Managing Wetlands for Waterbirds: How Managers Can Make a Difference in Improving Habitat to Support a North American Bird Conservation Plan R. Michael Erwin Murray K. Laubhan John E. Cornely Dana M. Bradshaw Abstract—Wetlands are the most productive ecosystems in the to ensure that a diverse array of waterbird species will benefit. world, yet they have suffered more loss and degradation than any Efforts also should be devoted to developing similar partnerships in other ecosystem. Not surprisingly, 50% (29 of 58) of all the bird areas where important wetland resources exist but no Joint Ven- species in the United States (excluding Hawaii and territories) that tures are planned. are listed either as federally threatened or endangered, or are on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995 List of Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern, occupy wetland or aquatic habitats Although wetlands are widely recognized as among the even though many remaining wetlands across the North American most productive ecosystems globally, wetland loss continues landscape already are managed primarily for waterbirds. Some of both in North America and throughout the world, owing these wetlands are administered by federal and state entities (e.g., largely to a burgeoning human population and the concomi- national wildlife refuges, national and state parks, state wetland tant conversion of natural wetlands for human uses. For management areas) or are maintained on private lands through example, the Bay of Fundy is a critical habitat for shorebirds federally supported restoration and enhancement programs (e.g., during migration (Morrison and others 1994) but is threat- Conservation Reserve Program, Wetland Reserve Program, Water- ened with both hydroelectric development and harvesting of fowl Production Areas, and Partners for Wildlife). Private organiza- polychaete worms (major shorebird prey) for sport fishing tions, such as the National Audubon Society, The Nature Conser- (P. Hicklin, Canadian Wildlife Service, personal communi- vancy, and private hunting clubs also own wetland areas that are cation). Similarly, James and western Hudson Bays are the managed specifically to benefit wildlife. If management philoso- subjects of major water development planning, despite their phies are altered to consider the entire complex of wetlands, many roles as major nesting and migration areas for geese and a wetlands can provide benefits to a broad array of waterbirds, as number of species of shorebirds. The prairie pothole region opposed to just one or a few species. However, challenges for natural of Saskatchewan and Manitoba are part of a Canadian resource managers are in forming partnerships with owners-man- prairie habitat joint venture (JV) under the North American agers of wetlands where the objectives are not primarily wildlife Waterfowl Management Plan (NAWMP[USFWS 1986]). The oriented. These owners or managers need to be included in wetland region has been recognized internationally as one of the training workshops in an attempt to educate them about wetland premier nesting grounds for many diving and dabbling values and secondary wildlife benefits that may be derived in ducks, and it also provides habitat for endangered Piping flooded agricultural lands, aquaculture ponds, altered coastal Plovers (Charadrius melodus). This area historically has marshes (mosquito control), and salt evaporation ponds. In some faced numerous conversions of potholes to croplands. The cases, compensation for crop damages by wildlife may be a neces- western Canadian regions of most concern are the Fraser sary part of any cooperative agreements. In the development of a River corridor and delta and the adjacent Vancouver Island North American Bird Conservation Plan, we propose a four-step region. Development and growth is rapid in that region, and approach and recommend that emphasis be placed on working with intense logging occurs along the Fraser. The region is well Joint Ventures of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan known for its wintering waterfowl and marine bird concen- trations (Vermeer and Butler 1989). Similar examples are numerous throughout most of North America. However, In: Bonney, Rick; Pashley, David N.; Cooper, Robert J.; Niles, Larry, eds. 2000. Strategies for bird conservation: The Partners in Flight plan- during the past two decades, many federal, provincial, and ning process; Proceedings of the 3rd Partners in Flight Workshop; 1995 state programs have been initiated to provide economic October 1-5; Cape May, NJ. Proceedings RMRS-P-16. Ogden, UT: U.S. incentives for wetland conservation in an attempt to achieve Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Station. a “no net loss” of wetlands (The Conservation Foundation R. Michael Erwin, Biological Resources Division, USGS, Patuxent Wild- 1988). These earlier losses of wetlands, and recent changes life Research Center-Charlottesville Office, Department of Environmental Sciences, Clark Hall, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903. in the status of wetlands, have broad implications to wildlife. Murray K. Laubhan, Biological Resources Division, USGS, Midcontinent In this paper we review the status of wetlands as habitats Ecological Science Center, Fort Collins, CO 80525. John E. Cornely, U.S. for waterbirds (defined as waterfowl, colonial waterbirds, Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6, P.O. Box 25486, Denver Federal Center, Denver, CO 80225. Dana M. Bradshaw, Center for Conservation Biology, shorebirds, and rails and allies). We focus on species whose College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia 23185. 82 USDA Forest Service Proceedings RMRS-P-16. 2000 status is of concern either regionally or nationally, and on aquatic-dependent, while the comparable figures from the current wetland management practices that are detrimen- OMBM list are 14 of 23 species. tal to wetland birds. We identify gaps in our knowledge of The habitats used by these species suggest that the major- ecological principles for managing habitats for waterbirds, ity are associated with freshwater (interior) marshes or and conclude with recommendations for improving wet- coastal beaches and/or islands. These are habitats that have land management to enhance waterbird populations. been among the most affected by humans, either by direct disturbance (beaches) or indirectly by agricultural conver- sions (freshwater marshes). In addition, interior marshes and Status of Species and Associated coastal areas often are intensively managed, suggesting that Wetlands ______________________ current habitat management practices should be evaluated relative to providing benefits to a diversity of species. For We consulted two recent publications to identify the major example, many of the major wetland complexes listed for the waterbird species of concern in North America: The 1994 list U.S. already are included under JVs in the NAWMP (table 2). of endangered and threatened wildlife and plants (USFWS However, the Atlantic Coast Habitat Joint Venture focuses on 1994b) and the 1995 List of Migratory Nongame Birds of American Black Ducks (Anas rubripes). Separate (but un- Management Concern (Office of Migratory Bird Manage- equal) programs are directed at restoration of the endangered ment [OMBM] 1995). These lists indicate that more than Piping Plover, and at monitoring certain declining colonial 50% of birds of concern in the U.S. are associated with either waterbird species in the mid-Atlantic barrier region. wetlands or aquatic habitats (table 1) (Canada and Mexico During the past decade, however, the scope of habitats and do not have formal endangered species listings). The federal avian species being considered has been increasing. For endangered and threatened list includes 16 of 35 species (not example, discussions are under way (C. Hunter, USFWS, including Hawaii or trust territories) that are wetland or personal communication) to form a JV for part of the extensive Table 1—List of wetland/aquatic bird species of concern in the United States. Habitat Common name Scientific name Wetland Aquatica Federal threatened/endangered b California Brown Pelican Pelecanus occidentalis X Wood Stork Mycteria americana X Spectacled Eider Somateria fischeri X Everglade Snail Kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus X Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus X Light-footed Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris levipes X Yuma Clapper Rail Rallus longirostris yumanensis X Whooping Crane Grus americana X Mississippi Sandhill Crane Grus canadensis pulla X Western Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus X Piping Plover Charadrius melodus X (Interior) Least Tern Sterna antillarum athalassos X California Least Tern Sterna antillarum browniX Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii dougallii X Marbled Murrelet Brachyramphus marmoratus marmoratus X Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis X USFWS Listc Common Loon Gavia immer X American Bittern Botaurus lentiginosus X Least Bittern Ixobrychus exilis X Reddish Egret Egretta rufescens X White-faced Ibis Plegadis chihi X Trumpeter Swan Cygnus buccinator X Northern Harrier Circus cyaneus X Red-shouldered Hawk Buteo lineatus X Black Rail Laterallus jamaicensis X Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus X Bristle-thighed Curlew Numenius tahitiensis X Black Tern Chlidonias niger X Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulea X Seaside Sparrow Ammodramus maritimus X a"Aquatic” refers to primary use of lake, river, and/or marine habitats. bUnited States Fish and Wildlife Service (1994). cOffice