Revised November 13, 2023

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

######## 

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

######## Conservation Plan

###### **Southeastern Coastal**

**Plains -- Caribbean Regional Shorebird Plan**

####### **Version 1.0**

Written by:

William C. (Chuck) Hunter

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1875 Century Boulevard

Atlanta, Georgia 30345

404/679-7130 (FAX 7285)

chuck_hunter@fws.gov

along with

Jaime Collazo, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC

Bob Noffsinger, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Manteo, NC

Brad Winn, Georgia DNR Wildlife Resources Division, Brunswick, GA

David Allen, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Trenton, NC

Brian Harrington, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA

Marc Epstein, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Merritt Island NWR, FL

Jorge Saliva, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Boqueron, PR

#### Table of Contents

[Executive Summary 1](#executive-summary)

[1. Description of the Region 2](#description-of-the-region)

[2. Shorebird Species Occurrence and Regional Species Priorities
5](#shorebird-species-occurrence-and-regional-species-priorities)

[3. Regional Goals 7](#regional-goals)

[Population goals: 7](#population-goals)

[Habitat and management goals: 7](#habitat-and-management-goals)

[Management coordination and monitoring goals:
8](#management-coordination-and-monitoring-goals)

[Research goals: 8](#research-goals)

[Education goals: 9](#education-goals)

[4. Habitat Goals, Objectives and Management Needs
10](#habitat-goals-objectives-and-management-needs)

[Breeding: 12](#breeding)

[Foraging: 13](#foraging)

[Roosting: 14](#roosting)

[5. Management Coordination and Monitoring Needs
14](#management-coordination-and-monitoring-needs)

[6. Research Needs 16](#research-needs)

[7. Education Objectives and Strategies
17](#education-objectives-and-strategies)

[8. Funding needs to meet regional goals
19](#funding-needs-to-meet-regional-goals)

[9. Recognition of individuals (not otherwise listed on cover page) and
organizations that contributed to this report.
23](#recognition-of-individuals-not-otherwise-listed-on-cover-page-and-organizations-that-contributed-to-this-report.)

[Literature Cited 24](#literature-cited)

# Executive Summary

This report articulates what is needed in the Southeastern Coastal
Plains and Caribbean Region to advance shorebird conservation. A
separate Caribbean Shorebird Plan is under development and will be based
in part on principles outlined in this plan. We identify priority
species, outline potential and present threats to shorebirds and their
habitats, report gaps in knowledge relevant to shorebird conservation,
and make recommendations for addressing identified problems. This
document should serve as a template for a regional strategic management
plan, with step-down objectives, local allocations and priority needs
outlined.

The Southeastern Coastal Plains and Caribbean region is important for
breeding shorebirds as well as for supporting transient species during
both northbound and southbound movements. Breeding species of highest
regional priority include American Oystercatcher (*Haematopus
palliatus*), Snowy Plover (*Charadrius alexandrinus*), Wilson's Plover
(*Charadrius wilsonia*), and Piping Plover (*Charadrius melodus*).
Shorebirds in the planning region face potential impacts primarily from:
(1) chronic human-caused disturbance to roosting, nesting birds and
possibly to foraging birds too, (2) oil spills, (3) transfer of water
rights that may directly or indirectly affect shorebird food base in
some systems by reducing freshwater input into important estuarine
habitats, (4) recent but sharp increase of harvesting pressure on
horseshoe crab populations leading to decreasing food resources for
northbound migrating shorebirds, (5) barrier beach stabilization that
may affect foraging and nesting habitat, (6) contaminants (*e.g.*, from
agricultural runoff, dredged materials, water treatment areas), and (7)
inadequate management capability on public lands, where high quality
habitats should be more dependably available. The well-documented loss
of wetland habitats in this region during the last 200 years undoubtedly
affects shorebirds. Our strategies to best address these issues are
outlined below and in the following sections.

Three general habitat goals for our region are: (1) to provide optimal
breeding habitat to maintain and increase populations of priority
species, (2) to provide high quality managed habitat to support
requirements of species migrating through or spending winter in the
region, and (3) to restrain human disturbance to tolerable levels for
shorebirds throughout the year.

In our region, the challenge for directly providing habitat for
migrating shorebirds can be partly met by public land managers fostering
appropriate management, including disturbance management along with more
traditional habitat management --particularly of impounded wetlands. At
present 4.8 million shorebirds are estimated to occur within the region
during peak migration periods and about 2.4 million shorebirds are
estimated to use inland and managed wetland habitats. Presently, about
50,000 acres of publicly managed wetlands are potentially available,
with about 30,500 acres on National Wildlife Refuges alone. Because
shorebirds generally live on a broad geographic scale, interagency,
collaborative management needs to better target shorebirds throughout
the region, starting with 4800 acres in the year 2000, which equates to
less than 10% of shorebirds estimated to use inland and managed
habitats.

The plan calls for increasing habitat availability to 18,500 acres by
2002, which equates to about 25% of all shorebirds using inland and
managed habitats. Monitoring peak times of passage and species
composition will follow International Shorebird Survey protocols along
the Atlantic Coast portion of this region (from Virginia to Florida).
Data will be entered unto a website to keep track of managed habitat
availability and identify needs for adjustments while migration is
underway. If monitoring and research shows that more managed wetland
habitat is needed, upwards to 50% of all shorebirds using inland and
managed habitats, then the plan calls for providing 37,000 acres by
2005. In addition for shorebirds feeding primarily within coastal
habitats, retaining important washover habitat along beaches (i.e.,
minimize or avoid beach "restoration") after major storms is becoming an
increasingly important issue.

Meeting habitat objectives for nesting shorebirds will depend more upon
actions taken on lands managed cooperatively through public/private
partnerships, especially along beach fronts, dredge spoil and oyster
rake sites, and other near-shore habitats. Presently, this plan calls
for the region to support a minimum 1000 pairs of American
Oystercatchers, 300 pairs of Snowy Plovers, 1500 pairs of Wilson's
Plovers, and 55 pairs of Piping Plovers (*i.e.*, status quo) and to
attempt to at least double these numbers during the next 50 years. These
numbers will be subject to better information such as appropriate
population viability analyses, establishing more specific objectives
targeting higher reproduction (in terms of numbers of fledged young per
successful nest), and a better understanding of present nesting habitat
capacity versus potential. Monitoring and assessment of management
efforts should become a high priority for evaluating the success of
nesting habitat protection measures.

Setting management objectives for roosting habitat should focus on areas
where known concentrations of shorebirds occur and should concentrate on
controlling sources of chronic human disturbance.

In all aspects of shorebird conservation, research and
education/outreach must play important roles in both refining specific
objectives and for gaining both public support and participation as well
as training of land managers and interested landowners.

# 1. Description of the Region

The Southeastern Coastal Plains - Caribbean shorebird planning unit
consists of four Bird Conservation Regions (BCRs), the Southeastern
Coastal Plain, Southern Piedmont, Peninsular (including Subtropical)
Florida, and Puerto Rico/U.S. Virgin Islands. It encompasses all or part
of the following states: Virginia (VA), North Carolina (NC), South
Carolina (SC), Georgia (GA), Florida (FL), Alabama (AL), Mississippi
(MS), Puerto Rico (PR) and the Virgin Islands (VI). General descriptions
of the three BCRs follow and a list of sites with potential for
shorebird habitat organized by state can be found in Table 1. This table
also recognizes some sites as extremely important for the protection and
conservation of migratory shorebirds and those areas recommended for
establishing standardized survey efforts (if they have not been
established already).

The Southern Piedmont is a transitional area between the mountainous
Appalachians and the flat coastal plain, with forests dominated by pine
and mixed hardwoods. Shorebird habitats in the Southern Piedmont mostly
consist of flooded farm fields, sod ("turf") farms, and water treatment
plants, but some public lands provide locally important shorebird
habitat (e.g., Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge, NC). The Southeastern
Coastal Plain proper makes up most of the planning region and supports
substantial shorebird habitats. The East Gulf Coastal Plain is otherwise
dominated mostly by oak, hickory and pine. These plains extend to the
Southern Atlantic Coastal Plain which is characterized by extensive
swamps and pine forests, with marshes along the Atlantic Coast from the
mouth of the Chesapeake Bay to north Florida. Coastal intertidal
habitats in this region provide important breeding and wintering sites
as well as critical migratory stop-overs for shorebirds particularly
during spring. Peninsular Florida is transitional from coastal plain
forest types into more tropical forest types, but also includes
substantial prairie and rangeland, natural wetlands, and farm fields
that when flooded support large numbers of shorebirds. Coastal areas in
Peninsular Florida consist largely of mangroves, lagoons, estuaries,
everglades and tropical hammocks and supports large numbers of wintering
and migratory shorebirds. Within Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin
Islands, most shorebird habitats are in mangroves and salt flats.
Throughout the planning region inland habitats are variably available
but are nevertheless very important for shorebirds.

This region is extremely important for supporting transient shorebirds
during both northbound ("spring") and southbound ("fall") movements.
Spring migrations for shorebirds in the Southeast typically extend from
mid-March to late May and fall migrations from early July to late
October for all species combined. Fall migration for many, especially
Arctic-breeding, species occurs as two peaks, with the first dominated
by adults during July and early August and later by young of the year
from late August through September and October. For most species, again
especially Arctic-breeding ones, higher numbers are moving through
during spring within the Southeastern Coastal Plains - Caribbean Region
(many fall migrants for Arctic-breeding species presumably migrate via a
Trans-Atlantic route). Fortunately, there is opportunity for wetland
managers already keyed into supporting wintering waterfowl populations
in the "Southeast" to easily provide good quality shorebird habitat
during spring. Nevertheless, proper incentives for private cooperating
landowners to delay planting for about a month or other customized
management recommendations will be needed. Also specific guidance will
be given for both private and public land managers to slow the timing of
spring draw-downs to closely match peak shorebird habitat needs in their
respective areas.

Although lower numbers are presumably moving through the Southeastern
Coastal Plains - Caribbean Region during fall, shorebirds still depend
on managed habitats when made available. Large shorebird numbers during
late summer and early fall in flooded croplands (e.g., Zellwood and
Belle Glade areas in Florida), sod farms, water treatment facilities,
and dredge spoils attest to this fact. Several species, in fact, may be
strictly dependent upon "managed" fall wetland habitats, such as
Pectoral Sandpipers (*Calidris melanotos*) and Stilt Sandpipers
(*Calidris himantopus*). Unfortunately, some of the inland habitats
where water is made available for reasons other than birds may not
provide dependable high quality foraging habitat and may be laden with
contaminants. On more actively managed lands, providing water
specifically for shorebirds, in areas that otherwise would be dry, would
require specialized knowledge for pumping and discing vegetation in ways
that are still considered compatible with habitat conditions needed for
waterfowl. These management needs would be more involved, at least
initially, and earlier in the year than typically would be done if
waterfowl were the only resource of management interest. Therefore, most
opportunities for fall management based on past experience would be on
publicly managed wetlands as opposed to private. The challenge for
providing late summer and early fall habitat for migrating shorebirds
will be best met by public land managers overseeing appropriate
management particularly of impounded wetland habitats.

Recommendations need to be developed for agencies and landowners (e.g.,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, water management districts) that can more
directly provide habitat through disposal of dredge materials in areas
that would minimize negative consequences to foraging habitat but
increase nesting habitat. By providing such recommendations we would
reduce the risk of exposing birds to contaminants. Also we would provide
roosting and foraging sites removed from frequent disturbances.

An increasingly important issue is the recent sharp increase in
harvesting horseshoe crabs in Atlantic and Gulf waters. This is of
particular concern for shorebirds concentrating during northbound
migrations in the Delaware Bay area, north of our region. However,
likely declines in horseshoe crabs and their eggs upon which many
shorebirds depend for a rich food source also may be a very serious
problem in the Southeastern Coastal Plain as well.

Regarding important estuarine areas, many freshwater inputs have been
severely altered from pre-settlement conditions. In some systems,
concerns are mostly for establishing and maintaining minimum flows
necessary to maintain high foraging habitat quality (e.g., Altamaha
River, GA). In other systems the concern is for decreasing current
unnaturally high flows, often with high levels of nutrients or other
contaminants (e.g., Caloosahatchee River, FL, and many estuaries
downstream from hog farms or other agricultural areas).

Other management issues in the region are related to beach fronts. Beach
restoration using sand "renourishment" apparently may disrupt the
shorebird food base for months or even years (Donoghue 1999, Peterson et
al. in press). Reduction in food resources for nearshore fishes also has
been demonstrated when beach widening has resulted in burial of
hardbottoms and it is reasonable to assume similar effects occur for
shorebirds feeding in these areas at low-tide (Lindeman and Synder
1999). The question remains how long it takes for food resources to
return to pre-"beach restoration" levels.

In addition, vehicular use on beaches supporting nesting populations of
shorebirds, terns, and skimmers is strongly suspected of reduced nesting
success, as is public use in general on beaches especially where pets
(i.e., dogs) are allowed to run freely. Recently, evidence suggests that
sea turtle monitoring involving ATV's also may be disruptive to nesting
plovers (Epstein 1999). Specifically, data exist for Wilson's
(*Charadrius wilsonia*), but presumably Snowy (*Charadrius
alexandrinus*) and Piping (*Charadrius melodus*) plovers are affected as
well. Working closely with conservation minded sea turtle monitoring
crews should minimize plover nest disturbance and avoid running over
plover chicks. Epstein (1999) suggests turtle monitoring crews become
aware of plover nests and eggs in the upper beach and of chicks feeding
in the intertidal areas where use of ATV's could be harmful. ATV speed
should be \< 10 mph (5 mph is recommended in the recovery plan for areas
occupied by nesting Atlantic Coast Piping Plovers; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1996).

# 2. Shorebird Species Occurrence and Regional Species Priorities 

The prioritization process used here follows the approach used by
Partners in Flight instead of that outlined in the U.S. Shorebird Plan
(Carter et al. in press). The actual scores within each prioritization
category follow the procedures outlined by the U.S. Shorebird Plan, but
the major departure is in how the scores are used to determine relative
priorities among species. Few real differences in the two approaches
result in which species fall within broad priority levels. However where
differences are found, typically the U.S. Shorebird Plan process
identifies as higher priority some species that are relatively common
and/or widespread, but with reasonably certain declining population
trends and/or suspected high levels of threat. The Partners in Flight
approach favors species with limited distributions and that are
relatively uncommon regardless of population trend or suspected levels
of threat, but with obviously much higher priority for declining species
with suspected high levels of threat.

The principal author of this report favors the Partners in Flight
approach because (1) species are likely to be most vulnerable when they
are narrowly distributed and globally less abundant regardless of
population trends, (2) population trends and threats for shorebirds have
high levels of uncertainty (especially for rarer species), and (3) the
Partners in Flight approach is better for integrating priority levels
for shorebird species in with priorities for landbird and other
waterbird species in the Southeast for ease in communicating overall
bird priorities to managers and the public. The principal objection
voiced by some for using the Partners in Flight approach is the lack of
recognition of the perceived independence among prioritization factors
and the process outlined in U.S. Shorebird Plan may be slightly more
instructive on the reasons why any one species should be considered a
higher priority than another. For further discussion, the interested
reader is referred to Carter et al. (in press) and Bessinger et al. (in
press). For those interested in comparing Southeastern Coastal Plain -
Caribbean species priorities with other shorebird planning regions,
simply take the scores provided here and apply them to the process
outlined in the U.S. Shorebird Plan.

Species in highest need of conservation attention ("extremely high")
include American Oystercatcher (*Haematopus palliatus*), Snowy Plover,
Piping Plover, and Red Knot (*Calidris canutus*). Seasonal importance
and regional priority status of all other shorebird species occurring in
our region are indicated in Table 2 and Appendix 1.

The relative priority status of Snowy Plover and Red Knot in this
planning region are based in part on very high level of concerns for
southeastern populations which may or may not represent distinct
subspecies. Both of these species are considered generally as high
priority for conservation attention anyway, but breeding Snowy Plovers
in this region are extremely vulnerable to habitat loss in Gulf coastal
beach habitats. For Red Knots, most North American birds migrate to and
from southern South America, but a separate (and possibly taxonomically
distinct) "population" of birds remains in winter from southern Georgia
through Florida and a smaller population winters along the Texas Gulf
coast, both in areas where beach renourishment projects and other
habitat losses are of concern. Piping Plovers wintering in the Southeast
represent three possibly separate breeding populations, but they are
treated together here as they overlap in distribution during winter and
represent an extremely high priority for conservation attention anyway.
A number of other populations or subspecies wintering solely within or
migrating through the region (e.g., Marbled Godwit \[*Limosa fedoa*\],
Short-billed Dowitcher \[*Limnodromus griseus*\]) may represent higher
priorities, but for now species will remain the conservation unit for
these taxa until compelling evidence becomes available suggesting
greater attention is specifically warranted (see Appendix I for species
with subspecies that may require future more specific attention; Warnock
and Hunter in prep.).

Total shorebird population sizes and proportional use of the
Southeastern Coastal Plains - Caribbean Region are at best poorly
understood. On the other hand, some best minimum estimates for temperate
North American shorebird species have been made and our working group
was able to make "guesstimates" on the peak proportion of North American
populations using the regions under discussion at some point during the
annual cycle. In addition, the group made best "guesstimates" of the
Southeastern Coastal Plains - Caribbean Region shorebird populations
using each of four broad habitat types, primarily for foraging
requirements but also to some degree for breeding and roosting
requirements (Table 3). Red-necked Phalarope (*Phalaropus lobatus*) and
Red Phalarope (*Phalaropus fulicarius*) populations were not estimated
as they are pelagic. Present numerical objectives for foraging
shorebirds will be adjusted as new information dictates for each species
and shorebirds overall regarding (a) total continental numbers, (b)
proportion of population(s) resident in or migrating through region, (c)
data on relative use of available habitats within region, and (d)
foraging habitat requirements.

For the Southeastern Coastal Plains Region specifically, estimated
breeding populations for priority species are more precise. Between
35-55 Piping Plover pairs are estimated for North and South Carolina
breeding sites (no known nesting now occurs in the Virginia portion of
this planning region). About 300 Snowy Plover pairs are estimated in the
region with most on the Florida Gulf coast, the rest scattered along the
beaches of Mississippi and Alabama. An estimated 1000 American
Oystercatcher pairs (subject to revision) breed along both Atlantic and
Gulf coasts combined, many on oyster rakes and dredge spoil sites that
are protected from disturbance and predators. Finally, about 1500
Wilson's Plover pairs are estimated along both coasts combined. Little
information is available for estimating breeding shorebird populations
within the Caribbean region, but descriptors are given for all these
species in Appendix II.

All shorebirds are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of
1918, from take which prohibits pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding,
killing, trapping, capturing, collecting, or attempting such conduct
without appropriate permits. This protection extends to adults, young,
eggs, and nests. The Piping Plover is also protected as a Federally
Threatened species under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
Federal actions are all subject to consultation so that conservation of
Piping Plovers can be achieved while avoiding actions that would
jeopardize the continued survival and recovery of this species. Further
the Endangered Species Act prohibits take, which includes definitions of
"harm" and "harass" as violations of the Act. Harm includes significant
habitat modification or degradation that results in the killing or
injury of wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral
patterns including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Harass means an
intentional or negligent act or omission that creates the likelihood of
injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly
disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited
to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

Also relevant for species using beaches, Executive Order 11644, Use of
Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands, and Executive Order 11989,
Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands, pertain to Federal public lands
subject to use by off-road vehicles. Appropriate agencies are required
to determine whether the use of off-road vehicles will cause or is
causing considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife,
and wildlife habitat and immediately close such areas where off-road
vehicles are causing such problems until remedies are implemented to
eliminate these problems.

Most States also have regulations written specifically to protect
colonial nesting waterbirds, but also benefit shorebirds nesting in the
same areas. In North Carolina, their regulation prohibits entry by
people or dogs onto posted state owned islands or beach sites during the
nesting period (April 1 through August 31). In Georgia, several State
owned islands, important for nesting shorebirds and colonial waterbirds,
were recently extended stricter protection from distributions associated
with certain recreational activities during the nesting season.

# 3. Regional Goals 

## Population goals:

1\. Presently, maintain breeding populations and ensure high
reproductive success to ensure sustainable populations of each of the
highest priority species in the region.

2\. During the next 50 years double the breeding population size for
each of the highest priority species in the region and/or through
population viability analyses determine population levels needed to
ensure long-term viability.

## Habitat and management goals:

1\. Provide optimal breeding habitat to maintain and increase priority
species in the planning region.

2\. Provide high quality managed habitat to support successful migration
through and over-wintering within the planning region.

3\. Maintain disturbance frequencies at breeding, foraging and roost
sites below that which would be expected to exceed tolerance levels for
successful reproduction or for maintaining fat stores needed for
long-distance migration.

4\. Work closely with beach managers and communities (to include sea
turtle monitoring crews) and educate them on ways to minimize plover
nest disturbance and to avoid running over plover chicks where use of
vehicles are allowed on beaches.

5\. Provide specific guidance for both private and public land managers
to slow the timing of spring draw-downs and build in habitat
recommendations involving teal considerations in autumn to closely match
peak shorebird habitat needs in their respective areas.

6\. Provide proper incentives for private cooperating landowners to
delay planting for about a month.

7\. Assess individual managers' current contribution as well as their
capacities to help achieve habitat objectives outlined in this report,
to include the potential to close beaches where excessive public use is
shown to be detrimental to important nesting habitat.

8\. When it is necessary to conduct beach renourishment projects, work
with communities, State and Federal agencies, on the timing and design
of the project to minimize disturbance and impacts on shorebird food
base.

9\. Maintain washovers, sandflats, and mudflats, especially on barrier
islands created by hurricanes; that is, do not immediately attempt
"repairs" to hurricane created habitat.

10\. Work with appropriate fishery councils and organizations to reduce,
or if necessary to eliminate, fisheries harvesting horseshoe crabs
either directly or through bycatch.

11\. Work with all interested parties to improve freshwater inputs, in
terms of both flows and quality, into estuarine systems.

## Management coordination and monitoring goals:

1\. Develop a website for the purpose of coordinating management of
impoundments.

2\. Initiate International Shorebird Survey (ISS) sites within the
region and survey on a coordinated schedule, maintain a database and
develop mechanisms to exchange information with existing databases as
with Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences and with the Western
Atlantic Shorebird Association (WASA) website if appropriate.

## Research goals:

1\. Assess the degree of depredation on nesting populations.

2\. Determine factors inhibiting successful reproduction of plovers and
oystercatchers.

3\. Determine shorebird disturbance tolerance levels, primarily from
human use and their pets. Determine whether the disturbances are at such
levels that shorebirds are unable to store as fat an average of 1 gm of
food per day, which is thought to be necessary for successful migration.

4\. Determine effects, if any, from contaminants for migrant versus
resident populations in known problem areas.

5\. Determine factors influencing or inhibiting effective management of
impoundments for shorebirds, including hydrodynamics, mosquito control,
vegetation control protocols, minimizing exposure to contaminants, and
public use (including possible disturbances associated with early teal
seasons).

6\. Determine factors influencing invertebrate diversity and abundance,
among both natural and managed habitats, among seasons, and among all
the conditions listed under item 5.

7\. Investigate the actual effects of beach renourishment on shorebird
foraging habitat and determine the time necessary for a return to
pre-renourishment shorebird food resources.

8\. Develop local and regional monitoring protocols that may improve
upon the International Shorebird Survey.

## Education goals:

1\. Establish regional work group for education and outreach to
coordinate implementation of those initiatives outlined in the National
Education and Outreach Plan that are appropriate for the region and to
develop additional approaches needed to address priority issues
identified for the Southeastern Coastal Plains-Caribbean Region. Tasks
for the work group include:

a.) identify and engage partners to assist with education and outreach
efforts,

b.) work with partners to identify region specific needs for
education/outreach products and services, and to assess which components
of the National Education and Outreach Plan are appropriate for the
region,

c.) coordinate development and/or implementation of audience-specific
education/outreach plans, products and programs to address priority
issues.

2\. Form a regional education and outreach work group as part of the
Southeastern Coastal Plains-Caribbean Region / US Shorebird Conservation
Plan Work Group.

3\. Support the use of the Shorebirds Sister Schools and Sister Cities
Programs and adaptation of Shorebirds Sister Schools materials for the
east coast and Caribbean.

4\. Determine the applicability of the \"Great Shorebird Trail\"
initiative, supported in the National Education and Outreach Plan, to
the region\'s priority goals and, if it is found to contribute to the
region\'s goals, identify and implement appropriate activities.

5\. Utilize and contribute to the development of the education section
of the Western Atlantic Shorebird Association (WASA) web site which can
serve as an information delivery tool for different audiences.

# 4. Habitat Goals, Objectives and Management Needs

Herein, we expand on the habitat and management goals listed above. It
is our intention to develop draft objectives for wetland managers and
then to assess individual managers' current contribution as well as
their capacities to help achieve those objectives. In developing our
habitat objectives, first we define habitat types used by shorebirds
within the region. Next, we define three major conservation categories
for developing management priorities as breeding (B), foraging (F), and
roosting (R). Some habitats are only important for one of these
categories for some species, while others are important for many
different species for two or all three of these categories as outlined
below. Although these all focus on shorebirds, integrated management
must be inclusive of all waterbird and fishes as part of the ecosystems
involved in making management decisions. Proportions of total estimates
of each species using these habitat types are indicated in Table 3
(except for Pelagic).

[Pelagic]{.underline}

Open ocean (F; Red-necked and Red Phalaropes)

[Beach Front]{.underline}

High energy beach fronts (F)

Sandy flats (e.g., inlet interfaces at low tide, washover) (F)

Oyster (shellfish beds) bars (F)

Rock jetties and groins (F,R)

High beach and dunes and associated washovers (B,F,R)

Oyster (shell) rakes (B,R)

Dredge mounds (B,R)

[Intertidal-emergent and submergent vegetated]{.underline}

Brackish and saline marshes (F,R)

High panne (B,F,R)

[Intertidal-unvegetated]{.underline}

Muddy flats (F)

Muddy banks (F)

[Intertidal-forest]{.underline}

Mangrove flats (F)

[Managed wetlands and all inland habitats]{.underline}

Impoundments (B,F,R)

Dredge spoil (B,F,R)

Flooded croplands (F)

Sod farms, pastures, wet prairies, airports (F)

Wastewater treatment facilities (F)

Lakeshores (F)

Riverbars (F,R)

For all but the last major group of habitat types, the main conservation
strategy is to protect existing habitats from future loss through land
acquisition and conservation easements and effectively addressing loss
of habitat quality due to contaminants. Also, the establishment and
conservation of washover sandflats after storms, particularly
hurricanes, is critically important. Perhaps the most important
conservation strategy for these habitats is to determine the level of
human disturbance that can be tolerated by nesting, foraging, or
roosting shorebirds and manage people in a way so as to not exceed these
important thresholds. For the last major group of habitat types, active
management to attract shorebirds becomes an additional consideration
that is of most interest to managers overseeing wetland habitats.

Habitat Goals should be established for each conservation category
mentioned above for (1) breeding, (2) foraging, and (3) roosting
habitats. Objectives may vary locally, but in generic terms these can be
derivatives of the following:

\(A\) The goal for breeding habitat is to provide sufficient habitat to
maintain and increase priority species in the planning region. The
objectives would be (1) to maintain enough high quality habitat to
support a present breeding population of 1000 pairs of American
Oystercatchers, 300 pairs of Snowy Plovers, 1500 pairs of Wilson's
Plovers and 55 pairs of Piping Plovers, and (2) to determine what is
needed to double breeding population size for each of these species
during the next 50 years.

\(B\) The goal for foraging habitat is to provide high quality (in terms
of both "contaminant free" and food content) managed habitat to support
successful migration through and over-wintering within the planning
region. One objective would address the fraction of all the estimated
2.4 million shorebirds using managed and all inland habitats that depend
on high quality habitat provided by managed impoundments during both
spring and fall migration (see below and Table 4). Also, re-establish
foraging habitat on beaches, especially washover which can restore
themselves with the reduction of beach stabilization structures and by
shifting dredge deposition to other less sensitive areas.

\(C\) The goals for roosting habitat are (1) to maintain disturbance
frequencies below that which would be expected to exceed tolerance
levels for maintaining fat stores, etc., needed for long-distance
migrations, and (2) to maintain enough protected roosting sites for an
estimated minimum of 2.4 million shorebirds foraging along regional
coastlines (beachfronts and nearby all intertidal habitats) and another
2.4 million shorebirds foraging in managed and all inland habitats. It
is presumed that the most important roost sites already are on public
lands or on private lands not otherwise subject to frequent
disturbances.

## Breeding:

Achieving habitat objectives for nesting shorebirds first and foremost
is dependent upon actions taken on public lands and
conservation-oriented private ownerships particularly along beach fronts
and also at dredge spoil and oyster rake sites near intertidal areas.
For example, the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act
dictates to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that "Wildlife Comes
First" and protecting nesting shorebirds and other beach nesting species
would be a priority over, for example, beach-associated recreation on
national wildlife refuges. Depredation from overabundant species (e.g.,
raccoons, feral hogs, foxes, feral cats, mammals, gulls, crows, and
crabs) as well as disturbance from humans and their pets may be the most
serious problems holding back reproductive success and expansion of
breeding population sizes for the highest priority species (plovers and
oystercatchers). Efforts to assess the degree of depredation and
disturbance on nesting populations and taking corrective action as
appropriate should be the highest priorities for public land managers
(e.g. increase staff in public use and law enforcement) and cooperating
private landowners.

Protection of breeding areas in the Caribbean, especially where
development or other disturbances threatening nesting birds are
identified, also should be of high priority.

Along many beaches and islands, managers and interested private
landowners mark areas where nesting occurs to inform the public of
closed areas and the reasons why such areas are closed to public use. In
some areas where depredation is a serious problem (including both beach
nesting birds and sea turtles), predator control may be called for or
predator exclosures around nests may be used. However, predator control
may be controversial (and if ATV's are used on beaches to check traps,
operators must also be careful to not run over nests and chicks).
Without careful monitoring, activities associated with exclosures may
result in nest abandonment or the exclosures themselves may be of
marginal effectiveness in reducing nest depredation (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1996, Mabee and Estelle 2000). Close coordination
between managers and state shorebird conservation coordinators is
necessary to outline best strategies which may differ from one location
to the next where predators are thought to be a serious problem for
shorebirds and/or sea turtles.

An initial objective needs to be established for nesting success among
high priority plovers and oystercatchers. Short of conducting
appropriate population viability analyses (which should be a high
priority for future action), we suggest for all plovers (Piping, Snowy,
and Wilson's) that an overall 5-year average fledging success should
exceed 1.5 young per nesting pair (Haig 1992, Page et al. 1995, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). Coordinated efforts to track Piping
Plover nesting success along the Atlantic coast already exist, similar
efforts need to be undertaken for Snowy Plovers on the Gulf Coast and
Caribbean and for Wilson's Plover throughout the planning region.
Nesting success for American Oystercatcher is, as best as we can tell,
very low "naturally" (Nol and Humphrey 1994). We suggest for
oystercatchers that an overall 5-year average fledging success should
exceed 0.5 young per nesting pair. As with plovers, a coordinated effort
across the region and with adjacent regions (e.g., North Atlantic, Gulf
Coastal Prairies) will be necessary to fully assess the long-term
population health of this species in eastern North America.

## Foraging:

The proportion of birds using managed habitats for foraging is important
for establishing habitat goals for managers, similar to what has been
done in the Mississippi Alluvial Plain (Loesch et al 1995). In the
Mississippi Alluvial Plain, where managed habitats likely constitute the
majority of habitat available for fall migration, the estimate of
500,000 shorebirds was made initially to develop habitat objectives. An
initial estimate at numbers of shorebirds using the Southeastern Coastal
Plains - Caribbean Region was placed at 4.8 million. About 2.4 million
shorebirds are estimated to use managed and all inland habitats in this
region, while the other 2.4 million shorebirds thought to use coastal
"non-managed" habitats (Table 3). While we should not forget the
importance of maintaining high quality estuarine mudflat and beach
overwash foraging habitat, the following discussion focuses on what is
needed for managed foraging habitats within the planning region.

In order to arrive at goals for acreage of foraging habitat to be
provided by managers, several assumptions must be made in addition to
the numbers of migrating and wintering shorebirds including: (1) average
body size for each species, (2) food base availability, (3) caloric
content needed to add 1 gram of fat per day, (4) length of stay-over and
(5) number of stops likely in the region for most species. We are
assuming for now an average of two stops in the planning region (along
with an average 15 days per stop) from the Caribbean to southeastern
Virginia. Until we receive invertebrate food availability data from
studies ongoing on Pea Island, Merritt Island, and Back Bay National
Wildlife Refuges, our conservative estimate is 2.4 gm/m^2^. This
estimate of food availability, as well as two others, and four different
proportions of all shorebirds potentially using managed wetlands and all
inland habitats are used to provide estimates of habitat acreage
proposed for provision by wetland managers (Table 4a).

For now, we will divide managed shorebird acres equally between four
subregions as follows: (1) Southeastern Virginia and North Carolina, (2)
South Carolina and Georgia, (3) North Florida and (4) Subtropical
(South) Florida/Caribbean. Therefore, 4,625 acres would be the target
initially for each subregion by 2002. These acreages may be adjusted
later based on census data and availability of impoundments and flooded
agriculture.

Just as with the Mississippi Alluvial Plain exercise, many assumptions
and blurring of differences between species, and in this case
interseasonal differences within species, will require rigorous testing
over time. However, as with the previous exercise, much of that testing
will be best conducted with managers (1) already aware of some of these
objectives, (2) implementing management to achieve these, (3) monitoring
results, and 4) making adjustments as necessary.

Achieving habitat objectives for foraging shorebirds is dependent
primarily on the actions of public land managers and
conservation-oriented private landowners. Presently, about 50,000 acres
of public agency managed wetlands are estimated to be potentially
available with about 30,500 acres on National Wildlife Refuges alone.
Increasing our collective management capabilities targeting shorebirds
at this time suggests a substantial but still cautious commitment
starting with about 4000-4800 acres in the year 2000 (Table 4b). We are
setting our first goal for spring of 2000 because managers generally are
more tuned to shorebird management then and because we will not have to
rush something onto their shoulders for fall. This schedule allowed for
bringing managers and biologists together at a meeting held in March
2000 to kick off the effort and discuss how we arrived at goals, make
adjustments as necessary, talk over management techniques once more,
demonstrate web site etc., and build enthusiasm for fall shorebird
management. We will work up to 18,500 acres by 2002. Then, depending on
the amount of use that we see and as we get Refuges, States and Private
Landowners gradually involved, we may want to increase the goal to 50%
by 2005 (37,000 acres). Allocations among States and individual land
management units will follow similar procedures completed in the
Mississippi Alluvial Plain and actual use of managed wetlands will be
monitored to ensure that expected use rates are matching timing and
duration of habitat availability among management units.

## Roosting:

Roosting habitat objectives need to be based on areas where known
concentrations of shorebirds occur during high tide for coastal areas
and in managed habitats for inland and impounded habitats. To ensure
protection of these roost sites, public and cooperating private managers
will need to minimize disturbance as much as possible. Research may be
needed to determine how much disturbance is too much, i.e., whether
disturbance, primarily from humans and their pets, is at such levels
that shorebirds are unable to store as fat an average of 1 gm of food
per day which is thought to be necessary for successful migration. If
disturbances exceed this or other measures of tolerance thresholds, then
corrective actions are suggested to reduce these disturbances as much as
possible (e.g. on public lands, increase staff in public use and law
enforcement).

With few exceptions where shorebird needs are already integrated into
management (e.g., Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge, FL and Yawkey
Wildlife Center, SC), all areas in Table 1 have potential for increased
management attention targeting shorebirds.

# 5. Management Coordination and Monitoring Needs 

USFWS Ecosystem Teams covering the entire South Atlantic coast have been
working towards coordinating management of impoundments through the
development of a web site. Development of this web site, using both GIS
and shorebird population objectives, is awaiting preliminary habitat
objectives allocated among all cooperators along the South Atlantic
coastline based on discussions held at a managers workshop held March
27-28, 2000, at Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge.

We recognize that monitoring coordination is necessary to make
adjustments on where and when habitat should be provided in managed
wetlands across the region. Bob Noffsinger, USFWS Manteo, NC, along with
Doug Newcomb, USFWS Ecological Services Field Office in Raleigh, NC,
have established shorebird monitoring database for stations using
International Shorebird Survey (ISS) protocol. Each cooperating station
conducting ISS will do so on approximately 10 day intervals on or about
the following dates to allow for more direct intra- (and possibly
inter-) regional comparisons of shorebird movements:

[Northbound (Spring)]{.underline} [Southbound (Autumn)]{.underline}
[Winter (optional)]{.underline}

March 15 July 15 November 5

March 25 July 25 November 15

April 5 August 5 November 25

April 15 August 15 December 5

April 25 August 25 December 15

May 5 September 5 December 25

May 15 September 15 January 5

May 25 September 25 January 15

October 5 January 25

October 15 February 5

October 25 February 15

February 25

March 5

This standardized monitoring effort would allow for very specific
recommendations for providing habitat locally based on peak movements
through any one area compared with all other areas in the region. This
information would be maintained on the web site for all shorebirds
combined and hopefully for each species as well (the latter, to make
sure management targeting all species does not miss the movements of
rarer higher priority species) . Other dates during winter (November,
December, January, and February) should follow similar 10-day intervals
but are considered optional based on available time and intended
management that could effect wintering shorebird populations (also see
Research below). On the other hand, this same protocol may provide for
standard monitoring of all other waterbirds (waterfowl, wading species,
rails, etc.) using managed wetlands throughout the year, depending again
on the priorities set for each land management unit.

During the next 5 years, we will evaluate use of impoundments managed
for shorebirds across the ecosystems and determine if we need to
increase the number of managed acres (say to perhaps the 50% figure of
37,000 acres; Table 4a) proposed for the 2003-2005 period. Jaime
Collazo, USGS Biological Resources Division, North Carolina State
University, has committed to analyze all data collected from monitoring
feedback to help drive future management efforts.

Using ISS protocol, collecting data on shorebird use of beaches is also
encouraged and can be tied in with efforts monitoring possible problems
with off-shore and near-shore problems with contaminant spills and
gill-netting associated mortality for loons, petrels and shearwaters,
gannets, pelicans, and seaducks (Forsell 1999).

For both beachfront and inland ISS routes, we expect coverage to be
accomplished by both agency management staff and volunteers (i.e.,
"citizen scientists"), depending on availability of individuals trained
as necessary on shorebird identification and estimation techniques.

Finally for non-breeding shorebirds, aerial surveys likely are necessary
to fully understand use of estuarine foraging and protected roosting
habitats along coastal areas within the planning region. We recommend
searching coastal areas for shorebird concentrations at least twice
monthly during migration and once monthly during winter and to the
extent possible tie these efforts in with waterfowl surveys often
covering the same areas. Counts of shorebirds, should be split among
large, medium, and small bodied groups of species. If adequate training
is not available to easily group shorebirds into these three groups,
lump medium in with large species, but otherwise use the following three
groups for counting shorebirds:

\(1\) Small-bodied shorebirds are the small plovers and "peeps".

\(2\) The medium-bodied group consists of the larger plovers, yellowlegs
and other larger tattlers, and moderately sized sandpipers including the
larger *Calidris* (e.g., Red Knot, Stilt Sandpiper, Pectoral Sandpiper)
and dowitchers.

\(3\) Large-bodied shorebirds include oystercatchers, stilts, avocets,
curlews, and godwits.

Total numbers censused from aerial surveys can then be used in concert
with ISS to determine not only relative, but also absolute, abundances
among species.

Standardized surveys for nesting Piping Plovers have been established
and efforts require special care to not disturb nesting efforts for this
threatened species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). Surveys for
Snowy and Wilson's plovers, and American Oystercatchers still need to be
developed, but most states attempt to cover all potential nesting
habitat for these species on at least a periodic basis, if not annually.
A likely standardized survey protocol may be tied in with surveys for
beach-nesting terns (especially Common. Least and Gull-billed) and Black
Skimmers, but would require coverage beyond tern and skimmer colonies.
Such a protocol may be best conducted once to establish number of
breeding pairs and no more than twice a season to minimize disturbances.
Measuring reproductive success would require more careful monitoring,
both to gather accurate data and to avoid detrimental disturbances to
nesting efforts. A protocol following that developed by the Florida Fish
and Wildlife Conservation Commission entitled Statewide Breeding
Shorebird Survey is now under review for developing a regional standard
by other states ("shorebirds" in this survey refer primarily to Least
Terns and Black Skimmers, but can be modified to include all nesting
shorebirds).

# 6. Research Needs

Jaime Collazo and his students are working to develop local and regional
monitoring protocols that may improve upon International Shorebird
Survey (ISS), which was not designed originally to be a monitoring tool.
Data from both Pea Island NWR, NC, and Merritt Island NWR, FL, plus
additional sites are serving to test assumptions on duration of
migratory stop-over at any one site, food availability and other factors
used to establish habitat objectives. Louise Weber has also collected
much data from Yawkey Wildlife Center, SC, and Mark Sherfy from Back Bay
NWR, VA.

Other research topics requiring attention include:

\(A\) establishing shorebird disturbance tolerance levels,

\(B\) effects, if any, from contaminants for migrant versus resident
populations in known problem areas,

\(C\) better determining factors, where not already understood,
inhibiting successful reproduction of plovers and oystercatchers and

\(D\) better determining factors influencing or inhibiting effective
management of impoundments for shorebirds, including hydrodynamics,
mosquito control, vegetation control protocols, minimizing exposure to
contaminants and public use.

\(E\) determine factors influencing invertebrate diversity and abundance
under all conditions shorebirds are foraging.

\(F\) determine which methods of dredge spoil disposal (beach disposal,
dredge island, or side cast) and timing (breeding and non-breeding) have
what impacts (both positive and negative) on shorebirds.

These and other research needs were discussed at the Coastal Issue
Workshop held at Georgetown, SC, March 24-25, 2000, entitled "Status and
Future of Shorebird Research, Management, and Education in the
Southeast" sponsored by the Ace Basin, North Carolina, North
Inlet-Winyah Bay, and Sapelo Island National Estuarine Research Reserves
(NERR). The need to include "citizen scientists" where possible was also
emphasized to help with studies mostly for monitoring purposes, but also
for the more detailed issues identified above. NERR may serve as a
future forum for coordinating research activities across the planning
region.

# 7. Education Objectives and Strategies

(Note: This section is based primarily on discussions at the
NERR-sponsored workshop).

The National Education and Outreach Plan recommends the establishment of
regional groups to address region and site specific needs and priority
issues. It will be important to identify key partners who can assist in
the identification of education and outreach needs, program planning and
implementation, and evaluation. These might include education/outreach
representatives from state and federal natural resources agencies, Sea
Grant programs, National Estuarine Research Reserves, and private groups
involved with environmental education. One of the first tasks for the
regional work group will be to assess what education and outreach
products and services are currently available in the region and how well
these address the priority issues in the region\'s conservation plan.
The National Education and Outreach Working Group conducted a survey for
the entire country and the results are outlined in their plan.
Additional service providers exist for the Southeastern and Caribbean
region and should be included in a more comprehensive regional survey.
Once region specific education and outreach needs have been identified,
the work group can guide the development and implementation of
appropriate tools and programs to address the priority issues. Efforts
should be made to integrate current research and best management
practices into any educational products and programs that are developed.

It will be important to integrate education, management and research
interests as the National Shorebird Conservation Plan and the regional
plans are implemented and modified over time. The NERR regional work
group in essence can serve as the lead for education and outreach
activities for the integrated efforts of the Southeastern Coastal
Plains-Caribbean Region Work Group.

Two existing shorebird education efforts, the Shorebirds Sister Schools
Program and the Sister Cities Program, are recommended outreach tools in
the National Education and Outreach Plan. It will be important to assess
the applicability of both of these programs to the region and to support
the programs, if they are determined to be a good use of resources to
address regional priorities. The Shorebirds Sister Schools Program,
designed to reach K-12 audiences, has a West Coast orientation.
Adaptation of this educational program to the Atlantic flyway should be
considered.

The National Education and Outreach Plan also highlights the \"Great
Shorebird Trail.\" This project promotes Western Hemisphere Shorebird
Reserve Network sites as unique travel destinations that can contribute
to ecotourism. Again, there is a need to assess the relevance of this
initiative to regional goals and priorities before dedicating resources
in support of this effort. For example one of the primary goals of the
regional plan is to investigate and reduce human disturbance on
shorebird populations. Education is a key to achieving this goal. Care
must be taken to ensure that education and outreach activities reduce
and do not contribute to human disturbance problems.

The Western Atlantic Shorebird Association (WASA), sponsored by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Estuarine
Research Reserve System of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, represents a collaborative international effort between
private, state, and federal organizations in the United States, Canada
and South America, to monitor and track the movements of shorebirds
along the Western Atlantic flyway. A web site is under development to
assist in this monitoring effort
(http://www.hopscotch.ca/shorebirds/index.html.en) and includes an
education section. The Shorebirds Sister Schools Program is currently
linked to the site (or access directly
(http://www.fws.gov/\~r7nved/sssp.html). An opportunity exists to expand
the education section of the WASA web site to address priorities of the
Shorebird Conservation Plan, especially those most relevant to the east
coast. The WASA project also encourages the submission of shorebird data
(numbers and color marked birds) from observers along the flyway. A need
exits to provide regional coordination and training of observers to
assist in this effort. Education and outreach partners will have
delivery systems, facilities and staff in place and are well-positioned
to provide or facilitate the training and coordination needed to
accomplish the shorebird monitoring objectives of WASA and those of the
Southeastern and Caribbean region. Educational applications of the South
Atlantic Migratory Bird Initiative (SAMBI) web site under development by
the US Fish and Wildlife Service should also be explored.

"Inreach" through the sponsorship of frequent training opportunities for
both management agency staff and prospective citizen scientists on
shorebird identification and estimation techniques must also be a
priority for supporting both monitoring and research activities.

# 8. Funding needs to meet regional goals

See Appendix III for model budget table. Formulas used are as follows:

## 1) Impoundment improvements:

> **VA and NC:**
>
> Develop 2000 new acres (on presently owned public lands) @ \$500/acre
> = \$1,000,000
>
> Enhance 4000 acres (dike,wcs repair ) = @ \$100/acre= \$400,000
>
> Vegetation (Phragmites) control on 1000 acres, 1000acs \* \$100/ac \*
> 5 years= \$500,000
>
> Fall water pumping costs (extra costs to refuges and WMA /cooperating
> private landowners-\$50,000/year \* 5 years= \$250,000
>
> New pumps- 4 large stations @ 125K= \$500,000
>
> 4 small pumps @ \$40,000= \$160,000
>
> **SC and GA:**
>
> Enhance 6000 acres (dike, wcs repair ) = @ \$100/acre= \$600,000
>
> New pumps- 1 large stations @ 125K= \$125,000
>
> 3 small pumps @ \$40,000= \$120,000
>
> 4 wells @ \$15k each = \$60,000
>
> Vegetation (Sesbania, Phragmites etc) control on 1000 acres, 1000acs
> \* \$100/ac \* 5 years= \$500,000
>
> **FL:**
>
> [Guana River Wildlife Management Area]{.underline}
>
> Vegetation Control 500 ac. \* \$100/ac \* 2 years = \$100,000
>
> [Merritt Island National Wildlife Refuge]{.underline}
>
> 2 portable pumps @ = \$40,000 = \$80,000
>
> 1 large pump station @ \$125,000 = \$125,000
>
> Enhance existing dikes, wcs= \$30,000
>
> [Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge]{.underline}
>
> 1 portable pumps @ = \$40,000 = \$40,000
>
> 150 ac veg control @ \$100/ac \* 2 treatments = \$30,000
>
> WCS (water control structures) 3-4 @ \$3000/ = \$15,000
>
> [Tom Goodwin Wildlife Management Area]{.underline}
>
> Vegetation Control 1000 ac. \* \$100/ac \* 2 years = \$200,000
>
> [Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge]{.underline}
>
> 2 portable pumps @ = \$40,000 = \$80,000
>
> 1 large pump station @ \$125,000 = \$125,000
>
> Vegetation Control 2000 ac. \* \$100/ac \* 2 years = \$400,000
>
> [Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge]{.underline}
>
> Estimated \$18,000
>
> [Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge]{.underline}
>
> WCS (water control structures) = \$90,000
>
> [Lake Woodruff National Wildlife Refuge]{.underline}
>
> New Impoundment = \$100,000
>
> New stationary pump = \$125,000
>
> Portable pump = \$45,000
>
> Dike repairs = \$30,000
>
> [Hickory Mound Wildlife Management Area]{.underline}
>
> Minor dike repairs on 1000 ac = \$30,000
>
> 1 large pump station = \$125,000
>
> 1 portable pump = \$40,000
>
> Vegetation Control 300 ac. \* \$100/ac \* 2 years = \$60,000
>
> [St. Marks National Wildlife Refuge]{.underline}
>
> Vegetation Control 250 ac. \* \$100/ac \* 2 years = \$50,000
>
> 1 portable pump = \$40,000
>
> 1 large pump station = \$125,000
>
> [St. Vincent National Wildlife Refuge]{.underline}
>
> 3 wcs @ \$3000 = \$9000
>
> Vegetation Control 250 ac. \* \$100/ac \* 2 years = \$50,000
>
> 1 portable pump = \$40,000
>
> **Alabama**
>
> Veg control
>
> Dike, wcs maintenance, pumping costs \$30,000

## 2) Nest Marking:

Supplies needed to mark nests include signs, rope, posts, post hole
diggers, and post drivers. Each state provided an estimate for NC, SC,
GA, the rest were estimated based on the expected efforts:

NC: \$4,000/year times 5 years, they need \$20,000

SC: \$1,600/year times 5 years, they need \$8,000

GA: \$1,200/year times 5 years. they need \$6,000

## 3) Law enforcement and public use staffing:

Assume each half-time officer at \$50,000 each, over and above present
capabilities, to include equipment, outreach materials, etc.

VA: 0.3 officer; NC: 7 officers; SC: 4 officers; GA: 1 officer; FL: 4
officers; AL: 2 officers; MS: 2 officers; PR: 2 officers; VI: 1 officer

Multiply this by a 5-year period.

## 4) Monitoring nest sites (ground surveys):

Assume \$20,000/technician for 3 months in the nesting season per year,
which includes equipment, vehicle, gas, and travel costs.

Multiply this by the number of technicians needed to cover the State's
coastlines:

VA=0.5, NC=5.5, SC=3, GA=2, FL=11, AL=1, MS=1, PR=0.5, VI=0.3

Multiply this by a 5-year period.

## 5) Monitoring migration sites (ground surveys):

Determine the number of likely sites to be surveyed using International
Shorebird Survey Protocol:

VA=1, NC=19, SC=13, GA=7, FL=40, AL=16, MS=2, PR=1, VI=1

Multiply the number of days survey is to be conducted, with standard
being 32 days per year (8 northbound, 11 southbound, and 13 winter)

Multiply by \$240/day to cover salaries and transportation, etc.

Multiply this by a 5-year period.

## 6) Monitoring roost sites (ground surveys):

Determine how many days needed to cover coastline at least once per
year:

VA: 10; NC: 20; SC: 20; GA: 25; FL: 55; AL: 5; MS: 5; PR: 3; VI: 1

Multiply by \$200/day to cover salaries and equipment, etc.

Multiply this by a 5-year period.

## 7) Monitoring migration and roost sites (aerial surveys):

Assume \$800/day (\$200/hr. for a 4 hr. flight/day) + \$100/day for
salaries, etc. for \$900/day total.

Assume a State's entire coastline is covered twice a month during
migration periods (July, August, September, October, March, April, May)
and once a month during winter (November, December, January, February)
for a total of 18 days.

Multiplied by the number of days needed to cover the State's coastline
once:

VA-NC: 4; SC: 2.5; GA: 2; FL: 11; AL: 0.5; MS: 0.5; PR: 0.3; VI: 0.3

Multiply this by a 5-year period.

## 8) Research:

For now we are assuming that existing research priorities should support
on average 5 projects at \$40,000 per project, which when multiplied by
a 5-year period comes to \$1 million. This figure was then spread among
the States assuming that these will often be multi-state investigations.

## 9) Education and outreach:

For now we are assuming that about \$100,000 per year will be needed to
support travel for education/outreach work group meetings, materials
development, and program implementation and evaluation, based on
identified priority issues. When multiplied by a 5-year period, this
figure comes to \$500,000. This figure was then spread among the states,
assuming that many of the developed materials will cover multiple-state
issues and education initiatives.

## 10) Implementation coordinator:

Salary, benefits, travel, supplies, etc. approximately \$100,000 per
year, multiplied by 5 years equates to \$500,000.

# 9. Recognition of individuals (not otherwise listed on cover page) and organizations that contributed to this report.

Eric Baka, N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission, Trenton, NC

Chris Kelly, N.C. Fish and Wildlife Coop. Unit, NC State University,
Raleigh, NC

Dawn O'Hara, N.C. Fish and Wildlife Coop. Unit, NC State University,
Raleigh, NC

Dwight Cooley, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Wheeler NWR, AL

Catherine Hickey, Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA

Wendy Allen, North Inlet-Winyah Bay Nat'l Estuarine Research Reserve,
Georgetown, SC

# Literature Cited

Beissinger, Steven R., J. Michael Reed, Joseph M. Wunderle, Jr., Scott
K. Robinson, and Deborah M. Finch. 2000. Report of the AOU Conservation
Committee on the Partners in Flight Spedies Prioritization Plan. Auk
117(2):549-561.

Carter, Michael F., William C. Hunter, David N. Pashley, and Kenneth V.
Rosenberg. 2000. Setting conservation priorities for landbirds in the
United States: the Partners in Flight approach. Auk 117(2):541-548.

Donoghue, C. R. 1999. The Influence of Swash Processes on *Donax
variablis* and *Emerita talpoida*. PHD dissertation, Univ. of Virginia.

Epstein, M. 1999. Incidental impact to nesting Wilson Plovers during sea
turtle nest monitoring season. Florida Field Naturalist 27:173-176.

Forsell, D. 1999. Mortality of migratory waterbirds in Mid-Atlantic
coastal anchored gillnets during March and April, 1998. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Annapolis, MD. 29 pages.

Lindeman, K. C., and D. B. Synder. 1999. Nearshore hardbottom fishes of
southeast Florida and effects of habitat burial caused by dredging.
Fishery Bulletin 97:508-525.

Haig, S. M. 1992. Piping Plover (*Charadrius melodus*). *In* The Birds
of North America, No. 2 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The
Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D. C.: The American
Ornithologists' Union.

Loesch, C. R., D. J. Twedt, K. Tripp, W. C. Hunter and M. S. Woodrey.
1995. Development of management objectives for waterfowl and shorebirds
within the Mississippi Alluvial Valley Migratory Bird Initiative.
Proceedings Partners in Flight International Workshop, Cape May, New
Jersey, 1-5 October, 1995.

Mabee, T. J., and V. B. Estelle. 2000. Assessing the effectiveness of
predator exclosures for plovers. Wilson Bulletin 112:14-20.

Nol, E., and R. C. Humphrey. American Oystercatcher (*Haematopus
palliatus*). *In* The Birds of North America, No. 82 (A. Poole and F.
Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington,
D. C.: The American Ornithologists' Union.

Page, G. W., J. S. And J. C. Warriner, and P. W. C. Paton. 1995. Snowy
Plover (*Charadrius alexandrinus*). *In* The Birds of North America, No.
154 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural
Sciences; Washington, D. C.: The American Ornithologists' Union.

Peterson C. H., D. H. M. Hickerson, and G. Grissom Johnson. In Press.
Short Term Consequences of Nourishment and Bulldozing on the Dominant
Large Invertebrates of the Sandy Beach. Journal of Coastal Research
1999.

Raffaele, H., J. Wiley, O. Garrido, A. Keith, and J. Raffaele. 1998. A
guide to the birds of the West Indies. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, New Jersey.

Smith, P. W., and S. A. Smith. 1999. The breeding of Wilson's
(*Charadrius wilsonia*) and Collared (*Charadrius collaris*) plovers in
the southern Lesser Antilles. El Pitirre 12:50-51.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Piping Plover (*Charadrius
melodus*), Atlantic Coast Population, Revised Recovery Plan. Hadley,
Massachusetts. 258 pages.

Warnock N., and W. C. Hunter. In prep. Shorebird conservation units:
subspecies and distinct population segments.

Table 1. Preliminary list of areas used by shorebirds within the
Southeastern Coastal Plain and Caribbean Regions. (Note that sites of
known importance are underlined and in bold type, and include two
Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network sites (Cape Romain National
Wildlife Refute, SC, and Altamaha Delta, GA)

State/ [Recommended Surveys]{.underline}

Area Beachfront Inland/Estuarine

[Virginia]{.underline}

**[Back Bay National Wildlife Refuge]{.underline}** 1

False Cape State Park 1

[North Carolina]{.underline}

**[Currituck National Wildlife Refuge]{.underline}** 1

Mackay Island National Wildlife Refuge

**[Pea Island National Wildlife Refuge]{.underline}** 1 1

Alligator River National Wildlife Refuge 1

**[Cape Hatteras National Seashore]{.underline}** 3

Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge 1

Mattamuskeet National Wildlife Refuge 2

Pamlico Point Wildlife Management Area 1

**[Cape Lookout National Seashore]{.underline}** 3

**[Bird Shoals area, Rachel Carson site, National
Estuarine]{.underline}** 1

**[Research Reserve (Beaufort)]{.underline}**

Lea and Hutaff Islands (private) 1

Lower Cape Fear (South Port) 1

**[Pee Dee National Wildlife Refuge]{.underline}** 1

Total **11** **8**

[South Carolina]{.underline}

Waccamaw National Wildlife Refuge

**[Yawkey Wildlife Center (South Island)]{.underline}** 1 3

**[Cape Romain National Wildlife Refuge]{.underline}** (WHSRN site) 1 1

Charleston Harbor

Santee National Wildlife Refuge 1

Santee Coastal Reserve 1

**[Huntington Beach State Park]{.underline}** 1

Bear Island Wildlife Management Area 1

**[ACE Basin National Wildlife Refuge]{.underline}** 2

Table 1 (cont.).

State/ [Recommended Surveys]{.underline}

Area Beachfront Inland/Estuarine

[South Carolina (cont.)]{.underline}

**[Savannah River Dredge Spoil Site,]{.underline}** 1

**[Army Corps of Engineers]{.underline}**

Savannah River National Wildlife Refuge

Total **3 10**

[Georgia]{.underline}

**[Little Tybee Island Natural Heritage Preserve]{.underline}**

Wassaw Island National Wildlife Refuge 1

**[Ossabaw Island Natural Heritage Preserve]{.underline}**

**[St. Catherine's Island Bar Natural Area]{.underline}**

St. Catherine's Island (private) 1

Blackbeard Island National Wildlife Refuge 1

**[Altamaha Delta (includes Wolf Island National]{.underline}**

**[Wildlife Refuge, Little Egg Island Natural Area,]{.underline}**

**[Little St. Simon's Island \[private\])]{.underline}** (WSHRN Site)

**[Altamaha River Wildlife Management Area]{.underline}** 1

**[Kings Bay Submarine Base (Department of the Navy)]{.underline}** 1

**[Cumberland Island National Seashore (Long Point]{.underline}** 1

**[\[north end\] and south end)]{.underline}**

Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge (GA-AL) 1

Total **4 3**

[Florida]{.underline}

SACP=South Atlantic Coastal Plain

> [State Wildlife Management Areas]{.underline}
>
> Guana River
>
> Hickory Mound

Table 1 (cont.).

State/ [Recommended Surveys]{.underline}

Area Beachfront Inland/Estuarine

[Florida (cont.)]{.underline}

SACP=South Atlantic Coastal Plain (cont.)

> [State Parks]{.underline}
>
> **[St. George Islands\*]{.underline}** 1
>
> Fort Clinch 1
>
> Amelia Island
>
> Little Talbot 1
>
> Guana River
>
> [Department of Defense]{.underline}
>
> Mayport NS 1
>
> [National Parks]{.underline}
>
> Timucuan
>
> [National Wildlife Refuges]{.underline}
>
> **[St. Vincent \*]{.underline}** 1
>
> **[St. Marks \*]{.underline}** 1
>
> Lower Suwannee \*
>
> [County]{.underline}
>
> Huguenot (Ward's Bank) Duval Co. 1

EGCP=East Gulf Coastal Plain

> [State Parks]{.underline}
>
> Perdido Key 1
>
> Fort Pickens 1
>
> Henderson Beach
>
> Grayton Beach
>
> St. Andrews
>
> **[T.H. Stone-St. Joseph]{.underline}** 1
>
> [Department of Defense]{.underline}
>
> Pensacola NAS
>
> Eglin AFB 1
>
> Tyndall AFB

Table 1 (cont.).

State/ [Recommended Surveys]{.underline}

Area Beachfront Inland/Estuarine

[Florida (cont.)]{.underline}

EGCP=East Gulf Coastal Plain (cont.)

> [National Parks]{.underline}
>
> Gulf Islands 1

PEFL=Peninsular Florida

> [State Wildlife Management Areas]{.underline}
>
> Gulf Hammock
>
> [State Parks]{.underline}
>
> Anastasia 1
>
> Faver-Dykes
>
> Washington Oaks State Gardens
>
> Flagler Beach 1
>
> Tomoka
>
> Hontoon Island
>
> Hillsborough\*
>
> Anclote Key\*
>
> **[Honeymoon Island\*]{.underline}** 1
>
> Caladesi Island\*
>
> Sebastian Inlet
>
> Oscar Scherer\*
>
> Don Pedro Island\*
>
> Gasparilla Island\*
>
> **[Cayo Costa-North Captiva\*]{.underline}** 1
>
> Ft. Pierce Inlet
>
> [State Lands]{.underline}
>
> **[Bunche Beach (Estero Island),]{.underline}**
>
> **[Fort Myers Beach]{.underline}** 1
>
> [Department of Deense]{.underline}
>
> Cape Canaveral AFS
>
> Patrick AFB
>
> MacDill AFB

Table 1 (cont.).

State/ [Recommended Surveys]{.underline}

Area Beachfront Inland/Estuarine

[Florida (cont.)]{.underline}

PEFL=Peninsular Florida (cont.)

> [National Parks]{.underline}
>
> Fort Mantanzas
>
> **[Cape Carnaveral Natl. Seashore]{.underline}** 1
>
> [National Wildlife Refuges]{.underline}
>
> Archie Carr 1
>
> Caloosahatchee
>
> **[Cedar Keys]{.underline}**
>
> Chassahowitzka
>
> **[Ding Darling]{.underline}** 1
>
> Egmont Key
>
> Hobe Sound 1
>
> Island Bay
>
> Matlacha Pass
>
> **[Merritt Island]{.underline}** 1 6
>
> Passage Key
>
> Pelican Island 1
>
> Pine Island
>
> Pinellas
>
> St. Johns
>
> [St. Johns Water Management District]{.underline}
>
> **[Zellwood (north edge of Lake Apopka)]{.underline}** 2
>
> [County/City Lands]{.underline}
>
> Pinellas County Parks and Preserves
>
> Sanibel Island beaches 1

STFL=Subtropical Florida

> [State Parks]{.underline}
>
> St. Lucie Inlet
>
> J.D. MacArthur Beach
>
> John U. Lloyd Beach
>
> Bill Baggs Cape Florida
>
> Lover's Key\*

Table 1 (cont.).

State/ [Recommended Surveys]{.underline}

Area Beachfront Inland/Estuarine

[Florida (cont.)]{.underline}

STFL=Subtropical Florida (cont.)

> [State Parks (cont.)]{.underline}
>
> Delnor-Wiggins Pass\*
>
> John Pennekamp Coral Reef
>
> Long Key
>
> Bahia Honda 1
>
> [Department of Defense]{.underline}
>
> Homestead AFB
>
> Key West NAS
>
> [National Parks]{.underline}
>
> **[Everglades]{.underline}** 1
>
> Biscayne 1 1
>
> Ft. Jefferson (Dry Tortugas)
>
> [National Wildlife Refuges]{.underline}
>
> **[Loxahatchee]{.underline}** 1
>
> Crocodile Lake 1
>
> Great White Heron
>
> Key West
>
> **[Ten Thousand Islands]{.underline}** 1
>
> [Private]{.underline}
>
> **[Belle Glade (se Lake Ockechobee, South]{.underline}** 1

**[Florida Water Management District)]{.underline}**

Total 22 18

\*Snowy Plover populations from Apalachicola Bay to Cedar Keys in the
"South Atlantic" Coastal Plain are actually part of a continuum of
breeding populations extending from Texas through to the Gulf side of
Peninsular Florida south to the Florida Keys. The reason for this was
tied to inland bird populations (*e.g.,* Limpkin, Painted Bunting)
between the Apalachicola the Suwannee River Basins being most closely
allied with other South Atlantic Coastal Plain populations.

Table 1 (cont.).

State/ [Recommended Surveys]{.underline}

Area Beachfront Inland/Estuarine

[Alabama]{.underline}

Alabama Point 1 1

Fort Morgan Peninsula 1 1

**[Sand Island]{.underline}** 1

Dauphin Island-east end 1

**[Little Dauphin Island]{.underline}** 1

**[Dauphin Island-west end]{.underline}** 1 1

Bayou La Batre Ponds 1

**[Gaillard Island]{.underline}** 1

**[Blakeley Island (Alcoa cooling ponds]{.underline}** 1

**[near Mobile) and Polecat Bay]{.underline}**

**[Battleship Flats (near Battleship Alabama),]{.underline}** 1

**[Mobile County]{.underline}**

**[Mobile-Tensaw Delta]{.underline}** 1

**[Baldwin County Sod Farms]{.underline}** 1

Eufaula National Wildlife Refuge (AL side) 1

Total **5 11**

[Mississippi]{.underline}

All coastline (quickly becoming lost cause

due to casino and related development)

Gulf Islands National Seashore 1

**[Pascagoula River Marsh]{.underline}**

**[West Jackson Wastewater Treatment Facility]{.underline}** 1

Total **1 1**

[Puerto Rico]{.underline}

**[Cabo Rojo (Salt Flats) National Wildlife Refuge]{.underline}** 1

**[Jobos Bay Estuarine Reserve]{.underline}**

Total **1**

[Virgin Islands]{.underline}

**[Salt Pond, St. Croix]{.underline}** 1

Total **1**

Table 2. PRELIMINARY LIST OF PRIORITY SPECIES\* BY GUILD/GROUP
SOUTHEASTERN COASTAL PLAIN AND CARIBBEAN REGIONS (VA, NC, SC, GA, FL,
AL, MS, PR, VI).

> SPECIES (AND SEASONS OF OCCURRENCE)\* \*

PRELIMINARY

PRIORITY Terr/Aqua Terr/Aqua Aqua/Terr Aqua Aqua Aqua Gleaners/

LEVEL Gleaners Glean?Probers Probe/Gleaners Probers Gleaners Sweepers

> Probers/Priers

EXTREMELY HIGH: SNPL (**[B]{.underline}**, W) REKN (M, W) AMOY
(**[W]{.underline}**, **B**)

> PIPL (**B**, **M, [W]{.underline}**)

HIGH WIPL (**[B]{.underline}**, w) WHIM (**[M]{.underline}**, w) UPSA
(M,b) MAGO (M, W) SOSA (M)

> SESA (M, w)
>
> STSA (M, w)
>
> SBDO (M, W)
>
> BBSA (M)

MODERATE BBPL (M,W) RUTU (M, W) S AND (M, W) GRYE (M,W)

> PUSA (W) LESA (M, W) WILL (M, W, B)
>
> PESA (M)
>
> DUNL (W)
>
> COSN (W, M)

OTHER SPECIES SEPL (M,W) SPSA (M,W) WESA (M,W) LEYE (M, W) BNST (W, B)

WITH HIGH KILL (B,W) AMAV (W)

CONCENTRATIONS RNPH (M)

> REPH (M)

OTHER SPECIES AMGP (m) LBCU (w) WRSA (m) WIPH (m)

> HUGO (m) BASA (m)
>
> LBDO (w)

\*See Table 3 for scientific names and Appendix I for actual scores for
priority criteria.

\*\*B=breeding, W=winter, M=migration; when bold considered very
important to species, bold and underline extremely important, lower case
present but not in high numbers.

Species codes are as follows:

BBPL=Black-bellied Plover

LBCU=Long-billed Curlew

PESA=Pectoral Sandpiper

HUGO=Hudsonian Godwit

PUSA=Purple Sandpiper

AMGP=American Golden Plover

SAND=Sanderling

STSA=Stilt Sandpiper

MAGO=Marbled Godwit

BNST=Black-necked Stilt

SNPL=Snowy Plover

SESP=Semipalmated Sandpiper

DUNL=Dunlin

GRYE=Greater Yellowlegs

AMAV=American Avocet

WIPL=Wilson's Plover

WESA=Western Sandpiper

SBDO=Short-billed Dowitcher

LEYE=Lesser Yellowlegs

WIPH=Wilson's Phalarope

SEPL=Semipalmated Plover

LESA=Least Sandpiper

LBDO=Long-billed Dowitcher

SOSA=Solitary Sandpiper

NOPH=Northern Phalarope

PIPL=Piping Plover

WRSA=White-rumped Sandpiper

COSN=Common Snipe

WILL=Willet

REPH=Red Phalarope

KILL=Killdeer

BASA=Baird's Sandpiper

BBSA=Buff-breasted Sandpiper

RUTU=Ruddy Turnstone

AMOY=American Oystercatcher

WHIM=Whimbrel

REKN=Red Knot

UPSA=Upland Sandpiper

SPSA=Spotted Sandpiper

Table 3. Minimum population estimates for shorebirds resident within or
migrating through the Southeastern Coastal Plain (SECP) and Caribbean
(Carib.) Regions. Minimum temperate North American population estimates
from National Shorebird Planning Group. Estimated SECP-Carib.
proportions for determining regional population sizes based on the
collective experience of regional working group members and season of
peak occurrence (B=breeding, W=wintering, S=spring or northbound
migration, F=fall or southbound migration). Estimated proportions of
foraging populations among habitats were also based on the collective
experience of working group members. Estimated numbers of individuals
are listed for managed and inland habitats in parentheses since these
are used to developed managed habitat objectives.

> Proportion of Foraging Population Among Habitats within Planning
> Regions
>
> Minimum
>
> North Am. Estimated Estimated Intertidal

Priority Level/ Population SECP-Carib. SECP-Carib. Managed and

Species Estimate Proportion Population Beachfront Vegetated Unvegetated
Mangrove All Inland

[Extremely High]{.underline}

Snowy Plover 16,000 5% (B) 800 90% 10%

> *Charadrius alexandrinus*
>
> Southeast U.S.-Carib. subsp.

Piping Plover 6,000 13% (F) 800 100%

> *Charadrius melodus*

Red Knot 400,000 5% (W) 20,000 75% 20% 5% (750)

> *Calidris canutus*
>
> Southeast U.S. pop.

American Oystercatcher 7,500 52% (W) 3,900 10% 90%

> *Haematopus palliatus*

[High]{.underline}

Wilson\'s Plover 30,000 17% (B) 5,000 80% 20%

> *Charadrius wilsonia*

Solitary Sandpiper 100,000 33% (F) 33,000 100% (33,000)

> *Tringa solitaria*

Upland Sandpiper 350,000 3% (F) 10,500 100% (10,500)

> *Bartramia longicauda*

Whimbrel 57,000 33% (S) 18,810 10% 60% 20% 10%

> *Numenius phaeopus*

Marbled Godwit 171,000 1% (W) 1,710 70% 20% 10% (170)

> *Limosa fedoa*

Semipalmated Sandpiper 3,500,000 60% (S) 2,100,000 10% 50% 5% 35%
(735,000)

> *Calidris pusilla*

Stilt Sandpiper 200,000 10% (F) 20,000 20% 80% (16,000)

> *Calidris himantopus*

Buff‑breasted Sandpiper 15,000 5% (F) 1,500 100% (1,500)

> *Tryngites subruficollis*

Short‑billed Dowitcher 320,000 50% (S) 160,000 10% 50% 20% 20% (32,000)

> *Limnodromus griseus*

Table 3 (cont.).

> Proportion of Foraging Population Among Habitats within Planning
> Regions
>
> Minimum
>
> North Am. Estimated Estimated Intertidal

Priority Level/ Population SECP-Carib. SECP-Carib. Managed and

Species Estimate Proportion Population Beachfront Vegetated Unvegetated
Mangrove All Inland

[Moderate]{.underline}

Black‑bellied Plover 200,000 25% (F) 50,000 50% 20% 20% 10% (5,000)

> *Pluvialis squatarola*

Greater Yellowlegs 100,000 33% (S) 33,000 25% 10% 5% 60% (19,800)

> *Tringa malanoleuca*

Willet 250,000 50% (B) 125,000 60% 5% 30% 5% (6,250)

> *Catoptrophorus semipalmatus*

Ruddy Turnstone 235,000 10% (S) 23,500 70% 30%

> *Arenaria interpres*

Sanderling 300,000 33% (S) 100,000 80% 20%

> *Calidris alba*

Least Sandpiper 600,000 25% (S) 150,000 5% 30% 5% 60% (90,000)

> *Calidris minutilla*

Pectoral Sandpiper 400,000 33% (F) 132,000 100% (132,000)

> *Calidris melanotos*

Purple Sandpiper 15,000 10% (W) 1,500 100%

> *Calidris maritima*

Dunlin 850,000 25% (W) 212,000 30% 30% 10% 30% (63,750)

> *Calidris alpina*

Common Snipe 2,000,000 33% (W) 660,000 100% (660,000)

> *Gallinago gallinago*

[Other Species with]{.underline}

[High Concentrations]{.underline}

Killdeer 1,000,000 30% (W) 300,000 100% (300,000)

> *Charadrius vociferus*

Semipalmated Plover 150,000 33% (S) 49,500 60% 30% 10% (4,950)

> *Charadrius semipalmatus*

Black‑necked Stilt 150,000 10% (B) 15,000 10% 90% (13,500)

> *Himantopus mexicanus*

Lesser Yellowlegs 500,000 33% (S) 165,000 25% 10% 5% 60% (99,000)

> *Tringa flavipes*

Spotted Sandpiper 150,000 33% (F) 49,500 30% 10% 60% (29,700)

> *Actitis macularia*

Western Sandpiper 3,500,000 10% (F) 350,000 10% 50% 5% 35% (122,500)

> *Calidris mauri*

Table 3 (cont.).

> Proportion of Foraging Population Among Habitats within Planning
> Regions
>
> Minimum
>
> North Am. Estimated Estimated Intertidal

Priority Level/ Population SECP-Carib. SECP-Carib. Managed and

Species Estimate Proportion Population Beachfront Vegetated Unvegetated
Mangrove All Inland

[Other Species with]{.underline}

[High Concentrations (cont.)]{.underline}

Long‑billed Dowitcher 500,000 1% (W) 5,000 100% (5,000)

> *Limnodromus scolopaceus*

Wilson\'s Phalarope 1,500,000 0.1% (F) 1,500 100% (1,500)

> *Phalaropus tricolor*

Red‑necked Phalarope 2,500,000 ??? ???

> *Phalaropus lobatus*

Red Phalarope 1,000,000 ??? ???

> *Phalaropus fulicaria*

[Other Species]{.underline}

American Golden‑Plover 150,000 1% (F) 1,500 100% (1,500)

> *Pluvialis domimica*

American Avocet 450,000 1% (W) 4,500 15% 85% (3,825)

> *Recurvirostra americana*

Long‑billed Curlew 20,000 0.3% (W) 60 100%

> *Numenius americanus*

Hudsonian Godwit 50,000 0.3% (F) 150 100% (150)

> *Limosa haemastica*

White‑rumped Sandpiper 400,000 1% (S) 5,000 100% (4,000)

> *Calidris fuscicollis*

Baird\'s Sandpiper 300,000 0.1% (F) 300 100% (300)

> *Calidris bairdii*

Totals 22,457,500 \-\-\-\-\-\-\-\-- 4,809,530 (2,391,645)

Table 4a. Estimated acreage of managed habitat necessary to support
shorebirds resident in or migrating through the Southeastern Coastal
Plain -Caribbean Regions for 2,391,645 shorebirds (inland and
impoundments users), using turnover of 15 days and two stops from
Caribbean to southeastern Virginia.\*

Levels of food

availability Acres of managed wetlands needed to support different
proportions of total shorebirds

gm. Inverts/m^2^ All using impds 50% using impds. 25% using impds 10%
using impds.

> 2.4 74,000 ac. [37,000 ac.]{.underline} **[18,500 ac.]{.underline}**
> 7400 ac.
>
> 3.3 54,000 ac. 27,000 ac. 13,500 ac. 5400 ac.
>
> 4.3 41,200 ac. 20,600 ac. 10,300 ac. 4120 ac.

\*For other considerations, assumptions, and stipulations, see text
under Habitat Objectives.

Table 4b. Suggested schedule for interim shorebird habitat objectives
2000-2002.

Spring Fall Spring Fall Spring Fall

[Subregion\*]{.underline} [2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 2002]{.underline}

\(1\) VA-NC 1200 1000 2400 2000 4625 4625

\(2\) SC-GA 1200 1000 2400 2000 4625 4625

\(3\) N. FL 1200 1000 2400 2000 4625 4625

\(4\) Subtrop. FL [1200]{.underline} [1000]{.underline}
[2400]{.underline} [2000]{.underline} [4625]{.underline}
[4625]{.underline}

and Caribbean

> 4800 4000 9600 8000 18,500 18,500

\*Roughly equivalent to Fish and Wildlife Ecosystem Team Boundaries,

respectively: (1) Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-Cape Fear, (2) Savannah-Santee-Pee
Dee

and Altamaha, (3) Northeast Gulf and North Florida, and (4) South
Florida

and Caribbean.

Appendix I. Conservation Priority Scores for shorebird species occurring
within the Southeastern Coastal Plain-Caribbean Regions. RA=(Global)
Relative Abundance; BD=Breeding Distribution; ND=Non-breeding
Distribution; TN=Threats Non-breeding; TB=Threats Breeding;
PT=Population Trend; AI=Area Importance. Total scores identified as
appropriate as EH=Extremely High Priority; H=High Priority; M=Moderate
Priority. Primary season(s) for which an AI score was based were
B=Breeding season; W= "winter," Mi=migration.

> Sub

Species RA BD ND TN TB PT Total AI Total^4^

Black-bellied Plover^1^ 3 2 1 3^2^ 2 5 16 4Mi 20 M

American Golden-Plover 3 2 3 4 2 4 18 2Mi 20 M

Snowy Plover 5 3 4 4 5^2^ 5 26 3B 29 EH

> Southeast U.S. pops. 5 5 5 4 5^2^ 5 29 5B 34 EH

Wilson's Plover 5 4 3 4 4 3 23 4B 27 H

Semipalmated Plover 3 1 1 2 2 3 12 5Mi 17

Piping Plover 5 5 4 4 5 5 28 2B/4N 32 EH

Killdeer 1 1 2 3 3 3^2^ 13 4B 17

American Oystercatcher^1^ 5 3 4 4 4 3 23 5B 28 EH

Black-necked Stilt^1^ 3 1 2 2 3 3 14 4B 18

American Avocet 2 2 3 4 3 3 17 3W 20 M

Greater Yellowlegs 4 2 1 2 2 3 14 5Mi 19 M

Lesser Yellowlegs 2 2 1 3 2 3 13 5Mi 18

Solitary Sandpiper^1^ 4 3 2 2 4 3 18 5Mi 23 H

Willet^1^ 3 3 3 2^2^ 2^2^ 3 16 5B 21 M

Spotted Sandpiper 3 1 1 2 2 3 12 5Mi 17

Upland Sandpiper 2 2 3 4 5^2^ 5^2^ 21 3M/1B 24 H

Whimbrel^1^ 4 3 2 4^2^ 2 5 20 5Mi 25 H

Long-billed Curlew 5 3 3 1^2^ 4 5 21 1W 22^5^ H

Hudsonian Godwit^1^ 4 4 4 1^2^ 3 3 19 1Mi 20 M

Marbled Godwit^1^ 3 3 3 4 4 4 21 3W 24 H

Ruddy Turnstone^1^ 3 2 2 4 2 4 17 4Mi 21 M

Red Knot^1^ 2 3 3 4 2 5 19 3Mi 22 H

> Southeast U.S. pop. 5 5 5 4 3 5 27 5W 32 EH

Sanderling 2 2 1 4 2 5 16 5Mi 21 M

Semipalmated Sandpiper 1 3 3 3 2 5 17 5Mi 22 H

Western Sandpiper 1 4 2 4 2 3 16 4Mi 20 M

Least Sandpiper 2 2 2 2 2 5 15 4Mi 19 M

White-rumped Sandpiper 2 3 3 2 2 3 15 2Mi 17

Baird's Sandpiper 2 3 3 1^2^ 2 3 14 1Mi 15

Pectoral Sandpiper 2 2 3 3 2 3 15 5Mi 20 M

Purple Sandpiper^1^ 5 3 3 3 2 2 18 4W 22 H

Dunlin^1^ 2 2 3 3 2 5 17 4W 21 M

Stilt Sandpiper 3 3 3 4 3 3 19 4Mi 23 H

Appendix I (cont.).

> Sub

Species RA BD ND TN TB PT Total AI Total^4^

Buff-breasted Sandpiper 5 3 4 4 3 4 23 3Mi 26 H

Short-billed Dowitcher^1^ 2 3 2 4 2 5 18 5Mi 23 H

Long-billed Dowitcher 2 4 3 2^2^ 2 2 15 3W 18

Common Snipe 1 1 2 2 3 5 14 5W 19 M

American Woodcock^3^ 1 2 3 4 4 5 19 5W 24 H

Wilson's Phalarope 1 2 5 4 3 4 19 2Mi 21 M

Red-necked Phalarope 1 1 3 1^2^ 2 4 12 1Mi 13

Red Phalarope 1 2 1 1^2^ 2 4 11 1Mi 12

^1^ Further attention may be needed for conservation of subspecies
specifically occurring within planning region.

^2^ Threat scores and population trend scores within regions differ from
national scores due to local conditions or population trend information.

^3^ American Woodcock is not included in this plan as it is covered best
under Partners in Flight Bird Conservation Plans.

^4^ Entry Criteria used to establish priority categories:

\(1\) Species with total score 28-35. Ordered by total score. Consider
deleting species with AI [\<]{.underline} 2 confirmed to be of
peripheral occurrence and not of local conservation interest, but retain
species potentially undersampled by BBS or known to have greatly
declined during this century. These are [Extremely High]{.underline}
(EH) priority species.

\(2\) [Overall High Priority Species.]{.underline} Species with total
score 22-27. Ordered by total score. Consider deleting species with AI
[\<]{.underline} 2 confirmed to be of peripheral occurrence and not of
local conservation interest, but retain species potentially undersampled
by BBS or known to have greatly declined during this century. These are
[High]{.underline} (H) priority species.

\(3\) [Area Priority Species.]{.underline} Species with slightly lower
score total 19-21 with PT+AI=8+. Ordered by total score. These are
[Moderate]{.underline} (M) priority species.

\(4\) [Species with High Concentrations]{.underline}.Species with large
populations within the planning region not otherwise listed above.

^5^ Long-billed Curlew meets numerical criteria for High Priority, but
Area Importance score is 1due to naturally few individuals occur within
this region and is therefore this species is not a priority in this
planning region.

Appendix II. Status of breeding shorebirds in the Caribbean based mostly
upon Raffaele et al. (1998).

Double-striped Thick-Knee (*Burhinus bistriatus*)\--Formerly common, now
uncommon in Hispaniola.

Collared Plover (*Charadrius collaris*)\--Uncommon to rare in Grenada
(but existing evidence suggest that actually all breeding reports are
better attributed to the South American subspecies of Wilson's Plover
\[*Charadrius wilsonia cinnamominus\]* which is superficially similar to
Collared; Smith and Smith1999).

Snowy Plover\--Common southern Bahamas, increasingly rare Hispaniola and
Anguilla, of

sporadic occurrence in Puerto Rico (most consistent at Cabo Rojo, about
12 pairs).

Wilson's Plover\--Common Bahamas, Greater Antilles (in Puerto Rico, Cabo
Rojo supports about 30 pairs), and Virgin Islands.

Killdeer\--Common Bahamas, Greater Antilles, less so Virgin Islands.

American Oystercatcher\--Fairly common, but very local, south and
central Bahamas, Puerto

Rico, Virgin Islands, and Guadeloupe; spotty breeder north Bahamas,
Cuba, Hispaniola,

and Lesser Antilles.

Black-necked Stilt\--Common south and central Bahamas, Greater Antilles,
Virgin and Cayman

Islands; uncommon to rare north Bahamas, Lesser Antilles to Guadeloupe.

Northern Jacana (*Jacana spinosa*)\--Common Cuba, Jamaica, and
Hispaniola

Willet\--Rare to uncommon Bahamas, Greater Antilles including Cayman
Islands.

Appendix III. Budget needs to meet Southeastern Coastal Plain-Caribbean
regional goals (in 1000\'s/5years). See Section 8 for formulas used.

Dollars needed per State, Commonwealth, or Territory

Topic VA NC SC GA FL AL MS PR VI Totals

[Management]{.underline}

Impoundment Improvements 235 2,475 700 700 2,202 30 **6,342**

Nest Marking (equipment) 5 20 8 6 80 10 10 3 1 **143**

Law Enforcement and Public 90 1,750 1,000 250 1,000 500 500 500 250
**5,840**

Use Staffing

[Monitoring]{.underline}

Nest Sites (ground) 50 550 300 200 1,100 100 100 50 30 **2,480**

Migration Sites (ground) 77 730 499 269 1,536 614 77 39 39 **3,380**

Roosting Sites (ground) 10 20 20 25 55 5 5 3 1 **144**

Migration and Roosting Sites (aerial) 324 200 162 890 41 41 24 24
**1,706**

[Research]{.underline}

Based on priorities, but on average 50 150 150 150 200 100 100 50 50
**1,000**

[Education/outreach]{.underline}

Based on priorities, but on average 10 100 100 100 125 25 25 10 5
**500**

[Coordinator]{.underline} 10 100 100 100 125 25 25 10 5 **500**

[Totals]{.underline} **537 6,219 3,077 1,962 7,313 1,450 883 689 405
22,535**

Appendix IV. Converting shorebird population objectives into foraging
habitat objectives in managed wetlands.