References and Appendices 49

References & Appendices

Appendix 1. 

United States Shorebird Conservation Plan - Executive Summary 

(from Brown et al. 2001)

The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan is a 

partnership involving organizations throughout 

the United States committed to the conservation 

of shorebirds. This document summarizes all of 

the major technical reports and recommendations 

produced by the various working groups 

that participated in developing the Plan. The 

organizations and individuals working on the 

Plan have developed conservation goals for each 

region of the country, identified critical habitat 

conservation needs and key research needs, and 

proposed education and outreach programs to 

increase awareness of shorebirds and the threats 

they face. The shorebird partnership created during 

the development of the Plan will remain active and 

will work to improve and implement the Plan’s 

recommendations. 

Natural landscapes in the United States have been 

altered significantly, and the wetlands, shoreline 

habitats, and grasslands used by shorebirds have 

been particularly disturbed. For many shorebird 

species, existing information is insufficient to 

determine how these alterations have affected 

populations. Many shorebird species face significant 

threats from habitat loss, human disturbance, 

and from different forms of habitat degradation 

such as pollution, prey resource depletion, and 

increasing threats from predators. Despite ongoing 

conservation efforts, many shorebird populations 

are declining, in some cases at alarming rates. 

Because development pressure will continue, critical 

conservation actions must be identified, integrated 

management practices must be developed, and 

ongoing changes in habitat configuration, quality, 

and availability must be controlled. Focused 

conservation action is needed now to protect and 

restore necessary habitats and address other 

threats to prevent additional shorebird species from 

becoming threatened or endangered. 

The Plan has three major goals at different scales. 

At a regional scale, the goal of the Plan is to ensure 

that adequate quantity and quality of habitat is 

identified and maintained to support the different 

shorebirds that breed in, winter in, and migrate 

through each region. At a national scale, the goal 

is to stabilize populations of all shorebird species 

known or suspected of being in decline due to 

limiting factors occurring within the U.S., while 

ensuring that common species are also protected 

from future threats. At a hemispheric scale, the 

goal is to restore and maintain the populations of 

all shorebird species in the Western Hemisphere 

through cooperative international efforts. 

The Plan was developed by a wide array of state and 

federal agencies, non-governmental conservation 

organizations, and individual researchers 

throughout the country. Major partners include all 

50 States, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the 

North American Waterfowl and Wetlands Office, 

most of the Joint Ventures established through the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan, the 

Bureau of Land Management, the U.S. Geological 

Survey, the USDA Forest Service, the International 

Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, The 

Nature Conservancy, National Audubon Society, 

Ducks Unlimited, the Canadian Wildlife Service, 

the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve 

Network, Point Reyes Bird Observatory, and many 

other regional organizations. Manomet Center for 

Conservation Sciences initiated the project, obtained 

the funding to develop the Plan, and hired the 

coordinators who oversaw all aspects of the project 

to date as well as publication of these reports. 

Three major working groups were formed at a 

national level. The research and monitoring group 

developed scientifically sound approaches for 

tracking populations of shorebirds, identified the 

critical research questions that must be answered to 

guide conservation efforts, and determined funding 

requirements to meet these needs. The habitat 

management group worked with the regional groups 

to assemble specific regional habitat management 

goals into a national program. The education and 

outreach group focused on development of materials 

for schools and public education programs to help 

build awareness of shorebirds and the risks facing 

them throughout the country, and identified areas 

where increased funding for education and outreach 

are needed. 

Eleven regional groups were formed during the 

development of the Plan. The major focus of these 
 50 U.S. Pacific Islands Shorebird Conservation Plan

References & Appendices

groups was to determine what habitats need to be 

protected and managed to meet the requirements 

of the shorebirds in each region. Each group set 

its own regional goals and objectives, and collected 

information about ongoing management efforts and 

how they can be improved. In addition, the regional 

groups provided input to the development of the 

research and monitoring programs, and helped 

identify education and outreach needs. 

The loss of wetland habitat in the U.S. has 

motivated federal, state, and private agencies to 

increase conservation and management of wetlands 

to preserve the public values of these critical 

habitats. Wetland management and restoration 

have developed rapidly in recent years, and the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan 

has stimulated significant increases in funding for 

wetland conservation activities. There is growing 

recognition among land managers of the opportunity 

to integrate management practices beneficial to 

shorebirds and other waterbirds into current 

management practices focused predominantly on 

game species. This changing orientation reflects 

the rapidly growing number of people who engage 

in bird watching, wildlife photography, and ecotourism in addition to traditional activities such 

as fishing and hunting. This growing constituency 

brings substantial economic benefits to wetlands and 

waterfowl areas, and has broadened public support 

for wetland conservation. We need management 

practices to focus on entire landscapes, but this 

requires an unprecedented level of coordination 

among multiple partners. No single conservation 

initiative can be effective alone. Wetland 

conservation for wildlife across entire landscapes 

requires the coordination of multiple efforts. 

The Shorebird Conservation Plan represents a 

significant contribution to the development of 

landscape-level wildlife conservation, and can 

contribute significantly to these larger goals as part 

of a broad partnership for wetland conservation. 

The Shorebird Plan is designed to complement 

the existing landscape-scale conservation efforts 

of the North American Waterfowl Management 

Plan, Partners in Flight, and the North American 

Colonial Waterbird Conservation Plan. Each of 

these initiatives addresses different groups of 

birds, but all share many common conservation 

challenges. One major task is to integrate these 

efforts to ensure coordinated delivery of bird 

conservation on the ground in the form of specific 

habitat management, restoration, and protection 

programs. The newly developing North American 

Bird Conservation Initiative addresses conservation 

needs for all birds in North America, and the 

Shorebird Plan partnership will work closely with 

this initiative toward common goals. 

Each partner organization involved in the Shorebird 

Plan will take on implementation roles suited to its 

focus and skills. The U.S. Shorebird Plan Council, 

which includes representatives of all partners in 

the Plan, will coordinate implementation. Major 

implementation partnerships are being set up with 

interested Joint Ventures organized under the 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan and 

with Partners in Flight. International coordination is 

also underway between the U.S. Shorebird Plan and 

the Canadian Shorebird Conservation Plan, which 

share responsibility for many of the same species 

at different points in their annual cycles. These 

partnerships will work to ensure that all of the 

recommendations provided in this document and the 

accompanying technical reports are addressed, and 

to ensure that stable and self-sustaining shorebird 

populations are maintained into the distant future. 
 References and Appendices 51

References & Appendices

Appendix 2. 

Scientific Names of Shorebirds

Scientific Name Common Name

Actitis hypoleucos Common Sandpiper

Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone

Calidris acuminata Sharp-tailed Sandpiper

Calidris alba Sanderling

Calidris alpina Dunlin

Calidris bairdii Baird’s Sandpiper

Calidris canutus Red Knot

Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper

Calidris himantopus Stilt Sandpiper

Calidris mauri Western Sandpiper

Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper

Calidris minuta Little Stint

Calidris minutilla Least Sandpiper

Calidris pusilla Semipalmated Sandpiper

Calidris ruficollis Red-necked Stint

Calidris subminuta Long-toed Stint

Calidris temmickii Temminck’s Stint

Calidris tenuirostris Great Knot

Catoptrophorus semipalmatus Willet

Charadrius alexandrinus Snowy Plover

Charadrius dubius Little Ringed Plover

Charadrius hiaticula Common Ringed Plover

Charadrius leschenaultii Greater Sand-Plover

Charadrius mongolus Mongolian Plover

Charadrius morinellus Eurasian Dotterel

Charadrius semipalmatus Semipalmated Plover

Charadrius veredus Oriental Plover

Charadrius vociferus Killdeer

Gallinago gallinago Wilson’s Snipe

Gallinago hardwickii Japanese (Latham’s Snipe)

Gallinago megala Swinhoe’s Snipe

Gallinago stenura Pin-tailed Snipe

Haematopus ostralegus Eurasian Oystercatcher

Heteroscelus brevipes Grey-tailed Tattler

Heteroscelus incanus Wandering Tattler

Himantopus mexicanus Black-necked Stilt

Himantopus mexicans mexicanus North American Black-necked Stilt

Himantopus mexicanus knudseni Hawaiian Stilt

Himantopus himantopus Black-winged Stilt

Himantopus leucocephalus White-headed Stilt

Himantopus melanurus Black-backed Stilt

Himantopus novaezelandiae Black Stilt

Limicola falcinellus Broad-billed Sandpiper

Limnodromus griseus Short-billed Dowitcher

Limnodromus scolopaceus Long-billed Dowitcher 

Limosa fedoa Marbled Godwit
 52 U.S. Pacific Islands Shorebird Conservation Plan

References & Appendices

Scientific Name Common Name

Limosa haemastica Hudsonian Godwit

Limosa lapponica Bar-tailed Godwit

Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit

Numenius arquata Eurasian Curlew

Numenius madagascariensis Far Eastern Curlew

Numenius minutus Little Curlew

Numenius phaeopus variegatus Asiatic Whimbrel

Numenius tahitiensis Bristle-thighed Curlew

Phalaropus fulicaria Red Phalarope

Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked Phalarope

Phalaropus tricolor Wilson’s Phalarope

Philomachus pugnax Ruff

Pluvialis fulva Pacific Golden-Plover

Pluvialis squatarola Black-bellied Plover

Prosobonia cancellata Tuamotu Sandpiper

Tringa erythropus Spotted Redshank

Tringa flavipes Lesser Yellowlegs

Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper

Tringa guttifer Nordmann’s Greenshank

Tringa melanoleuca Greater Yellowlegs

Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank

Tringa ochropus Green Sandpiper

Tringa solitaria Solitary Sanpiper

Tringa stagnatilis Marsh Sandpiper

Tryngites subruficollis Buff-breasted Sandpiper

Xenus cinereus Terek Sandpiper

Appendix 2. Continued
 References and Appendices 53

References & Appendices

Appendix 3. 

U.S. Pacific Islands Covered in the USPI Shorebird Conservation Plan U.S. Pacific Islands covered in the U.S. Pacific Islands Shorebird Conservation Plan. Subregion/Island Name Type Archipelago Group Political Status Administration Special Status

HAWAI`I SUBREGION

Hawai`i Hawai`ian State of Hawai`i State of Hawai`i 

 Hawai`i Basalt Island Hawai`ian Main Hawai`ian Islands State of Hawai`i State of Hawai`i 

 Maui Basalt Island Hawai`ian Main Hawai`ian Islands State of Hawai`i State of Hawai`i 

 Kaho`olawe Basalt Island Hawai`ian Main Hawai`ian Islands State of Hawai`i State of Hawai`i former military bomb 

range 

 Lana`i Basalt Island Hawai`ian Main Hawai`ian Islands State of Hawai`i Kaho`olawe Commission 

 Moloka`i Basalt Island Hawai`ian Main Hawai`ian Islands State of Hawai`i State of Hawai`i 

 O`ahu Basalt Island Hawai`ian Main Hawai`ian Islands State of Hawai`i State of Hawai`i 

 Kaua`i Basalt Island Hawai`ian Main Hawai`ian Islands State of Hawai`i State of Hawai`i 

 Ka`ula Basalt Island Hawai`ian Main Hawai`ian Islands State of Hawai`i State of Hawai`i State Seabird Sanctuary 

former military bomb range 

 Ni`ihau Basalt Island Hawai`ian Main Hawai`ian Islands State of Hawai`i State of Hawai`i; privately owned 

 Nihoa Basalt Island Hawai`ian Leeward Hawai`ian Islands State of Hawai`i USFWS National Wildlife Refuge 

 Neckler Basalt Island Hawai`ian Leeward Hawai`ian Islands State of Hawai`i USFWS National Wildlife Refuge 

 French Frigate Shoal 

comprised of 10-12 sandy islets & 1 basalt pinnacle 

Atoll Hawai`ian Leeward Hawai`ian Islands State of Hawai`i USFWS National Wildlife Refuge; 

former Coast Guard Station

 Gardener Pinnacles Basalt Island Hawai`ian Leeward Hawai`ian Islands State of Hawai`i USFWS National Wildlife Refuge 

 Maro Reef Atoll-like reef Hawai`ian Leeward Hawai`ian Islands State of Hawai`i USFWS National Wildlife Refuge 

 Laysan Coral Island Hawai`ian Leeward Hawai`ian Islands State of Hawai`i USFWS National Wildlife Refuge  Lisianski & Neva Shoal Coral Island & atoll-like 

reef 

Hawai`ian Leeward Hawai`ian Islands State of Hawai`i USFWS National Wildlife Refuge 

 Pearl and Hermes Reef 

comprised of 7 islets 

Atoll Hawai`ian Leeward Hawai`ian Islands State of Hawai`i USFWS National Wildlife Refuge 

 Kure 

comprised of 4 islets 

Atoll Hawai`ian Leeward Hawai`ian Islands State of Hawai`i State of Hawai`i State Seabird Sanctuary 

former Coast Guard 

Midway Atoll Atoll Hawai`ian Leeward Hawai`ian Islands unincorporated unorganized insular 

area

USFWS National Wildlife Refuge 

former Naval Station 

AMERICAN SAMOA SUBREGION

American Samoa Samoa unincorporated, unorganized 

territory

American Samoa Government 

 Tutu`ila Basalt Island Samoa American Samoa Government 

 Aunu`u Basalt Island Samoa American Samoa Government 

 Ta`u Basalt Island Samoa Manua Islands American Samoa Government 

 Ofu Basalt Island Samoa Manua Islands American Samoa Government 

 Olosega Basalt Island Samoa Manua Islands American Samoa Government 

 Swains 

(To`elau Lata Mai)* 

Coral Island Tokelau * Samoan names for Swains 

Island and Rose Atoll 

American Samoa Government 

 Rose 

(Nu`u Manu)* 

Atoll Samoa USFWS National Wildlife Refuge 
 54 U.S. Pacific Islands Shorebird Conservation Plan

References & Appendices

Appendix 3. Continued Island Name Type Archipelago Group Political Status Administration Special Status MARIANA ISLANDS SUBREGION Commonwealth Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI) Mariana commonwealth in political union with United States CNMI Government Farallon de Pajaros Basalt Island Mariana CNMI Government Maug comprised of 3 islands Basalt Island Mariana CNMI Government Seabird Sanctuary Ascuncion Basalt Island Mariana CNMI Government Agrihan Basalt Island Mariana CNMI Government Pagan Basalt Island Mariana CNMI Government Alamagan Basalt Island Mariana CNMI Government Guguan Basalt Island Mariana CNMI Government Sarigan Basalt Island Mariana CNMI Government Anatahan Basalt Island Mariana CNMI Government Farallon de Medinilla Limestone Island Mariana CNMI Government military bomb range Saipan Limestone/Basalt Island Mariana CNMI Government 

 Tinian Limestone Island Mariana CNMI Government 

 Aguijan Limestone Island Mariana CNMI Government 

Rota Limestone/Basalt Island Mariana CNMI Government 

Guam Limestone/Basalt Island Marian unincorporated organized territory Guam Government 

 Cocos Coral Island Mariana Guam Guam Government 

CENTRAL PACIFIC ISLANDS SUBREGION Johnston Atoll 

comprised of 4 islets 

Atoll unincorporated unorganized 

territory

jointly administered: USFWS & 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

National Wildlife Refuge; 

military base 

Wake Island 

comprised of 3 islets 

Atoll Marshall unincorporated territory Air Force/Depart of Interior Air Force Base 

Palmyra 

comprised of 54 islets 

Atoll Line incorporated territory USFWS & The Nature Conservancy National Wildlife Refuge: 

TNC Reserve 

Kingman Reef Atoll Line USFWS National Wildlife Refuge 

Jarvis Island Atoll Line possession USFWS National Wildlife Refuge 

Baker Island Coral Island Phoenix possession USFWS National Wildlife Refuge

Howland Island Coral Island Phoenix possession USFWS National Wildlife Refuge
 References and Appendices 55

References & Appendices

Appendix 4. 

Status and Regional Occurrence of Shorebirds in the U.S.P.I.

TABLE 2. Migratory Shorebird Species List, U.S. Pacific Islands - Nearctic Breeding Species. 

Species Hawaiian

Islands 

Mariana 

Islands 

Central Pacific 

Islands 

American 

Samoa 

Semipalmated Plover * * 

Killdeer * 

Greater Yellowlegs * * * 

Lesser Yellowlegs mw * 

Solitary Sandpiper * 

Willet * * 

Wandering Tattler MW mw MW MW 

Spotted Sandpiper * * 

Bristle-thighed Curlew MW * MW mw 

Hudsonian Godwit * 

Marbled Godwit * 

Semipalmated Sandpiper * 

Western Sandpiper * * 

Least Sandpiper mw 

Bairds Sandpiper * 

Pectoral Sandpiper m * m 

Buff-breasted Sandpiper * * 

Stilt Sandpiper * 

Short-billed Dowitcher * 

Wilsons Phalarope * 

TABLE 1. Migratory Shorebird Species List, U.S. Pacific Islands - Circompolar, Holarctic 

Breeders (Asia and North America). 

Species Hawaiian

Islands 

Mariana 

Islands 

Central Pacific 

Islands 

American 

Samoa 

Pacific Golden-Plover MW MW MW MW 

Black-bellied Plover mw * * 

Snowy Plover * 

Whimbrel * mw * * 

Bar-tailed Godwit * * * * 

Ruddy Turnstone MW mw mw mw 

Red Knot * 

Sanderling MW * mw m 

Dunlin mw * * 

Long-billed Dowitcher mw * 

Common Snipe * * * 

Red-necked Phalarope * 

Red Phalarope * * 
 56 U.S. Pacific Islands Shorebird Conservation Plan

References & Appendices

TABLE 3. Migratory Shorebird Species List, U.S. Pacific Islands - Palearctic Breeding Species. 

Species Hawaiian

Islands 

Mariana 

Islands 

Central Pacific 

Islands 

American 

Samoa 

Mongolian Plover * mw 

Greater Sand-Plover * * 

Common Ringed Plover * * 

Little Ringed Plover * 

Oriental Plover 

Eurasian Dotterel * 

Eurasian Oystercatcher * 

Black-winged Stilt * * 

Common Greenshank * 

Marsh Sandpiper * * 

Spotted Redshank * 

Nordmanns Greenshank * 

Green Sandpiper * 

Wood Sandpiper * mw 

Grey-tailed Tattler * mw * 

Common Sandpiper * mw * 

Terek Sandpiper * 

Little Curlew * 

Far Eastern Curlew * * 

Eurasian Curlew * 

Black-tailed Godwit * * 

Great Knot * 

Little Stint * * 

Red-necked Stint * mw 

Temmincks Stint * 

Long-toed Stint * * 

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper m * m 

Curlew Sandpiper * * 

Ruff * * * 

Pin-tailed Snipe * * 

Japanese (Lathams) Snipe * 

Swinhoes Snipe * 

Appendix 4. Continued
 References and Appendices 57

References & Appendices

TABLE 4. List of Species Occurring in the U.S. Pacific Islands - Where U.S. Pacific Islands are of Minor 

Importance to North American Breeding Species. Conservation Actions will have Little Impact on 

Overall Population Levels. 

Species Status Population Trends in Pacific Islands 

Black-bellied Plover Winter Visitor Unknown 

Semipalmated Plover Transient Unknown

Lesser Yellowlegs Transient Unknown

Bar-tailed Godwit Transient Unknown

Western Sandpiper Winter Visitor Unknown

Least Sandpiper Winter Visitor Unknown

Pectoral Sandpiper Transient Unknown

Dunlin Winter Visitor Unknown

Long-billed Dowitcher Winter Visitor Unknown

Common Snipe Winter Visitor Unknown

Wilsons Phalarope Transient Unknown

TABLE 5. List of Species Occurring in U.S. Pacific Islands - Where the U.S. Pacific Islands are of Minor 

Importance to Asian Breeding Species. Conservation Actions will have Little Impact on Overall 

Population Levels. 

Species Status Population Trends in Pacific Islands 

Gray-tailed Tattler Winter Visitor Unknown

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Transient Unknown

Ruff Transient Unknown

East Asian Whimbrel Winter Visitor Unknown

Mongolian Plover Winter Visitor Unknown

Rufous-necked Stilt Winter Visitor Unknown

Wood Sandpiper Winter Visitor Unknown

Appendix 4. Continued
 58 U.S. Pacific Islands Shorebird Conservation Plan

References & Appendices

�������������� ������ � ���������� �� ������� ������������ ���������� �� ��� ���� ������� ��������

������� �� �� �� �� �� ��

������� ������������� � � � � � � � �

�������� ����� � � � � � � � �

��������������� ������ � � � � � � � �

��������� ������� � � � � � � � �

����� ��������� � � � � � � � �

���� ������� ������ ���������� ���� ������ ��������� �� ��� �������� ���� �� ��� ���� ��������� ������������ ����

������ �� ��� ����� ��� ������� �� ��� �������� ��������� ������������ ���������� ������ �� ��� ������ ��� �������

�� ��������� ������� ������������ ���������� �� ��������� ������ ���� ����� �� ��� �������

����

����������

������������

��������

Prioritization Scores - Shorebirds of Primary Conservation 

Importance in the U.S. Pacific Islands

Appendix 5. 

National Shorebird Conservation 

Priorities

This system for prioritizing shorebird species of 

concern was developed as part of the U.S. Shorebird 

Conservation Plan with input from many individuals 

participating in the Research and Monitoring 

working group, including representatives from 

across the country and from Canada. The goal of 

the system is to provide a clearly organized method 

for categorizing the various risk factors that affect 

the conservation status of each species in a format 

that can be easily updated as additional information 

becomes available. The system was designed in 

collaboration with Partners In Flight to ensure 

that it was as compatible as possible with existing 

approaches to bird species prioritization (Carter et 

al. 2000), while reflecting the unique conservation 

risks for shorebirds. Modifications suggested 

by Beissinger et al. (2000), including the use of 

categories for species priorities, were incorporated.

Even though there is widespread agreement 

that the variables used in this system affect the 

conservation status of bird species, they are 

difficult to estimate. Nevertheless, prioritization 

is important to ensure that species more at risk 

are given the attention needed to avoid significant 

declines. Because appropriate data is often lacking, 

the classifications produced by this system are 

considered estimates of the actual conservation 

status of each species. Further study is needed for 

most species with respect to most of these variables. 

The classifications presented here will be revised at 

regular intervals as appropriate, and should not be 

considered final. Current national priority scores 

for each species and subspecies are presented in 

Appendix 5.

Variables for National Priorities

1) Population Trend, PT, and Population Trend 

Uncertainty, PTU

The population trend variable uses existing 

information on shorebird trends to estimate broad 

categories of population decline. Species with 

known declines in populations are likely to be at 

higher risk than species where ongoing study has 

detected no risk. However, many species may be 

declining even though trends have not been detected 

using current monitoring techniques. This is 

particularly true for species under-represented in 

ongoing monitoring programs. Only species with 

documented significant population declines (p<0.10) 

are included in category 5. 

PT

5 Significant population decline (p<0.10)

4 Apparent population decline

3 Apparently stable population or status 

unknown*

2 Apparent population increase

1 Significant population increase

Shorebird Species Conservation Priorities (from Brown et al. 2000)
 References and Appendices 59

References & Appendices

*Note: If the population trend cannot be classified 

at all due to the lack of appropriate data, the PT 

score is represented as “U” for Unknown. 

Population Trend Uncertainty rates the relative 

level of uncertainty associated with the estimate 

of population. We rate uncertainty scores on a 

scale of 1-5. These scores emphasize the need 

for additional monitoring, and uncertainties 

associated with decisions based on reported trends, 

but do not enter into the categorization process 

for determining conservation priorities. High 

uncertainty about the trend estimate results in a 

high score. For the purposes of determining how 

representative available data are for the entire 

species, the data are classified into one of two 

categories: 1) comprehensiveness high = data 

estimated to represent more than half of the species 

range and/or half of the estimated population; or 2) 

comprehensiveness low = data represent less than 

half of both. Scores for these uncertainty estimates 

are being developed.

PTU

5 No information about population trend

4 Significance test has medium or low power 

(<0.8) and comprehensiveness is low; or, no 

data but informed estimates about population 

trend possible

3 Significance test has medium or low power 

(<0.8), and comprehensiveness is high

2 Significance test has high power (>0.8), but 

comprehensiveness is low

1 Significance test has high power (>0.8), and 

comprehensiveness is high

2) Relative Abundance, RA

This variable uses population size estimates to 

classify each species into 5 categories based on 

breaks in the distribution of population sizes 

among shorebirds. Species with smaller absolute 

population sizes are likely to be more at risk, either 

as a result of historic declines or from catastrophic 

disturbances. Population estimates were developed 

by Morrison et al. (ms.). For some species the 

population estimates may be low due to lower 

counts resulting from higher dispersion. For these 

species, the estimates may be inaccurate. However, 

most of these species are near the midpoints of 

their categories, so this factor may not result in 

misclassification. With increasing data about 

current population sizes, these estimates will be 

revised.

RA

5 <25,000

4 25,000 - <150,000

3 150,000 - <300,000

2 300,000 - <1,000,000

1 >1,000,000

3) Threats During Breeding Season, TB

This variable ranks the threats known to exist for 

each species, and the categories reflect the limited 

knowledge available for determining threats to most 

shorebirds. Species are scored as follows:

TB

5 Known threats are actually occurring (i.e. 

significant loss of critical habitat), and can be 

documented. 

4 Significant potential threats exist (i.e. oil spills) 

but have not actually occurred

3 No known threats, or information not available

2 Threats assumed to be low

1 Demonstrably secure

4) Threats During Non-breeding Season, TN

This score uses the same criteria listed above for TB 

scores, with the additional factor of concentration 

risk explicitly considered as follows:

TN

5 Known threats are actually occurring (i.e. 

significant loss of critical habitat), and can be 

documented. Concentration results in actual 

risk.

4 Significant potential threats exist (i.e. oil spills) 

but have not actually occurred.

 Concentration results in high potential risk. 

3 No known threats, or concentration not a risk, 

or information not available

2 Threats assumed to be low from all factors 

including concentration

1 Demonstrably secure

5) Breeding Distribution, BD

This variable ranks the size of the breeding range 

for species that breed in North America, and only 

applies during the actual breeding season. The 

assumption is that species with relatively more 

restricted ranges are more susceptible to breeding 

failure from natural or human-induced causes. 

Threats that occur during migration to or from the 

breeding grounds are addressed in ND below. 
 60 U.S. Pacific Islands Shorebird Conservation Plan

References & Appendices

BD

5 <2.5% of North America (212,880 sq. mi., or 

551,493 km2)

4 2.5-4.9% of North America

3 5-9.9% of North America

2 10-20% of North America

1 >20% of North America (1,703,008 sq. mi., or 

4,411,940 km2)

6) Non-breeding Distribution, ND

This variable refers to distribution during the 

non-breeding season, which includes migration to 

and from the breeding grounds. Threats resulting 

from concentration at some point during migration 

are addressed in TN above. This variable rates 

the relative risks associated with having a smaller 

absolute range size during the non-breeding season. 

Because different risk factors occur during the 

non-breeding season, the absolute sizes of these 

categories are different from those for BD. In 

addition, the added variable of length of coastline is 

used for coastal species where measuring area is not 

as representative of distribution. 

ND

5 Highly restricted <50,000 sq. mi., or very 

restricted coastal areas, or interior uplands, 

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

coast

3 Intermediate = 200,000 - 2,000,000 sq. mi., or 

along 1,000 - 3,000 mi. of coast

2 Widespread = 2,000,000 - 4,000,000 sq. mi., or 

along 3,000 - 5,000 mi. of coast

1 Very widespread = 4,000,000 - 7,000,000 sq. mi., 

or along 5,000 - 9,000 mi. of coast

Criteria for National Priorities

The following categories are modified from those 

proposed in Beissinger et al. (ms.), developed by 

the AOU committee established to review the PIF 

prioritization system. The primary change is to 

move species with high PT scores and some other 

high score into the highest category. In addition, 

Priority Categories:

5) Highly Imperiled

All species listed as threatened or endangered 

nationally, plus all species with significant population 

declines and either low populations or some other 

high risk factor.

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

4) Species of High Concern

Populations of these species are known or thought 

to be declining, and have some other known or 

potential threat as well:

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

4 or 5

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

For regional lists only:

c. AI = 5 and RA >3

3) Species of Moderate Concern

Populations of these species are either a) declining 

with moderate threats or distributions; 

b) stable with known or potential threats and 

moderate to restricted distributions; c) and d)

relatively small and restricted; or e) declining but 

with no other known threats.

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

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

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

d. RA = 4 and BD and ND <4

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

For regional lists only

f. AI=4 and RA>3

2) Species of Low Concern

Populations of these species are either 

a) stable with moderate threats and distributions; 

b) increasing but with known or potential threats 

and moderate to restricted distributions; or 

c) of moderate size.

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

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

c. RA = 3

For regional lists only:

d. AI = 3

1) Species Not at Risk

All other species
 References and Appendices 61

References & Appendices

Regional Shorebird 

Conservation Priorities

Variables for Regional Priorities

Considering area importance at the regional 

scale ensures that conservation effort will not 

be misdirected toward species that are rare in a 

particular region only because it is close to the 

edge of their range. Regional shorebird groups 

have also assessed the relative importance to each 

shorebird species of each Bird Conservation Region 

(Appendix 7), which are the smaller areas within 

Planning Regions (i.e. the Mississippi Alluvial 

Valley BCR and the Gulf Coast BCR are both within 

the Lower Miss./Western Gulf Coast Planning 

Region). Regional priorities have been calculated 

by the regional groups, and are presented in their 

individual regional reports. Area importance within 

each BCR can be used for finer scale planning and 

prioritization needs within BCR’s. 

1) Area Importance, AI

Area importance scores are based on knowledge 

of distributions, expert opinion, and data on 

distributions for species where it is available. 

Species are ranked on a relative scale within each 

BCR. 

Because management decisions based on species 

priorities must often be conducted at appropriate 

seasons, the scores for these variables are reported 

using a system that reflects both the relative area 

importance and the season or seasons during which 

the area is important, including breeding, wintering, 

and migration (spring and fall). This system is 

used at two scales, for describing the importance of 

both the Shorebird Planning Regions and also the 

smaller Bird Conservation Regions included in each 

Planning Region.

For each score, a description is provided of the 

frequency of occurrence within BCR or Planning 

Region, including relative abundance, importance 

relative to other regions, and importance of 

management and protection activities.

Score Symbol

5 B, W, M

High concentrations known to occur. Area of high 

importance to the species relative to the majority 

of other regions. The area is critical for supporting 

hemispheric populations of the species. 

4 B, W, M

Common or locally abundant, with large numbers 

occurring or suspected to occur. Area of known 

or suspected importance relative to other regions, 

especially within the same flyway. The area is 

important to supporting hemispheric or regional 

populations. 

3 b, w, m

Uncommon to fairly common. Area is within the 

primary range of the species, and it occurs regularly, 

but the species is present in low relative abundance.

2 * 

Rare occurrences. Area is within the expected 

range of the species, but it occurs at a low frequency. 

(In general, management for these species is not 

warranted within the region.)

1 Blank 

Does not occur in the area, or only unpredictable, 

irregular occurrence as a vagrant. Area is outside of 

expected range.

Criteria for Regional Priorities

The regional prioritization system uses the same 

criteria as for national priorities, with the additional 

rule that species can be assigned to a different 

category based on their area importance within the 

region. In addition, regions may remove species 

from their lists if the regional area importance score 

is less than 3 to ensure that conservation priority 

is given to species with significant populations 

within the region. For simplicity, the criteria are 

listed above with the national criteria lists, under 

the regional headings for categories 2, 3, and 4. 

Species in the highest conservation category are 

high priority wherever they occur. Each region 

determined whether to leave species with AI 

scores less than 3 off their regional priority lists to 

concentrate conservation effort on the species with 

higher area importance.
 References and Appendices 63

References & Appendices

Amerson, Jr., A. B. 1971. The natural history of French Frigate Shoals, Northwestern Hawai`ian Islands. 

Atoll Research Bull. No. 150.

Amerson, A. B. Jr. and P. C. Shelton. 1976. The Natural History of Johnson Atoll, Central Pacific Ocean. 

Atoll Research Bulletin No. 192. The Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C. 479 pp.

Amerson, Jr., A. B., A. Whistler and T. Schwaner. 1982. Wildlife and wildlife habitat of American Samoa. I 

and II. Prepared for the USFWS, Washington D. C. 151 pp.

Baker, R. H. 1951. The avifauna of Micronesia, its origin, evolution and distribution. University of Kansas 

Publication. Museum of Natural History 3:1-359.

Baker, R. H. 1953. Divisional discussion on problems of bird migration in the Pacific. Proceedings of the 

Seventh Pacific Science Congress Vol. IV. Pp 383-387. Whitcomb and Tombs, Auckland, NZ.

BirdLife International. 2000. Threatened Birds of the World. Barcelona and Cambridge, UK: Lynx Edicions 

and BirdLife International. 852pp.

Brown, S., C. Hickey, and B. Harrington, eds. 2001. The U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. Manomet 

Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA. 

Cogswell 1945. Recent birding on O`ahu yields interesting records. Elepaio 5: 52 – 53.

Dahl. T. E. 1990. Wetland loss in the United States 1780s to 1980s. U. S. Dept of Int., USFWS, Washington D. 

C.

Drigot, D. 2001. An ecosystem-based management approach to enhancing endangered waterbird habitat on 

a military base. Studies in Avian Biology 22: 329-337.

Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 1996. Wetland Enhancement Plan County of Maui, Ohiapilo Marsh. prep by Engilis, Jr., 

R. Miller, P. Schaedegger, R. Matasci. Brown and Caldwell and Ducks Unlimited, Inc. Sacramento, CA. 60 pp.

Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 1998. Hawai`ian Islands wetlands conservation plan. Sacramento, CA 10pp.

Ducks Unlimited, Inc. 2002. A Conservation Plan for Hawai`ian Stilt at Cyanotech Aquaculture Facility, 

Keahole Point, Hawai`i. Sacramento, California.

Ely, C. A. and R. B. Clapp. 1973. The natural history of Laysan Island, Northwestern Hawai`ian Islands. 

Atoll Research Bull. No. 171.

Engbring, J. and A. Engilis, Jr. 1988. Rediscovery of the Sooty Rail (Porzana tabuensis) in America Samoa. 

The Auk 105(2): 191.

Engilis, Jr., A. 1988. Surveys and inventories of waterbirds in the State of Hawai`i. Pittman-Robertson 

Report W-18-R-12, Job No.R-III-A. Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Honolulu, HI. 32 pp

Engilis, Jr., A. and T. K. Pratt. 1993. Status and Trends of Hawai`i’s Native Waterbirds, 1977 – 1987. 

Wilson Bull., 105: 142 – 158.

Fleischer, R. C. and C. E. McIntosh. 2001. Molecular systematics and biogeography of the Hawai`ian 

avifauna. Studies in Avian Biology No 22: 51-60.

Gill, R. E., B. J. McCaffery, and P. s. Tomkovich. 2002. Wandering Tattler (Heteroscelus incanus). In The 

Birds of North America, No. 201-202 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds). The Ac. of Natural Sci., Philadelphia, and 

the AOU, Washington D. C.

References
 64 U.S. Pacific Islands Shorebird Conservation Plan

References & Appendices

Hawaii Audubon Society (HAS). 1997. Hawaii’s Birds. 4th Edition. Hawaii Audubon Society, Honolulu, HI. 

Hayman, P., J. Marchant, and T. Prater. 1986. Shorebirds: An identification guide. Houghton Mifflin 

Company. Boston, Massachusetts. 412 pp.

Jenkins, J. M. 1981. Seasonality and relative abundance of Guam Shorebirds. Micronesica 17: 181 – 184.

Johnson, O. W. and R. M. Nakamura. 1981. The use of roofs by American Golden-Plovers Pluvialis 

dominica fulva wintering on O`ahu, Hawai`ian Islands. Wader Study Group Bull. 31: 45 – 46.

Johnson, O. W. and P. M. Johnson. 1993. Counts of Pacific Golden-Plovers (Pluvialis fulva) wintering on 

O`ahu golf courses, 1992. Elepaio. 41: 156-177.

Johnson, O. W. and P. G. Connors. 1996. American Golden-Plover (Pluvialis dominica), Pacific GoldenPlover (Pluvialis fulva). In The Birds of North America, No. 201-202 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds). The Ac. of 

Natural Sci., Philadelphia, and the AOU, Washington D. C.

Kuroda, N. 1961. The over-sea crossings of land birds in the western Pacific. Yamashina Institute for 

Ornithology and Zoology 3:47-53.

Lusk, M. R., P. Bruner, and C. Kessler. 2000. The avifauna of Farallon de Medinilla, Mariana Islands. J. 

Field Ornithol. 71:22 – 33.

Marks, J. S., R. L. Redmond, P. Hendricks, R. B. Clapp, and R. E Gill, Jr. 1990. Notes on longevity and 

flightlessness in Bristle-thighed Curlews. Auk 107: 779 – 781.

Marks, J. S. and R. L. Redmond. 1994. Conservation problems and research needs for Bristle-thighed 

Curlews (Numenius tahitiensis) on their wintering grounds. Bird Conservation International 4: 329 – 341.

Marks, J. S., L. Tibbitts, R. E. Gill, Jr. and B. McCaffery. 2002. Bristle-thighed Curlew (Numenius 

tahitiensis). In The Birds of North America, No. 201-202 (A. Poole and F. Gill, eds). The Ac. of Natural Sci., 

Philadelphia, and the AOU, Washington D. C.

Morgan, J. R. 1983. Hawai`i : A geography. Westview Press. Boulder, CO.

 

Morrison, R. I. G., R.E. Gill, Jr., B. A. Harrington, S. Skagen, G. W. Page, C. L. Gratto-Trevor, and S. M. 

Haig. 2001. Estimates of shorebird populations in North America. Occ. Paper No. 104. Canadian Wildlife 

Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 64 pp.

Munro, G. C. 1940. Mr. George C. Munro’s report from Ni`ihau observation Nov. 2, 1939. Elepaio 1:3 –4.

Munro. G. C. 1945. Protection for Hawaiian shorebirds. Elepaio 5: 63 – 65, 72 – 75.

Nagata, S. E. 1983. Status of the Hawaiian Gallinule on lotus farms and a marsh on O`ahu, Hawai`i. M. S. 

Thesis, Colorado State Univ., Fort Collins.

Nakajima, F. 1944. A treatise on water supply, Tinian, Marianas. Pacific Geological Survey, Military Geol. 

Branch, USGS, Tokyo, Japan.

National Audubon Society (NAS) 2000, NAS Christmas Count database, accessed on-line. 

National Audubon Society (NAS) 2001. NAS Christmas Count database, accessed on-line. 

Owen, R. P. 1977. A checklist of the birds of Micronesia. Micronesica 13: 65 – 81.Parrish, D., B. Lane, P. 

Sagar, and P Tomkovitch. 1987. Wader migration systems in East Asia and Australia. Wader Study Group 

Bulletin 49 Suppl., IWRB Special Publ. 7: 4-14.
 References and Appendices 65

References & Appendices

Parish, D., B. Lane, P. Sagar, and P. Tomkovitch. 1987. Wader Migration Systems in East Asia and Austral 

Asia. Wader Study Group Bull. 49 Suppl., IWRB Special Publ. 7:4-14. 

Perkins. R. C. L. 1903. Vertebrata. Fauna Hawaiiensis, vol 1, pt 4 (D. Sharp, ed.). Cambridge Univ. Press, 

Cambridge.

Polhemus, D. A., J. Maciolek, and J. Ford. 1992. An ecosystem classification of inland waters for the Tropical 

Pacific Islands. Micronesica 25: 155-173.

Pratt, H. D., P. L. Bruner and D. G. Berrett. 1987. The Birds of Hawai`i and the tropical Pacific. Princeton 

University Press, Princeton, MA

Pyle, P. and J. Engbring. 1985. Checklist of the Birds of Micronesia. Elepaio 46: 57 – 68.

Pyle, R. L. 1997. Checklist of the birds of Hawai`i - 1997. Elepaio 57:129-138.

Reed, J. M. and L. W. Oring. 1993. Long-term population trends of the Endangered Ae’o (Hawai`ian Stilt, 

Himanotopus mexicanus knudseni). Trans. West. Sec. Wildlife Society 29: 54-60.

Reed, J. M., L. W. Oring and M. D. Silbernagel. 1994. Metapopulation dynamics and conservation of the 

endangered Hawai`ian Stilt (Himanotopus mexicanus knudseni). Trans. West. Sec. Wildlife Society 30:7-14.

Reed, M. J., M. Silbernagel,Engilis, Jr., K. Evans, L. Oring. 1998. Subadult Movements Patterns of the 

Endangered Hawai`ian Stilt (Himanotopus mexicanus knudseni). The Auk 115(3):791-797.

Reichel, J. D. and P. O. Glass. 1991. Checklist of the birds of the Mariana Islands. Elepaio 51: 3 – 11.

Savidge, J. A. 1987. Extinction of an island forest avifauna by an introduced snake. Ecology 68:660 – 668.

Schwartz, C. W. and E. R. Schwartz. 1949. The game birds in Hawai`i. Board of Agricul. and Forestry. 

Terr. of Hawai`i.

Shallenberger, R. J. 1977. An ornithological survey of Hawai`ian wetlands, vol. 1 and 2. Ahuimanu 

Productions report to U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu, HI. 406 pp.

State of Hawaii. 1999. State of Hawai`i Date Book. State of Hawai`i , Honolulu, HI.

Stinson, D. W., M. W. Ritter, J. D. Reichel. 1991a. The Mariana Common Moorhen: Decline of an island 

endemic. Condor 93: 38-43.

Stinson , D. W., J. D. Reichel, R. J. Craig, and D. T. Aldan. 1991b. New and unusual bird records from the 

Northern Mariana Islands. 1988 – 1990. Micronesica 24: 261 – 271.

Stinson, D. W. 1994. Birds and mammals recorded from the Mariana Islands. Nat. Hist. Res. Special Issue 

No. 1: 333-344.

Stinson, D. W., G. J. Wiles, and J. D. Reichel. 1997a. Migrant land birds and water birds in the Mariana 

Islands. Pacific Science 51: 314 – 327.

Stinson, D. W., G. J. Wiles, and J. D. Reichel. 1997b. Occurrence of migrant shorebirds in the Mariana 

Islands. J. Field Orithol. 68:42 – 55.

Takano, L. L. 2003 Seasonal movement, home range, and abundance of the Mariana Common Moorhen 

(Gallinula chloropus guami) on Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands. M.S. thesis. Oregon State 

University. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Recovery Plan for the Mariana Common Moorhen (Gallinula 

chloropus guami). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 55 pp.
 66 U.S. Pacific Islands Shorebird Conservation Plan

References & Appendices

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Recovery Plan for the Nightingale Reed-Warbler, (Acrocephalus 

luscinia). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Pacific Islands Ecoregion Coastal Ecosystems Program Proposal. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Honolulu, Hawai`i. 100 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Draft Revised Recovery Plan for Hawai`ian Waterbirds, 2nd Rev. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 107 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. in prep. Revised Recovery Plan for Hawaiian Waterbirds, USFWS, 

Portland, Oregon 127pp. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. Birds of Conservation Concern 2002. Division of Migratory Bird 

Management, Arlington, Virginia. 99pp. Online version available at http://migratorybirds.fws.gov/reports/

bcc2002.pdf

Wagner, W. L., D. R. Herbst, and S. H. Sohmer. 1990. Manual of the flowering plants of Hawai`i (vol 1). 

Univ of Hawai`i Press, Bishop Mus. Press, Honolulu, HI.

Wiles, G. J., R. E. Beck, C. F. Aguon, and K. D. Orgutt. 1993. Recent bird records for the southern Mariana 

Islands, with notes on a colony of black noddies on Cocos Island, Guam. Micronesica 26: 199-215.

Williams, T. C. and J. M. Williams. 1988. Radar and visual observations of autumnal (southward) shorebird 

migration on Guam. Auk 105: 460 – 466.

Woodward, P. W. 1972. The natural history of Kure Atoll, Northwestern Hawaiian Islands. Atoll Research 

Bull. No 164.
120°0'0"E

140°0'0"E

140°0'0"E

160°0'0"E

160°0'0"E

180°0'0"E

180°0'0"E 160°0'0"W

160°0'0"W

140°0'0"W

140°0'0"W

120°0'0"W

120°0'0"W

100°0'0"W

10°0'0"S10°0'0"S

10°0'0"N10°0'0"N

30°0'0"N30°0'0"N

50°0'0"N50°0'0

RUSSIA "N

CHINA

CANADA

AUSTRALIA

PAPUA NEW

GUINEA

FIJI

I N D O N E S I A

J

A

P

A

N

160°0'0"W

160°0'0"W 158°0'0"W

158°0'0"W

156°0'0"W

156°0'0"W

20°0'0"N

20°0'0"N

22°0'0"N

22°0'0"N

M a i n H a w a i i a n Is l a n d s

Main Hawaiian Islands

(see inset below)

Niihau

Kauai

Oahu

Molokai

Lanai

Kahoolawe

Maui

Hawaii

Pa c i f i c

O c e a n

0 200

Miles

Rota

Tinian Saipan

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands

Wake Atoll

Howland Island

Baker Island

Rose Atoll

Jarvis

Island

Palmyra Atoll

Kingman Reef

Johnston Atoll

Kaula Island

Nihoa Island

Necker Island

French Frigate Shoals

Gardner Pinnacles

Maro Reef

Laysan Island

Lisianski Island

Kure Atoll

Midway Atoll

Pearl and Hermes Atoll

0 2,000

Miles

P a c i f i c

O c e a n

US Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region

H A W A

I

I

A

N

I

S

L

A

N

D

S

Equator

L I N

E I S

L

A

N

D

S

P H O E N I X

I S L A N D S

AMERICAN

SAMOA

Tutuila

Olosega

Ofu Tau

Swains Island

Guam

Aguijan

A Farallon de Medinilla natahan

Guguan Sarigan Pagan Alamagan

Agrihan Asuncion

Maug

Uracas

WA

OR

NV

CA

ID

MARIANA ISLANDS

ES - OTS/FR

September 2003