Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan: Executive Summary

Version III April 2019

Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan: Executive Summary Version III

Suggested Citation: Alaska Shorebird Group. 2019. Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan: Executive Summary. Version III. Alaska Shorebird Group, Anchorage, AK.

The Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan and updates can be viewed and downloaded at: https://www.fws.gov/alaska/mbsp/mbm/shorebirds/plans.htm

Cover: Male Red Knot on breeding territory, Seward Peninsula, Alaska. Photo by Lucas DeCicco.

i Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan: Executive Summary

Semipalmated Sandpiper Executive Summary Daniel Ruthrauff

Alaska’s immense size, diverse habitats, and po- factors are also responsible. Shorebirds face threats sition at the terminus of several migratory flyways throughout their annual cycles, and these threats make it a critical region for breeding and migrating have the potential to carry over and compound, shorebirds. Seventy-seven species of shorebirds complicating the conservation of the species group. have been recorded in Alaska—over one-third of the world’s species. Of these, 37 are regular breeders While shorebird habitats in Alaska are still relatively and 17 irregular. About one-third of the world’s 100 intact and conservation threats are mostly limited to million shorebirds reside in Alaska, and individual local areas, concerns nevertheless exist here, es- species’ populations range in size from a few thou- pecially for our highest priority species. To address sand to several million. Three species and seven ongoing and heightened concerns about Alaska’s subspecies breed nowhere else. Seven species are shorebirds and to take advantage of new knowledge year-round residents of Alaska, but most shorebird gained over the last decade, the Alaska Shorebird species are migratory. These migratory species Group (ASG) completed this revision of the 2008 ver- connect Alaska to sites in North, Central, and South sion of the Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan. This America, Asia, and locations throughout Oceania. version has two sections. Part I presents an overview During migration, shorebirds concentrate in huge of shorebirds occurring within Alaska, describes the numbers at many coastal staging and migratory priority species, discusses real and potential conser- stopover sites throughout Alaska. Of particular note vation issues facing shorebirds throughout Alaska, are the Copper River Delta and the Yukon-Kuskokwim and presents a conservation strategy focused on six Delta, sites that support millions of migrant shore- major themes. Part II describes the priority species, birds during spring and fall migration, respectively. important shorebird areas, and conservation issues and actions pertinent to each of Alaska’s five Bird Shorebird populations in North America suffered dra- Conservation Regions (BCRs). We also have added matic population declines at the turn of the 20th cen- an “emerging conservation issues” section within tury and many continue to decline. Of the 41 shorebird each BCR that describes threats that have the poten- populations known to breed in Alaska, 7 have experi- tial to negatively affect shorebirds in the near future. enced a substantial decrease in population size and Anticipation of these looming threats to shorebirds 12 a moderate decrease or suspected decrease. Many should facilitate the implementation of conservation of these declines can be attributed to habitat loss efforts that are more effective through time. Final- and degradation, although climate change and other ly, we evaluated recent conservation progress in

1 Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan: Executive Summary each BCR to inform the reader of studies conduct- progress. The ASG suggests the most crucial need ed since the last version of the plan was written. for research is to identify the predominant factor(s) limiting shorebird populations so the most effective We identified 17 shorebird taxa of greatest (3) or high conservation actions are implemented to stop and (14) conservation concern and 12 “Alaska Stewardship” reverse population declines. This may require studies taxa. The categories of conservation concern were exploring effects of climate change, legal and illegal based on the species prioritization process devel- harvest, macro- and micro-scale habitat selection, and oped by the U.S. National Shorebird Conservation the adaptability to naturally occurring or human-in- Partnership. In this process, species considered of duced changes on the landscape. Especially needed greatest and high priority tend to have small or de- is a better understanding of the relative importance of clining global populations, imminent threats or limited each of these factors in limiting shorebird populations distributions during some phase of their annual cycle, within Alaska and throughout their annual cycle. The and are thought to be vulnerable to climate change. ASG also recommends implementing rigorously de- The Alaska Stewardship taxa have lower conserva- signed protocols for monitoring the status and trends tion priority scores nationally, but ≥50% of their North of shorebird populations in Alaska, with a focus on pri- American populations occur in Alaska during their ority species with small or declining populations, or in annual cycles. Across Alaska, each BCR hosts about regions or habitats where collecting accurate and pre- 16 (range: 11–20) priority taxa, nearly all of which are cise trend information is possible. Particularly lacking recognized as such by more than one BCR. To better is information for species residing in alpine and boreal describe the conservation issues facing these species, biomes, areas where few surveys have been conduct- we prepared species accounts detailing the natu- ed to date. To better prioritize the management and ral history of each of these taxa (see Appendix 8). protection of habitats, the ASG recommends col- We identified three major conservation issues facing lecting additional information on the abundance and shorebirds in Alaska: climate change and severe distribution of shorebirds so that bird-habitat models weather, pollution, and actions related to energy can be developed that identify high-quality areas for production and mining. Other issues may negative- protection. Education and outreach may be the most ly affect particular shorebird species, but currently important thing Alaskans can do to conserve shore- tend to be of less significance in geographic scope birds. The ASG encourages efforts to raise the profile or severity. These include residential and commercial of shorebirds through public presentations, media development; agriculture and aquaculture; trans- outreach, support of shorebird festivals, and collabora- portation and service corridors; biological resource tion with education programs. In the international and use; human intrusions and disturbance; and invasive national arenas, we must integrate the management, and problematic species, pathogens, and genes. In research, and conservation efforts throughout a spe- Alaska, these threats affect species in different ways cies’ annual cycle. This will require us to join, cooper- depending on where and when shorebirds breed, ate with, and actively participate in national and inter- migrate, or spend the winter. Unfortunately, logistical national research and monitoring efforts, partnerships, and financial constraints that limit data collection fre- and planning efforts. Finally, we encourage research quently make it difficult to estimate what effect these and conservation efforts that focus on the topics of threats are having on local shorebird populations, let high priority identified in this plan, and ask that inter- alone if there is a population-level effect. However, it ested parties update the objectives and action items is clearly important to continue evaluating the cumu- as conservation issues change through time. This plan lative impacts of conservation threats to shorebirds is intended to be dynamic and reflect current priorities both within Alaska and across their annual cycle. as well as past achievements. The usefulness of this document relies upon the continued participation and We also developed a conservation strategy that focus- commitment of the greater shorebird community. es on a combination of research, population monitoring and inventory, habitat management and protection, Part II of the plan includes information on each of the five education and outreach, international collaborations, BCRs within Alaska. Below, we provide a short synopsis and new to this version, an evaluation of conservation of the most relevant information for each BCR.

2 Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan: Executive Summary

Rock Sandpipers feeding in the shadow of Mt. Redoubt during winter Kasilof River, Cook Inlet Daniel Ruthrauff

3 Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan: Executive Summary

The Aleutian/Bering Sea Islands BCR (1) is composed vest activities. Priority actions in BCR 2 include devel- of hundreds of low-elevation islands in the Bering oping habitat models that predict species distributions Sea, most of which are administered by the Alaska and future habitat changes, continued participation Maritime National Wildlife Refuge. This BCR is small in planning for natural resource management and in area (18,000 km2) but covers a vast region of the resource extraction, and developing ways to engage northern Pacific Ocean, and includes the St. Law- subsistence users in shorebird conservation efforts. rence, St. Matthew, Pribilof, and Aleutian island groups. Primarily noted for the abundance and diversity of its The Arctic Plains and Mountains BCR (3) includes the seabird avifauna, the region nonetheless supports low-lying coastal tundra, drier uplands of the Arctic several important breeding populations of shorebirds. Foothills of the Brooks Range, and montane areas The entire ptilocnemis subspecies of Rock Sandpi- of the Brooks Range. There are 19 shorebird spe- pers breeds in the BCR, as well as significant numbers cies identified as priority within the BCR, including 18 of the couesi subspecies of Rock Sandpipers, and species that breed in the region and 11 that migrate Black Oystercatchers. In total, 11 priority species either through the region. The coastal tundra provides some breed, migrate through, or winter in the BCR in signif- of the world’s best breeding habitat for many calidri- icant numbers. This region is very remote and has a dine sandpipers, plovers, dowitchers, and phalaropes. small human population, and so the greatest potential Indeed, >6 million shorebirds are thought to breed threats to shorebirds arise from the relatively large across the Beaufort Coastal Plain. The river deltas and effect that marine-derived pollution and invasive and coastal lagoons are used extensively by hundreds problematic species can have on island ecosystems. of thousands of postbreeding shorebirds between July and September. Some of the most extensive The Western Alaska BCR (2) extends across western research and monitoring work in Alaska has been and southwestern Alaska from Kotzebue Sound to conducted in this BCR, although little work has oc- Kodiak Island and includes coastal plains, mountains, curred in the Arctic Foothills and montane areas of and three of Alaska’s largest islands. There are 20 the Brooks Range. Priority conservation issues include priority shorebird populations in the BCR, 15 of which energy production and mining, development of new breed in the region, 15 that occur during migratory pe- transportation and service corridors, changes in the riods, and 1 that winters in the region. BCR 2 supports distribution and abundance of predators, and climate high densities of both breeding and migrating shore- change that is affecting habitats and phenology of birds. Key breeding areas include the vast Yukon-Kus- shorebirds and their prey. Both local and atmospheric/ kokwim Delta, the Alaska Peninsula, the Seward oceanic pollution are real issues, although not well Peninsula, and the Kodiak Archipelago. Important studied. Emerging issues include human population migratory stopover areas include the immense intertid- growth, expansion of wind turbines, and the devel- al flats, coastal meadows, and berry-rich tundra of the opment of hard rock and coal resources. Additional Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta; the lagoons, estuaries, inter- studies are warranted to mitigate potential effects on tidal habitats, and coastal meadows of Bristol Bay and shorebirds from oil and gas development planned for the Alaska Peninsula; and coastal habitats from Cape the 1002 Area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Espenberg to eastern Norton Sound. Together these sites host a unique assemblage of shorebirds, includ- The Northwestern Interior Forest BCR (4) comprises ing significant portions of the North American breed- Alaska’s interior boreal forest and mountains, as well ing populations of species such as Bristle-thighed as the maritime-influenced Cook Inlet. There are 17 Curlew, Bar-tailed Godwit (baueri subspecies), Marbled priority taxa within this region, 10 of which breed in Godwit (beringiae subspecies), Black Turnstone, Red the region, 10 that occur during migratory periods, Knot (roselaari subspecies), and Western Sandpiper. and 2 that winter in the region. Breeding species tend The most significant conservation issues affecting BCR to occur at low densities in the mountains (American 2 include climate-moderated habitat changes and al- Golden-Plover, Surfbird, Wandering Tattler), foothills teration of climatological patterns, pollution associated and tundra-taiga interface (Bristle-thighed Curlew, with increased shipping traffic and mineral extraction Whimbrel, Hudsonian Godwit), and lowland forests and activities, and the potential effect of subsistence har- wetlands (Solitary Sandpiper, Lesser Yellowlegs). Cook Inlet is important to wintering Rock Sandpipers, but

4 Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan: Executive Summary also to multiple species during migration, especially in stop or stage there during spring migration, with fewer the spring. Priority conservation threats include poten- species remaining in the region during breeding (3 tial point-source effects of energy production (e.g., oil species) and wintering (3 species) periods. Key migra- well spills in Cook Inlet) and mining, and associated tory sites such as the Copper River Delta, Controller pollution during transportation of energy products by Bay, Yakutat Forelands, Mendenhall Wetlands, and tankers, trucks, trains, and pipelines. Expected effects Stikine River Delta support millions of shorebirds, of climate change include alteration of habitats due to including globally significant numbers of Red Knots, ecosystem encroachment (e.g., elevational and latitu- Dunlin, and Western Sandpipers. Substantial num- dinal advance of treeline) and changes in temperature, bers of Marbled Godwits, Black Turnstones, Surfbirds, precipitation, or hydrological regimes (e.g., wetland Short-billed and Long-billed dowitchers, and Red- drying; more frequent, severer, and larger wildfires). necked Phalaropes also migrate along the region’s Although most of Alaska’s human population resides coast. Priority conservation issues include human in this BCR, the residential, commercial, and industrial intrusions (primarily in the form of recreational use) footprints therein are arguably small currently, espe- and disturbance, pollution (e.g., increased shipping cially given the vastness of the region. Nevertheless, traffic and coinciding risk of fuel and oil spills), and an emerging issue is the likely incremental human climate change. Emerging conservation issues include encroachment, especially on important shorebird mi- energy production and mining and introduction and gration stopover sites and breeding areas. Designing, expansion of non-native plants that can diminish and assessing, and implementing approaches to inventory degrade intertidal habitats. Activities aimed at monitor- boreal shorebirds and identify or refine their habitat ing shorebird populations and describing habitat use associations are necessary to develop models for pre- at key sites used during spring migration are needed. dicting species distribution and likely habitat changes. Such information is especially important for effective The overall goal of this plan is to keep shorebirds engagement in the region’s substantial ongoing and and their habitats well distributed not only across anticipated natural resource development planning. the Alaska landscape, but also throughout regions used by these populations during other phases The Northern Pacific Rainforest BCR (5) encompasses of their annual cycle. Previous versions and up- the southeastern Alaska panhandle and portions of dates of this plan can be found at https://www.fws. southcoastal Alaska. Of the 13 priority shorebird spe- gov/alaska/mbsp/mbm/shorebirds/plans.htm cies that occur in the region, the majority (10 species)

Cotton Grass near Prudhoe Bay Zak Pohlen

5 Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan: Executive Summary

Tom Rothe, Pacific Birds Habitat Joint Venture Acknowledgments Sarah T. Saalfeld, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service SPECIES ACCOUNT AUTHORS EDITORS Megan L. Boldenow: Semipalmated Sandpiper Willow B. English: Red-necked Phalarope Daniel R. Ruthrauff, USGS Alaska Science Center H. River Gates: Wandering Tattler H. River Gates, Pacifica Ecological Services Christopher M. Harwood: Whimbrel Christopher M. Harwood, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service James A. Johnson: Red Knot James A. Johnson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Oscar W. Johnson: American and Pacific Golden-Plover Richard B. Lanctot, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Richard B. Lanctot: Buff-breasted Sandpiper and Dunlin PART 1 CONTRIBUTORS Jeff D. Mason: Surfbird H. River Gates, Pacifica Ecological Services Brian H. Robinson: Black Oystercatcher Christopher M. Harwood, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Daniel R. Ruthrauff: Marbled Godwit and Rock Sandpiper James A. Johnson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Sarah T. Saalfeld: Long-billed Dowitcher Richard B. Lanctot, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Nathan R. Senner: Hudsonian Godwit Kristine M. Sowl: Black-bellied Plover PART 2 BIRD CONSERVATION REGION Audrey R. Taylor: Black Turnstone CONTRIBUTORS T. Lee Tibbitts: Bar-tailed Godwit, Bristle-thighed Curlew, and Lesser Yellowlegs BCR 1 Nils Warnock: Pectoral, Sharp-tailed, Soli- Daniel R. Ruthrauff, USGS Alaska Science Center tary, and Western Sandpipers; Short-billed Dowitcher; and Ruddy Turnstone BCR 2 Kristine M. Sowl (Chair), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service FIGURES Melissa N. Cady, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Daniel R. Ruthrauff, USGS Alaska Science Center Liliana C. Naves, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Sarah T. Saalfeld, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Susan E. Savage, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service LAYOUT AND DESIGN BCR 3 Mary Whalen, USGS Alaska Science Center Debora A. Nigro (Chair), Bureau of Land Management Audrey R. Taylor, University of Alaska Anchorage The revision of the plan was made possible by generous Richard B. Lanctot, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service donations from the Alaska Department of Fish and Game, Stephen C. Brown, Manomet Threatened, Endangered and Diversity Program; Audu- Roy Churchwell, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service bon Alaska; Bureau of Land Management; U.S. Fish and Christopher J. Latty, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wildlife Service, Division of Migratory Bird Management; U.S. Geological Survey Alaska Science Center; U.S. Forest BCR 4 Service, International Programs; and Manomet, Inc. Christopher M. Harwood (Chair), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service This plan benefitted greatly from the primary contributors Jeff D. Mason, Salcha-Delta Soil and to previous editions of the Alaska Shorebird Conserva- Water Conservation District tion Plan: Brad Andres (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Robert E. Gill, Jr. (USGS Alaska Science Center), Colleen BCR 5 M. Handel (USGS Alaska Science Center), Steve Kendall Cheryl A. Carrothers (Chair), U.S. Forest Service (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Brian J. McCaffery (U.S. Gwen S. Baluss, U.S. Forest Service Fish and Wildlife Service), Julie A. Morse (The Nature Christopher P. Barger, Alaska Department of Fish and Game Conservancy), Debora A. Nigro (Bureau of Land Manage- Mary Anne Bishop, Prince William Sound Science Center ment), Audrey Taylor (University of Alaska, Anchorage), James A. Johnson, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service T. Lee Tibbitts (USGS Alaska Science Center), and Pavel Susan A. Oehlers, U.S. Forest Service Tomkovich (University of Moscow, Russia). Beth Grassi Erin E. Cooper, U.S. Forest Service diligently executed her duties as copy editor for this plan. Melissa L. Gabrielson, U.S. Forest Service Additionally, the contributed time and expertise of the Rob D. MacDonald, U.S. Forest Service following individuals helped improve this version of the CONTRIBUTORS plan: Stacia Backensto (National Park Service), Brad Bales John Brewer, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Pacific Birds Habitat Joint Venture), Bonnie Bennetsen Lucas H. DeCicco, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (U.S. Forest Service), Rebecca McGuire (Wildlife Conser-

6 Alaska Shorebird Conservation Plan: Executive Summary vation Society), Bret Christensen (U.S. Forest Service), Heather Coletti (National Park Service), Robin Corcoran (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Gary Drew (USGS Alaska Science Center), Jessica Ilse (U.S. Forest Service), Kim Jochum (Colorado State University), Kim Kloecker (USGS Alaska Science Center), Chris Krenz (Alaska Department. Fish and Game), Joe Liebezeit (Audubon Society of Port- land), Ellen Martin (Colorado State University), Phillip Martin (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), George Matz (Kachemak Bay Birders), Aaron Poe (Alaska Conservation Founda- tion), Heather Renner (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Nora Rojek (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Marc Romano (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), Terry Schick (ABR, Inc.), Benja- min Sullender (Audubon Alaska), and Denny Zwiefelhofer (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). Any use of trade, prod- uct or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. Government.

We also greatly appreciate the donations of images from photographers. Listed alphabetically. • Mike Ausman • Lucas DeCicco • Samantha Franks • Melissa Gabrielson • Erica Gaeta • Robert Gill, Jr. • Christopher Harwood • James Johnson • Oscar Johnson • Kevin Karlson • Sean Meade • Ken Plourde • Zak Pohlen • Matt Prinzing • Rachel Richardson • Danielle Rupp • Daniel Ruthrauff • Anne Schaefer • Marian Snively • Dena Strait • Ted Swem