designation. This area includes Ottawa NWR and Magee
Marsh and Pickerel Creek State Wildlife Areas in Ohio, as well as
several private hunting clubs.

# POPULATION MONITORING ACTIVITIES AND NEEDS 

Most shorebird habitat in the UMVGL region is dispersed and ephemeral.
Thus, shorebirds using interior areas of the continent tend to exploit
available habitat opportunistically across the landscape rather than
consistently concentrating at a few sites (Skagen and Knopf 1994), and
this makes population monitoring a challenge. Furthermore, much of the
prime shorebird habitat is located on private lands where monitoring
rarely occurs. Available population data are restricted to well-known
areas (e. g., Federal and state wildlife refuges; Missouri River aerial
surveys by Helmers and Humburg; see Skagen et al. 1999) and may not
reflect shorebird use in the variety of habitats occurring throughout
the UMVGL region.

A major need exists for data on shorebird abundance, distribution,
chronology, and population trends in the UMVGL region. Population
objectives cannot be set for most species without such information. One
of the most important issues consistently identified by wildlife
managers surveyed in the UMVGL region (see Appendix 2) was the need for
basic information on shorebird use of their areas. Less than half the
areas surveyed actively monitor shorebird use, and only 10 conduct
quantitative surveys to estimate seasonal patterns of shorebird
abundance.

The only large-scale survey for tracking numbers and distribution of
migrating shorebirds that currently covers the UMVGL region is the
International Shorebird Survey (ISS). Based at the Manomet Center for
Conservation Sciences, the ISS uses a network of \~800 cooperators to
census shorebirds at over 500 locations. ISS data are useful in
providing information on use, peak numbers, timing of migration, and
responses to management activities at individual survey sites. However,
because ISS sites are not randomly selected, coverage varies within and
among years, observer bias is large, and the accuracy of large counts is
unknown, the ISS has limited utility for estimating population trends.
Nevertheless, along the Atlantic coast, the ISS has shown a 50-80%
decrease in several species of shorebirds (Howe et al. 1989).

ISS coverage within the UMVGL is limited. The following numbers of ISS
sites have been surveyed in the major states comprising the UMVGL region
(Brian Harrington, personal communication): Illinois, 11 sites; Indiana,
6; Iowa, 12; Kentucky, 5; Michigan, 23; Minnesota, 7; Missouri, 4; Ohio,
54; New York (Great Lakes portion), 12; and Wisconsin, 4 (see Table 3
for a partial list of ISS sites in the region). The most important
shorebird population assessment need in the UMVGL region is to increase
participation in, and geographic coverage of, the ISS. Both public and
private lands need to be surveyed.

Other, more specialized monitoring programs provide population trend
data on several shorebird species in the UMVGL region. The North
American Breeding Bird Survey (BBS) is a statistically-based, roadside
survey that uses point counts done along \~4,100 routes in the U. S. and
Canada to monitor avian population trends (but not population size). In
the UMVGL region, the BBS provides adequate trend data on breeding
populations of the killdeer and upland sandpiper, but problems with
species detectability and route locations limit the BBS\'s usefulness
for other shorebird species.

Species-specific surveys monitor populations of two high-concern
shorebird species in the UMVGL. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
the Canadian Wildlife Service coordinate an annual Woodcock
Singing-ground Survey, which provides a statistically sound population
index for this species. Singing males are counted along randomly
selected routes throughout the species\' northern breeding range
(Bruggink 1999). Harvest surveys are also done for woodcock, and provide
information on age and sex composition of populations as well as harvest
size and distribution and hunter success. Breeding populations and
productivity of piping plovers are monitored intensely by researchers,
volunteers, and Federal and state agencies in the Great Lakes. In
addition, a coordinated, international survey of breeding and wintering
piping plovers is conducted every five years.

This plan will strive to support and expand the above shorebird
monitoring programs in the UMVGL region and, to the extent possible,
adopt any additional single- or multi-species monitoring protocols that
are developed for the USSCP.

# RESEARCH AND INFORMATION NEEDS

The research and information needs listed below have to be addressed to
further shorebird conservation in the UMVGL region. This is neither an
exhaustive, nor a prioritized list but it provides an initial focus for
shorebird information-gathering efforts in the region. Information is
needed on:

> 1\) Shorebird distribution and abundance, and factors affecting them
> (e. g., habitat availability and management). It is especially
> important to better understand the distribution of shorebirds on
> public vs. private lands as this has implications for habitat
> conservation and population monitoring activities.
>
> 2\) The chronology and peaks of shorebird movements, temporal
> composition of migrants, and factors affecting turnover rates at
> stopover sites. These factors also have implications for habitat
> conservation and population monitoring.
>
> 3\) The distribution, abundance, conditions, and ownership of wetlands
> and other important shorebird habitats, how they are affected by
> climatic patterns and human activities, and where there is potential
> to restore and enhance additional shorebird habitat in the region.
> Existing and potential habitats should be mapped with Geographic
> Information Systems to determine where conservation efforts can be
> most effective. The Shorebird Habitat Monitoring Network proposed by
> Dinsmore et al. (1999) should be considered for the UMVGL region as a
> means of assessing habitat availability for migrant shorebirds,
> determining if, when, and where there are critical habitat shortages,
> and enhancing coordinated management efforts to overcome these
> ecological hurdles.
>
> 4\) Shorebird nutritional requirements and food preferences, and how
> their invertebrate food resources respond to wetland dynamics and
> management activities.
>
> 5\) How human disturbance affects shorebird foraging and breeding, and
> ways to reduce these impacts.
>
> 6\) The effects of contaminants on shorebirds, especially at Confined
> Disposal Facilities that are used by foraging birds.

# EDUCATION AND OUTREACH NEEDS

A number of wildlife area managers surveyed in the UMVGL region (see
Appendix 2) mentioned the need for literature and training on shorebird
identification, life histories, habitat requirements, and management
techniques. These are necessary to facilitate the incorporation of
shorebird management into larger resource management programs. A number
of excellent shorebird management workshops have been held in the UMVGL
region by the Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences in the past and
these should continue. Regional management manuals should be developed
to assist managers.

Because a large portion of shorebird habitat is on private lands,
outreach information on the values and needs of shorebirds should be
developed and made available to private landowners. Technical assistance
is also needed, for those landowners with specific interests in managing
their land for shorebirds. This can be provided by biologists with the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service,
Farm Services Agency, and state wildlife agencies if additional funding
is available.

Educational programs are needed to inform the public about the ecology
and importance of shorebirds, and threats facing them (especially human
disturbance). The Shorebird Sister Schools Program is an excellent
educational tool whose use should be expanded in the UMVGL region. It
includes a K-12 curriculum, World Wide Web site, and listserver that
track migrating shorebirds, educate students and teachers about these
species and overall wetland conservation, and facilitate the formation
of international pen pals who are linked to one another as the birds
span the globe in their migrations.

# FUNDING NEEDS

Previous sections of this plan have identified actions that are needed
to better conserve shorebirds in the UMVGL region. Some of these are
regionwide in scope, while others are site-specific. At present,
detailed funding needs for shorebird conservation in the region cannot
be specified, but support is needed for the following general activities
(not listed in priority order) :

> 1\) Habitat protection through fee-title acquisition, easements, and
> agreements.
>
> 2\) Restoration of wetlands and grasslands.
>
> 3\) Habitat management activities and infrastructure, including water
> control structures, pumping systems, dikes, impoundments, and farming
> equipment.
>
> 4\) Population monitoring and development of Geographic Information
> Systems and other databases to house region-specific information on
> shorebird numbers, distribution, chronology, population trends, and
> habitats.
>
> 5\) Research to address information needs related to shorebird
> conservation, as outlined above in the section on research and
> information needs.
>
> 6\) Education and outreach activities and materials, including
> training workshops, publications, and educational programs.
>
> 7\) Technical assistance to private landowners.
>
> 8\) Additional biologists and resource managers to accomplish the
> above tasks.

# ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We would like to acknowledge the significant contribution of Nicole
Fredrickson-Knapp in developing an earlier draft of this plan and in
compiling data to determine shorebird species priorities in the UMVGL
region. We also appreciate the assistance of the following people in
contributing information and/or reviewing drafts of the plan: Dan
Brauning (Pennsylvania Game Commission), John Castrale (Indiana
Department of Natural Resources \[DNR\]), Francesca Cuthbert (University
of Minnesota), Randy Dettmers (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
\[USFWS\]), James Dinsmore (Iowa State University), Stephen Dinsmore (U.
S. Geological Survey \[USGS\]), Jan Eldridge (USFWS), Bonita Eliason
(Minnesota DNR), Jane Fitzgerald (Partners in Flight), Leigh Fredrickson
(Gaylord Memorial Laboratory, University of Missouri), Mark Hodgkins
(USFWS), Dan Holm (Illinois DNR), Stephanie Jones (USFWS), Vern Kleen
(Illinois DNR), Sumner Matteson (Wisconsin DNR), Amanda McColpin
(University of Missouri), Robert Miller (New York Department of
Environmental Conservation), Laura Ragan (USFWS), Rochelle Renken
(Missouri Department of Conservation), Julie Shieldcastle (Black Swamp
Bird Observatory), Susan Skagen (USGS), and Rick Speer (USFWS). Our
thanks also goes to the managers and biologists who responded to our
questionnaire. Rex Johnson (USFWS) kindly provided the map used in
Figure 1 and related land use information. Many of the conservation
strategies identified in this plan were taken from an unpublished 1996
shorebird management plan by Doug Helmers and Dale Humburg for a
proposed Big Rivers Joint Venture.

# LITERATURE CITED

Bedford, K.W. 1992. The physical effects of the Great Lakes on
tributaries and wetlands. J. Great Lakes. Res. 18: 571-589.

Bruggink, J. G. 1999. American woodcock harvest and breeding population
status, 1999. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird
Management, Laurel, MD. 14 pp.

Burger, J., M.A. Howe, D.C. Hahn, and J. Chase. 1977. Effects of tidal
cycle 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 Bulletin 100:
554-566.

Commission for Environmental Cooperation. 1998. A proposed framework for
delineating ecologically-based planning, implementation, and evaluation
units for cooperative bird conservation in the U.S. Summary Proceedings
from meetings at Puebla, Mexico and Memphis Tennessee. 24 pp.

Dahl, T.E. and C.E. Johnson. 1991. Status and trends of wetlands in the
conterminous United States, mid-1970's to mid-1980's. U. S. Dept.
Interior, Fish and Wildl. Serv. Leafl. 13.3.5. 7 pp.

Dechant, J. A., M. F. Dinkins, D. H. Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade,
B. D. Parkin, and B. R. Euliss. 2000. Effects of management practices on
grassland birds: upland sandpiper. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research
Center, Jamestown, ND. 33 pp. (see also
*http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/grasbird.htm*)

Dechant, J. A., D. H Johnson, L. D. Igl, C. M. Goldade, A. L. Zimmerman,
and B. R. Euliss. 1999. Effects of management practices on grassland
birds: Wilson\'s phalarope. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center,
Jamestown, ND. 33 pp. (see also
*http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/grasbird.htm*)

Dinsmore, S. J., S. K. Skagen, and D. H. Helmers. 1999. Shorebirds: an
overview for the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture. Prairie Pothole Joint
Venture, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, CO. 24 pp.

Eldridge, J. 1992. Management of habitat for breeding and migrating
shorebirds in the Midwest. U. S. Dpt. Interior, Fish and Wildl. Serv.
Leafl. 13.2.14. 6 pp.

Fitzgerald, J. A., D. N. Pashley, S. J. Lewis, and B. Pardo. 1998.
Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plan for the Northern Tallgrass
Prairie (Physiographic Area 40). Version 1.0. 59 pp.

Fredrickson, L. H. 1991. Strategies for water manipulations in
moist-soil systems.

U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Leafl. 13.2.1. 8 pp.

Fredrickson, L. H. and F. A. Reid. 1990. Impacts of hydrologic
alteration on management of freshwater wetlands. pp. 77-90 in J. M.
Sweeney, ed. Management of dynamic ecosystems. North Cent. Sect., The
Wildl. Soc., West Lafayette, IN.

Fredrickson, L. H. and F. A. Reid. 1986. Wetlands and riparian habitats:
a nongame overview. pp. 59-96 in J. B. Hale, L. B. Best, and R. L.
Clawson, eds. Management of nongame wildlife in the Midwest: a
developing art. Proc. Symp. 47th Midwest Fish and Wildl. Conf.

Fredrickson, L. H. and T. S. Taylor. 1982. Management of seasonally
flooded impoundments for wildlife. U. S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. Resour.
Publ. 148. 29 pp.

Hands, H. M. 1988. Ecology of migrant shorebirds in northeastern
Missouri. M. S. Thesis, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia, MO. 124 pp.

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

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

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

Helmers, D. L. 1993. Enhancing the management of wetlands for migrant
shorebirds.

Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat. Resour. Conf. 58: 335-344.

Howe, M. A., P. H. Geissler, and B. A. Harrington. 1989. Population
trends of North American shorebirds based on the International Shorebird
Survey. Biological Conservation 49: 189-199.

Johnson, D. H., L. D. Igl, J. A. Dechant, M. L. Sondreal, C. M. Goldale,
M. P. Nenneman, and B. R. Euliss. 1998. Effects of management practices
on grassland birds: marbled godwit. Northern Prairie Wildlife Research
Center, Jamestown, ND. 7 pp. (see also
*http://www.npwrc.usgs.gov/resource/literatr/grasbird/grasbird.htm*)

Laubhan, M. K. and L. H. Fredrickson. 1993. Integrated wetland
management: concepts and opportunities. Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat.
Resour. Conf. 58: 323-334.

Matteson, S. W. 1996. Birds of Wisconsin\'s lake beaches and dunes.
Passenger Pigeon 58: 335-413.

Maynard, L. and D. Wilcox. 1997. Coastal wetlands. 1996 State of the
Lakes Ecosystem Conference (SOLEC) background paper. Environment Canada
and U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA 905-R-97-0156.

Mills, E. L., J. H. Leach J. T. Carlton, and C. L. Secor. 1993. Exotic
species in the Great Lakes: a history of biotic crises and anthropogenic
introductions. J. Great Lakes Res. 19: 1-54.

Reinecke, K. J., R. M. Kaminski, D. J. Moorhead, J. D. Hodges, and R. J.
Nassar. 1989. Mississippi alluvial valley. pp. 203-247 in 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, TX.

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

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

Sepik, G. F., R. B Owen, Jr., and M. C. Coulter. 1992. A landowner\'s
guide to woodcock management in the Northeast. U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service and Maine Agricultural Experiment Station. 23 pp.

Skagen S. K. 1997. Stopover ecology of transitory populations: The case
of migrant shorebirds. Ecological Studies 125: 244-269.

Skagen, S. K. and F. L. Knopf. 1993. Toward conservation of
midcontinental shorebird migrations. Conservation Biology 7: 533-541.

Skagen, S. K. and F. L. Knopf. 1994. Migrating shorebirds and habitat
dynamics at a prairie wetland complex. Wilson Bull. 106: 91-105.

Skagen, S. K., P. B Sharpe, R. G. Waltermire, and M. B. Dillon. 1999.
Biogeographical profiles of shorebird migration in midcontinental North
America. U. S. Geological Survey Biol. Sci. Rep. USGS/BRD/RSR -
2000-2003. 167 pp.

Streeter, R. G., M. W. Tome, and D. K. Weaver. 1993. North American
Waterfowl Management Plan: shorebird benefits? Trans. N. Am. Wildl. Nat.
Resour. Conf. 58: 363-369.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Recovery plan for piping plovers
breeding on the Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains. U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN. 160 pp.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. American woodcock management
plan. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. 11pp.

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Migratory nongame birds of
management concern in the United States: the 1995 list. U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Washington, DC.
22 pp.

Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint Venture Management
Board. 1998. Upper Mississippi River and Great Lakes Region Joint
Venture Implementation Plan. 58 pp.

# APPENDIX 1: MANAGEMENT TECHNIQUES FOR MIGRATING SHOREBIRDS IN THE UMVGL REGION

This section focuses on management techniques that can be used to
benefit migrating shorebirds in UMVGL region (see Rundle and Fredrickson
1981, Eldridge 1992, Fredrickson and Taylor 1982, Helmers 1992 and 1993,
Laubhan and Fredrickson 1993, and Dinsmore et al. 1999 for more
details). These techniques are designed to mimic natural fluctuations in
water levels and vegetation that result in high quality habitat for
shorebirds. Such management involves timed drawdowns or re-flooding to
ensure the availability of mud flats and shallow water (\<10 cm; 4 in)
where abundant invertebrates are readily available to foraging birds.
Ideal feeding depths vary between shorebird guilds because of
differences in size and foraging strategy, and range from drying and wet
mudflats to water depths of 18 cm (6 in) (Helmers 1992). Shorebirds
generally prefer areas with \<25% vegetative cover. Other management
activities (e. g., burning or discing) can also be adjusted to provide
habitat for shorebirds.

For management purposes, foraging shorebirds can be grouped into several
habitat guilds based on water depth or soil moisture (Helmers 1992, Mark
Shieldcastle personal communication). In general, the water depth in
which a bird forages is correlated with its body size (Eldridge 1992).
By recognizing which habitats are available, or could be made available
through management, in a given wetland or wetland complex, the variety
of shorebirds potentially using an area can be predicted. **Beach**
shorebirds prefer sandy or gravel beaches, tend to be specialists, and
include the sanderling, ruddy turnstone, and piping plover.
**Dry-mudflat** specialists in the region include the Baird's,
buff-breasted, and upland sandpipers, the large plovers, and killdeer.
**Moist-mudflat** species prefer areas with no surface water and include
the pectoral, solitary, spotted, semipalmated, and least sandpipers,
semipalmated plover, red knot, and common snipe. **Shallow-water**
shorebirds prefer mostly open water (up to 5 cm (2 in) deep) with some
mixed emergent vegetation, and include the greater and lesser
yellowlegs, willet, pectoral and stilt sandpipers, dunlin, and short-
and long-billed dowitchers. **Deep-water** species prefer mostly open
water at depths of 5-20 cm (2-8 in) with some mixed emergent vegetation,
and include the whimbrel, Hudsonian and marbled godwits, and Wilson\'s
and red-necked phalaropes.

The types of wetland used by shorebirds range from temporary basins in
agricultural fields and pastures, to permanent lakes. When considering
the management of shorebird habitats in conjunction with other wildlife
management activities in the UMVGL region, several factors should be
taken into account. These include the current land-use (such as row
crops or pasture), water management capabilities, and land ownership
(whether public or private). Three major land ownership/management
categories are found in the UMVGL region: 1) intensively-managed public
lands, such as national wildlife refuges or state wildlife management
areas, many of which have water level management capabilities, 2)
unmanaged public lands, which do not have water level management
capabilities, such as state natural areas, and 3) private lands, which
are largely unmanaged.

In the UMVGL region, the major focus of many managed wetlands with water
control structures has been to grow natural foods and row crops for
waterfowl, especially fall migrants. Additional emphasis has recently
been placed on providing high energy foods and increasing invertebrate
availability in areas used by waterfowl during their spring migration
(Fredrickson and Reid 1986). The timing, water depth, and duration of
drawdowns and flooding are important in creating habitats for all
waterbirds. Integrated management strategies should include adjusting
the timing and spatial distribution of manipulations to optimize
habitats for shorebirds and other waterbirds. For example, a certain
sites could be drawn down for both late-migrating ducks and shorebirds,
or discing and burning schedules could be timed to provide mudflats and
sparsely vegetated areas when shorebirds are migrating.

Included below are management guidelines in the three most common
habitat types in the UMVGL region, seasonally-flooded impoundments,
semi-permanent and permanent wetlands, and flooded agricultural fields.
It is important to note that the following recommendations are
generalized and will require fine-tuning at each site as the optimal
timing and type of water level and vegetation manipulations vary within
the region. When assessing the potential management capabilities of an
area, wetland managers must ultimately make site-specific management
decisions based on such factors as water availability, drawdown and
flooding capabilities, and time since disturbance.

[Seasonally-flooded Impoundments (Moist-soil Units)]{.underline}

Moist-soil management is a term applied to drawing down or irrigating a
wetland to create mudflat conditions that promote the germination of
annual plants. This management approach is applies throughout the UMVGL
region. Drawing down marshes during open water stages encourages the
regeneration of vegetation. Generalized strategies and techniques for
the management of moist-soil units have been summarized by Fredrickson
and Taylor (1982), Reinecke et al. (1989), and

Fredrickson (1991).

Spring shorebird migration in the UMVGL region occurs between mid-March
and late May, depending on latitude (Helmers 1992, Humburg and Helmers
unpublished data). Moist-soil units suitable for spring shorebird
management require fall flooding approximately one month before the
first heavy freeze and maintenance of flooded conditions to enable
chironomid midges (*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
(1 in)/week) to provide a continuous supply of invertebrates (Hands et
al. 1991, Rundle and Fredrickson 1981). Units managed for spring
shorebird use 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 drawdowns appear (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. For example, at Ted Shanks Wildlife
Management Area, Missouri, peak spring migration dates for lesser
yellowlegs occur in late April, whereas semipalmated sandpipers peak in
late May (Hands 1988). Slow and staggered drawdown of moist-soil units
provide resources for shorebirds and other species, and will also
promote a diversity of vegetation communities (Fredrickson 1991).

Summer/fall shorebird migration in the UMVGL region occurs between
mid-July and late September. Management of moist soil units 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 in late
summer/fall make invertebrates available to shorebirds and concentrate
prey for other waterbirds.

If dry units will be flooded for shorebirds, they should be shallowly
flooded 10-15 cm (4-6 in) 2‑3 weeks before summer/fall migration begins.
This allows time for invertebrates to re‑populate the newly-created
habitats (Rundle and Fredrickson 1981, Hands et al. 1991, Helmers 1991).
If possible, some of the vegetation should be disced before re-flooding
to promote shorebird response. It is important to use shallow discing
because this helps convert plant biomass to a detrital food source that
is available to benthic invertebrates, whereas deep discing buries the
cut plant material and makes it unavailable to invertebrates
(Fredrickson and Reid 1986).

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

[Semipermanent and Permanent Wetlands]{.underline}

Semipermanent and permanent wetlands without water control capabilities
can offer excellent foraging sites for shorebirds. Short, sparse
vegetation that is shallowly flooded during early spring, can provide
foraging habitats within wet meadow zones (Colwell and Oring 1988,
Eldridge 1992). Summer/fall drawdowns from natural evaporation of
permanent wetlands and ponds provide habitats for south-migrating
shorebirds (Hands et. al. 1991). Removing dense vegetation from wetlands
by burning or mowing after basins have dried in late summer or fall will
produce additional foraging areas for migrant shorebirds the following
spring. When basins are reflooded from precipitation or winter snow
melt, shallowly-flooded habitats will be available at wetland edges the
following spring.

Semipermanent 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 feasible if wetlands are
large (\>20 ha; 50 ac) or deep (\>1 m; 3 ft) because abilities to
re-flood may be limited.

[Flooded Agricultural Fields]{.underline}

Agricultural lands in many areas, such as the Lower Mississippi Valley
(Reinecke et al. 1989, Ringleman 1990), are managed for waterfowl and
may have the potential to provide resources for shorebirds. Managed
agricultural fields can be highly effective in providing shorebird
habitat, especially in areas where managed wetlands are unavailable or
where natural wetlands have been lost or degraded (Hands et. al 1991).
If optimal water depths are available, shorebird use of agricultural
fields can be extensive, especially during spring migration.

Managed agricultural fields flooded for waterfowl over winter are
generally 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 March through April so
that early migrant shorebirds, ibis, and late migrating waterfowl 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 late-migrating
shorebirds and waders. During the spring, drawdowns of some fallow
fields flooded for winter waterfowl should be delayed until late May to
ensure that habitat remains for late-migrating shorebirds. Water should
also be held as long as possible before preparing fields for later crops
such as cover crops or millet.

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 (from \<1-15 cm (1-6
in)) will provide foraging opportunities for south-migrating shorebirds
such as the semipalmated and pectoral sandpipers, as well as early
migrating blue-winged teal (*Anas discors*) and northern pintail (*Anas
acuta*). Opportunities to create shorebird habitat may exist in the
UMVGL region by shallowly disking and re-flooding wheat fields during
July and August. During the summer, staggering the flooding dates
between fields, and water depths within fields, can have a dual benefit.
First, it will continuously provide new foraging habitat for migrant
shorebirds and waders. Second, early-flooded fields that are naturally
drawn down from evaporation stimulate the germination of annual plants
and in turn provide browse for wintering geese and possibly seeds for
dabbling ducks (Helmers 1992).

# APPENDIX 2: CURRENT SHOREBIRD MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES IN THE UMVGL REGION

Managers and biologists on wildlife areas in 11 states throughout the
UMVGL region were surveyed to identify factors that affect shorebird use
on managed lands. The survey was aimed at determining habitat goals for
these areas, ongoing management practices that affect shorebird use, and
the potential for additional efforts to enhance shorebird habitat in the
future. Telephone interviews and written questionnaires were used, and
responses were received from 66 wildlife areas (Table 3). It is
important to note that the survey was not sent to all possible wildlife
areas. For example, most national wildlife refuges and tribal areas
within the region were surveyed, but relatively few State or privately
managed wildlife areas were contacted. Nevertheless, these results
provide useful insight into current shorebird management practices
throughout the UMVGL region.

As expected, the survey found that most wildlife areas are managed for a
diverse array of habitat goals. The three most common primary goals of
the areas surveyed are to: 1) provide waterfowl habitat (n = 38); 2)
provide waterfowl and nongame habitat (n = 13); and 3) protect, enhance
or restore natural habitats and processes (n = 6). However, slightly
less than half of the areas surveyed (n = 31) intentionally provide
shorebird habitat (Table 3), and only three manage for specific
shorebird species (e. g., woodcock, snipe, and piping plover). Although
about half (n = 35) have water management plans that sometimes include
wildlife management strategies, only five areas have plans specifically
for shorebird habitat management.

While few areas are actively managed for shorebirds, ongoing management
practices on many areas can affect shorebird habitat. For example,
wildlife areas commonly use techniques that can enhance habitats for
shorebirds such as burning, discing, and/or mowing (n = 13), and spring
and/or fall drawdowns (n = 9). Furthermore, some mentioned other
potentially important factors such as benefits from waterfowl management
techniques (n = 3), and restoration of degraded habitats (n = 3).

Respondents were also asked to list potential problems with providing
shorebird habitat. Some respondents mentioned that shorebird management
may conflict with waterfowl management goals (n = 4) or other interests
such as fisheries, agriculture, or commercial use (n = 5). Some felt
that drawdowns timed during shorebird migratory periods sometimes are
not compatible with current management goals (n = 9), or can increase
problems from invasive species (e. g., purple loosestrife, cocklebur or
willow) (n = 3) or botulism (n = 2), and some areas lack water control
structures and cannot manipulate drawdown schedules (n = 3). However, it
is important to note that most respondents (n = 48) felt that they can
incorporate shorebird management practices without compromising
well-established goals.

Finally, additional resources are necessary to implement new management
strategies for shorebirds. One of the most important needs is basic
information on shorebird populations and life histories. For example,
less than half the wildlife areas (n = 30) actively survey shorebird use
of their areas, and only nine conduct quantitative surveys to estimate
seasonal patterns of shorebird abundance. Clearly, accurate information
on the timing and abundance of migratory shorebirds is needed in the
UMVGL region. Many respondents (n = 22) also mentioned needing materials
and opportunities such as literature and workshops on shorebird
identification and management strategies. Other needed resources for
increasing shorebird management capabilities are additional personnel (n
= 16), funding to acquire habitat (n = 7), and water control structures
(n = 5).

**Table 1. Seasonal occurrence and relative abundance of shorebirds in
the Upper Mississippi Valley /Great Lakes shorebird planning region and
the Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs) that comprise the planning
region.**

+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| >           | **  | *       | **Lower | **      | **      | **      |
| **Species** | Ent | *Boreal | Great   | Eastern | Prairie | Central |
|             | ire | H       | La      | Tall    | H       | Hard    |
|             | Pl  | ardwood | kes/St. | Grass   | ardwood | woods** |
|             | ann | Trans   | L       | Prairie | Trans   |         |
|             | ing | ition** | awrence | (BCR    | ition** | **(BCR  |
|             | Re  |         | Plain   | 22)**   |         | 24)**   |
|             | gio | **(BCR  | (BCR    |         | **(BCR  |         |
|             | n** | 12)**   | 13)**   |         | 23)**   |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Bl          | M   | M       | M       | M       | M       |         |
| ack-bellied |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| Plover      |     |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Pluvialis  |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| squatarola* |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| American    | M   | m       | M       | M       | M       | m       |
| Go          |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| lden-Plover |     |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Pluvialis  |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| dominicus*  |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| S           | M   | m       | M       | M       | M       | m       |
| emipalmated |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| Plover      |     |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Charadrius |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| se          |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| mipalmatus* |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Piping      | M,  | m,      | M       | M       | M       |         |
| Plover      | **  | **B**   |         |         |         |         |
| (Great      | B** |         |         |         |         |         |
| Lakes       |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| Population) |     |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Caradrius  |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| melodus*    |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Killdeer    | M,  | M, B    | M,      | M,      | M,      | M, B    |
|             | B   |         | **B**   | **B**   | **B**   |         |
| *Charadrius |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| vociferus*  |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Greater     | **  | M       | M       | **M**   | **M**   | M       |
| Yellowlegs  | M** |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Tringa     |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| m           |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| elanoleuca* |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Lesser      | M   | M       | M       | **M**   | **M**   | M       |
| Yellowlegs  |     |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Tringa     |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| flavipes*   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Solitary    | M,  | M, b    | M       | M       | M       |         |
| Sandpiper   | b   |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Tringa     |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| solitaria*  |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Willet      | m   | m       | m       | m       | m       |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Cat        |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| optrophorus |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| se          |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| mipalmatus* |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Spotted     | M,  | M, B    | M, B    | M, B    | M, B    | M, b    |
| Sandpiper   | B   |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Actitis    |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| macularia*  |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| >           | **  | *       | **Lower | **      | **      | **      |
| **Species** | Ent | *Boreal | Great   | Eastern | Prairie | Central |
|             | ire | H       | La      | Tall    | H       | Hard    |
|             | Pl  | ardwood | kes/St. | Grass   | ardwood | woods** |
|             | ann | Trans   | L       | Prairie | Trans   |         |
|             | ing | ition** | awrence | (BCR    | ition** | **(BCR  |
|             | Re  |         | Plain   | 22)**   |         | 24)**   |
|             | gio | **(BCR  | (BCR    |         | **(BCR  |         |
|             | n** | 12)**   | 13)**   |         | 23)**   |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Upland      | m,  | m, b    | m, b    | m, b    | m, b    | m       |
| Sandpiper   | b   |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Bartramia  |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| longicauda* |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Whimbrel    | m   | m       | m       | m       | m       | m       |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Numenius   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| phaeopus*   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Hudsonian   | M   | M       | m       | M       | M       |         |
| Godwit      |     |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Limosa     |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| haemastica* |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Marbled     | m,  | m, b    | m       | M       | m       |         |
| Godwit      | b   |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Limosa     |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| fedoa*      |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Ruddy       | M,  | M       | M, w    | M       | M       |         |
| Turnstone   | w   |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Arenaria   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| interpres*  |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Red Knot    | m   | m       | m       | m       | m       |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Calidris   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| canutus*    |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Sanderling  | M   | M       | m       | M       | M       |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Calidris   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| alba*       |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| S           | M   | M       | M       | M       | M       | M       |
| emipalmated |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| Sandpiper   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Calidris   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| pusilla*    |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Western     | m   | m       | m       | m       | m       |         |
| Sandpiper   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Calidris   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| mauri*      |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Least       | **  | **M**   | **M**   | **M**   | **M**   | M       |
| Sandpiper   | M** |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Calidris   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| minutilla*  |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| W           | M   | M       | m       | M       | M       | m       |
| hite-rumped |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| Sandpiper   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Calidris   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| f           |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| uscicollis* |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Baird's     | M   | M       | m       | M       | M       | m       |
| Sandpiper   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Calidris   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| bairdii*    |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| >           | **  | *       | **Lower | **      | **      | **      |
| **Species** | Ent | *Boreal | Great   | Eastern | Prairie | Central |
|             | ire | H       | La      | Tall    | H       | Hard    |
|             | Pl  | ardwood | kes/St. | Grass   | ardwood | woods** |
|             | ann | Trans   | L       | Prairie | Trans   |         |
|             | ing | ition** | awrence | (BCR    | ition** | **(BCR  |
|             | Re  |         | Plain   | 22)**   |         | 24)**   |
|             | gio | **(BCR  | (BCR    |         | **(BCR  |         |
|             | n** | 12)**   | 13)**   |         | 23)**   |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Pectoral    | M   | M       | **M**   | **M**   | M       | m       |
| Sandpiper   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Calidris   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| melanotos*  |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Dunlin      | M   | m       | **M**   | M       | M       | m       |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Calidris   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| alpina*     |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Stilt       | M   | m       | M       | M       | M       | m       |
| Sandpiper   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Calidris   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| himantopus* |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Bu          | M   | m       | M       | M       | M       | m       |
| ff-breasted |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| Sandpiper   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Tryngites  |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| sub         |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| ruficollis* |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| S           | M   | m       | **M**   | M       | M       | m       |
| hort-billed |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| Dowitcher   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *           |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| Limnodromus |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| griseus*    |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Long-billed | M   | m       | **M**   | **M**   | **M**   | m       |
| Dowitcher   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *           |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| Limnodromus |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| s           |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| colopaceus* |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Common      | M,  | m, B    | M, b    | M, b    | M, b    | m       |
| Snipe       | b   |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Gallinago  |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| gallinago*  |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| American    | M,  | M, B    | M, B    | M, B    | M, B    | M, B    |
| Woodcock    | B   |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Scolopax   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| minor*      |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Wilson's    | M,  | M, b    | m, b    | M       | M       |         |
| Phalarope   | b   |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Phalaropus |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| tricolor*   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+
| Red-necked  | m   |         | m       | m       | m       |         |
| Phalarope   |     |         |         |         |         |         |
|             |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| *Phalaropus |     |         |         |         |         |         |
| lobatus*    |     |         |         |         |         |         |
+-------------+-----+---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

**Codes:** B = Breeding, M = Migration, and W = Wintering. **B, M, W** =
high concentrations known to occur; region is extremely important to the
species relative to the majority of other regions. B, M, W = common or
locally abundant, with large numbers known or suspected to occur; region
is important to the species. b, m, w = uncommon to fairly common; region
is within the species' range and occurs regularly, but is present in low
abundance relative to other regions. Blank = does not occur in the
region, or only unpredictable, irregular occurrence as a vagrant.

**Table 2. Shorebird species priorities in the Upper Mississippi
Valley/Great Lakes Region^1^.**

+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| **SPECIES**   | ** |    |     |     |     |    | **     | *         |
|               | RE |    |     |     |     |    | AREA** | *REGIONAL |
|               | GI |    |     |     |     |    |        | (NA       |
|               | ON |    |     |     |     |    | **IMP  | TIONAL)** |
|               | AL |    |     |     |     |    | ORTANC |           |
|               | S  |    |     |     |     |    | E^3^** | **PRIO    |
|               | CO |    |     |     |     |    |        | RITY^4^** |
|               | RE |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
|               | S^ |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
|               | 2^ |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
|               | ** |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
|               | ** | ** | **T | **T | **B | ** |        |           |
|               | PT | RA | B** | N** | D** | ND |        |           |
|               | ** | ** |     |     |     | ** |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| **Highly      |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
| Imperiled**   |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Piping Plover | 5  | 5  | 5   | 4   | 5   | 5  | 5      | 5 (5)     |
|               |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
| (Great Lakes  |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
| Population)   |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| **High        |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
| Concern**     |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Whimbrel      | 5  | 4  | 2   | 3\* | 3   | 2  | 3      | 4 (4)     |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Marbled       | 4  | 3  | 4   | 3\* | 3   | 3  | 3      | 4 (4)     |
| Godwit        |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Buff-breasted | 4  | 5  | 3   | 3\* | 3   | 4  | 4      | 4 (4)     |
| Sandpiper     |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Short-billed  | 5  | 2  | 2   | 4   | 3   | 2  | 4      | 4 (4)     |
| Dowitcher     |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| American      | 5  | 1  | 4   | 3\* | 2   | 3  | 4      | 4 (4)     |
| Woodcock      |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Wilson's      | 4  | 1  | 3   | 4   | 2   | 5  | 4      | 4 (4)     |
| Phalarope     |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Greater       | 3  | 4  | 2   | 3\* | 2   | 1  | 5      | 4 (3)     |
| Yellowlegs    |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Upland        | 4  | 2  | 4\* | 3\* | 2   | 3  | 3      | 4 (2)     |
| Sandpiper     | \* |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| **Moderate    |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
| Concern**     |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| American      | 4  | 3  | 2   | 3\* | 2   | 3  | 4      | 3 (4)     |
| Golden-Plover |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Solitary      | 3  | 4  | 4   | 3\* | 3   | 2  | 4      | 3 (4)     |
| Sandpiper     |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Hudsonian     | 3  | 4  | 3   | 3\* | 4   | 4  | 4      | 3 (4)     |
| Godwit        |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Ruddy         | 4  | 3  | 2   | 3\* | 2   | 2  | 4      | 3 (4)     |
| Turnstone     |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| **SPECIES**   | ** |    |     |     |     |    | **     | **R       |
|               | RE |    |     |     |     |    | AREA** | EGIONAL** |
|               | GI |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
|               | ON |    |     |     |     |    | **IMP  | **(NA     |
|               | AL |    |     |     |     |    | ORTANC | TIONAL)** |
|               | S  |    |     |     |     |    | E^3^** |           |
|               | CO |    |     |     |     |    |        | **PRIO    |
|               | RE |    |     |     |     |    |        | RITY^4^** |
|               | S^ |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
|               | 2^ |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
|               | ** |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
|               | ** | ** | **T | **T | **B | ** |        |           |
|               | PT | RA | B** | N** | D** | ND |        |           |
|               | ** | ** |     |     |     | ** |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Red Knot      | 5  | 2  | 2   | 3\* | 3   | 3  | 3      | 3 (4)     |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Sanderling    | 5  | 2  | 2   | 3\* | 2   | 1  | 4      | 3 (4)     |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Black-bellied | 5  | 3  | 2   | 3\* | 2   | 1  | 4      | 3 (3)     |
| Plover        |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Killdeer      | 5  | 1  | 3   | 3   | 1   | 2  | 4      | 3 (3)     |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Semipalmated  | 5  | 1  | 2   | 3   | 3   | 3  | 4      | 3 (3)     |
| Sandpiper     |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Western       | 3  | 1  | 2   | 3\* | 4   | 2  | 3      | 3 (3)     |
| Sandpiper     |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Least         | 5  | 2  | 2   | 3\* | 2   | 2  | 5      | 3 (3)     |
| Sandpiper     |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Dunlin        | 5  | 2  | 2   | 3   | 2   | 3  | 4      | 3 (3)     |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Common Snipe  | 5  | 1  | 2\* | 3\* | 1   | 2  | 4      | 3 (3)     |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Red-necked    | 4  | 1  | 2   | 3   | 1   | 3  | 3      | 3 (3)     |
| Phalarope     |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| **Low         |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
| Concern**     |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Willet        | 3  | 3  | 3   | 3   | 3   | 3  | 3      | 2 (3)     |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Stilt         | 3  | 3  | 3   | 3\* | 3   | 3  | 4      | 2 (3)     |
| Sandpiper     |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Semipalmated  | 3  | 3  | 2   | 3\* | 1   | 1  | 4      | 2 (2)     |
| Plover        |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Lesser        | 3  | 2  | 2   | 3   | 2   | 1  | 4      | 2 (2)     |
| Yellowlegs    |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Spotted       | 3  | 3  | 3\* | 3\* | 1   | 1  | 4      | 2 (2)     |
| Sandpiper     |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| White-rumped  | 3  | 2  | 2   | 3\* | 3   | 3  | 4      | 2 (2)     |
| Sandpiper     |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Baird's       | 3  | 2  | 2   | 3\* | 3   | 3  | 4      | 2 (2)     |
| Sandpiper     |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| **SPECIES**   | ** |    |     |     |     |    | **     | **R       |
|               | RE |    |     |     |     |    | AREA** | EGIONAL** |
|               | GI |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
|               | ON |    |     |     |     |    | **IMP  | **(NA     |
|               | AL |    |     |     |     |    | ORTANC | TIONAL)** |
|               | S  |    |     |     |     |    | E^3^** |           |
|               | CO |    |     |     |     |    |        | **PRIO    |
|               | RE |    |     |     |     |    |        | RITY^4^** |
|               | S^ |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
|               | 2^ |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
|               | ** |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
|               | ** | ** | **T | **T | **B | ** |        |           |
|               | PT | RA | B** | N** | D** | ND |        |           |
|               | ** | ** |     |     |     | ** |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Pectoral      | 3  | 2  | 2   | 3\* | 2   | 3  | 4      | 2 (2)     |
| Sandpiper     |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+
| Long-billed   | 2  | 2  | 2   | 3   | 4   | 3  | 4      | 2 (2)     |
| Dowitcher     |    |    |     |     |     |    |        |           |
+---------------+----+----+-----+-----+-----+----+--------+-----------+

^1^ Species with an Area Importance score \< 3 (rarely occur in the
region) were not included in the priority list.

^2^ The USSCP species prioritization scheme was use to score, on a scale
of 1 to 5 (1 being the lowest concern and 5 being the highest concern),
the following variables for each species: Population Trend (PT),
Relative Abundance (RA), Threats on the Breeding grounds (TB), Threats
on the Nonbreeding grounds (TN), Breeding Distribution (BD), and
Nonbreeding Distribution (ND). PT, TB and TN were, in some cases,
modified to reflect Regional differences from national scores, and
modifications are noted by \*.

^3^ These scores were determined using information in Table 1 and
procedures established in the USSCP species prioritization scheme.
Details are available in the National Shorebird Conservation Assessment,
at http://www.manomet.org/USSCP/files.htm.

^4^ These scores were determined using the information in the previous
columns of this table and procedures established in the USSCP species
prioritization scheme. Priority 5 = highly imperiled species; 4 =
species of high concern; 3 = species of moderate concern; 2 = species of
low concern; 1 = species not at risk.

**Table 3. Land manager responses to a questionnaire on shorebird
management in the Upper Mississippi Valley/Great Lakes Region.**

  ------------------------ ----------- --------------- --------------- ---------------- ------------------
  **Location**             **State**   **Managing for  **Written       **Monitoring for **Quantitative
                                       shorebirds?**   management      shorebird        surveys for
                                                       plans for       presence?^1^**   shorebirds?^2^**
                                                       shorebirds?**                    

  Agassiz National         MN          Y               N               Y                N
  Wildlife Refuge (NWR)                                                                 

  Andalusia State Refuge   IL          N               N               N                N

  Anderson Lake Fish and   IL          N               N               N                N
  Wildlife Area                                                                         

  Bad River Indian         WI          Y               Y               Y                N
  Reservation                                                                           

  Bay Mills Indian         MI          N               N               N                N
  Reservation                                                                           

  Big Muddy National       MO          N               N               N                N
  Wildlife Refuge                                                                       

  BK Leach & Quiver Island MO          N               N               N                N
  Conservation Area                                                                     

  Bois Forte Indian        MN          N               N               N                N
  Reservation                                                                           

  Carlyle Lake Wildlife    IL          Y               N               Y                N
  Management Area                                                                       

  Chain O\' Lakes State    IL          Y               N               Y                N
  Park/Redwing Slough                                                                   

  Chautauqua National      IL          Y               N               Y                Y
  Wildlife Refuge                                                                       

  Crab Orchard National    IL          Y               N               Y                N
  Wildlife Refuge                                                                       

  Donnelley Wildlife       IL          N               N               N                N
  Management Area                                                                       

  Driftless Area National  IA          N               N               N                N
  Wildlife Refuge                                                                       

  Eagles Bluffs            MO          Y               N               Y                N
  Conservation Area                                                                     

  Erie National Wildlife   PA          Y               N               Y                N
  Refuge                                                                                

  Horicon National         WI          Y               N               Y                Y
  Wildlife Refuge                                                                       

  Horseshoe Lake           IL          N               N               N                N
  Conservation Area                                                                     

  Iroquois National        NY          N               N               N                N
  Wildlife Refuge                                                                       

  Jasper Pulaski Fish and  IN          N               N               N                N
  Wildlife Area                                                                         

  Kankakee Fish and        IN          N               N               N                N
  Wildlife Area                                                                         

  Kaskaskia Fish and       IL          N               N               N                N
  Wildlife Area                                                                         

  Kingsbury Fish and       IN          N               N               N                N
  Wildlife Area                                                                         

  L\'Anse Indian           MI          N               N               N                N
  Reservation                                                                           

  Lac Courte Oreilles      WI          N               N               N                N
  Indian Reservation                                                                    

  Lac Vieux Desert Indian  MI          N               N               N                N
  Reservation                                                                           

  LaSalle Fish and         IN          Y               Y^3^            Y                N
  Wildlife Area                                                                         

  Leech Lake Indian        MN          N               N               N                N
  Reservation                                                                           

  Marias Tempe Claire      MO          Y               N               Y                N
  Conservation Area                                                                     

  Marshall Fish and        IL          N               N               N                N
  Wildlife Area                                                                         

  Mark Twain NWR, Annada   MO          Y               N               Y                N
  District                                                                              

  Mark Twain NWR, Brussels IL          N               N               Y                N
  District                                                                              

  Mark Twain NWR, Wapello  IA          N               N               N                N
  District                                                                              
  ------------------------ ----------- --------------- --------------- ---------------- ------------------

  ------------------------ ----------- --------------- --------------- ---------------- ------------------
  **Location**             **State**   **Managing for  **Written       **Monitoring for **Quantitative
                                       shorebirds?**   management      shorebird        surveys for
                                                       plans for       presence?^1^**   shorebirds?^2^**
                                                       shorebirds?**                    

  Mermet Lake Conservation IL          N               N               Y                N
  Area                                                                                  

  Mille Lacs Lake Indian   MN          Y               N               N                N
  Reservation                                                                           

  Mingo National Wildlife  MO          Y               Y^3^            Y                N
  Refuge                                                                                

  Mississquoi National     VT          N               N               N                N
  Wildlife Refuge                                                                       

  Montezuma National       NY          Y               N               Y                N
  Wildlife Refuge                                                                       

  Necedah National         WI          N               N               N                N
  Wildlife Refuge                                                                       

  Oneida Indian            WI          N               N               N                N
  Reservation                                                                           

  Ottawa National Wildlife OH          Y               N               Y                Y
  Refuge                                                                                

  Pigeon River Fish and    IN          Y               N               N                N
  Wildlife Area                                                                         

  Pine Creek Gamebird Area IN          Y               N               Y                N

  Presque Isle State Park  PA          Y               Y               Y                Y

  Red Cliff Indian         WI          N               N               N                N
  Reservation                                                                           

  Red Lake Indian          MN          N               N               Y                N
  Reservation                                                                           

  Rend Lake Fish and       IL          N               N               Y                N
  Wildlife Area                                                                         

  Rice Lake National       MN          N               N               Y                Y
  Wildlife Refuge                                                                       

  Sanganois Conservation   IL          N               N               N                N
  Area                                                                                  

  Seney National Wildlife  MI          Y               N               Y                N
  Refuge                                                                                

  Sherburne National       MN          Y               N               Y                N
  Wildlife Refuge                                                                       

  Shiawassee National      MI          Y               N               Y                Y
  Wildlife Refuge                                                                       

  Squaw Creek National     MO          Y               Y               Y                Y
  Wildlife Refuge                                                                       

  St. Croix National       WI          N               N               N                N
  Scenic Riverway                                                                       

  Swan Lake National       MO          Y               N               Y                Y
  Wildlife Refuge                                                                       

  Ted Shanks Conservation  MO          Y               N               N                Y
  Area                                                                                  

  Trempealeau National     WI          N               N               Y                N
  Wildlife Refuge                                                                       

  Tri-County Fish and      IN          Y               N               N                N
  Wildlife Area                                                                         

  Upper Mississippi River  MO          N               N               N                N
  Conservation Area                                                                     

  Upper Mississippi NW &   WI          Y               N               N                N
  FR, Lacrosse District                                                                 

  Upper Mississippi NW &   IA          Y               N               N                N
  FR, McGregor District                                                                 

  Upper Mississippi NW &   IL          Y               N               Y                N
  FR, Savanna District                                                                  

  Upper Mississippi NW &   MN          Y               N               Y                N
  FR, Winona District                                                                   

  Upper and Lower Sioux    MN          N               N               N                N
  Indian Reservations                                                                   

  White Earth Indian       MN          N               N               N                N
  Reservation                                                                           

  Willow Slough Fish and   IN          Y               N               N                N
  Wildlife Area                                                                         
  ------------------------ ----------- --------------- --------------- ---------------- ------------------

^1^ Includes informal monitoring and incidental records of shorebird
occurrence from waterfowl surveys conducted on the area.

^2^ Includes data from quantitative surveys that are sent to the
International Shorebird Survey.

^3^ Strategies for shorebird management are incorporated into written
water management plans.

**Note:** Additional responses that could not be summarized as yes / no
answers are given in the text.

![](media/image2.png){width="7.496527777777778in"
height="9.602777777777778in"}