Revised November 13, 2023

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

######## 

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

######## Conservation Plan

Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes Regional Shorebird

Conservation Plan

Version 1.0

Prepared by:

Susan K. Skagen, U.S. Geological Survey,

Genevieve Thompson, National Audubon Society

**Table of Contents**

Executive Summary 1

1\. Description of the Northern Plains/Prairie Pothole Region 2

2\. Shorebird Species Occurrence and Regional Species Priorities 8

3\. Regional Goals 10

4\. Habitat Management Options 13

5\. Management Coordination and Monitoring Needs 15

6\. Research Information Needs 18

7\. Education and Outreach Objectives 20

8\. Funding Needs for Regional Actions 21

9\. Individuals and organizations that contributed to the regional
report 21

10\. Proposed WHSRN sites 22

Literature Cited 23

list of Figures

Figure 1: Bird Conservation Region 11: Prairie
Potholes.......................... 3

Figure 2: Bird Conservation Region 17: Badlands and
Prairies................... 4

Figure 3. Distribution of all shorebirds in the midcontinent region of
North America,

including the Northern Plains/Prairie Pothole Region, during spring and
fall migrations 9

List of Tables

Table 1. Habitat Needs for Breeding Shorebirds 6

Table 2. Conservation priority of regularly occurring shorebird

species in the Northern Plains/ Prairie Potholes Region 11

Table 3. The challenge, constraints, and proposed approach for

shorebird management in the NP/PPR 17

List of Appendices

Appendix 1. Maximum numbers of shorebirds reported at important

spring stopover sites in the NP/PPR 25

Appendix 2. Maximum numbers of shorebirds reported at important fall

stopover sites in the NP/PPR 27

Appendix 3. Critical shorebird habitat requirements: Piping Plover. 29

Appendix 4. Shorebird Habitat Management Questionnaire for Land Managers
30

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan

### Northern Plains/Prairie Pothole Regional Shorebird Plan

# Executive Summary 

The Northern Plains/Prairie Pothole Region (NP/PPR) encompasses two Bird
Conservation Regions, the Prairie Potholes and the Badlands and
Prairies, and all or parts of seven states, including eastern Montana,
northeastern Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, western Minnesota,
north-central Iowa, and northeastern Nebraska. The landscape is
characterized by rolling hills of prairie grasses, millions of
depressional wetlands ranging in size from shallow temporary or seasonal
wetlands to deeper semi-permanent wetlands, and agriculture.

Thirteen species of shorebirds breed within the NP/PPR and require a
landscape of grassland and wetland habitats for nesting and brood
rearing. One of the major migration routes for western hemispheric
shorebirds, especially long-distance migrants, traverses the NP/PPR.
Because long-distance migrations are energetically expensive, the
availability of abundant habitat and food resources at migration
stopovers within the NP/PPR is critical. Shorebirds use a wide range of
habitat types within the NP/PPR, including dry grasslands, sand and
gravel beaches, natural freshwater and alkaline wetlands, lake margins,
and shallowly-flooded agricultural fields. During migration, the
unvegetated shallow waters and moist mudflats of freshwater or alkaline
wetlands are especially important. Dramatic fluctuations in water levels
are commonplace in the NP/PPR, and shallow water and mudflat habitats
are highly unpredictable in space and time. Due to the dynamic nature of
wetlands in this region, many shorebirds are opportunistic and dispersed
across the changing landscape.

Three major shorebird issues have been identified for the NP/PPR. These
are:

1\) conservation of endangered and threatened species, declining
species, and species of special concern; 2) habitat loss, including
fragmentation and degradation; and 3) the need for additional
information to evaluate potential threats, such as contaminants,
predation, and invasion of exotic plants, to migrating and breeding
shorebirds.

Regional goals within the NP/PPR are to:

1\) maintain biotic integrity and persistence of breeding shorebird
populations in the NP/PPR;

2\) ensure that adequate stopover resources exist to support populations
of migrating shorebirds;

3\) identify and fill information gaps, including the development of
tools to use within the context of dynamic ecosystem processes; and

4\) coordinate with other conservation efforts in a cross-border
landscape.

A series of habitat goals and objectives and research goals aligning
with the regional goals have been delineated.

Managing for shorebirds in the NP/PPR is challenging because of the
dynamic nature of wetland conditions in time and space and because of
the need to provide diverse wetland habitats for waterfowl and other
wetland-dependent birds. An identified management and monitoring need is
to enhance the landscape perspective on shorebird use of the plains, to
acquire critical information on whether, when, and where 'ecological
hurdles' (i.e., lack of suitable stopover habitat across large regions)
exist, and to create avenues for focused, coordinated management
activities. To fill this need, we propose an internet-based regional
communication network apprising land managers and biologists of habitat
availability and generalized shorebird movements within the U.S.
interior.

# Description of the Northern Plains/Prairie Pothole Region 

The Northern Plains/Prairie Pothole Region (NP/PPR) encompasses over
313,000 square miles in all or parts of seven states, which include
eastern Montana, northeastern Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota,
western Minnesota, north-central Iowa, and a small portion of northeast
Nebraska. It encompasses two Bird Conservation Regions (BCR): 11, the
Prairie Potholes, and 17, the Badlands and Prairies. The BCR maps for
these regions are included in Figure 1 (Prairie Potholes-BCR 11) and
Figure 2 (Badlands and Prairies-BCR 17). In addition, these maps are
available in both .jpg and .tif format on the Manomet website at
<http://www.Manomet.org/USSCP/bcrmaps.htm>.

The topography of this region was formed by the advance and retreat of
glaciers across central North America, which left a gently rolling land
surface with millions of depressions ranging in size from less than 1
acre to more than 10,000 acres. Most are shallow temporary or seasonal
wetlands with deeper semi-permanent wetlands and lakes scattered
throughout the area. Rolling hills of prairie grasses and cropland
characterize the landscape today. The predominant land use is
agriculture, consisting primarily of cattle and small grain production.
Several major landforms or areas comprise this region, including the
Missouri Coteau (French for "hills of the prairie"), the Prairie Coteau,
the Coteau Slope, the Drift Prairie, the James River lowland, and the
Red River Valley. Within the Badlands and Prairies (BCR 17), the
predominant land cover types are grasslands and dryland-scrub (10.73
million hectares), followed by agricultural lands (2.91 million
hectares) and coniferous forest (0.96 million hectares). Wetland and
grassland habitats are greatly influenced by the landforms in which they
occur.

One of the major North American migration routes for shorebirds,
especially long-distance migrants, traverses the NP/PPR, where
shorebirds make extensive use of wetlands for resting and feeding during
their annual migrations. Because long-distance migration is
energetically expensive, the availability of adequate habitat and food
resources at migration stopovers is critical. The NP/PPR also provides
important breeding habitat for several shorebird species.

**Shorebird habitat types within the region.** As a group, shorebirds
are morphologically diverse and use a wide range of habitat types within
the NP/PPR, including dry grasslands, riverine beaches and sandbars,
natural freshwater and alkaline wetlands, lake margins, and flooded
agricultural fields. Thirteen species of shorebirds breed within the
NP/PPR and use a variety of habitat for nesting and brood rearing.
Piping Plovers nest mainly along semi-permanent and permanent prairie
alkali lakes associated with the Missouri Coteau landform from central
North Dakota to northeastern Montana (roughly 65% of breeding pairs of
the U.S. Great Plains); many pairs also nest on sandbars along the
Missouri River. Mountain Plovers are terrestrial shorebirds within the
NP/PPR that are generally restricted to prairie sites modified by
prairie dogs in northern Montana.

**Figure 1: Bird Conservation Region 11: Prairie Potholes**[^1]

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="5.881944444444445in"
height="7.600694444444445in"}

6.  **Figure 2: Bird Conservation Region 17: Badlands and Prairies**

    ![](media/image3.jpeg){width="5.992361111111111in"
    height="7.754861111111111in"}

7.  **Bird Conservation Region Key**

![](media/image4.jpeg){width="5.992361111111111in"
height="7.754861111111111in"}

The remaining eleven breeding species are more widely distributed within
the NP/PPR and nest in a broad range of wetland and upland habitats,
such as gravel substrates, edges of freshwater and alkaline wetlands,
and moderately vegetated mid-grass prairie (Table 1).

**Table 1.** **Habitat Needs for Breeding Shorebirds** (after Ehrlich et
al. 1988; Fitzgerald et al. 1999).

  --------------------------- -------------------------------------------
  Species:                    Breeding Habitat:

  Piping Plover               Sand or gravel beaches and open beaches of
                              alkaline wetlands, river sandbars,
                              reservoir beaches.

  Killdeer                    A wide variety of upland habitats including
                              pastures, fields, and wetland margins.

  Mountain Plover             Disturbed shortgrass prairie with extensive
                              bare ground.

  Black-necked Stilt,         Shallow marshes, ponds, and alkaline
  American Avocet             wetlands.

  Willet, Spotted Sandpiper,  Uplands with short, sparse to dense
  Marbled Godwit, Common      vegetation adjacent to Wetlands.
  Snipe                       

  Wilson\'s Phalarope         Uplands with short to tall dense vegetation
                              adjacent to wetlands.

  Upland Sandpiper            Uplands with mid- to high vegetation.

  Long-billed Curlew          Uplands with short, dense vegetation,
                              sometimes near wetlands.

  American Woodcock           Open woodlands, brushy areas, or uplands,
                              usually near water.
  --------------------------- -------------------------------------------

During migration through the NP/PPR, shorebirds are associated primarily
with shallow water and moist mudflats of freshwater or alkaline
wetlands. More than 70% of the species require water depths of less than
10 cm, and many are restricted to water depths of less than 5 cm;
phalaropes generally forage in deeper water. Species also vary in their
use of foraging habitat relative to vegetation structure and
distribution. Although shorebird foraging substrates range from bare (no
vegetative cover) to vegetative cover exceeding 75%, most species use
sites with less than 25% cover. Many shorebirds prefer vegetation height
to be less than half of their body height, although some species forage
in taller vegetation.

Dramatic fluctuations in water levels are characteristic of the NP/PPR,
and shallow water and mudflat habitats are highly variable
geographically and temporally. Due to the dynamic nature of wetlands in
this region, many shorebirds are opportunistic, and population
distribution varies with temporal changes in wetland conditions in
contrast to their use of more stable staging areas along the Atlantic
and Pacific coasts. Historically, the highly dynamic and diverse
complexes of prairie wetlands and rivers probably provided nearly ideal
habitat options for migrating shorebirds. Wetland complexes provided a
variety of options that virtually assured availability of suitable
foraging habitat under any climatic conditions (Skagen and Knopf 1993,
1994). Wetland complexes facilitate food searching by en-route migrants
(Farmer and Parent 1997). However, since European settlement, changes in
land use with high impacts on seasonal and ephemeral wetlands have
probably impaired the ability of the ecosystem to consistently provide
for the needs of this diverse group of wetland-dependent birds.

Historically, biotic and abiotic disturbances resulted in the short
vegetation and mudflat habitats that are optimal foraging sites for
shorebirds. Herbivore species, such as bison, elk, deer, antelope,
prairie dogs, grasshoppers and invertebrates, created widespread
disturbances to the landscape of the Great Plains (Samson 1996), and
drought and fire were important factors in maintaining the grassland
conditions in the Great Plains (Collins 1990). Today, most grazing
mammals have been extirpated from considerable portions of their range.
Once numerous, prairie dogs now only represent \< 2% of their historic
range (Clippinger 1989) and are currently being petitioned to be listed
under provisions of the Endangered Species Act. Many invertebrate
populations such as grasshoppers are annually controlled with pesticide
applications. The loss of these herbivores contributes to robust wetland
vegetation, making many sites unsuitable as foraging areas for
waterbirds.

Although the historic forces that shaped the Great Plains have been
impacted, some current factors mimic the net effect on the landscape.
Prescribed fire is used to maintain the vigor of managed grasslands, and
agricultural practices such as tillage for row crops and haying
pastureland appear to provide suitable habitat for shorebirds
(Fredrickson 1998).

**Major shorebird issues in the Northern Plains/Prairie Pothole**
**Region.** The major identified issues fall into the following three
categories.

**Issue 1.** The conservation of endangered and threatened species,
declining species, and species of special concern. Two species that
breed in the NP/PPR merit special attention. The Piping Plover is listed
as threatened in the NP/PPR by the U.S. Endangered Species Act (ESA)
because of a steady population decline, potentially due to low
reproductive success and loss of breeding and/or wintering habitat. The
Mountain Plover has recently been proposed for listing under the ESA.
Breeding populations in eastern Montana appear stable at present. In
addition, population declines are suspected for several species that
migrate through the plains, including Black-bellied Plovers,
Sanderlings, Semipalmated Sandpipers, and Stilt Sandpipers.

**Issue 2.** Habitat loss is pervasive throughout the region and occurs
as a result of habitat degradation, habitat fragmentation, wetland loss
(especially ephemeral wetlands), and grassland loss. Wetlands throughout
the Great Plains have undergone considerable changes in the last 50
years due to drainage of wetland basins for agriculture and urban
development. An estimated 35% of the area of South Dakota wetlands have
been lost (Dahl 1990). Approximately 860,000 ha of wetlands currently
remain in eastern South Dakota, of which temporary and seasonal comprise
91.6% of the total number of wetlands, and constitute 43% of the total
wetland area (Johnson 1997). Of these remaining temporary wetlands,
approximately 77% occur in croplands; the suitability of wetlands in
these environments is unknown.

**Issue 3.** There is a need for information to facilitate shorebird
conservation and to evaluate the following potential threats to
migrating and breeding birds in the NP/PPR:

Contaminants, especially on agricultural and commercial lands (sod
farms, sewage and water treatment lagoons) that are important to
migrating shorebirds;

a.  Impacts of predation, including the impacts of nonnative predators;
    and

Invasion by exotic plants into grassland and wetland habitats.

# Shorebird Species Occurrence and Regional Species Priorities 

Thirteen species of shorebirds breed within the NP/PPR, and collectively
36 species breed and/or migrate through this region. Some species travel
as far as 21,000 km annually during their round trip between arctic
breeding grounds in Canada and Alaska and wintering areas in Central and
South America.

Shorebird distributions in midcontinental North America (an area which
includes the NP/PPR) during spring and fall are illustrated in Figure 3.
During spring migration, the majority of shorebirds pass through the
NP/PPR from early April to early June, although the timing varies among
species. Nearly 27% of the small shorebirds (total body length of less
than 190mm) in the midcontinent pass through the NP/PPR in their spring
migration, (Appendix 1); the region is especially important to
long-distance migrants such as American Golden-plover, Hudsonian Godwit,
and White-rumped Sandpiper. During fall migration, from early July
through September, the region is important to medium-sized long-distance
migrants such as American Golden-plover, Pectoral Sandpiper, and Stilt
Sandpiper; more than 22% of medium-sized shorebirds crossing the
midcontinent in the fall occur in the NP/PPR (Appendix 2). Further
information on distribution and timing of shorebird migration in the
midcontinental United States can be viewed on the Internet at
<http://www.mesc.usgs.gov/shorebirds>.

Figure 3. Distribution of all shorebirds in the midcontinent region of
North

America, including the Northern Plains/Prairie Pothole Region,

during spring and fall migrations (from Skagen et al. 1999).

![](media/image5.wmf)

Table 2 summarizes the occurrence and prioritization scores, both
regional and national, of shorebirds of the NP/PPR The regional priority
scores are derived and modified from the national scores. Nine species
identified within the NP/PPR as species of concern[^2] have regional
scores that reflect this concern and thus are greater or equal to the
national scores. These nine species are Piping Plover, Mountain Plover,
American Avocet, Upland Sandpiper, Long-billed Curlew, Hudsonian Godwit,
Marbled Godwit, American Woodcock, and Wilson's Phalarope.

This region is especially important to ten migrating species (see Table
2). The provision of adequate stopover habitat is a regional priority;
regional scores may be higher than national scores for some of these
species. Four species that are uncommon or rare in the region have lower
regional than national scores.

**Shorebird guilds**. Three useful habitat guilds can assist in the
identification of some management strategies in the NP/PPR:

1\) Shorebirds that are closely tied to grassland habitats during their
residency in the NP/PPR. Ten of the 13 breeding species nest in uplands,
mostly grasslands. This guild includes Marbled Godwits, Willets, Upland
Sandpipers, and Wilson's Phalarope.

2\) Shorebirds that exclusively or primarily use unvegetated wet
mud/shallow water (\< 5 cm) habitats. This guild is comprised primarily
of the small transient sandpipers such as Semipalmated Sandpipers and
White-rumped Sandpipers.

3\) Shorebirds that are associated with agricultural lands and meadows,
including American Golden-plovers, Buff-breasted Sandpipers, and
Pectoral Sandpipers.

# Regional Goals 

**Goal 1.** Maintain the biotic integrity and persistence of breeding
shorebird populations in the NP/PPR. This entails a multi-step process
of identifying the extent and distribution of important habitat types
throughout the region, and identifying the concerns, problems, and
limitations associated with these habitats. The integration of
applicable information and implementation

**Table 2. Conservation priority of regularly occurring shorebird
species in the Northern Plains/ Prairie Potholes Region.** Regional
priority scores reflect several factors, including population status,
abundance, and comparative importance of the region during migration.

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Abundance^1^          Priority              Comments
  ------------------- ----------- -------------- ------ ---------- ---------- ------------------
  Species             Status^2^   Spring         Fall   National   Regional   

  Black-bellied       M           U              U      3          3          
  Plover                                                                      

  American            M           C              C      4          4          Area esp.
  Golden-Plover                                                               important to
                                                                              migrants

  Semipalmated Plover M           C              C      2          3          Area esp.
                                                                              important to
                                                                              migrants

  Piping Plover       B/M         R              R      5          5          Identified as
                                                                              species of concern

  Killdeer            B/M         C              C      3          3          

  Mountain Plover     B/M         R              R      5          5          Identified as
                                                                              species of concern

  Black-necked Stilt  b/m         R              R      2          2          

  American Avocet     B/M         U              U      3          4          Identified as
                                                                              species of concern

  Greater Yellowlegs  M           C              C      3          3          

  Lesser Yellowlegs   M           C              C      2          3          Area esp.
                                                                              important to
                                                                              migrants

  Solitary Sandpiper  M           C              C      3          3          

  Willet              B/M         C              U      3          3          

  Spotted Sandpiper   B/M         C              C      3          3          

  Upland Sandpiper    **B**/M     C              C      2          4          Identified as
                                                                              species of concern

  Whimbrel            m           R              R      4          4          

  Long-billed Curlew  B/M         U              U      5          2          Uncommon in region

  Hudsonian Godwit    M           C              R      4          4          Identified as
                                                                              species of concern

  Marbled Godwit      B/M         U              U      4          4          Identified as
                                                                              species of concern

  Ruddy Turnstone     M           U              R      4          4          

  Red Knot            m           R              R      4          2          Uncommon in region

  Sanderling S:       m           U              U      4          2          Uncommon in region
  Uncommon, F:                                                                
  Uncommon                                                                    

  Semipalmated        M           C              C      3          4          Area esp.
  Sandpiper                                                                   important to
                                                                              migrants

  Western Sandpiper   m           R              R      3          2          Uncommon in region

  Least Sandpiper     M           C              C      3          3          

  White-rumped        M           C              R      2          4          Area esp.
  Sandpiper                                                                   important to
                                                                              migrants

  Baird's Sandpiper   M           C              C      2          3          Area esp.
                                                                              important to
                                                                              migrants

  Pectoral Sandpiper  M           C              C      2          3          Area esp.
                                                                              important to
                                                                              migrants

  Dunlin              M           C              U      3          4          Area esp.
                                                                              important to
                                                                              migrants

  Stilt Sandpiper     M           C              C      3          3          Area esp.
                                                                              important to
                                                                              migrants

  Buff-breasted       M           U              U      4          4          
  Sandpiper                                                                   

  Short-billed        M           C              C      3          3          
  Dowitcher                                                                   

  Long-billed         M           C              C      2          3          Area esp.
  Dowitcher                                                                   important to
                                                                              migrants

  Common Snipe        b/**M**     C              C      3          3          

  American Woodcock   **B**/m     U              U      4          4          Identified as
                                                                              species of concern

  Wilson's Phalarope  B/M         C              C      4          4          Identified as
                                                                              species of concern

  Red-necked          M           U              U      3          3          
  Phalarope                                                                   
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

^1^Common: very likely to be seen in the appropriate habitat; Uncommon:
present, but likely to be seen only in small numbers; Rare: not likely
to be seen, and then only in small numbers.

^2^B: breeding, M: migration; bold indicates that region is highly
important to population; lower case indicates that region is less
important.

strategies from other landscape level plans for waterfowl and grassland
birds is recommended. For example, Koford and Stallman (1996) recommend
that unaltered natural wetlands and upland habitats be emphasized in
conservation planning.

**Goal 2.** Ensure the existence and quality of stopover habitats for
migrating birds. The NP/PPR is especially critical to the successful
migration of long-distance migrants, which need several "stepping
stones" of stopover sites along their migratory routes.

**Goal 3.** Identify and fill information gaps, including the
development of tools to facilitate monitoring and conservation of
breeding and migrating shorebird habitat within the context of dynamic
ecosystems. Within the NP/PPR, this necessitates the development of data
collection systems that are spatially explicit. For example, there is a
need for better models that link habitat and landscape characteristics
to breeding shorebird population parameters. The requisite tools for
this endeavor are currently being used and/or tested for waterfowl
management applications in the NP/PPR under the auspices of the USFWS
Habitat and Population Evaluation Team (HAPET). These include
Landsat-based landcover classification maps and the application of
Geographical Information Systems (GIS) to identify and test the spatial
distribution of various habitat configurations for prescribing
management treatments. In addition, the use of interactive, web-based
monitoring programs (i.e., Birdsource at Cornell University) can
contribute data to determine shorebird populations, ranges, migration
pathways, and habitat use.

**Goal 4.** Coordinate conservation efforts within the context of
landscapes, regions, national, and international approaches for
migratory birds.

**Regional contributions to meeting national goals**. The goals
presented herein will contribute greatly to the USSCP National Goal of
"stabilizing populations of all shorebird species known or suspected of
being in decline due to limiting factors occurring within the U.S.,
while ensuring that common species remain common". The NP/PPR efforts
will result in a "regionally-based, biologically driven,
landscape-oriented, integrated migratory bird management program" that
will guide conservation actions for shorebirds. Although stated
differently and in a fashion more specific to the NP/PPR, the goals
stated here are consistent with and enhance the common regional goals
outlined in the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan.

# Habitat Management Options

Six major shorebird habitat types are important within the NP/PPR:

1\) grasslands;

2\) grassland/wetland matrices;

3\) freshwater wetlands including lake margins and impoundments;

4\) alkaline wetlands;

5\) riverine beaches; and

6\) agricultural lands.

Ongoing management activities include the use of conservation easements
to protect grasslands for migratory and breeding shorebirds. The
combination of private and public grassland can provide the mosaic of
short, mid-, and dense cover for different breeding requirements of
shorebirds. Recent studies have shown that several grassland nesting
birds such as Willets and Marbled Godwits prefer and have higher nest
success in the shorter cover of grazed grassland easements than in dense
cover typical of waterfowl production areas (R. Murphy, personal
communication).

At the landscape level throughout most of the NP/PPR, resource managers
have limited water management capabilities. Wetland conditions are
dependent almost entirely on climatic events. However, because of the
great diversity of wetlands, suitable habitat is generally available
under virtually any set of conditions. Resource managers can monitor
these conditions and report them in real time via the communication
network described below in "Management Coordination and Monitoring
Needs." For the wetlands with on-site management capabilities, timing is
essential; knowledge of the approximate shorebird migration chronology
can be used to determine when to draw down or reflood a wetland.

**Habitat Goal 1.** Compile information on the extent, status and
condition, ownership, and management capabilities of the six habitat
types listed above. Some information already exists, for example,
habitat used by Piping Plovers (Appendix 3). Alkali lakes present
promise for the Piping Plover recovery because they are relatively
intact and generally support relatively high reproductive success among
piping plovers. However, recent data suggest that the integrity of
grassland landscapes surrounding alkali lakes probably influences local
reproductive success, as has been demonstrated for other prairie bird
species (Murphy & Knetter, unpubl. data). Ephemeral and temporary
freshwater wetlands, highly important to migrating shorebirds, are the
most vulnerable of all wetland types to drainage and filling.

[]{.mark}

**Habitat Goal 2.** Describe known shorebird habitat requirements and
identify and fill information gaps. Habitat requirements of some
breeding species, e.g., Piping Plover (Appendix 1), are known in detail,
whereas less is known for other breeding and migrating species. An
important information gap for many species is how landscape attributes
(patch size, surrounding land uses, isolation/connectivity) influence
population parameters such as reproductive success.

**Habitat Goal** **3.** Determine habitat objectives for each of the six
habitat types, based on knowledge of critical habitat requirements,
landscape character, and population objectives for each species.
Population objectives should be set in coordination with the national
monitoring section of the USSCP and within the Central Flyway overall. A
dynamic process that includes the analysis of long-term weather patterns
could be used to assess the need for integrated active management across
a species' range. A primary management objective should be to ensure a
minimum acreage of available habitat during certain seasons.

### Priority conservation projects listed by state. Implementation of the Shorebird Conservation Plan within the Northern Plains/Prairie Pothole region will include an assessment of existing projects together with the formulation of new priority conservation efforts, through coordinated input from state, federal and non-governmental natural resource agencies in conjunction with private landowners. This expertise and collaboration will be essential for identifying site-specific management strategies for shorebirds, and for generating matching funds. The development of priority conservation projects will benefit from the evolving all bird conservation initiatives of the Prairie Pothole Joint Venture (under the North American Waterfowl Management Plan), and from regular meetings of non-game biologists (i.e., Minnesota). Project focus areas include shorebird habitat requirements and priority area identification; together with coordinated shorebird habitat management strategies that provide a complex of wetland types for breeding and migrating shorebirds. The following conservation projects illustrate priority focus areas.

**Conservation Project 1. Piping Plover, North Dakota and Montana.** The
current recommendations of the Piping Plover Recovery Plan clarify
potential project elements, and include:

Implement short-term, stop-gap measures to preserve the opportunity to
recover Piping Plovers. Manage plovers intensively on alkali lake
breeding habitats by boosting fledging rates above threshold levels
needed for population stability.

Long-term, sustainable measures are to:

enhance plover breeding habitat locally by gravel, salt applications, or
prescribed burning;

manage livestock appropriately to avoid damage to important spring
feeding sites along alkali lakeshores, and delay grazing (where
practical) on plover nesting beaches until late summer;

identify landscape-scale factors that influence plover reproductive
success and incorporate solutions into integrated landscape plans for
conserving native prairie and indigenous wildlife species;

through modeling, analyze feasibility of plover recovery and
cost-benefits of recovery actions on prairie alkali lakes (analysis
underway); and

purchase grassland easements around major breeding sites under private
ownership.

**Conservation Project 2. Mountain Plover, Montana**. Project elements
aim to:

determine the population status and habitat security of Mountain Plovers
(reference research findings of Stephen Dinsmore and Fritz Knopf re: the
stability of plover population in Blaine and Phillips counties);

determine the current distribution of black-tailed prairie dogs in those
counties;

monitor the effects of plague on prairie dogs to determine current-year
habitat availability;

encourage practices that favor prairie dogs (eliminate poisoning, reduce
recreational shooting);

begin a program of experimental burning in areas adjacent to prairie dog
"towns" to encourage expansion of those towns and to attract plovers to
a vicinity, encourage intensive cattle grazing on and around prairie dog
towns to encourage both prairie dogs and plovers.

# Management Coordination and Monitoring Needs 

**Need 1.** **Monitoring populations of breeding shorebirds.** Breeding
populations of shorebirds in the NP/PPR are currently monitored by the
Breeding Bird Survey (BBS), by various state agencies, and state Natural
Heritage Programs. The Missouri River Environmental Assessment Program
is a long-term monitoring plan that includes monitoring "species
composition, abundance, distribution, and habitat use of shorebirds" as
well as other bird species. In coordination with the national monitoring
section of the USSCP, the extent and effectiveness of current and
proposed monitoring activities needs to be evaluated. All new and
existing monitoring efforts should be spatially-explicit and incorporate
habitat information. Coordination with federal and state governmental
and private entities is essential.

The USFWS Piping Plover Recovery Teams (Great Plains, Great Lakes, and
Atlantic Coast) demonstrate shorebird monitoring and management through
their program for Piping Plovers in the U.S. State and tribal agencies,
the US Army Corps of Engineers, and nongovernmental organizations such
as The Nature Conservancy provide annual survey information to the
recovery team leaders for each population, who then compile the
information for the International Piping Plover Recovery Group. This
team combines the monitoring of piping plover populations in the US with
information from Canada and Mexico. The international team also
currently coordinates the Piping Plover International Census every five
years.

No current monitoring effort is conducted, or appears feasible, for the
Mountain Plover because it is widely scattered across the western Great
Plains. Some federal lands are predictably used by plovers, and a
current annual survey is conducted on the Pawnee National Grasslands in
Colorado by USGS and on BLM lands in Phillips County, Montana, by
FWS/USGS. Annual monitoring of plover populations may better be
conducted on the wintering grounds when the birds are (slightly) more
concentrated. Such a survey was conducted by the Point Reyes Bird
Observatory in the Imperial Valley of California in December 1999; five
mountain Plovers banded in Montana were seen on that survey.

**Need 2.** **Monitoring of migrating shorebirds.** An estimation of
population sizes and trends of en- route migrants will be undertaken at
the national level by the national monitoring section. A regional effort
to monitor en route migrants is needed to provide insights on whether
adequate stopover habitat exists and on the effectiveness of management
activities, even though it will be difficult due to the shifting nature
of wetland habitats and migrant distribution. This monitoring could be
undertaken via two approaches, within the context of a national effort
to monitor "important areas," and in conjunction with the "migration
habitat monitoring" effort described below. The use of interactive,
web-based monitoring programs such as *Birdsource*[^3] can contribute
data to determine shorebird ranges, migration pathways, and habitat
needs.

**Need 3.** **Migration habitat monitoring within the context of dynamic
ecosystems.** Managing for shorebirds in the NP/PPR is challenging
because of the dynamic nature of wetland conditions in time and space
and because of the need to provide diverse wetland habitats for
waterfowl and other wetland-dependent birds (Table 3). There is a need
to enhance the landscape perspective on shorebird use of the plains, to
acquire critical information on whether, when, and where 'ecological
hurdles' (i.e., lack of suitable stopover habitat across large regions)
exist, and to create avenues for focused, coordinated management
activities.

A *regional communication network* that can apprise land managers and
biologists of habitat availability and generalized shorebird movements
within the U.S. interior is proposed. This internet-based network will
provide information on the necessity, timing, and extent of habitat
management actions, and will enable land managers to prioritize and
coordinate management activities on a landscape basis. The management
planning process will make possible the detection of potential effects
on other wetland-dependent species. Participants will be trained (via
in-person training workshops, site visits, and web-based training) to
ensure that efforts are coordinated and that standardized procedures are
used. Information will be summarized weekly and potential 'hurdles'
could be identified and targeted for management.

This regional communication network will serve several purposes:

(1) To assess the status of migratory stopover habitat for shorebirds
    and to determine if, where, and when critical habitat shortages
    occur. This would provide agencies with another tool for
    prioritizing land acquisition within areas lacking suitable
    shorebird habitat;

Table 3. The challenge, constraints, and proposed approach for shorebird
management in the Northern Plains/Prairie Potholes Region (modified from
Dinsmore et al. 1999).

+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ####### **THE CHALLENGE**                                             |
|                                                                       |
| To provide breeding and stopover resources for shorebirds.            |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### CONSTRAINTS                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| Wetland conditions are dynamic and unpredictable in time and space.   |
|                                                                       |
| Need to consider requirements of a diverse wetland bird community.    |
|                                                                       |
| Lack of water management capabilities in most wetlands.               |
|                                                                       |
| Most wetland habitats are on private lands.                           |
|                                                                       |
| Habitat changes are not easily monitored using remote-sensing.        |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ##### APPROACH                                                        |
|                                                                       |
| Development of tools to use in dynamic ecosystem context.             |
|                                                                       |
| Internet-based communication system to monitor shorebird habitat      |
| during migration.                                                     |
|                                                                       |
| Assess if, when, and where habitat shortages (i.e., 'ecological       |
| hurdles') occur.                                                      |
|                                                                       |
| When 'ecological hurdle' is detected, actively manage wetlands with   |
| water control capabilities.                                           |
|                                                                       |
| Apply habitat and water management tools when necessary.              |
|                                                                       |
| Identify areas for habitat acquisition and restoration.               |
|                                                                       |
| ###### Regional, national,                                            |
|  and international coordination with other bird conservation efforts. |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------+

(2) To identify ecological hurdles and target these areas for adaptive
    management;

(3) To provide instantaneous interpretation of the habitat data so that
    managers can choose management actions immediately;

(4) To provide current information on habitat condition and
    distribution, to be used by concurrent population monitoring
    programs to stratify survey effort;

(5) To assist in building, testing, and refining models that predict
    habitat availability for shorebirds based on remote sensing
    technology and climate information;

(6) To provide information that land managers and the general public can
    use to further our understanding of shorebird migration in this
    region. The internet site will provide links to shorebird management
    documents and will facilitate the acquisition of new shorebird
    distribution information. It could also provide an electronic forum
    for resource professionals to solicit information and
    recommendations regarding management, monitoring, and research; to
    update others on the success of efforts; and to hold valuable
    "dialogues" or "virtual conferences."

**Need 4. Continued coordination of conservation activities within the
context of landscapes, regions, national, and international approaches
for all migratory birds.** There are several exciting initiatives at
present that are working to integrate all-bird management and
programming, both across the NP/PPR and at the national level. The
Prairie Pothole Joint Venture, under the auspices of the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWCA), is continuing to work on an
integrated migratory bird approach in the Prairie Pothole Region, that
includes shorebird and grassland bird planning efforts with multiple
partners. In addition, some Joint Ventures are utilizing Bird
Conservation Region (BCR) boundaries as an opportunity to improve
landscape management.

Partnership efforts to implement migratory bird initiatives on a broad
scale are focused in part on increasing the resource base. This is
exemplified by the North American Bird Conservation Initiative (NABCI)
Plan , which is being developed to provide significantly increased
funding for bird conservation, and to foster cooperative implementation
of bird conservation among the various bird initiatives, nationally and
internationally. The shorebird plan partnership has participated in the
development of NABCI, and this collaboration should contribute
significantly to bird conservation for all birds in the US and
throughout the continent.

# Research Information Needs 

The following topics need further research in the NP/PPR to effectively
manage for shorebirds (Dinsmore et al. 1999) and to contribute to the
regional and national goals of the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. The
USSCP Regional Goals are, in part, to provide high quality habitat to
ensure that shorebirds are not limited by lack of habitat and to ensure
that efforts are integrated into multiple species habitat management
initiatives.

**Research Goal 1.** Synthesize and acquire information that will
facilitate the conservation of breeding shorebird populations and
habitats in a landscape context.

**Objective 1a.** Develop spatially explicit models to help determine
availability of suitable breeding habitats (e.g., grassland/wetland
complexes in close juxtaposition; prairie dog distribution regarding
Mountain Plovers). Determine habitat relationships of the major breeding
species of concern. Determine the degree to which floristics (invasive
plants) and landscape attributes affect habitat suitability.

**Objective 1b.** Identify and assess the status of suitable breeding
habitats using Geographic Information Systems.

**Objective 1c.** Determine effects of contaminants on shorebird food
availability, shorebird survival, and reproductive health. Many
temporary and ephemeral wetlands that shorebirds prefer occur on private
agricultural land, and are therefore vulnerable to pesticide and
herbicide contamination, in addition to the effects of siltation and
runoff. This may be exacerbated at present with the increase in both
crop diversification and required chemical inputs brought about by the
present "Freedom to Farm" policy.

**Objective 1d.** Determine the predator species that threaten
reproductive success and recruitment of shorebirds.

**Research Goal 2.** Determine the location of suitable/critical
stopover habitat and develop a strategy to conserve these areas.

**Objective 2a.** Understand the scale of shorebird distribution within
the NP/PPR during migration. Specifically, do shorebirds concentrate at
particular sites, and, if so, does this vary seasonally? Compare the
level at which isolated wetlands versus complexes provide requirements
for shorebirds.

**Objective 2b.** Determine the significance of agricultural fields as
foraging areas for migrating shorebirds. Assess the status, abundance,
and availability of invertebrate food resources within agricultural
fields, including the timing of recolonization of these sites by
chironomids.

**Objective 2c.** Delineate species-specific flexibility in microhabitat
use during migration. This information will help identify the
vulnerability of species to loss of certain habitat types during
migration.

**Objective 2d.** Assess migrant body condition (trends through time and
variation) relative to availability and distribution of food resources.
Is body condition a useful indicator of overall habitat quality at a
regional scale?

**Objective 2e.** Determine if there are genetically distinct shorebird
subpopulations within the midcontinent region.

**Research Goal 3.** Develop tools that would be useful in monitoring
shorebirds and habitats in a dynamic ecosystem. This approach would
incorporate the frequent movements and broad dispersion patterns that
characterize migration through the northern plains.

**Objective 3a.** Develop models to predict and define important
migration habitats. This entails modeling of wetland condition,
availability, and shorebird habitat use under various weather and
climate regimes using remote sensing information, real-time habitat
information from the regional communication network described above, and
shorebird distribution data.

**Objective 3b.** Determine residency times and turnover rates at
stopover sites.

# Education and Outreach Objectives 

Ultimately, the long-term success at maintaining or enhancing shorebird
populations and their habitat in the NP/PPR will require cooperation
between a large number of organizations, interest groups, government
agencies, and individuals. A key element to fostering and maintaining
effective cooperation and collaboration between public and private
landowners will be a good understanding about the importance of the
lands and habitats within the region for shorebirds and other migratory
wildlife. Creating and sustaining an effective education/outreach
program will be critical to the overall success of this plan. The
following are important education/outreach goals for the region.

**Objective 1. Promote further involvement of private landowners in
shorebird conservation initiatives.** Private landowners in the NP/PPR
are essential partners to achieve management goals for shorebirds
because a significant portion of shorebird habitat is on private land.
This goal can be approached by providing technical information and
assistance through the development and distribution of educational and
outreach materials. A variety of media and educational materials, such
as brochures, pamphlets, and the Internet, can familiarize landowners
with wetland-dependent wildlife, including shorebirds, and provide
general information on species requirements and wetland enhancement
techniques. In addition to developing new materials, we need to identify
existing educational materials and promote their use and distribution.
This will also involve innovate means of outreach to formulate private
landowner partnerships that can benefit both shorebirds and farmers.

**Objective 2. Enhance/improve communication with public land
managers.** Technical information can be conveyed through workshops, the
internet and the dissemination of educational materials. There is a need
to convey the potential for wetland and upland management techniques to
achieve a diversity of wildlife without compromising the original intent
of NAWMP.

**Objective 3. Enhance the overall effectiveness of education/outreach
efforts by promoting cooperation between state and federal agencies and
private organizations.** There are numerous opportunities to achieve
this goal, such as formalizing partnerships with Memorandums of
Understanding or Cooperative Agreements, and sponsoring demonstration
projects and workshops to help reduce barriers to better integrating
shorebird management into traditional waterfowl management programs.
There is a need to take the active and personal approach, to solicit
input early in the process, and to have a "bottom up" as well as "top
down" approach. Additionally, current Internet access in remote areas
may not be sufficient to include all stakeholders; we need to assess the
availability of Internet access and to remedy impediments .

**Objective 4. Develop regional educational/outreach plan with
State-specific action items identified.** Due to the size of the NP/PPR,
there will undoubtedly be a number of education/outreach strategies that
will not be applicable in every one of the 7 affected States. A regional
education plan should be customized to fit individual state issues and
capabilities to implement within their existing delivery systems.

**Objective 5.** **Integrate shorebird conservation into existing
appropriate environmental education initiatives and programs.** Since
Arctic-nesting shorebirds migrate from Central/South America, Australia,
and southeast Asia to Alaska, Canada, and the Russian Far East,
participation in the *Shorebirds Sister Schools Program* provides an
excellent opportunity for students to track shorebird migration and to
communicate with "sister schools" worldwide. Students can participate on
the E-mail list serve, and thus view and share field research, migration
observations, field trip experiences, program/project information, and
inter-classroom communication. Visit
<http://www.fws.gov/r7enved/sssp.html> to experience the "Super
Shorebird Flyway. In addition, copies of the *Arctic Nesting Shorebird
Curriculum* (<wizard@xyz.net>) are also available.

There are also many opportunities to integrate shorebird conservation
into existing environmental education programs and outreach centers, as
well as into nationally recognized programs such as Project WILD and
WET.

# Funding Needs for Regional Actions 

Development of habitat monitoring communication network. \$40K/yr (1 yr)

Development of spatially-explicit habitat models for breeding shorebirds
\$40 K/yr (4 yrs)

Development of predictive models for migrating shorebirds. \$40 K/yr (4
yrs)

Habitat Acquisition/Conservation easements: \$750K/yr (5 yrs)

Mapping/Habitat Assessment \$300K/yr (5 yrs)

Habitat Improvement/Restoration (project work) \$750K/yr

Education/Outreach \$ 75K/yr

Research efforts \$3-500K/yr

In addition, a Shorebird Coordinator is proposed, to be shared
regionally across the Plains and Playa Lakes Regions. This Coordinator
would have oversight responsibility for development of the habitat
monitoring and communication network, together with subsequent
implementation and monitoring.

# Individuals and organizations that contributed to the regional report 

Susan K. Skagen, USGS/Biological Resources Division, Fort Collins, CO

Genevieve Thompson, National Audubon Society, Fargo, ND

Carol Lively, North American Waterfowl Management Plan/PPJV, Denver, CO

Bridget Olson, Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge, Odessa, MN

Lisa A. Gelvin-Innvaer, Minnesota DNR Nongame Program, New Ulm, MN

Eileen Dowd Stukel, South Dakota Dept. Game, Fish and Parks, Pierre, SD

Stephen J. Dinsmore, Colorado State University and USFWS, Fort Collins,
CO

Charles Pelizza, Lake Andes National Wildlife Refuge, Lake Andes, SD

Beth Madden, Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Medicine Lake, MT

Bob Murphy, Des Lacs National Wildlife Complex, Kenmare, ND

Bill Schultze , Sand Lake National Wildlife Refuge, Columbia, SD

Ron Reynolds, HAPET Office, USFWS, Bismarck ND

Cal McCluskey, BLM Washington Office, Fish, Wildlife and Forests Group,
Boise, ID

Nell McPhillips, USFWS, Great Plains Piping Plover Recovery coordinator,
Pierre, SD

Robin Niver, USFWS,South Dakota Ecological Services Field Office,
Pierre, SD

Fritz L. Knopf, USGS/Biological Resources Division, Fort Collins, CO

# Proposed WHSRN sites

::: Definition-Term
The following have been preliminarily identified as possible WHSRN sites
under the current WHSRN criteria. There is a need for a new designation
for interior sites that reflects the dynamic nature of wetlands in the
midcontinent of North America.
:::

1)  ::: Definition-Term
    Big Stone National Wildlife Refuge, Odessa, MN;
    :::

2)  ::: Definition-Term
    Salt Lake, Marietta, MN;
    :::

3)  ::: Definition-Term
    Black Rush Lake, southcentral MN
    :::

4)  ::: Definition-Term
    Agassiz National Wildlife Refuge, northwestern MN
    :::

5)  ::: Definition-Term
    Kelly's Slough National Wildlife Refuge, northeastern ND
    :::

6)  ::: Definition-Term
    Dry Lake, Clark County, SD
    :::

7)  ::: Definition-Term
    Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge, Great Falls, MT
    :::

8)  ::: Definition-Term
    Union Slough National Wildlife Refuge, IA
    :::

9)  ::: Definition-Term
    Lake Mason National Wildlife Refuge, MT
    :::

10) ::: Definition-Term
    Minnewaukan Flats, Devil's Lake, ND
    :::

11) ::: Definition-Term
    Dry Lake, Clark County, SD
    :::

# Literature Cited

Anderson, R. C. 1990. The historic role of fire in the North American
grassland. Pp. 8-18 in Fire in North American Tallgrass Prairies. S. L.
Collins and L. L. Wallace, eds. Univ. of Oklahoma Press, Norman,
Oklahoma.

Clippinger, N. W. 1989. Habitat suitability index models: Black-tailed
prairie dog. U.S. Fish and

> Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Dahl, T. E. 1990. Wetland losses in the United States, 1780\'s to
1980\'s. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

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. FWS, Denver, CO.

Ehrlich, P. R., D. S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder's handbook:
a field guide to the natural history of North American birds. Simon and
Schuster, New York.

Farmer, A. H., and F. Parent. 1997. Effects of landscape on shorebird
movements at spring migration stopovers. Condor 99: 698-707.

Fitzgerald, J. A., D. N. Pashley, and B. Pardo. 1999. Partners in Flight
Bird Conservation Plan for the Northern Mixed-grass Prairie
(Physiographic Area 37).

Johnson, R. R. and K. F. Higgins. 1997. Wetland Resources of Eastern
South Dakota. South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD. 102 pp.

Knopf, F. L. 1996. Prairie legacies-birds. P. 135-148 in Prairie
Conservation. F. B. Samson and F. L. Knopf, eds. Island Press,
Washington, D.C.

Koford, R., and H. Stallman. 1996. Avifaunal characterization of the
Mississippi Headwaters/Tallgrass prairie ecosystem: a habitat approach
to managing for bird species of concern. Iowa Cooperative Research Unit,
Iowa State University, Ames, IA.

Prindiville Gaines, E. and M. R. Ryan. 1988. Piping plover habitat use
and reproductive success in North Dakota. J. Wildlife Management
52:266-273.

Schwalbach, M. J. 1988. Conservation of least terns and piping plovers
along the Missouri River and its major tributaries in South Dakota. MS
Thesis. South Dakota State University, Brookings, South Dakota. 93 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. Towards 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 Bulletin 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. Biological Science Report USGS/BRD/BSR 2000-03. U. S.
Government Printing Office. (Also found at URL:
<http://www.mesc.usgs.gov/shorebirds>)

Whyte, A. J. 1985. Breeding ecology of the piping plover (Charadrius
melodus) in central Saskatchewan. MS Thesis. University of Saskatchewan,
Saskatoon. 126 pp.

**Appendix 1.** Maximum numbers of shorebirds reported at important
spring stopover sites in the Northern Great Plains/Prairie Potholes
Region. Percentages are based on the sums of maximum counts reported
within midcontinental North America (from Skagen et al. 1999).

+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| # All Shorebirds          |    |   | # Large Shorebirds        |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| Location                  | C  |   | Location                  | C  |
|                           | ou |   |                           | ou |
|                           | nt |   |                           | nt |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| 1\. Minnewaukan Flats,    | 82 |   | 1\. Benton Lake NWR,      | 3, |
| Devil's Lake, Benson Co., | ,7 |   | Cascade Co., MT 3,127     | 1  |
| ND                        | 89 |   |                           | 27 |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| 2\. Dry Lake, Clark Co.,  | 53 |   | 2\. Lake Thompson,        | 1  |
| SD                        | ,9 |   | Kingsbury Co., SD         | ,0 |
|                           | 79 |   |                           | 83 |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| 3\. Lake Thompson,        | 20 |   | 3\. Ponds near Billings,  | 7  |
| Kingsbury Co., SD         | ,6 |   | MT                        | 50 |
|                           | 75 |   |                           |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| 4\. Minot sewage lagoons, | 18 |   | 4\. Minot sewage lagoons, | 7  |
| Ward Co., ND              | ,0 |   | Ward Co., ND              | 20 |
|                           | 63 |   |                           |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| 5\. Milwaukee Lake, Lake  | 16 |   | 5\. Minnewaukan Flats,    | 7  |
| Co., SD                   | ,6 |   | Devil's Lake, Benson Co., | 10 |
|                           | 61 |   | ND                        |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| 6\. Lake County, SD       | 12 |   | 6\. Kingsbury County, SD  | 6  |
|                           | ,8 |   |                           | 92 |
|                           | 22 |   |                           |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| 7\. Blue Lake, McLean     | 12 |   | 7\. West of Horsehead     | 6  |
| Co., ND                   | ,6 |   | Lake, Kidder Co., ND      | 87 |
|                           | 20 |   |                           |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| 8\. Devil's Lake sewage   | 11 |   | 8\. Granville, McHenry    | 6  |
| ponds, Ramsey Co., ND     | ,2 |   | Co., ND                   | 50 |
|                           | 44 |   |                           |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| 9\. Benton Lake NWR,      | 10 |   | 9\. Northwest of          | 5  |
| Cascade Co., MT           | ,2 |   | Billings, MT              | 30 |
|                           | 66 |   |                           |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| 10.Kingsbury County, SD   | 9  |   | 10\. Northwest of Medina, | 4  |
|                           | ,0 |   | Kidder Co., ND            | 44 |
|                           | 10 |   |                           |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| Total of all shorebirds   | 4  |   | Total of all large        | 22 |
| in the region             | 56 |   | shorebirds in the region  | ,1 |
|                           | ,0 |   |                           | 96 |
|                           | 87 |   |                           |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| Percentage of all         | 1  |   | Percentage of large       | 5. |
| shorebirds in             | 5. |   | shorebirds in             | 9% |
| midcontinent region       | 6% |   | midcontinent region       |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
|                           |    |   |                           |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| # Medium Shorebirds       |    |   | # Small Shorebirds        |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| 1\. Minnewaukan Flats,    | 36 |   | 1\. Minnewaukan Flats,    | 45 |
| Devil's Lake, Benson Co., | ,3 |   | Devil's Lake, Benson Co., | ,7 |
| ND                        | 00 |   | ND                        | 79 |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| 2\. Dry Lake, Clark Co.,  | 12 |   | 2\. Dry Lake, Clark Co.,  | 41 |
| SD                        | ,2 |   | SD                        | ,2 |
|                           | 67 |   |                           | 47 |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| 3\. Lake Thompson,        | 10 |   | 3\. Blue Lake, McLean     | 11 |
| Kinsbury Co., SD          | ,2 |   | Co., ND                   | ,5 |
|                           | 81 |   |                           | 29 |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| 4\. Minot sewage lagoons, | 9  |   | 4\. Milwaukee Lake, Lake  | 9  |
| Ward Co., ND              | ,0 |   | Co., SD                   | ,3 |
|                           | 32 |   |                           | 75 |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| 5\. Casper, WY            | 8  |   | 5\. Lake Thompson,        | 9  |
|                           | ,2 |   | Kingsbury Co., SD         | ,3 |
|                           | 87 |   |                           | 11 |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| 6\. Kingsbury County, SD  | 8  |   | 6\. Minot sewage lagoons, | 8  |
|                           | ,1 |   | Ward Co., ND              | ,3 |
|                           | 07 |   |                           | 11 |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| 7\. Freezeout Lake, Teton | 7  |   | 7\. Devil's Lake sewage   | 6  |
| Co., MT                   | ,5 |   | ponds, Ramsey Co., ND     | ,9 |
|                           | 59 |   |                           | 49 |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| 8\. Milwaukee Lake, Lake  | 7  |   | 8\. Lake County, SD       | 6  |
| Co., SD                   | ,2 |   |                           | ,3 |
|                           | 10 |   |                           | 04 |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| 9\. Benton Lake NWR,      | 6  |   | 9\. Sheyenne Lake, Eddy   | 5  |
| Cascade Co., MT           | ,8 |   | Co., ND                   | ,6 |
|                           | 32 |   |                           | 65 |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| 10\. Lake County SD       | 6  |   | 10.Kcorn wetland, T17N    | 5  |
|                           | ,5 |   | R56W S22-23, Clark Co.,   | ,6 |
|                           | 03 |   | SD                        | 53 |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| 11\. Medicine Lake NWR,   | 5  |   |                           |    |
| Sheridan Co., MT          | ,4 |   |                           |    |
|                           | 58 |   |                           |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| Total of all medium       | 2  |   | Total of all small        | 2  |
| shorebirds in the region  | 16 |   | shorebirds in the region  | 17 |
|                           | ,0 |   |                           | ,7 |
|                           | 07 |   |                           | 25 |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+
| Percentage of medium      | 1  |   | Percentage of small       | 2  |
| shorebirds in             | 4. |   | shorebirds in             | 6. |
| midcontinent region       | 5% |   | midcontinent region       | 7% |
+---------------------------+----+---+---------------------------+----+

**Appendix 2.** Maximum numbers of shorebirds reported at important fall
stopover sites in the Northern Great Plains/Prairie Potholes Region.
Percentages are based on the sums of maximum counts reported within
midcontinental North America (from Skagen et al. 1999).

+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| # All Shorebirds          |    |   | # Large Shorebirds         |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| Location                  | C  |   | ######### Location         | C  |
|                           | ou |   |                            | ou |
|                           | nt |   |                            | nt |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| 1\. Minnewaukan Flats,    | 63 |   | 1\. Long Lake NWR,         | 2  |
| Devil's Lake, Benson Co., | ,8 |   | Burleigh/Kidder Co.'s, ND  | ,2 |
| ND                        | 89 |   |                            | 20 |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| 2\. Devil's Lake, Ramsey  | 23 |   | 2\. Minnewaukan Flats,     | 2  |
| Co., ND                   | ,8 |   | Devils Lake, Benson Co.,   | ,0 |
|                           | 00 |   | ND                         | 20 |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| 3\. North Dakota State    | 22 |   | 3\. Benton Lake NWR,       | 1  |
| University, Fargo, Cass   | ,1 |   | Cascade Co., MT            | ,5 |
| Co., ND                   | 46 |   |                            | 33 |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| 4\. Benton Lake NWR,      | 17 |   | 4\. Devil's Lake, Ramsey   | 1  |
| Cascade Co., MT           | ,7 |   | Co., ND                    | ,0 |
|                           | 48 |   |                            | 19 |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| 5\. Union Slough NWR,     | 14 |   | 5\. Arrowwood NWR,         | 5  |
| Kossuth Co., IA           | ,9 |   | Stutsman Co., ND           | 54 |
|                           | 60 |   |                            |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| 6\. Minot Sewage Lagoons, | 11 |   | 6\. Lisbon, Ransom Co., ND | 4  |
| Ward Co., ND              | ,2 |   |                            | 26 |
|                           | 27 |   |                            |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| 7\. J.C. Salyer NWR,      | 9  |   | 7\. Minot Sewage Lagoons,  | 3  |
| McHenry/Bottineau Cos.,   | ,9 |   | Ward Co., ND               | 48 |
| ND                        | 75 |   |                            |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| 8\. North of Grand Forks  | 8  |   | 8\. Halfbreed NWR, MT      | 3  |
| Lagoons, Grand Forks      | ,0 |   |                            | 25 |
| Co.,ND                    | 81 |   |                            |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| 9\. Benson Co., ND        | 5  |   | 9\. Casper, WY             | 2  |
|                           | ,7 |   |                            | 68 |
|                           | 70 |   |                            |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| 10\. Wells Co., ND        | 5  |   | 10\. Veseth Wetlands,      | 2  |
|                           | ,7 |   | Phillips Co., MT           | 50 |
|                           | 03 |   |                            |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| Total of all shorebirds   | 3  |   | Total of all large         | 12 |
| in the region             | 22 |   | shorebirds in the region   | ,6 |
|                           | ,1 |   |                            | 84 |
|                           | 46 |   |                            |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| Percentage of all         | 1  |   | Percentage of large        | 2. |
| shorebirds in             | 5. |   | shorebirds in midcontinent | 7% |
| midcontinent region       | 4% |   | region                     |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
|                           |    |   |                            |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| # Medium Shorebirds       |    |   | # Small Shorebirds         |    |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| 1\. Minnewaukan Flats,    | 54 |   | 1\. Minnewaukan Flats,     | 7  |
| Devil's Lake, Benson Co., | ,8 |   | Devil's Lake, Benson Co.,  | ,0 |
| ND                        | 16 |   | ND                         | 53 |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| 2\. Devil's Lake, Ramsey  | 21 |   | 2\. McHenry and Wells      | 3  |
| Co., ND                   | ,1 |   | Cos., ND                   | ,0 |
|                           | 25 |   |                            | 00 |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| 3\. North Dakota State    | 19 |   | 3\. Union Slough NWR,      | 2  |
| University, Fargo, Cass   | ,7 |   | Kossuth Co., IA            | ,5 |
| Co., ND                   | 69 |   |                            | 33 |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| 4\. Benton Lake NWR,      | 15 |   | 4\. North Dakota State     | 2  |
| Cascade Co., MT           | ,6 |   | University, Fargo, Cass    | ,3 |
|                           | 73 |   | Co.,ND                     | 63 |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| 5\. Union Slough NWR,     | 12 |   | 5\. North of Grand Forks   | 1  |
| Kossuth Co., IA           | ,4 |   | Lagoons, Grand Forks       | ,8 |
|                           | 26 |   | Co.,ND                     | 84 |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| 6\. J.C. Salyer NWR,      | 9  |   | 6\. Orwell WMA, Otter Tail | 1  |
| McHenry/Bottineau Cos.,   | ,7 |   | Co., MN                    | ,7 |
| ND                        | 15 |   |                            | 53 |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| 7\. Minot Sewage Lagoons, | 9  |   | 7\. Denbigh, McHenry Co.,  | 1  |
| Ward Co., ND              | ,3 |   | ND                         | ,6 |
|                           | 12 |   |                            | 90 |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| 8\. North of Grand Forks  | 6  |   | 8\. Devils Lake, Ramsey    | 1  |
| Lagoons, Grand Forks      | ,0 |   | Co., ND                    | ,6 |
| Co.,ND                    | 99 |   |                            | 56 |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| 9\. Wells Co., ND         | 5  |   | 9\. Minot Sewage Lagoons,  | 1  |
|                           | ,7 |   | Ward Co., ND               | ,5 |
|                           | 03 |   |                            | 67 |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| 10\. Benson Co., ND       | 5  |   | 10\. Halfbreed NWR, MT     | 1  |
|                           | ,4 |   |                            | ,4 |
|                           | 91 |   |                            | 75 |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| Total of all medium       | 2  |   | Total of all small         | 2  |
| shorebirds in the region  | 65 |   | shorebirds in the region   | 17 |
|                           | ,7 |   |                            | ,7 |
|                           | 43 |   |                            | 25 |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+
| Percentage of medium      | 22 |   | Percentage of small        | 2  |
| shorebirds in             | .8 |   | shorebirds in midcontinent | 6. |
| midcontinent region       |    |   | region                     | 7% |
+---------------------------+----+---+----------------------------+----+

**Appendix 3.** Critical shorebird habitat requirements: Piping Plover.

In the Great Plains region, Piping Plovers can be found on riverine
sandbars and shorelines, reservoir islands, sandbars, and shores, and
semi-permanent and permanent prairie alkali lakes. About 65% of the U.S.
Great Plains population of Piping Plover nests these alkali lakes
associated with the Missouri Coteau landform. Within this area, about
25% of the pairs nest on lands under USFWS ownership, 25% nest on The
Nature Conservancy's Williams Preserve in central North Dakota, and
nearly all of the remainder nest on privately owned lands. Alkali lakes
present promise for the species recovery because they are relatively
intact habitats and generally support relatively high reproductive
success among Piping Plovers. However, recent data suggest that the
integrity of grassland landscapes surrounding alkali lakes probably
influences local reproductive success, as has been demonstrated for
other prairie bird species (Murphy & Knetter, unpubl. data). Also, we
cannot dismiss the value of riverine systems for Piping Plovers, as we
do not completely understand the relationship between the two habitats
for the species.

On prairie alkali lakes, Piping Plovers require salt-encrusted, gravelly
clay substrates that are relatively flat and nearly devoid of vegetation
(Prindiville Gaines and Ryan 1988). On rivers, Piping Plovers nest on
unvegetated to sparsely vegetated sandbars and beaches with sandy to
gravelly substrate (Schwalbach 1988). Nests are generally a simple,
shallow scrape lined with tiny pebbles, typically in the mid-beach area
away from dense vegetation or heavy cobbles or rubble. Piping plovers
are strongly territorial during breeding season. Area of breeding
territories varies depending on nesting density; it ranges from 500 m^2^
for densely packed pairs in high quality habitat (B. Root, unpubl. data)
to \>40,000 m^2^ for isolated pairs in what appears to be marginal
habitat (Whyte 1985). Normally, breeding pairs defend about 50-200 m of
beach and may travel with their 2- to 3-wk old chicks up to 200-400 m
from nests. Dense vegetation usually impedes movement of chicks. Beach
width is an important factor in site selection; some evidence suggests
that nests of plovers on relatively narrow beaches (\< 10 m) are more
vulnerable to predation than nests on wider beaches. Piping Plovers on
alkali lakes forage primarily for terrestrial arthropods that typically
are wind-borne and washed ashore. Adjacent vegetation may influence food
availability, but this is unstudied. Cattle may sometimes trample nests
and leave hoof prints along shorelines, but this varies with substrate
type; however, the highest productivity among breeding pairs along the
Missouri Coteau appears to occur in landscapes where rangeland is the
prevalent land use (R. Murphy and M. Rabenberg, unpubl. data).

**Appendix 4**. Shorebird Habitat Management Questionnaire for Land
Managers

U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR LAND MANAGERS

(Available in electronic format upon request. Contact:
[Lisa.Gelvin-Innvaer@dnr.state.mn.us)]{.underline}

(Note: formatting has been changed to a condensed format)

Land Agency and Contact Person:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

address: phone: email:

Person completing questionnaire:
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Date completed: \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

1\. Name and location of wetland area.

2\. Approximately how many acres of wetland habitat are found in your
area?

3\. How many of those acres would you consider to be \"manageable\" for
shorebird habitat (shallow water)?

4\. What are the primary management objectives for the wetland habitats
in your area?

5\. Are shorebirds one of the species groups you manage for? If so,
please answer questions 6-8.

If not, proceed to 9.

6\. Do you manage for any particular species? If so, please list them.

7\. Describe the management goals (e.g., increase population of a
species, provide specific habitat types) and how you evaluate the
effects of your management (e.g., monitoring). Are the goals being
achieved?

8\. What specific management strategies are being used to provide
shorebird habitat in your area (e.g. water level management, habitat
manipulation, protection from predators).

9\. Are there reports that document shorebird use and/or abundance for
your area? \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

If so, what are the titles, years written, and addresses where they may
be obtained?

10\. Do you feel management for shorebirds conflicts with other
management goals? \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ How so?

11\. As best as possible, estimate the approximate resource requirements
to manage for shorebirds in your area? Purchase of additional wetland
habitat for shorebirds? \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Personnel days per year? \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Other
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

12\. Briefly outline management programs that may potentially benefit
shorebirds in your area and estimate how much additional resources would
be required to implement those programs.

13\. Do you use any written management plans to manage your wetland
areas? \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Written waterbird plans? \_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Written shorebird plans?
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

14\. Briefly describe these management plans (e.g., what management
methods are discussed; are they general in nature, or specific to your
area; etc.)

15\. Are you aware of any targeted shorebird management taking place on
public or private lands in your vicinity? \_\_\_\_\_\_\_ Who?

If yes above, do you cooperate or coordinate with nearby land managers
to provide habitat beneficial to shorebirds?\_\_\_\_\_\_\_ How?

MN DNR- Questionnaire Supplement

In order to better integrate effective management for shorebirds and to
promote and enhance responsible viewing, what forms of assistance would
be [most]{.underline} useful concerning the areas that you manage as
well as adjacent private lands?

Please rank the following **1-4** with:

**1**-not useful **2**-slightly useful **3**-moderately useful
**4**-highly useful

**[Information/Education/Coordination]{.underline}** (within state and
within Prairie Pothole Region)

\_\_\_\_training workshops

\_\_\_\_manuals & other printed technical materials

\_\_\_\_technical assistance/consultation (e.g., including site visits)

\_\_\_\_interactive website (e.g., listserve for discussions & fielding
questions, distributing information, networking, real time tracking of
shorebird migrations and water level/habitat conditions, etc.)

\_\_\_\_state coordination meetings (annual?)

\_\_\_\_conference calls \_\_\_\_in-person meetings *(Check all that
apply)*

\_\_\_\_ Northern Great Plains/Prairie Pothole Region coordination
meetings (annual?)

\_\_\_\_conference calls \_\_\_\_in-person meetings *(Check all that
apply)*

Funding for:

\_\_\_\_Equipment/capital improvements (Give examples, e.g., heavy
equipment, water control structures,
etc.):\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_Vegetation Management/Control (burning, chemicals, mechanical)

\_\_\_\_Land acquisition/easements

\_\_\_\_Incentives for private landowners

\_\_\_\_land set-aside programs

\_\_\_\_other?
(*Explain*:\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_Staff (DNR, contractual or some other cooperative agreement)

\_\_\_\_Research/monitoring (e.g., shorebirds, habitat, invertebrate
food base, effects of management practices or chemicals on
shorebirds/invertebrate foods, control of undesirable vegetation, etc.)
*Please specify*

\_\_\_\_On-site management activities

\_\_\_\_Recreation/Interpretive

\_\_\_\_Signs (administrative &/or interpretive)

\_\_\_\_Viewing platforms &/or blinds

\_\_\_\_Printed materials (e.g., brochures) for distribution to the
public

\_\_\_\_Travel to meetings/training workshops

\_\_\_\_Other\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

To help jump start this effort, we are seeking involvement at various
levels. Please check any of the following that apply:

\_\_\_\_willing to attend training workshop(s) and wish to be on
notification list

\_\_\_\_potentially interested in having the site that I manage be a
management demonstration area

\_\_\_\_potentially interested in having the site that I manage be a
research study area

\_\_\_\_willing to participate in state coordination meetings (or assign
staff to attend)

\_\_\_\_conference calls \_\_\_\_in-person meetings *(Check all that
apply)*

\_\_\_\_willing to participate in state coordination meetings (or assign
staff to attend)

\_\_\_\_conference calls \_\_\_\_in-person meetings *(Check all that
apply)*

Other
suggestions?\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Integrating shorebird management may require innovative approaches to
augment efforts on state and federal wildlife areas. Example areas to
explore have included sewage treatment areas and special flood/water
control units. If you have additional ideas or know of specific
opportunities to explore, please describe them below:

To make this effort a success, diverse involvement and input is
necessary. Besides Wildlife contacts within the DNR, are there other key
individuals whom we should contact? (*Please fill in below any
information you have):*

  ------------- ------------- --------------------- ------------ ----------
  Name          Affiliation   Address               Phone No.    Fax No.

                                                                 

                                                                 

                                                                 

                                                                 

                                                                 
  ------------- ------------- --------------------- ------------ ----------

Lastly, we appreciate your time and consideration in completing this
questionnaire. We welcome and encourage any additional comments you may
have:

Please return completed questionnaires to:

Lisa Gelvin-Innvaer, Nongame Program, MN DNR-Reg. 4, 261 Hwy 15 South,
New Ulm, MN 56073

[^1]: These maps, and the information on which they are based, were
    compiled by the Adaptive Management and Assessment Team of the North
    American Waterfowl and Wetlands Office. Available in .jpg and .tif
    format on the Manomet website:
    <http://www.Manomet.org/USSCP/bcrmaps.htm>.

[^2]: ^1^ Based on a combination of species of concern identified by the
    U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) Region 3 and the Mississippi
    Headwaters/Tallgrass Prairie Ecosystem; the Minnesota Department of
    Natural Resources; the South Dakota Department of Game, Fish, and
    Parks; and the Partners in Flight (PIF) Physiographic Area
    40-Northern Tallgrass Prairie and Physiographic Area 37-Northern
    Mixed-grass Prairie.

[^3]: Birdsource is an interactive website designed and managed by
    Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology and the National Audubon Society
    that enables the tracking and display of species-specific bird
    density and movement in real time.