Australian National Directory of Important Migratory Shorebird Habitat

Discussion

Primary authors: Dan R. Weller, Lindall R. Kidd, Connie V. Lee, Steve Klose, Roger Jaensch and Joris Driessen Contributing authors: Paul G. Handreck, Kerryn Herman and Chris Purnell

BirdLife , Suite 2-05, 60 Leicester Street, Carlton, Vic. 3053, Australia.

Citation This publication should be cited as follows: Weller, D., Kidd, L., Lee, C., Klose, S., Jaensch, R. and Driessen, J. 2020. Directory of Important Habitat for Migratory Shorebirds in Australia. Unpublished report prepared for Australian Government Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment by BirdLife Australia, Melbourne.

Copyright © BirdLife Australia This document is subject to copyright and may only be used for the purposes for which it was commissioned. Copying this document in whole or part without the permission of BirdLife Australia is an infringement of copyright. Disclaimer Although BirdLife Australia has taken all the necessary steps to ensure that an accurate document has been prepared, the organisation accepts no liability for any damages or loss incurred as a result of reliance placed upon the report and its content.

1

Discussion & Conclusions For this Directory, recent survey data collected on migratory shorebirds from around Australia and available through databases held by BirdLife Australia were analysed to identify important shorebird habitat. A range of sites of national and/or international importance for migratory shorebirds that regularly visit Australia was identified. Accounts of the sites found to be significant, as well as species accounts, are presented. Number and distribution of sites of international importance A total of 97 sites in Australia were identified as being internationally important for migratory shorebirds (Table 1). Table 1. Number of internationally important sites for migratory shorebirds in Australia, showing differences between the previous Directory (Bamford et al. 2008) and the present Directory.

Jurisdiction Number Number of Sites not Sites added in Total sites in of sites sites in 2020 included in 2020 2020 either year* in 2008

EXT 1 1 0 0 1

NT 20 6 14 2 20

QLD 14 $ 23 6 13 29

NSW 14 7 10 4 17

ACT 0 0 0 0 0

VIC 16 19 3 5 21

TAS 7 4 4 2 9

SA 17 19 6 13 25

WA 25 $ 18 11 7 29

Totals 114 97 54 46 151**

$ Does not include two sites that were listed in 2008 only for Australian Pratincole. * Number of sites in 2020 added to the number of sites (from 2008) no longer included in 2020. This method attempts to account for situations where lists have been affected by changes to site boundaries, e.g. boundary expanded to include a previously separate site (e.g. Gulf St Vincent now incorporating three previous sites, two of which were separate saltfields), or the site was split into components (e.g. former Western Port Phillip Bay now listed as two sites). ** Some minor changes to analyses in this chapter may have occurred since the text was prepared due to late inclusion of some shorebird count data.

Queensland and Western Australia were among the jurisdictions with the highest number of such sites, which is unsurprising in view of their large areas of shorebird habitat. South Australia and Victoria also had high totals despite smaller areas of habitat. This may partly reflect high levels of survey effort.

Directory of Important Habitat for Migratory Shorebirds in Australia 2

Tasmania had almost as many important sites as some much larger jurisdictions. The way in which shorebird areas have been defined for survey purposes may also impact these results (see details in methods section). Another contributing factor is the geographic variation in where shorebird species tend to congregate during their non-breeding season (see below for further discussion). The previous assessment of internationally important sites (Bamford et al. 2008) employed, in part, different methods, including a longer period for source data. Nevertheless, these previous assessments allow for some useful comparisons with results from the present Directory (Table 1). The fact that the national total was somewhat higher in 2008 may be partly explained by differences in the data period. Sites in remote coastal or inland regions that are difficult to access are typically seldom visited; hence, the longer data period for the 2008 compilation allowed greater prospect for visitations, favouring inclusion of more sites. The higher total in 2008 also relates to coverage of inland and northern regions: considerable exploration of remote shorebird habitat occurred in the last three decades of the 20th century, including surveys commissioned for the first edition of the Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia (ANCA 1993). In summary, data accessed for the present Directory have been drawn primarily from a monitoring program, rather than from a monitoring program supplemented by an inventory program, resulting in many changes to the list of internationally important sites. A large number of sites (47% of the 2008 total) did not meet significance criteria in the present Directory, whereas many internationally important sites (47% of the 2020 total) were identified as such for the first time. Possible explanations for these changes include counts of one or more species being markedly lower (or higher), change in the 1% threshold (updated from Bamford et al. 2008 by Hansen et al. 2016), data deficiency or improved coverage in the source data period, and changes to site boundary for surveys. The population size of many Flyway species has also continuously declined, resulting in seven being listed as Threatened under the EPBC Act 1999; in most cases there has been a consequent and proportionate lowering of the 1% threshold, so the influence of threshold declines on site totals is not always clear 1. Raised thresholds are most likely to cause formerly important sites to not be listed in this Directory. Whereas reduced survey coverage of many inland and remote shorebird areas in recent years will have caused some sites to not be listed, expanded coverage of coastline in southern and eastern Australia (e.g. Queensland) has introduced new sites. Consolidation or splitting of a relatively small number of shorebird survey areas was a lesser influence on the changes. In terms of jurisdictions, the number of internationally important sites decreased markedly from 2008 to 2020 in the Northern Territory (70% decline), New South Wales (50%) and Western Australia (28%). In the Northern Territory, the 2008 assessment was able to draw on results from a program of surveys along the whole coastline by government wildlife officers (Chatto 2003) but this logistically challenging, high-cost coverage has not been replicated subsequently. Expanded survey effort, spearheaded by the Queensland Study Group and including some work by Indigenous Rangers (e.g. Jackson et al. 2016) and around industrial development sites (Choi et al. 2016) contributed to a 64% increase in number of sites in Queensland.

Importance of Australia for migratory shorebird conservation Taking into account some recent consolidations and splits of previous shorebird areas, and ignoring past and present circumstances at each site, the total number of internationally important sites for migratory shorebirds identified in either 2008 or the present assessment is about 150 (Table 1). There has been no Flyway-wide update of internationally important sites, but only two other countries —

1 The 1% threshold increased by more than 500 individuals for five species and decreased by 500 for four species. Species for which change was most marked included Greater Sand Plover (1% threshold 1100 in 2008, but increased to 2000 in 2020); and Sharp-tailed (1% threshold 1600 in 2008, but lowered to 850 in 2020).

Directory of Important Habitat for Migratory Shorebirds in Australia 3

Japan and China — are known to have more than 50 such sites (Table 3.3 in Bamford et al. 2008). The scope of survey effort and knowledge of shorebirds, and the size of territory, vary enormously between the Flyway countries and size of sites as delineated by shorebird counters is highly variable. Nevertheless, the fact remains that — as measured by numbers of internationally important sites — Australia is extremely important for migratory shorebirds, to which its location and availability of suitable habitat contribute. Australia is especially important for 11 species of migratory shorebird for which at least 67% of the population in the Flyway is present during the non-breeding season (Bamford et al. 2008): Latham’s Snipe; Little ; Eastern Curlew; Grey-tailed ; Great Knot; Red-necked ; Sharp-tailed Sandpiper; Curlew Sandpiper; Greater Sand Plover; Oriental Plover; and Oriental Pratincole. Without comparable updates from all other countries along the Flyway, presently it is not possible to determine if this remains true. It is reasonable, however, to assume that the importance of Australia has not changed because the species accounts in this Directory show that large numbers of these species still occur here. That internationally important sites are fewer for Little Curlew, Oriental Plover and Oriental Pratincole in the present Directory compared to 2008 is due partly to reduced coverage of prime habitats of these grassland-inhabiting species and probably also to non-recurrence of the special environmental conditions (Sitters et al. 2004) that seem to have triggered some of their past, occasionally huge, congregations. Another measure of the global significance of Australia for migratory shorebirds is the number of species for which the country has internationally important sites. The previous assessment (Bamford et al. 2008) cites 27 such species, behind China (46 species) and Russia (41), whereas data in the present Directory indicate 24 species for Australia. The small change may be explained by lack of internationally important sites for one species, Oriental Pratincole, and the omission of Australian Pratincole from the present Directory. Therefore, this gauge of Australia’s global significance still holds true. In the 2008 assessment, which had a Flyway-wide geographical scope, it was possible to identify the species for which Australia held the top-three-ranked sites. Changes have occurred to sites and habitats throughout the Flyway and declines in populations of species have continued. Nevertheless, assuming no change in sites outside Australia, it is apparent from species accounts in this Directory that Australia possibly still holds the top-three-ranked sites for 16 species2. Several species — Black-tailed , Little Curlew, Whimbrel and Oriental Pratincole — may have dropped out of this list due to factors such as numbers being markedly lower in Australia and/or (especially) data deficiency.

Number and distribution of sites of national importance Applying the criteria for national importance (0.1% of Flyway population of a species; and others—see Methods) for the first time in a Directory of shorebird sites in Australia, the present assessment has yielded 282 sites (Table 2). Combining with the 97 sites listed as internationally important in this Directory reveals a total of 379 important sites for migratory shorebirds in Australia. This result is even higher if adding in all or some of the sites identified in the previous assessment (Bamford et al. 2008) as internationally important, which are not listed in this Directory.

Table 2. Number and distribution of nationally important sites for migratory shorebirds in Australia.

EXT NT QLD NSW ACT VIC TAS SA WA Total

2 Latham’s Snipe, Bar-tailed Godwit, Eastern Curlew, Common Greenshank, Terek Sandpiper, Grey-tailed Tattler, Ruddy , Great Knot, , Sanderling, Red-necked Stint, Sharp-tailed Sandpiper, Curlew Sandpiper, Double-banded Plover, Greater Sand Plover and Oriental Plover.

Directory of Important Habitat for Migratory Shorebirds in Australia 4

Sites 2 9 52 57 2 53 23 39 45 282

Firstly, this result shows that governments and other stakeholders at all levels concerned with the conservation of migratory shorebirds in Australia have a great challenge to ensure that these sites are protected and managed appropriately, to ensure that shorebird populations remain healthy and recover from recent declines. It is not just a matter of looking after a handful of sites but instead requires a coordinated and strategic approach. Furthermore, the nationally important sites are spread across all jurisdictions, including the smallest; in a legislative context, protection of migratory shorebird sites and their habitat is a matter for every state and territory — and a substantial task especially for Queensland, New South Wales and Victoria, each with over 50 sites in addition to their internationally important sites. The role of local governments should not be underestimated — often, they hold the key to local management of important sites. As with the results for internationally important sites, the totals as shown in Table 2 reflect several factors that prevent a perfect match with the real situation. There have been many gaps in survey coverage of far inland and north-western regions in the last decade or two. Due to remoteness and inaccessibility only a quarter to a third of all sites listed in BirdLife Australia’s National Shorebird Monitoring Program are surveyed regularly; hence, the totals for important sites may be well below the actual number, particularly for the Northern Territory and parts of Western Australia. There is no baseline against which to compare the number of nationally important sites. However, it should be noted that, due to changes in numbers, in 0.1% thresholds, survey coverage and/or other factors, some sites formerly listed as internationally important have shifted to the list of nationally important sites.

Number of sites by species For each species of migratory shorebird, the number of sites of international importance, both in 2008 and in the present Directory, as well as the number of sites of national importance and present overall total, are presented in Table 3. Species with 50 or more important sites, as documented in this Directory, were: Bar-tailed Godwit; Double-banded Plover; Curlew Sandpiper; Eastern Curlew; Grey-tailed Tattler; Latham’s Snipe; Red- necked Stint; Ruddy Turnstone; Sanderling; Sharp-tailed Sandpiper; and Whimbrel. They include some that occur in Australia in large numbers (e.g. Red-necked Stint) and some others that occur in numbers an order of magnitude lower (e.g. Latham’s Snipe). There are no important sites, at either level, for nine species. Some of these (e.g. Common Sandpiper) tend not to congregate in large numbers in Australia; some (e.g. Pectoral Sandpiper) seem to have small populations in Australia; others (e.g. Swinhoe’s Snipe) occur in remote northern locations where observers are sparse. Six species have no more than nine important sites; these include several species that are counted in at least hundreds at some sites, e.g. Wood Sandpiper. Knowledge of sites used by Oriental Pratincole and Oriental Plover is likely to be incomplete and partly an artefact of insufficient, recent survey coverage of inland and/or remote areas; also, their ecology — favouring grasslands when feeding — makes them inherently difficult to find and count. The number of important sites for the seven threatened species (EPBC Act 1999) of migratory shorebird in Australia was at least 35 for each species. As mentioned above, such numbers demand considerable protection effort but are also a positive outcome for prospects of survival in Australia. Population viability of all species is dependent on protection of sites, habitats and throughout the Flyway.

Directory of Important Habitat for Migratory Shorebirds in Australia 5

The number of important sites for a species, where this is determined from measures of abundance, is influenced by multiple factors, including population size, the tendency of the species to congregate in large numbers, and the geographical breadth of its range. A notable example is the Sharp-tailed Sandpiper, which has a relatively low threshold (850 birds at 1% level; 85 at 0.1%), commonly congregates in numbers above that threshold, and is widespread in Australia both on the coast and inland; hence, it has a large number of important sites. The design and scope of survey effort has also influenced the number of sites by species. Concerted efforts by BirdLife Australia and others to expand the geographical coverage achieved in mid-winter surveys in recent years has led to recognition of many additional sites of international importance (cf. Bamford et al. 2008) for Double-banded Plover, a winter migrant from New Zealand: from nine to 19 sites. Three of the new sites would have met the former 1% threshold but many are partly due to a much lower threshold than in 2008. Comparing the number of internationally important sites in the 2008 assessment with this Directory shows that a substantial increase has also occurred for Sharp-tailed Sandpiper; lesser increases are evident for Red Knot and Greater Sand Plover (Table 3). On the other hand, a substantial decrease in number of internationally important sites has occurred for seven species: Black-tailed Godwit; Common Greenshank; Curlew Sandpiper; Grey Plover; Lesser Sand Plover; Oriental Plover; and Red-necked Stint. Reasons for increase or decrease in number of sites are complex and have been mentioned above. Table 3: Number of sites of international importance (2008 and 2020) and national importance for each species of migratory shorebird. Names in red indicate a species listed as threatened under the EPBC Act 1999. ‘Number of all sites’ refers only to the 2020 Directory. International (Bamford Common name et al. 2008) International National Number of all sites Asian 1 1 2 3 Bar-tailed Godwit 9 7 44 51 Black-tailed Godwit 14 2 18 20 Broad-billed Sandpiper 1 2 3 5 Common Greenshank 8 1 30 31 Curlew Sandpiper 24 16 48 64 Double-banded Plover 9 19 76 95 Eastern Curlew 18 16 63 79 Great Knot 10 8 28 36 Greater Sand Plover 5 7 30 37 Grey-tailed Tattler 15 13 40 53 Grey Plover 6 1 28 29 Latham's Snipe 1 3 51 54 Lesser Sand Plover 6 3 32 35 Little Curlew 8 9 12 21 Marsh Sandpiper 4 2 14 16 Oriental Plover 6 2 6 8 Oriental Pratincole 2 0 1 1 Pacific Golden Plover 1 0 25 25 Red-necked Stint 31 22 92 114 Red Knot 8 11 24 35 Ruddy Turnstone 16 14 75 89 Sanderling 17 18 62 80 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper 39 51 133 184 Terek Sandpiper 11 8 23 31

Directory of Important Habitat for Migratory Shorebirds in Australia 6

Wandering Tattler 0 0 4 4 Whimbrel 7 7 49 56 Wood Sandpiper 0 0 2 2

Distribution of shorebirds in Australia There is some geographical variation in where shorebird species tend to principally occur in Australia, either during migration — moving beyond the location of their first landfall travelling south, or initial departure northwards — or at the limits of their migration. Results in this Directory have been influenced by this and broadly reflect the understanding of where each species usually occurs. It is notable that discoveries relating to shorebird distribution continue to occur. For example, large numbers of Little Curlew and smaller congregations of Oriental Pratincole were first documented between 2000–2009 (e.g. Reid et al. 2010) in extensive and hard-to-survey regions, such as the Channel Country of Queensland and South Australia. These regions were much farther south than any important sites that were previously known. Additional new information on the distribution of migratory shorebirds in Australia, especially at inland and remote regions, is likely to occur through future exploration of rarely visited areas and may manifest in new entries in future updates of the Directory. When shallowly inundated, the vast salt flats across northern Australia form a widespread habitat that supports large numbers of shorebirds (such as Marsh Sandpiper; Driscoll 2001). However, this habitat has not been surveyed adequately, and may require a combination of aerial survey and ground-level sampling. Foremost among species for which important sites have been newly documented through expanded survey effort in southern Australia are Double-banded Plover, Ruddy Turnstone, Sanderling and Sharp-tailed Sandpiper. As a general rule, the shorebird species with important sites predominantly in southern Australia are smaller species, including Red-necked Stint, Sharp-tailed Sandpiper, Curlew Sandpiper, Sanderling and Ruddy Turnstone. Large numbers also occur at some northern sites (e.g. Eighty Mile Beach, Lake Macleod) because of the vast extent of suitable habitat, migration stop-over, and/or end-point of migration. Smaller species whose important sites are predominantly in the north include Greater Sand Plover and Terek Sandpiper. Many of the species with important sites mainly in northern Australia are larger or medium-sized species, including Black-tailed Godwit, Whimbrel, Great Knot and Grey-tailed Tattler. Others, such as Eastern Curlew and Bar-tailed Godwit (large) and Red Knot and Lesser Sand Plover (medium to small), have important sites across the north and east of the continent; for both the godwit and knot, this may be largely due to the separate southward migration routes and non-breeding areas of their two subspecies. Apart from Sharp-tailed Sandpiper, which has important sites across the inland Australia, there are still rather few important sites for other species documented in the interior. Conservation Applying a diversity of analyses to shorebird count data for this Directory can help conservation efforts identify important sites, as well as species that may have diminishing conservation prospects not yet officially recognised. From the analyses in this Directory, Black-tailed Godwit, with a greatly reduced number of important sites and much lower maximum counts than revealed in the 2008 assessment 3,

3 For Black-tailed Godwit, Bamford et al. 2008 listed six sites in Australia with higher counts than the maximum recorded in this Directory.

Directory of Important Habitat for Migratory Shorebirds in Australia 7

may be identified as one such species. The same may apply, but to a lesser degree, to Grey Plover 4. The official conservation status of these species should be investigated rigorously. The 11 shorebird species that have at least 50 important sites in Australia may require a large effort to ensure protection of their numerous important sites — all of which are mandated protection under EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.21 — but it is also reassuring that, at least on their non-breeding grounds in Australia, their survival does not depend on a perilously small number of sites. All species with a low number of important sites require a smaller effort to protect those sites but raise concerns, at least on the non-breeding grounds in Australia, that their survival may substantially depend on that small number of sites. Introduction of nationally important sites to national legislation has enhanced recognition and hopefully protection of habitat for Latham’s Snipe, a species that does not commonly congregate in large numbers: over 50 important sites are listed in this Directory (Table 3). Similarly, this approach has revealed the first important sites for Wandering Tattler. Conspicuous major changes to habitat have impacted the viability or suitability of some — but relatively few — sites that were identified as internationally important for one or more species in 2008. Several of these are artificial wetlands, such as Tullakool Evaporation Area in New South Wales (decommissioned) and Leslie Saltfields in Western Australia (changes to circulation of saltwater). International importance has been retained despite degradation at some sites, notably at The Coorong, South Australia, which has been impacted by hydrological changes, e.g. during the Millennium Drought. Long-term declines in inundation of floodplains in the Murray–Darling Basin may at least partly have contributed to sites such as Yantabulla Swamp and Torry Plains station in New South Wales dropping out from the Directory lists. The number of species for which a site is internationally important has fallen markedly for several sites, notably in the south-eastern Gulf of Carpentaria, Queensland (down from 16 species in 2008 to six in this Directory) and Hunter Estuary, New South Wales (from six sites down to three). The number has increased at some sites, e.g. Moreton Bay, Queensland (up from eight to nine) and Milingimbi, Northern Territory (from six up to seven). Reasons for these changes are complex and may involve local issues but, in some cases, may include deficiencies in data or survey effort. Shorebird count data collected in Australia in recent decades has led to a substantial body of conservation action. Up-to-date estimates of how many birds of each species there are in the Flyway, counts of how many are using particular areas around Australia and population trends constitute critical knowledge.

Translating this into a legal protection status, the Australian Government has listed species experiencing substantial population declines as threatened, updating the listings as needed and thus ensuring protection under applicable legislation. It has also adopted a Wildlife Conservation Plan for Migratory Shorebirds (WCP; 2015), which was subsequently put into operation by adopting a multi-stakeholder Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan (2017), which is now coordinated by BirdLife Australia.

The WCP provides clear objectives for migratory shorebird protection, assigning responsibilities to stakeholders such as the Australian States and Territories and Environment Groups. The Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan meets those objectives with strategies and priority actions to be taken. It seeks to improve coordination of actions around Australia and is overseen by a Steering Committee made up of representatives of the Department of Agriculture, Water and the Environment, state environmental departments and university researchers. Central objectives of the WCP and the

4 For Grey Plover, Bamford et al. 2008 listed six sites in Australia with higher counts than the maximum recorded in this Directory.

Directory of Important Habitat for Migratory Shorebirds in Australia 8

Conservation Action Plan are, in summary, protection of important migratory shorebird habitat, anthropogenic threat minimisation or elimination, and identification of gaps in knowledge. Projects are implemented around Australia with a wide range of stakeholders, focusing also on the development of new and innovative approaches and showcasing through exemplary actions what works in shorebird conservation. The Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan has also continued to evolve since its inception. Initially a national umbrella framework, it is now going regional (State Action Plans) and local (Site Action Plans), having realised how important it is to identify threats to migratory shorebirds at a local level. This Directory is an important step in this process. It shows that a revision of conservation and management plans for many sites may be necessary, considering shorebirds for the first time or in more detail. Specific Site Action Plans analysing threats and detailing conservation measures to be taken for migratory shorebirds could be the next step for many sites. The Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan is beginning to see these specific Site Action Plans emerge, and this Directory will be a key resource. More details on the Migratory Shorebird Conservation Action Plan can be found online (www.birdlife.org.au/mscap).

The future This Directory primarily draws on data obtained since 2005–6 from nationwide summer and winter monitoring surveys coordinated by BirdLife Australia. In view of serious declines in shorebird populations, an emphasis on monitoring to verify and quantify trends has been a logical priority. This expanded monitoring program has delivered a large volume of count data that have confirmed many sites identified earlier (Bamford et al. 2008) as internationally important, revealed the importance of new sites, and provided a sound basis for the first systematic documentation of sites that meet the criteria (Commonwealth of Australia 2017) for national importance in Australia. In this and other respects — such as provision of site maps — it is ground-breaking, as well as providing a timely update to the 2008 assessment. To be successful and sustainable, a largely volunteer-based program of monitoring must minimise the cost to participants in time and other resources; inevitably, the greatest effort has therefore focused on the Australian coast with the largest human population. Supplementary, less frequent surveys of more remote coastline have helped to fill coverage gaps but contemporary count data from northern Australia have not been sufficient to provide a truly comprehensive assessment of important coastal sites. This knowledge gap is much more pronounced for Australia’s inland regions, where most wetlands are temporary, providing shorebird habitat unpredictably, which is not ideal for a monitoring program. A major application of the Directory is to support assessment of potential impacts from proposed developments, so the scope of this compilation will provide unprecedented assistance for project areas in coastal eastern and southern Australia. Proposals which potentially impact shorebirds also will arise in remote coastal regions and the Directory has considerable but discontinuous coverage there. This constraint is much greater for inland regions. In preparation for future updates of the Directory, ornithologists will need to find ways to fill these geographical knowledge gaps on occurrence and numbers of migratory shorebirds, and this should be acknowledged and addressed by governments, other funders and likely users of the Directory. In providing maps of the boundaries of shorebird count areas in this Directory, BirdLife Australia recognises that refining of this spatial information will be an ongoing task. This relates not so much to the bounds within which surveys have been and should continue to be conducted, because replication and consistency are strongly preferred, but more to achieving the closest fit of boundary to shorebird habitat. Disputes over occurrence or numbers of migratory shorebirds at sites of proposed development may occasionally lead to legal proceedings, in which site boundaries may be examined microscopically.

Directory of Important Habitat for Migratory Shorebirds in Australia 9

Commonwealth, state and territory governments have passed legislation and raised community awareness of the need to protect migratory shorebirds and their habitats, so there has been a great expansion of study and reporting on shorebirds by government agencies, industry, consultants, study organisations, other community groups and interested individuals. Although much of this knowledge has been lodged in BirdLife Australia’s computer databases, much resides in external databases (some of them global), literature both outside and within the public domain and unpublished recordings. Recent collaborations, such as the Atlas of Living Australia, are helping to enhance access to biodiversity data, but it remains a serious challenge for future updates to the Directory to find ways to tap into these burgeoning sources of information. It would be highly useful to acquire any datasets not yet available to this Directory, for future analysis. A strategic prioritisation of key migratory shorebird habitat for improved protection planning, taking into consideration the threat level experienced at a site and the importance of the site for the habitat network, would certainly be worth considering. This could, for instance, be achieved through an initiative to develop a National Strategy for Improved Protection of Critical Migratory Shorebird Sites.

Closing remarks Populations of migratory shorebirds in the East Asian–Australasian Flyway are in rapid decline and protecting remaining habitat along all stages of their migratory pathway is crucial for their stabilisation and recovery (Kirby et al. 2008; Murray et al. 2015). Australia has a special responsibility given its location at the end of the Flyway. This is important given the continuing loss of shorebird habitat in the Flyway, and the emerging evidence of additional threats impacting these birds, such as coastal habitat degradation (Murray et al. 2015), sea-level rise (Iwamura et al. 2013), hunting (Turrin & Watts 2016), and climate change (Wauchope et al. 2016). While some of the threats that migratory shorebirds experience may be located elsewhere in the Flyway, much remains to be done on our own doorstep: the focus for conservation in Australia should continue to lie on the habitat used by the birds and the threats present there. However, sites cannot be managed in isolation. At all levels of management, from a single site to the broader Flyway, the network context must be considered in a long-term strategic approach to successfully conserve migratory shorebirds.

Directory of Important Habitat for Migratory Shorebirds in Australia 10

References ANCA (1993). A Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia. Australian Nature Conservation Agency, Canberra. Bamford, M., Watkins, D., Bancroft, W., Tischler, G., & Wahl, J. (2008). Migratory Shorebirds of the East Asian–Australasian Flyway: Population Estimates and Internationally Important Sites. Wetlands International — Oceania, Canberra. Chatto, R. (2003). The Distribution and Status of Shorebirds Around the Coast and Coastal Wetlands of the Northern Territory. Technical Report No. 73. Parks & Wildlife Commission of the Northern Territory, Palmerston. Choi, C-Y., Moffitt, D.J., Fuller, R.A., Skilleter, G., Rogers, D., Coleman, J. & Klaassen, M. (2016). Annual Report: Migratory Shorebird Monitoring – Understanding Ecological Impact (CA130019). Report produced for the Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program Advisory Panel as part of GPC’s Ecosystem Research and Monitoring Program. Commonwealth of Australia (2017). EPBC Act Policy Statement 3.21—Industry guidelines for avoiding, assessing and mitigating impacts on EPBC Act listed migratory shorebird species. Driscoll, P.V. (2001). Gulf of Carpentaria Wader Surveys 1998–9. Report by Queensland Wader Study Group and Australasian Wader Studies Group to Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. Hansen, B.D., Fuller, R.A., Watkins, D., Rogers, D.I., Clemens, R.S., Newman, M., Woehler, E.J. & Weller, D.R. (2016). Revision of the East Asian–Australasian Flyway Population Estimates for 37 Listed Migratory Shorebird Species. Unpublished report for the Department of the Environment. BirdLife Australia, Melbourne. Iwamura, T., Possingham, H.P., Chadès, I., Minton, C., Murray, N.J., Rogers, D.I., Treml, E.A., and Fuller, R.A. (2013). Migratory connectivity magnifies the consequences of habitat loss from sea- level rise for shorebird populations. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 281:20130325. Jackson, M.V., Blackwood, J., Maurer, G., Weller, D., Barkley, S., Booth, L., Dejersey, J., Ling, E., Mamoose, G., Kennett, R. & Stone, L. (2016). Establishing the importance of the Greater Mapoon area for waterbirds through collaboration with indigenous land and sea rangers. Stilt 69-70: 66-73. Kirby, J.S., Stattersfield, A.J., Butchart, S.H.M., Evans, M.I., Grimmett, R.F.A., Jones, V.R., O'Sullivan, J., Tucker, G.M., and Newton, I. 2008. Key conservation issues for migratory land- and waterbird. Murray, N.J., Ma, Z., and Fuller, R.A. 2015. Tidal flats of the Yellow Sea: A review of ecosystem status and anthropogenic threats. Austral Ecology 40:472-481. Reid J.R.W., Kingsford R.T. & Jaensch R.P. (2010). Waterbird Surveys in the Channel Country Floodplain Wetlands, Autumn 2009. Report by Australian National University, Canberra, University of New South Wales, Sydney, and Wetlands International—Oceania, Brisbane, for the Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts. Sitters, H., Minton, C., Collins, P., Etheridge, B., Hassell, C. & O’Connor, F. (2004). Extraordinary numbers of Oriental Pratincoles in NW Australia. Wader Study Group Bulletin 103: 26–31. Turrin, C., and Watts, B.D. (2016). Sustainable mortality limits for migratory shorebird populations within the East Asian-Australasian Flyway. Stilt 68:2-17. Wauchope, H.S., Shaw, J.D., Varpe, Ø., Lappo, E.G., Boertmann, D., Lanctot, R.B., and, Fuller, R.A. (2016). Rapid climate-driven loss of breeding habitat for Arctic migratory birds. Global Change Biology. doi:10.1111/gcb.13404.

Directory of Important Habitat for Migratory Shorebirds in Australia 11

Appendices

Table A1. List of East Asian - Australasian Flyway migratory shorebird species that visit Australia. Habitat is the dominant habitat use in Australia and represented by either M=marine (intertidal), IW=inland (non-tidal) wetlands or G=grasslands. WPE5 estimate is the current global population estimates summed across relevant subspecies for the EAAF (Wetlands International 2016). Conservation status refers to IUCN status listed in Garnett et al. (2010), except for Eastern Curlew, Curlew Sandpiper, Bar-tailed Godwit, Great Knot, Red Knot (Department of the Environment 2016).

Conservation Scientific Name Common Name Habitat status Pluvialis fulva † Pacific Golden Plover M Pluvialis squatarola Grey Plover M NT Charadrius dubius † Little Ringed Plover M, IW Charadrius bicinctus Double-banded Plover M, IW Charadrius mongolus † Lesser Sand Plover M E Charadrius leschenaultia Greater Sand Plover M V Charadrius veredus Oriental Plover M, IW, G hardwickii Latham’s Snipe IW, G Gallinago stenura Pin-tailed Snipe IW, G Gallinago megala Swinhoe’s Snipe IW, G Limosa limosa Black-tailed Godwit M, IW V Limosa lapponica † Bar-tailed Godwit M CE * / V Numenius minutus Little Curlew IW, G Numenius phaeopus Whimbrel M NT Numenius madagascariensis (Far) Eastern Curlew M CE Xenus cinereus Terek Sandpiper M hypoleucos Common Sandpiper M, IW brevipes Grey-tailed Tattler M NT Tringa incana Wandering Tattler M Tringa nebularia Common Greenshank M, IW Tringa stagnatilis Marsh Sandpiper M, IW Tringa totanus † Common Redshank M Tringa glareola Wood Sandpiper IW Arenaria interpres Ruddy Turnstone M NT Limnodromus semipalmatus Asian Dowitcher M NT tenuirostris Great Knot M CE Calidris canutus † Red Knot M E Calidris alba Sanderling M Calidris ruficollis Red-necked Stint M, IW Calidris subminuta Long-toed Stint M, IW Calidris melanotos Pectoral Sandpiper M, IW Calidris acuminate Sharp-tailed Sandpiper M ,IW Calidris ferruginea Curlew Sandpiper M, IW CE Calidris falcinellus Broad-billed Sandpiper M Calidris pugnax Ruff M, IW Phalaropus lobatus Red-necked M Glareola maldivarum Oriental Pratincole IW, G † these species have two or more subspecies which are recognised in the EAAF * Bar-tailed Godwit subspecies menzbieri listed as Critically Endangered and subspecies baueri listed as Vulnerable under recent (5 May 2016) EPBC Act changes.

Directory of Important Habitat for Migratory Shorebirds in Australia 12

Table A2. New East Asian - Australasian Flyway population estimates with adjustments Estimates directly from counts & other data sources provides count data summed across each country, with no extrapolations and for Australia, inland count values (not inland modelled values). Estimates with spatial extrapolations use Australian figures that incorporate inland modelled values (seventh column, Appendix 11. Final estimate basis: “Both” refers to species where the estimate is provided as a range, and the range is determined by values from both the extrapolated count and the breeding range and density analyses. Final revised estimates are rounded following the same rules as applied in Bamford et al. (2008): see below for details. Where the analysis process used in this report was not applied to a species, e.g. pectoral sandpiper, the alternative source of a population estimate is given.

Estimate directly from Estimate with Estimate based on Final population Common Name Scientific Name counts & other data spatial breeding range & Final estimate basis estimate sources extrapolations density Asian Dowitcher Limnodromus semipalmatus 4837 14,172 12,673 Extrapolated count 14,000 Bar-tailed Godwit Limosa lapponica 274,647 319,182 237,552 Extrapolated count 325,000 Black-tailed Godwit Limosa limosa 90,981 159,652 157,800 Extrapolated count 160,000 Broad-billed Sandpiper Calidris falcinellus 15,755 30,139 24,340 Extrapolated count 30,000 Common Greenshank Tringa nebularia 34,367 62,953 105,216 Breeding range & density 110,000 Common Redshank Tringa totanus 32,436 75,884 146,406 Both 75,000-150,000 Common Sandpiper Actitis hypoleucos 22,846 55,238 193,024 Breeding range & density 190,000 Curlew Sandpiper Calidris ferruginea 85,086 92,294 68,494 Extrapolated count 90,000 Double-banded Plover Charadrius bicinctus 13,057 18,786 19,559 Extrapolated count 19,000 Far Eastern Curlew Numenius madagascariensis 24,914 33,840 34,862 Extrapolated count 35,000 Great Knot Calidris tenuirostris 359,719 419,186 536,565 Extrapolated count 425,000 Greater Sand Plover Charadrius leschenaultia 150,373 199,258 295,048 Both 200,000-300,000 Grey Plover Pluvialis squatarola 42,812 77,616 100,324 Extrapolated count 80,000 Grey-tailed Tattler Tringa brevipes 61,612 71,016 74,220 Extrapolated count 70,000 Latham's Snipe Gallinago hardwickii 1124 1260 # 35,127 Trend correction ‡ 30,000 Lesser Sand Plover Charadrius mongolus 146,168 284,105 182,910 Both 180,000-275,000 Little Curlew Numenius minutus 36,648 76,913 109,105 Breeding range & density 110,000 Little Ringed Plover Charadrius dubius 21,707 48,761 154,970 Breeding range & density 150,000 Long-toed Stint Calidris subminuta 582 587 # 230,939 Breeding range & density 230,000 Marsh Sandpiper Tringa stagnatilis 50,014 102,439 130,457 Breeding range & density 130,000 Oriental Plover Charadrius veredus 190,388 232,124 160,468 Extrapolated count 230,000 Oriental Pratincole Glareola maldivarum 588,972 587,051 1,274,398 Existing estimate ‡‡ 2,880,000

13 Australian National Directory of Important Migratory Shorebird Habitat: Discussion

Estimate directly from Estimate with Estimate based on Final population Common Name Scientific Name counts & other data spatial breeding range & Final estimate basis estimate sources extrapolations density Pacific Golden Plover Pluvialis fulva 66,402 122,379 176,009 Extrapolated count 120,000 Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos 89 78 # 231,533 Existing estimate † 1,220,000-1,930,000 Pin-tailed Snipe Gallinago stenura 6 10 # 168,125 Breeding range & density 170,000 Red Knot Calidris canutus 97,005 112,920 147,501 Extrapolated count 110,000 Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus 50 98 # 249,671 Breeding range & density 250,000 Red-necked Stint Calidris ruficollis 282,882 477,990 285,343 Extrapolated count 475,000 Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres 24,191 29,367 30,670 Extrapolated count 30,000 Ruff Calidris pugnax 3 5 # 271,526 Existing estimate † 25,000-100,000 Sanderling Calidris alba 22,554 29,835 33,605 Extrapolated count 30,000 Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminate 71,642 85,829 120,684 Extrapolated count 85,000 Swinhoe's Snipe Gallinago megala 22 68 # 41,511 Breeding range & density 40,000 Terek Sandpiper Xenus cinereus 30,761 49,949 54,265 Extrapolated count 50,000 Wandering Tattler Tringa incana 322 400 # 58,456 Existing estimate †† 10,000-25,000 Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus 38,208 66,701 48,364 Extrapolated count 65,000 Wood Sandpiper Tringa glareola 9717 15,249 127,339 Breeding range & density 130,000 2,892,898 3,953,332 6,329,059 # extrapolations unrepresentative as count data insufficient to derive estimates for these species. † WPE5 (Wetlands International 2016) †† WPE5 (Wetlands International 2016); 10,000 (Morrison et al. 2001) ‡ Applies a trend correction (Amano et al. 2012) to 1986 estimate (36,000) from the breeding grounds ‡‡ Uses previous population estimate (Bamford et al. 2008) Population size rounding: <10 000 nearest 500; 10 000 – 25 000 nearest 1 000; 25 000 – 100 000 nearest 5 000; 100 000 – 250 000 nearest 10 000; >250 000 nearest 25 000.

14 Australian National Directory of Important Migratory Shorebird Habitat: Discussion