Department of Defense Legacy Resource ...

7 downloads 0 Views 13MB Size Report
Precise stopover times for one Panama bird in Mexico. ..... data were shared among all interested parties during the life of the project. ...... Murrieta Hot Springs. 2 ...... Western Sandpipers and 400+ Long-billed Dowitchers at the San Joaquin ...
Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program

PROJECT NUMBER 03-199 to 07-199

A Multinational Study of Neotropical Migrants, the Western Sandpiper as an example, 2004-2008 Patricia Baird KAHILTNA RESEARCH GROUP & SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Long Beach California and Burnaby, B.C., Canada December 2009

This document is unclassified and may be released to the public.

A Multinational Study of Neotropical Migrants, the Western Sandpiper as an example 2004-2008

Background: Global climate change affects ecosystems, habitats, and populations, and to even begin to understand this requires studying discrete pieces of the system and and asking simple questions. Migrating birds often travel vast distances, crossing many countries and ecosystems, and provide a good study group to use as an index to environmental change. Knowledge of the routes of migrating birds, both historically, and currently, presents a good comparison for broad analysis, and gives managers and scientists necessary information for not only a better understanding of trends in populations, timing of various uses on these lands, and global change, but also this knowledge provides background material for scientists, land managers, government officials, and the like, to make strong decisions about management and proposed use of various lands. Recent analyses of shorebird census data in North America indicate widespread ongoing declining trends, giving ample reason for concern about the population health of many of the species in this group. Shorebirds such as the Semipalmated Sandpiper (Calidris pusillus) show census declines in both the eastern and midwestern parts of the continent. West coast data indicate that, like many other shorebirds, census tallies for Western Sandpipers (Calidris mauri) show a longterm decline. This study on Western Sandpipers, a species similar to Semipalmated Sandpipers in the east, will give us a muchneeded look at the western flyway. Various hypotheses for population declines have been suggested, such as an increase in predators, degradation and/or fragmentation of habitat, or toxins in the environment. An alternative hypothesis is a shift in migration from historical routes, which would produce a recorded decline in numbers at historical stopover sites, but which in reality might not be a true population decline if birds have shifted to new sites. Because populations of Neotropical migrant shorebird have been decreasing over the past 20 years, we chose the Western Sandpiper, a ubiquitous and numerous species which co-occurs with a myriad of other shorebird species, to be a model of this migration. Understanding Western Sandpiper’s use of wetlands and its migratory ecology will help to advance understanding of other shorebird species with similar ecology, and will help to address a broad range of problems in the conservation of migratory birds and their North American Pacific coastal habitats.

Project # 03-199 to 07-199

Many people have assumed that the DoD lands along the coast of California major stopping-off places for migrant shorebirds. When these shorebirds are present in March and halted near their staging areas, thus interfering with military readiness. Our research team wanted to determine if this assumption was true. If a majority of these birds stage elsewhere, DoD’s required actions might be different. Objective: The objectives of our project are to: 1. Compare migration information on western sandpipers on temporal and spatial use of wetlands on DoD and non-military lands and use this information as a model for other migratory shorebirds. 2. Establish educational public outreach to increase public appreciation and awareness of and support for national environmental initiatives and understand the role that the DoD plays. 3. Design a management plan for DoD to help them remain good stewards of DoD-controlled or managed air, land and water resources with respect to migratory shorebirds. Summary of Approach We developed a partnership among federal, state and private institutions in Canada, the United States, Mexico and Panama to obtain the best information to help the DoD and other managers conserve and manage shorebird populations. Our approach covers an entire migratory ecosystem of wetlands across these four countries. The migratory pathway functions as a whole, so that concomitant parts must all be studied together. We coordinated researchers from four countries to identify the information we need. The project addresses priorities of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN) and both the Western and International Shorebird Surveys. Our approach will help maximize military training and operation opportunities by giving DoD the tools to manage the timing of military training and use of DoD land by migrating shorebirds. Benefits: Our project includes support of the Legacy Program’s Area of Emphasis for: 1) long-term monitoring of migratory bird and animal habitat use and survivorship; 2) monitoring and predictive modeling of movements during migration and in response to training activities using

Defending Our Nation's Resources ▪ DoD Conservation Program

conventional radio-tracking with specially coded radios (a cutting-edge design); 3) monitoring of birds on training lands, which complies with DoD’s legal requirements. Additionally, results from out study will help protect natural resources on DoD lands for future generations, (part of the defense mission of the DoD), by discovering information about current and historical Neotropical use of and timing at DoD and other wetlands. This information will allow the DoD to develop a program that protects and enhances these resources, while maximizing military training and operation opportunities. Accomplishments: During our four years of field research, we followed Western Sandpipers via radio transmitter signals from their major overwintering area in Panama Bay, Panama, to one of their last stopover sites before their Alaska breeding grounds, in British Columbia, Canada. In the fourth year, we listened for them in Alaska on their way to their breeding grounds. We tested four assumptions to attempt to explain the decrease in migratory shorebird populations: 1. Birds are utilizing historical stopover sites and migration routes. This question could easily be answered by radio-tagging the birds and relocating them by following them up the coast to one of their last stopover sites in British Columbia, Canada. 2. Currently used habitats have suffered habitat destruction or alteration compared to historical habitats. 3. Raptors such as Peregrine Falcons have steadily increased populations since the 1980’s (since DDT was banned in the U.S.). A large part of the diet of some of these raptors used to be shorebirds. 4. Stopover sites are contaminated with heavy metals. There are no environmental controls for heavy metals in Panama, and enforcement is difficult in Mexico. We radio-tagged, color-marked and banded Western Sandpipers in two major overwintering areas for Western Sandpipers: Panama Bay (Panama) and Bahia Santa Maria near Culiacán (Mexico). Each radio had a unique code that we could hear from land, a plane or a boat. We marked Panama birds with blue breasts and Mexico birds with green. We alerted bird observation networks along the entire migratory path via email, with pictures of what the birds looked like, so both professional and amateur birders could recognize our birds. We also had a vast volunteer network of researchers in Mexico, southern and northern California, Oregon,Washington, and Canada listening for our birds during their surveys. This way we would increase the ability of detection of birds which had not stopped over in the areas where we were surveying via plane or car.

Nobody sight ed these birds, which empahsizes that radio-tagging is the best way to locate marked birds. We found both Panama and Mexico birds in California, Washington, and Canada. In California, we found Western Sandpipers in areas where we would not have expected to find them – in very small wetlands-- isolated from large flocks of birds, thus supporting our theory of change in migration route. We surveyed appropriate Western Sandpiper habitat on both DoD and non-military sites and found the majority of birds on non-DoD sites, even though the DoD owns some of the best wetlands for shorebirds in California. The most highly used DoD site was Mugu Lagoon at Mugu Naval Air Station, which was used all years by Panama and Mexico-tagged birds. Vandenberg ‘s Santa Clara estuary and the Salinas River near Camp Roberts had small numbers of sandpipers. The Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, DoD wetlands in San Diego Bay, and Camp Pendleton had few of the Mexicoor Panama-tagged birds, although there were small numbers of sandpipers present. Three of the more important discoveries were:1) The use of atypical habitat;2) The relocation of one bird three times: once in Canada and twice in California; and 3) Precise stopover times for one Panama bird in Mexico. The knowledge that we obtained from ProNatura about this particularly important non-protected site in Mexico has really contributed to our understanding of this important area. We now have travel times for one bird over more than 6000 km, from Panama to Canada. More of this can be seen on the DoDIF website. Representatives of Partners in Flight (PIF) provided significant support to this project: Beatriz Schmidt (PIF Panama) and Tim Burr and Chris Eberly (DoD PIF). The Canadian Wildlife Service, Simon Fraser University in Canada, ProNatura, Panama Audubon, the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, the University of Panama, Technological University of Monterrey at Culiacan and National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mazatlan , Environmental Flying Services, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Geological Survey and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife all contributed in-kind assistance to our project. Contact Information: Patricia Baird, Ph.D. Director Kahiltna Research Group California State University Long Beach California and Simon Fraser University Burnaby B.C. Canada 125-A 1030 Denman Street Suite #108 Vancouver B.C. V6G 2M6 Canada Tel: 604-928-5510 Fax: 604-689-1051 Email: [email protected]

Defending Our Nation's Resources ▪ DoD Conservation Program

Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program PROJECT NUMBER 03-199 to 07-199 Multinational Study of Neotropical Migrants: the western sandpiper as a Model 2004-2008 Patricia A. Baird Kahiltna Research Group California State University Long Beach and Simon Fraser University, Canada 28 February 2010

FINAL REPORT Legacy Program, Department of Defense "A Multinational Study of Neotropical Migrants, the Western Sandpiper as an example, 2004-2008" by Patricia Baird, Ph.D. Kahiltna Research Group California State University Long Beach California and Centre for Wildlife Ecology Simon Fraser University Burnaby, Canada December 2009 In partial fulfillment of our Legacy Project No: 03-199 to 07-199 for work done 2004 - 2008

Contact Information: Patricia Baird, Ph.D. Centre for Wildlife Ecology – Simon Fraser University Burnaby B.C. V5A 1S6 Canada Phone: 604-928-5510 Fax: 604-689-1051, Email: [email protected]

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

ABSTRACT We used telemetry and visual observations to identify important stopover sites used by western sandpipers migrating from their major overwintering area in Panama Bay, north through Mexico to the United States during spring from 2005 through 2008. This tracking project is part of a research effort to discover possible alternate migratory routes and to document use of historical and new stopover sites, connecting breeding and winter areas, critical to the conservation of this species. In the United States, we tracked them through California to Washington state, into Vancouver Canada, and on to their final pre-nesting staging grounds in Alaska. We used the common and ubiquitous western sandpipers as a model for many other rarer shorebirds, or shorebirds who are restricted in range, yet which utilize similar habitats. We then contrasted the habitat features of these stopover sites, and timing of stopover, to those of both historical non-military and DoD-only sites to determine habitat attributes corresponding to use by migrating western sandpipers. We identified 37 important stopover sites in the United States, two in Canada, and 16 in Mexico, based on their use by radio-tagged birds. Important stopover sites were varied, and included proximity to inland flooded agricultural fields, coastal estuaries and lagoons, and shorelines of rivers. The pattern of use from 2005-2008 differed from historical patterns. In Panama, western sandpipers remained in the same bay where we captured them until leaving on their migration north. In Mexico, Panama birds always stopped in a small suite of adjacent lagoons in the northern area of Las Marismas, the National Wetlands. Occasionally, they were also detected north of this, in wetlands near Culiacan/Bahia Santa Maria. North of these wetlands in Mexico, we detected few sandpipers tagged in Panama. In southern California, tagged western sandpipers did not solely use historical wetlands like Newport Back Bay, Mugu Air Station, and San Diego Bay, but instead stopped off coastally at river estuaries like the Santa Maria River or in flooded fields along river beds. They also used mudflats of a variety of sizes, from shores of small lagoons, e.g. Batiquitos Lagoon, to large mudflats like those at the Point Mugu Air Station. The use of small wetlands scattered throughout the coast was a new finding. Use of flooded agricultural areas in particular, while not a new finding, showed the importance of irrigated fields near rivers, as well as fields in the Central Valley of California. We conclude that the resource availability within sites not reported to have much use historically, such as river mouths, or small lagoons, as well as agricultural fields, are consistently important for western sandpipers and other small shorebirds. Other species of shorebirds normally foraged alongside western sandpipers in these areas, an indication that these stopover sites are indeed good for many migratory species. These data supported our hypothesis that western sandpipers can be used as indicators of good habitat for other species which are harder to find due to their smaller population sizes and more restricted ranges. Both DoD and civilian land thus provide unique and potentially critical stopover habitat for spring migrating sandpipers. Our work defines specific sites that deserve conservation consideration for managers. California’s Central Valley, from Bakersfield north to Fresno, and Las Marismas, especially El Caimanero Laguna in the Mexican state of Sinaloa, were identified as being exceptionally important stopover sites for western sandpipers migrating from their main southern overwintering area in Costa del Este of Panama Bay. Almost all birds radio-tagged in Panama stopped over at Las Marismas for up to five days. Approximately half of the birds stopping in California spent time in the Central Valley, and they used this area for extended periods of up to 5 days. KEY WORDS western sandpiper, Calidris mauri, radio-telemetry, Panama, Mexico, California, British Columbia, Alaska, spring migration, stopover, habitat

INTRODUCTION 2

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

This project, A Multinational Study of Neotropical Migrants-- the western sandpiper as a model, is a summary of 5 years’ work on the determination of current migratory routes and stopover sites , and a comparison of these with historical routes and sites. The purpose of this project was to provide information for sound management of migratory stopover sites, both DoD and non-military lands, during the short time that migrant shorebirds pass through the Continental United States from their major overwintering grounds which are in Panama and Mexico, to their breeding sites in Alaska. This knowledge will help managers keep common birds common, and their population numbers at healthy levels. Current timing of migration and routes of western sandpipers provide an indicator of timing and routes of many other shorebird migrants because western sandpipers utilize the same habitat of the majority of other shorebird migrants and can be used as a model for them. Western sandpiper populations are larger and easier to locate than those of many other species, and, because of this, we used them as a model species. Users of this report may include site managers, permit reviewers, biologists, resource managers, government agencies, and the general public. Users of this report can then determine the best ways to manage the habitat, the resources, and the human use of the habitat so that shorebird migration can continue undisturbed, and that common species will remain common, and rare species will not decrease, with best management practices gleaned from our research. Migratory shorebirds coexist with people in one of the more heavily industrialized and urban migratory flyways, the west coast of the united States, and specifically, southern California. This study has highlighted the most important stopover sites there, both historical and current, as well as the peak noirthward migration time of these Neotropical migrants. This information will be helpful to all landowners, military or not, for best management practices. When necessary, restoration opportunities or best management practices have been noted throughout.

BACKGROUND Global change in climate, in ecosystems, in various habitats, in animal and plant populations, has been in the news forefront in recent years. The source of these changes is a subject of much research and discussion. In order to approach even a beginning understanding of a piece of the complex system requires breaking the study of all of these into discrete pieces which can be easily studied, and which have as a goal, a simple question that can be answered. A knowledge of more than just limited geographic areas or species should be sought for these answers. The choice must then be made of the geographic area to cover, as well as the species or group of species. Migratory birds seem a logical group for investigation. Birds in their migration often travel vast distances, crossing many countries and ecosystems, and provide a good study group to use as an index to environmental change. The knowledge of the routes of migrating birds, both historically, and currently, presents a good comparison for broad analysis, and gives managers and scientists necessary information for not only a better understanding of trends in populations, timing of various uses on these lands, and global change, but also this knowledge provides background material for scientists, land managers, government officials, and the like, to make strong decisions about management and proposed use of various lands. The Americas range from the arctic to the sub-Antarctic, include 23 countries, and a myriad of habitat types over a 33,000 km (22,000 mi) extent. Inter-American conservation plans for the area, with over 340 migratory bird species ranging throughout, are extremely important for consideration. Our choice of the Americas for a migration study was made for the following reasons: 1) the Americas provide critical breeding and non-breeding habitat for millions of Neotropical migrants each year; 2) there are large data gaps in the knowledge of migration patterns from Central America and Mexico to the west coast of the United States; 3) the up-to-date knowledge of any changes in known migration timing, 3

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

stopover site choice, or habitat changes in historic stopover sites in the United States, as well as south of the U.S., would provide managers and scientists with valuable information they could use in management, cooperation and enforcement of international agreements and treaties. Likewise, vast tracts of land are owned by the U.S. Department of Defense along the west coast of the United States, and historically, many shorebird migrants have used these. It was not known how important these lands are today to the birds, or if migrants have begun to utilize new habitats heretofore unknown or unpublished. Our study began to answer this question. Birds are an important component of species in North America, (Canada, the United States, and Mexico). The North American Bird Conservation Initiative states that about 20% of the world’s birds inhabit North America (882 species Berlanga et al. 2010) and that if Central America is included, this number would increase substantially. One strong question to ask about birds that would cover a variety of habitats over a broad part of the Americas would be “have migratory routes of birds changed over the last thirty to forty years?” Bird species that migrate between North and South America are many, and are called Neotropical migrants. Neotropical migrants(337 species, Berlanga et al. 2010) include species such as raptors (e.g. hawks & buteos), passerines (e.g. warblers and orioles), and waterbirds (e.g. plovers, sandpipers, gulls and terns). Depending on the continent on which they breed or overwinter, some of these birds make one-way trip migrations of up to 50,000 (e.g. arctic tern Sterna paradisea averages 70,900 km (44,000 miles ), red knot Calidris canutus averages 27,000 km (16,777 mi)) each year between their breeding grounds in the northern hemisphere and their non-breeding areas in the southern hemisphere, crossing many countries and ecosystems. They make these trips quickly (e.g. over several weeks), stopping briefly to rest and refuel (Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology, Ellis 2010a,b, GridArendel UNEP, and www.LiveScience.com 2010, ). An overview study of one of these groups of birds, determining current migratory routes and comparing them to historical ones, noting any stopover sites, and time of migration through these sites, would be valuable information, and would contribute to the body of knowledge of global climate change. Migratory birds rely on energy stores to lay eggs and incubate them, and they obtain this energy both at the breeding site and on the migration route. Energy stores acquired at stopover sites are of crucial importance for both survival and breeding of migratory birds, and any ‘mismatch’ caused by uncoupling of rates of climate change along the migratory pathway may have profound effects on the population level (Drent 2006). A change in stopover sites along the route may have profound implications for energy uptake for these migrants. Shorebirds (Order Charadriiformes) are a group of mainly migratory birds which use a variety of habitats during annual spring and fall migrations to and from their breeding grounds. Many of them overwinter in Neotropical areas, i.e. South and Central America, the Caribbean, and Mexico, but fly through the United States to nest in more northern latitudes, often in the northern tier of the continental United States, Canada, or Alaska. Western sandpipers are a common migratory shorebird found throughout the western flyway during April on their northward migration to their breeding grounds, and on their southward migration back to their wintering grounds. These Neotropical migrants have had their stopover sites rapidly diminish in recent years, and many of the 340-plus migrating species in Central and North America are in rapid decline. To date, efforts and resources and conservation actions have concentrated on breeding habitats in the north, where pressures are acute, but where environmental laws protecting them are strong. However, the apparent recent decrease in numbers might be because that migrants are failing to return to breed, due to the destruction of habitat in their wintering areas or stopover sites outside of the United States. Therefore, we proposed a multinational study of Neotropical migrants using the western sandpiper as a model, looking at their migration stopover sites from Panama to Alaska, both historically, and today. Addressing the importance of the Americas, on 17 May 2010, Canada, Mexico and the United States announced their intent on 17 May 2010, to strengthen cooperation on bird conservation throughout the Americas and Caribbean. The North American Bird Conservation Initiative Declaration of Intent 4

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

protects North American birds throughout their ranges and habitats (North, Central, and South America), in wintering, breeding, and migration habitat. Examples of these birds include species of plovers, terns, hawks, cranes, warblers and sparrows. This initiative was prompted by the recent rapid decline of many migratory bird species in recent decades. One of the PIF’s missions is to keep common species common, a goal which is important for maintaining biodiversity and to the “integrity of the ecosystems of which they are a part.” The point is not to have common species dip to the “at-risk” category, and in helping in this goal the DoD aims to maintain diverse natural resources on their lands. In the late 20th Century, DoD lands have increasingly become more and more important as refuges for species as human development on natural habitat increases on non-DoD land. Quality and quantity of civilian-owned habitats has decreased, not only by increased fragmentation, and thus more edges and less central areas, but also by transformation (e.g. into golf courses, marinas), and environmental degradation, (e.g. runoff filled with fertilizers, pesticides, and hydrocarbon or heavy metal by-products). California, for example, has lost over 90% of its wetlands since the mid-1800’s, but the DoD owns vast tracts of land, 17,519.796 sq km , or 4.13% of all of the land in California, many of which are important for migrating shorebirds. The majority of large wetlands and many river estuaries in California are on DoD lands. Another mission of Partners in Flight is to help species at risk, but in our study, because other species of shorebirds co-occur with western sandpipers, understanding the migration of westerns give us an insight on how to aid co-existing species at risk. The objective of our study was to provide information on timing and on habitat use by a common species, the western sandpiper, so that the migration timing and habitat use by less common species with whom it co-occurs would also thus be known. THE LEGACY PROGRAM Summary of Approach This was a DoD Legacy project. The purpose of the Legacy Program is to conserve resources proactively. It encourages cooperative international partnerships. These resources include Neotropical migrants which touch down on North American soil for only a brief time during their annual cycle. The Legacy Program promotes ecosystem management projects, recognizing that the environment functions as a whole, and parts of it cannot be isolated. Therefore, our project on discovering current migration routes of Neotropical shorebirds, was ideal to meet the goals of the Legacy Program. Benefit Our project supported many Areas of Emphasis of the Legacy Program for the years FY 2004-2008, for it included 1) long-term monitoring of migratory bird and animal habitat use and survivorship; 2) monitoring and predictive modeling of movements during migration and in response to training activities using conventional radio-tracking with specially coded radios that were a cutting-edge design; 3) monitoring of waterbirds on training lands, which complies with DoD’s legal requirements. Results from this study will help protect natural resources on DoD lands for future generations, (part of the defense mission of the DoD), by discovering information about current and historical Neotropical migrant use of and timing at DoD and other wetlands. This information will allow the DoD to develop a program that protects and enhances these resources, while maximizing military training and operation opportunities. Our approach was to first establish a partnership among federal, state and private institutions in the three North American countries and Panama, in order to obtain the best information to help the DoD and other managers conserve and manage shorebird populations. The area we had to cover was so large, that partnering to locate the birds was our only option. We needed partners to help us in finding our tagged birds. Likewise, migrating western sandpipers cover an entire migratory ecosystem of 5

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

wetlands, across four countries, and because this migratory pathway functions as a whole, the concomitant parts must all be studied together. Thus, this system is a model for international partnerships. Our study was a true partnership among many players in four countries: Panama, Mexico, the United States, and Canada. Researchers from all countries were kept informed on our research and the results of our study. This information has been available to them to implement objectives of any conservation plans. These partnerships also provided to us personnel as well as facilities to aid in our research, so they were as much a part of our study as any of the primary researchers.

INTERNATIONAL COOPERATORS AND PARTNERS Migrating shorebirds which overwinter in Panama, and which nest in Alaska, travel through Mexico and the continental United States. Protection of flyways, and of the birds themselves, does not stop at the borders (USFWS Shorebird Plan 2009). Other countries must be involved in the care of the United State’s natural resources. We created partnerships with governmental agencies and NGOs in all four countries: Panama, Mexico, the United States, and Canada. We partnered with six universities in three countries, (University of Panama, Technological University of Monterrey at Culiacan Mexico [Universidad Tecnológico de Monterrey, Culiacan] , the National Autonomous University of Mexico in Mazatlan [Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México], California State University Long Beach, the University of Toronto, and Simon Fraser University in Canada). We trained students from each university in our techniques, and they were able to obtain credit at their universities for working with us. Because our project built an international team of researchers from Panama through southern Alaska, data were shared among all interested parties during the life of the project. In the future, these data may be used in cooperation for shorebird management along the western flyway. The information in this report can help in the coordination of management of these international wetland resources on a broad and integrated scale. Partners Panama We partnered with NGOs and the University in Panama (Figs. 1-3). Director Rosabel Miro and Karl Kaufman of the Panama Audubon society, is a very strong NGO in Panama, provided us with very qualified assistants, and helped in finding possible alternate areas where shorebirds might be overwintering. They helped with access and in facilitating logistics connected with the program there. We partnered with ANAM, El Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (The National Authority of the Environment -- an equivalent of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service). ANAM provided us with all necessary permits in Panama. We also partnered with the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI), in Panama City. It was the United States’ entity through which we worked. They provided housing, transportation, and facilitated our obtaining permits through ANAM. They gave us lab space for our heavy metal work and soils analysis, and facilitated our being able to have student assistants from the University of Panama. The University of Panama provided six students over the four years we worked in Panama. Two of those were present all years. They were not only trained in our techniques, but they were also able to obtain credit at the University for working with us. In addition, we partnered with Partners in Flight Panama (PIF). The main goals of Partners in Flight focus on the resources of international conservation partnerships aiding the long-term health of birds and their habitats throughout the Western Hemisphere. Since 1991, the Legacy Program has spent over $15 million on projects that benefit the goals of Partners in Flight. At Costa del Este, PIF’s representative, Beatriz Schmidt, participated in the banding effort, and organized children’s groups to help release the

6

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

birds once tagged. She and I cooperated in a Public Relations campaign to align the local schools in bird counts each spring. The USDA, United States Department of Agriculture, had just established a field office in Panama City the last year of our project there, and if we had had funding for the next year, they would have cooperated with us in the tagging effort. Researchers from the USDA visited our site and wanted to collaborate. Figure 1. Partners in Panamá 2005-2006. Costa del Este

L to R: Tim Burr, USN retired, USA, Angel Sosa, Univ. of Panama, Pat Baird, Simon Fraser University, Canada, Ovidio Jaramillo & Maribel Tejeda, Univ. of Panama

Figure 2. Partners in Panama 2007-2008; Reading a USGS band and radio number, and measuring sandpipers.

L to R: Timothy Burr, U.S., Arcelys Pitti Wong, Panamá, Nayrit Montenegro, Panamá

7

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Figure 3. Partners in Panama 2007-2008. Training students in Panama how to measure birds

L to R: Patricia Baird, Simon Fraser University, Canada, Tim Burr, USN retired, USA, Arcelys Pitti Wong, and Nayrit Montenegro, University of Panama

Partners Mexico Two universities in Mexico provided us with two professors, Xico Vega (also from Pro Natura, see below) and Guillermo Fernandez, and eight of their students, two of which assisted for four years on surveys in Mexico and California. The Monterrey Institute of Technology and Higher Education-”Tec de Monterrey” (Instituto Tecnológico y de Estudios Superiores de Monterrey, ITESM) provided seven of Professor Xico Vega’s students for the radio-tagging project around Bahia Santa Maria, and, without whose help, we could never have accomplished bird captures and tagging. Miguel Gueverra, also from Tec de Monterrey, helped with aerial and ground surveys in Mexico and California in 2005 and 2006. Professor Guillermo Fernandez and his student Luis Fernando Sauma Castillo from the Universidad Nacional Autónoma de Mexico at Mazatlan helped us with aerial surveys around Mazatlan and Las Marismas in 2007 and 2008. We partnered with an NGO and two universities in Mexico (Figs. 4-8), Pro Natura, an important NGO in Mexico, with Xico Vega as the director. He was instrumental in helping us to locate the best places to trap the birds at Bahia Santa Maria, a major overwintering site, and to show us other areas where they might stop over during migration. He also sent us colleagues from Pro Natura who were very well versed in sandpiper ecology. Xico Vega also surveyed for us in at the Copper River Delta and Prince William Sound in Alaska in 2006.

8

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Figure 4. Guillermo Fernández, UNAM , Mazatlán

Figure 5. G. Fernández at Las Marismas

Figure 6. Xico Vega and Madelyn Dillon assisting in radio-tagging, México, Bahía Santa María

L to R: Pat Baird, Madelyn Dillon, U.S. Forest Service, Xico Vega, National Autonomous University of Mexico Culiacan, and Pro Natura Sinaloa. Photo by Tim Burr

Figure 7. Searching for birds, Mexico

9

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

L to R: Miguel Guevara, Tec de Monterrey Sinaloa (ITESM), and Xico Vega, ITESM, and Pro Natura

Partners USA In California, Alaska, and Mexico, we partnered with the U.S. Forest Service. Madelyn Dillon, USFS Washington state, helped radio-tag at Bahia Santa Maria Mexico (Fig. 6). Sherri Miller and Linda Long, surveyed Humboldt Bay, California. In Alaska, our partners were Neil Dawson and Maryanne Bishop, U.S. Forest Service, who surveyed out of the Copper River Delta and Prince William Sound. We also partnered with the California, Oregon, and Washington Audubon Societies who sent out bulletins to their memberships to look for our tagged and marked birds during their regular birding surveys. In southern California, we partnered with the Bolsa Chica Land Trust, (an NGO), and the California Department of Fish and Game at Bolsa Chica, an historical migratory stopover site. The California Department of Fish and Game listened on the ground for our birds there when we were flying elsewhere. Figure 8. Survey team 2005, Long Beach, California

L to R: Miguel Guevara, Biologist, Univ. Tec de Monterrey, Mike Morrison, pilot, Long Beach California

10

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

The USFWS San Francisco Bay, the San Francisco Wildlife Refuge, and the USGS at San Francisco, listened for our birds in the San Francisco Bay area during their shorebird surveys. The Josh Adams, USGS, listened in Bodega Bay, Bolinas Lagoon, and Drakes Estero. We also partnered with Laurelcrest School in Long Beach California who sent a volunteer to help us in Panama. In Oregon, we partnered with the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service (Roy Lowe, David Ledig), and in Washington we partnered with the Washington State Fish and Wildlife (Lora Leschner). The DoD (USN San Diego, Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station, USMC Mugu and Camp Pendleton) supported us in California, enabling us to listen for our birds on their land, giving us overflight permission, and personnel helped listen for our birds. Bob Schallenberger (Seal Beach NWS), Dave Bennett and Nancy Mitton, (Camp Pendleton), and James Connely (Mugu NAS) helped us with access and overflight permission, and James Connely helped listen for our birds at Mugus NAS. California State University Long Beach provided field researchers, in-kind support, and analysis of samples through IIRMES (The Institute for Integrated Research in Materials, Environments, and Society).

Partners Canada In Canada, Simon Fraser University and University of Toronto supplied us with three students over the course of four years. These students worked alongside Panama and Mexico students in all countries where we conducted surveys (Figs 31-39, 42 and 44) . Kim Mathot from SFU had conducted research in Panama previously and knew the best staging sites for sandpipers on their northern migration. She helped in banding in 20005. Eric Davies from the University of Toronto, Canada, assisted in surveys in Mexico and California over two years, and Evan Davies assisted in California surveys in 2008. We also partnered with the Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS) out of Delta, B.C. whose personnel looked for our birds on the Fraser River Delta. Researchers and students from all of the above agencies and institutes in all countries assisted us in the field during every phase of the project. We thus established a cooperative effort for future management and study of shorebird species, using the western sandpiper as a pilot model. PUBLIC OUTREACH PANAMA, MEXICO, USA, AND CANADA Panama Audubon interviewed us and then summarized our project in a newspaper article in La Prensa in Panama City in 2005 (Appendix II). In 2006, Xico Vega , Pro Natura, arranged for the TV station Canal Tres (Channel 3) of Culiacan to provide a short documentary video about the project (Figure 9), filmed at our banding site in Bahia Santa Maria. Appendix III is a link to the tri-lingual pamphlet we made for distribution among schools and management agencies. Appendix IV is a front-page summary of our project written up in The Orange County Register, a southern California newspaper. Our project was highlighted on the front page and expanded on page 3 of the “News” section of the paper on 9 May 2006. MAKE THISA TINY URL = https://tinyurl.com/m2emp5q http://nl.newsbank.com/nlsearch/we/Archives?p_product=OC&p_theme=oc&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_field_multi0=Section&p_text_multi0=%28news%29&s_dispstring=allfields%28migration%29%20and%20allfields%28shorebird%29%20AND %20section%28news%29%20AND%20date%28all%29&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced0=%28%22migration%22%29%20and%20%28%22shorebird%22%29&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date :D&xcal_useweights=no . Appendix V is an article from the San Diego Tribune, 25 May 2005, by Pat Brennan. Appendix VI is an article from Henkel International, a German chemical company, featuring our project in its monthly magazine because we used their glue and developer for the radios (HenkelLife magazine, Summer, 2006, page 14). Appendix VII highlights our project that was featured at the Alaska Museum of Natural History in Anchorage in October 2006. Their main attraction that fall included a migration display highlighting our project. Lotek, a Canadian technological company, showcased our project on their website (www.lotek.ca) and in their pamphlets and marketing program because we used their radios and receivers. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation featured our 11

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

project on 26 April 2009 in their program Semaine Verte, by Thérèse Champagne, a weekly show, and this information is in Appendix X. www1.radio-canada.ca/actualite/semaine_verte/reportage.aspx?idDocument=79460&idItemMenu=32). The summary of our project is interfaced there with a story on importance of mudflats and the risks confronting them. Appendix VIII is a speech written by Patricia Baird and delivered by Chris Eberly of Partners in Flight at the black-tie ceremony and reception for the dedication of the Bay of Panama as a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network site. Appendix IX is a translation in Spanish of that speech, written by Patricia Baird, and read by Rosabel Miro at the same ceremony and reception. All of these extra promotions of our projects distributed information about our Legacy project to people all over the world: scientists, students, and managers.

Figure 9. Canal Tres documentary, interviewing Pat Baird at Baja Santa Maria, with Xico Vega translating

L to R: Canal Tres personnel, Pat Baird, Xico Vega far right Photo: Tim Burr

We also engaged public school children in Panama, Mexico, California, British Columbia, and Alaska, by developing power point presentations for their schools, lecturing in their classrooms about migration, and by distributing our tri-lingual pamphlet to schools in all four countries on migration, and featuring regarding our project as an example (Appendix III). This pamphlet could also be used by the general public to educate themselves about migration and the role that the DoD plays in facilitating migration by providing vast tracts of land as stopover sites. We also used adult volunteers from local neighborhoods at our tagging site in Costa del Este Panama to help us with setting up the mist nets (Figures 10, 11).

Figure 10. Schoolchildren and homeowners helping on the project in Panama.

12

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Beatriz Schmidt and children, 3rd, 4th, 5th from left, and Rosabel Miro, Panama Audubon, far right.

Figure 11. Explaining project to Panama

L to R: Pat Baird, SFU, Rosabel Miro, Panama Audubon, and far right: Beatriz Schmidt, PIF Panama.

TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS Many habitats in countries through which these birds fly are already protected under various cooperative treaties and conventions. Likewise, different groups of birds, e.g. waterfowl, shorebirds, raptors, are each protected by different agreements and treaties in different countries and groups of countries. In the United States and in other countries which share species of birds and their migration corridors, there are international conventions and bilateral treaties among these nations to protect shared migrants or their migratory corridors, wherever they are found. Examples are the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (originally between the United States and England--standing in for Canada), as well as later between the U.S. and the countries of Japan, Mexico, and Russia, first ratified in 1918), the Convention on Nature Protection and Wildlife Preservation (the Americas, 1942), the International Convention for the Conservation of Migratory Birds (1955), and the Convention for the Protection of Migratory Birds and Game Mammals (Mexico-U.S. 1957). In a recent ruling, on the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, on 1 March 2010, more than 1,000 species of migratory birds became protected by the United States and the co-signatories, adding 186 species to the list (http://www.america.gov/st/energy). 13

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

However, other international protection outside of the Americas has been a fairly recent phenomenon. It was not until the late 1960’s that some in the international community began to understand the gravity of global environmental issues, and the need for a more coordinated and comprehensive, and perhaps more ecosystem approach (Bowan 1999). The enforcement of these international treaties began to be taken seriously by the nation states that ratified them, and the inclusion of permanent secretariats and funding were two important milestones in the 1970’s. Among the first of these international conventions, was the Ramsar Convention of 1971, ratified in 1975, (also known as the Convention on Wetlands of International Importance). It was an ecosystem-based protection, the first of its kind. The Ramsar Convention “.. provides the framework for national action and international cooperation for the conservation and wise use of wetlands and their resources.” It is the only global environmental treaty that deals with a particular ecosystem, wetlands, and this ecosystem provides habitat for many different groups of species, including shorebirds (www.ramsar.org). Unlike other sorts of programs that simply set aside land for conservation, Ramsar works also to “achieve sustainable development throughout the world.” Certain wetlands in the world are designated as having “local to international importance,” and thus classified under Ramsar. Worldwide signatories are 160 countries, among which there are 1899 sites protecting a total surface area of 186,549,792 hectares (~460,974,575 acres) set aside for this use. Thus, wetlands are internationally recognized as a critical habitat for many species, and are a good candidate habitat to compare historical migratory routes to current ones. Other later international conventions and committees, composed of various neighboring countries, which protect migration corridors are, for example, the Bonn Convention (worldwide, and concluded under the aegis of the United Nations Environment Programme, and entered into force in 1983), and the Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management (among Mexico, the U.S., and Canada, 1995). WHSRN, the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network, is similar to Ramsar, in that it designates important wetland habitats as WHSRN key sites. Unlike the Ramsar Convention, WHSRN is focused only on the Americas. Through this program, over 11,735,883 hectares (29 million acres) of shorebird migratory habitat have been set aside by the 30 partners in the network. WHSRN, like Ramsar, establishes local, regional and international recognition for sites, gets the message out to the public, and helps to generate conservation funding opportunities (www.WSHRN.org). These treaties and conventions serve to facilitate both migration and sustainable development with the help of input from researchers regarding up-to-date information on migration patterns and timing. There are also Federal, State or Provincial, and local governmental laws in all countries in the Americas, regulating habitat use on their own lands. In addition to all of the above treaties, regulations, and laws, some habitat in the U.S. is owned by the U.S. Military, which has its own distinct regulations regarding land use of habitats for various species, including Neotropical migrants. These regulations not only conserve natural habitat, but also limit the kinds of activity permitted on the sites when the migrating species is present. The goal is to offer protection during this time without impacting the mission of the military. Our migration study integrates our findings into management guidelines and actions for land managers, (e.g. the DoD, or other agencies such as the CDFG), that do not interfere with military response and readiness, testing and training, or with other management programs by any of these agencies.

14

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CHOICE OF A SPECIFIC HABITAT FOR AN INVESTIGATION The areas over which these birds fly connecting all of the various countries, are called “flyways.” Within the United States, legislation often is broad, protecting lands within the four flyways (Pacific, Central, Mississippi, and Atlantic, Figure 12). The corridors through which shorebirds fly are distinct, continent to continent, and often there are many within one continent. These corridors have an abundance of the type of habitat that migrating birds need for food, rest, and shelter. They also do not have significant geographic barriers, such as a mountain range, to prevent direct flight. Winds also might be the most favorable over the area deemed a flyway.

Figure 12. Flyways in the United States

http://www.fws.gov/pacific/migratorybirds/flyways_map.htm

Along the west coast of the United States, birds enter the western flyway from Canada and Alaska, heading southwards, and from Central America and Mexico, when traveling northwards (Figure 13). Thus, the United States cannot be looked at separately from the rest of the Americas. The exact route a bird takes can vary from year to year based on the available food resources, weather, predators, etc. We chose the western flyway for our Legacy project because within it are large tracts of land owned by the DoD with some of the best wetland areas in the western United States for shorebirds. Some of the prime historical shorebird habitat in the “lower 48” is owned by the DoD, on military training lands. Many migration stopover sites for shorebirds in the western United States especially, are on large unfragmented wetlands owned by the Department of Defense, and are often the last intact remnants of what were once much larger ecosystems. These large landholding of the military have been assumed to be vital for these refueling and rest sites. One of our goals was to assess their relative importance compared to other stopover sites within and outside of the United States. When migrating species are present in large numbers, in March and April, military operations sometimes have to be halted, thus interfering with military training and readiness. Our research team wanted to determine if DoD lands were as critical as has been stated historically, or if habitat use has changed recently. Information from this study will give the military the tools they need to manage the timing of military training and use of DoD land by migrating shorebirds, and will allow the DoD to 15

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

maximize military training and operation opportunities. Since the birds usually spend little migratory time in any one wetland, their effect on military operations is minimal, and any alterations in military operations can be easily managed.

Figure 13. Where birds travel on the North America Migration Flyways

Map : Melissa Mayntz : http://0.tqn.com/d/birding/1/0/H/G/-/-/north-america-migration-flyways.jpg

Habitats that occur in all countries would be the best habitats to investigate in order to anaswer our broad question if migration routes have changed. A common habitat for some Neotropical migrants are wetlands, and these occur in most countries in the world. The arid West lacks water, and whatever water that occurs (in streams, natural lakes, lagoons, marshes, and wetlands), is patchy. Thus, shorebirds are more dependent on individual sites in the west than they are in other flyways, due t o the scarcity of water there and the long distances between appropriate sites. Dependability and consistency of wetlands in the west are very important for the survival of Neotropical migrants along the western flyway. With the exceptions of military lands and small wetlands like Bolinas Lagoon, or Bolsa Chica wetlands, many stopover sites in the western flyway are not protected, especially in Mexico and Central America. Wetland habitat loss and degradation is a significant threat to migratory birds dependent on wetlands, and the conservation of important sites across the flyways is essential to their survival. SPECIES CHOICE—SELECTING A NEOTROPICAL MIGRANT GROUP In order to focus on global change, any investigation needs first to be limited to a broad category of species, e.g. Neotropical migrants, and then to a subgroup within this, especially one that depends on a habitat type that occurs throughout its range. We have selected the habitat wetlands, and one group of Neotropical migrants that depends on this habitat are the shorebirds. This group travels throughout the Americas in their yearly migration. Shorebirds have been well studied over a number of years by researchers from many countries. Recent analyses of shorebird census data in North America indicate widespread ongoing declining trends, giving ample reason for concern about the population health of many of the species in this group. Shorebirds thus serve as a model for a number of other groups of species, especially Neotropical migrants.

16

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

To best understand migration, and the recent changes that have taken place for many Neotropical migrants and their habitats, one species should be used as a model for others. The choice of a species from the shorebird group must reflect one that is numerous, and thus easy to study and find, one that is a generalist, occurring in many different habitats, and one that co-occurs with a variety of other shorebird species that are less numerous or ubiquitous. Sandpipers are one such group. They range from South America to Alaska, and are present in the United States on both the east and west coasts, as well as in the interior. In parts of North America, shorebirds, such as the semipalmated sandpiper, Calidris pusillus, show census declines in both the eastern and Midwestern parts of the continent. West coast data indicate that, like many other shorebirds, census tallies for western sandpipers, Calidris mauri, a species similar to semipalmated sandpipers in the east, also show a long-term decline. In the western flyway, this species ranges from South America, through Panama, Mexico, the western U.S., Canada, to Alaska where it breeds. Therefore, for this study we chose the western sandpiper as our model species out of all Neotropical migrant shorebirds. It is a ubiquitous and numerous species; it co-occurs with a myriad of other shorebird species, and it is thus well-suited to be a model of migration (Figure 14). Our investigation on migratory routes of western sandpipers through the Americas presents a much-needed look at the western flyway, and at all shorebird species that use it. Understanding western sandpiper use of wetlands and this species’ migratory ecology will help to advance understanding of various other species of shorebirds with similar ecology, and will help to address a broad range of problems in the conservation of migratory birds in general, as well as of their North American Pacific coastal habitats. In summary, our choice of a comparison of shorebirds’ historical and current migration routes fills in a much-needed data gap.

Figure 14. Overwintering and breeding areas of western sandpipers (Wilson 1994 and Fernandez et al. 2010).

Groups like Partners in Flight serve as coordinators for international bird conservation in the Americas. On 11 May 2010, at the Trilateral Committee for Wildlife and Ecosystem Conservation and Management meeting, the United States, Canada and Mexico announced the release of a comprehensive 17

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

conservation assessment of bird species in North America, summarizing priorities for bird conservation among partner countries (Saving our Shared Birds: Partners in Flight Tri-National Vision for Landbird Conservation). U.S. Governmental agencies such as the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service support assessments like this to “…help save our shared migratory birds” (Rowan Gould, Acting Director, USFWS). Out of the 882 land bird species shared by three of the countries in the Americas (United States, Canada, and Mexico), 148 are in need of immediate conservation attention due to declining populations. A third of these 882 birds depend on native ecosystems in at least two of the North American countries, and thus, these countries do indeed share the birds (www.america.gov/washfile and http://www.america.gov/st/energyenglish/2010/May/20100513155550abretnuh0.5143396.html#ixzz13Oj7uy7S) The Western Sandpiper The western sandpiper is widespread in North and Central America, and in northern South America (Wilson 1994). This species breeds in western and northern Alaska (Yukon-Kuskokwim Delta, Bering Sea), and in northeast Siberia. Most of these breeders, including those from Siberia, migrate south through Canada and the United States to their overwintering grounds in the U.S., Mexico, Central America, and northern South America. The species has been estimated to have populations of 3 ½ million birds (Bird Life International 2008). Major threats are loss and modification/fragmentation of habitat at their stopover sites, including overwintering areas (Wilson 1994). Rattner et al. (1995), and Warnock and Takekawa (1996) have suggested that various kinds of pollution may adversely affect their population numbers. The United States’ Shorebird Conservation Plan states that the population trend of the western sandpiper is “highly imperiled”, although its relative abundance is “not at risk.” The highly imperiled category stems not from threats to its population during the breeding season, where they are of “low concern,” but rather during the non-breeding season, where they are “of high concern.” This in turn makes its overall breeding distribution “of high concern” (Brown et al. 2001). Much is known about the migratory path of the western sandpiper through the western United States. However, a large part of its population overwinters in Mexico and Panama, and information about them there is sparse. It is this geographic area that puts them into the “high concern” category. It is not known if recorded declines in its populations may be affected by changes in migratory routes in Mexico or in the United States or even by changes in habitat. Thus, a comprehensive management plan for this species needs to take into account not only the portion of the migration route that is in the United States, but also those areas in Mexico and Central America necessary for stopover points. Only in this way will potential limits to their migration. Whether these changes have occurred via habitat fragmentation, interference from predators or anthropogenic effects over the entire migration route be known. Habitat for shorebirds in the United States could meet shorebirds’ migratory needs, but there could be areas in other countries, equally important for migration, that would be overlooked if not investigated. Western sandpipers stopover in many different kinds of wetland habitats, coastal and inland, both marine and fresh water (e.g. river banks), permanent (e.g. estuaries, marine or intertidal mudflats), and temporary (e.g. flooded agricultural fields or vernal pools). Their passage through this flyway is brief, peaking over a period of 3 weeks. They migrate northward in large numbers, foraging on invertebrates and biofilm in the mud. Shorebirds are best tracked during spring migration when they travel in large flocks. During the fall migration, they are more spread out, in smaller numbers, and thus are more difficult to locate. However, they are known to utilize the same foraging and resting sites on their way southward as they do on their way northward, and that is why we concentrated on tracking only the northward migration. OBJECTIVE OF THE PROJECT

18

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

The ultimate objective of our project was to use radio-tagged western sandpipers to determine current migration paths of migrating Neotropical shorebirds on the northward (spring) migration, and to identify critical stopover sites in Panamá, México, the western United States, and Canada, along the western flyway. Finding sites outside the United States would enable us to assess how important, relatively, were the sites within the United States compared to the stopover sites along the entire flyway. We established a standard methodology for the collection of these data that can be used by people in all countries, military or civilian. Another important goal was to establish educational public access to this project via various media in order to increase public appreciation, awareness, and support for national environmental initiatives. In order to understand and manage migratory birds, or to develop any type of conservation or management plan, requires an understanding of their distribution and ecology throughout the year (Coulter and Frederick 1997, Kushlan et al. 2002, Martin et al. 2007). Therefore, the first year of our study, 2004, was an historical overview, mainly a summary of literature that described known migratory stopover sites of western sandpipers in the western United States. The assumptions that grew out of this data summary were that, in their northward migration, sandpipers travel in large flocks and use the largest stopover sites available. We also knew this to be true from empirical data collected by the Canadian Wildlife Service in the early 1980’s. On the southward migration, birds travel in smaller groups and occupy sometimes marginal wetlands, not using exclusively the large coastal wetlands. Thus, we were most interested in determining if the historical large northward migratory sites were still as heavily used, or if birds had begun to use different habitats or areas. Another goal of our study was to determine the importance to western sandpipers of military lands, compared to nonmilitary lands, and to determine the range of dates when the majority of these birds pass through.

RECENT POPULATION DECLINE OF SHOREBIRD POPULATIONS Five hypotheses have been proposed for population decline (Shorebird Research Group of the Americas 2005). They are: 1) degradation and fragmentation of habitat, 2) change in migration routes and not a real decline, 3) environmental toxins, 4) predation, 5) climate change. They might alter their migration routes in response to a number of things, such as changes in habitat or increase of predators. Fragmentation/Degradation of Habitat The goals of some Regional Plans (e.g. Northwest Shorebird Plan, Drut and Buchanan 2000), have been to increase populations of these declining species, and to “stabilize and maintain current levels” of other species without knowing exactly why they have been declining. Without an overall idea of what habitats these populations travel through during all stages: breeding, wintering, and migrating, regional management only is not satisfactory. Shorebirds’ habitats are diverse, including wetlands, coastal estuaries, muddy beaches, freshwater wetlands such as flooded agricultural areas, and riverine systems. Because shorebirds often aggregate in flocks on these distinct habitats during migration, any loss, fragmentation, or degradation of this habitat is a major threat, not only to their ability to migrate, but also to the ability of a habitat to support their population numbers. Change in Migration Routes If the entire flyway is not considered, undue emphasis might be placed on some U.S. lands, without consideration of the importance of either land outside the United States, or of changed migration routes within the United States. Any regional research and monitoring or protection must fall into a much broader plan for the entire flyway, from overwintering to breeding areas. Likewise, more than a habitat approach must be taken in order to not overlook other concomitant possible causes for recent declines. Finally, some species’ populations have declined more than others, and they are thus rare in the wild and difficult to locate. By finding common species with whom they share similar habitats, their current migration routes can be found too. Because of this, we chose the western sandpiper, Calidris mauri, a 19

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

ubiquitous and numerous species, as a model for other small shorebird species,. Because the western sandpiper is a generalist and forages in most mudflats and wetlands, co-occurring with a myriad of other Neotropical migratory shorebirds species, they are perfect candidates to model habitat use for all other migrating shorebirds. Threats---Environmental Toxins and Predators Environmental Toxins increased in the 20th century and although many are banned, others are still prevalent in the habitat. There have been some clear decreases in some toxins like DDE (a breakdown product of DDT) which thinned eggshells of top predators. After the ban on DDT in Canada and the United States, predator populations like peregrines and other raptors began to increase. However, increased numbers of predators could push shorebirds into different or less preferred habitats, not noted historically, and thus would show an apparent decline in western sandpipers might be due to a migration route because of predation pressure. Surveys at only historical sites would miss birds in new areas. Documenting current migration routes and evaluating toxins such as heavy metals on western sandpipers will assist managers from all countries through which shorebirds travel to effectively conserve these populations, keeping common birds common, both nationally and internationally. Shorebirds may be important indicators of the health of all of these ecosystems, and a decline in shorebird populations, or an alteration in migration route may indicate some habitat change. The western sandpiper is thus a model species for detection of not only decreases in populations, but also changes in habitats. Heavy metal analysis Sampling of blood and feathers from overwintering birds in Panama Bay will reveal if there is heavy metal accumulation, because heavy metals can interfere with much of the normal physiology of animals. A bird with a large burden of heavy metals might not be able physically to make the entire migration and could be one of the factors influencing decreased numbers at stopover sites. Depredation and Climate Change Possible factors of depredation and climate change were beyond the scope of this project. Stephens et al. (2007) sumamrize predatory pressures on animals. Others have addressed climate change in general, regarding migratory birds (e.g. Bird Life International), and have stated that it can alter distribution and abundance, and timing of breeding, among other things. In addition, climate change, coupled with other threats such as increased depredation or habitat loss, can exacerbate any negative impacts to migratory bird populations. In summary, our main thrust was to test was if the birds were using historical stopover sites and migration routes, by following radio-tagged migrants, originating in Panama Bay, northwards along the coastal western flyway. The second hypothesis, to assess any degradation of historical habitats, could be answered by looking for habitat changes or destruction or alteration as we tracked the birds. The third hypothesis, that their overwintering site might be contaminated with heavy metals, we answered by our analysis of heavy metals from blood and feathers in two years.

METHODS

20

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

This project covers 5 years of study: a preliminary fact-finding year and library research, followed by four years of surveys of western sandpipers in the field. We developed our methods to answer the questions posed by the Shorebird Research Group of the Americas, and the U.S. Shorebird Initiative. We designed the study to follow sandpipers from the main overwintering area in Panama northward along the western flyway to Alaska. OVERVIEW OF METHODS FOR RADIO-TAGGING AND AERIAL AND GROUND SURVEYS During their northward migration, sandpipers travel in large flocks and historically use the largest stopover sites available (data collected by the Canadian Wildlife Service in the early 1980’s). On the southward migration, birds travel in smaller groups and occasionally occupy marginal wetlands, not using exclusively the large coastal wetlands. Thus, we were most interested in determining what the large northward migratory sites were, because birds in large concentrated groups in just a few areas are the most vulnerable to environmental disturbances. We could not search all areas in the western flyway, with the time constraint of birds migrating through in less than a month, so we chose to fly over only selected areas. We tracked birds from the air from fixed-wing planes in Panama, western mainland Mexico, southern and central California, and coastal Washington, except where we were unable to (e.g. near an airport). We chose a diverse array of sites to survey based on a number of factors: Size: both large and small wetlands type: coastal estuaries, lagoons, bays, riparian wetlands, and agricultural areas, both inland and coastal. Our surveys included known and historically unknown areas both near and far from development and human activity. In 2004, the first year of the study, I collected information on historical stopover sites of western sandpipers in order to have a baseline to compare with the data we would gather over the next four years, 2005-2008. I undertook an intensive literature search, including published and unpublished reports and scientific papers, to summarize where shorebirds have been found before in the western flyway. These data are in Baird (2004). I found the data to be inconsistent and often intermittent, and this suggests that most of this historical information should be taken more as a reference and general accounting, rather than an accurate count. Even the U.S. Regional Shorebird Plan lists areas that we later found to be not of particular importance during northward migration. Therefore, to portray a more complete picture of preferred stopover sites, I described the more important wetlands in the western flyway, emphasizing only the coastal areas of the three western states, as well as some inland farming areas in California, which are known anecdotally to be important stopover sites for shorebirds. To track the northward migratory path, we chose to use radio tags instead of color-marking or legbanding, because the chances of re-finding one of our birds was greater using radio tags. Thus we could cover a vast area quickly, listening for tagged birds from the air. The subsequent four years of the study entailed capturing western sandpipers in their major overwintering sites in Panama and Mexico (Costa del Este and Bahia Santa Maria), radio-tagging them at the end of their overwintering, at peak migration, and following them northward over historic sites along the western flyway through the United States, Mexico, and Canada, as well as over all other possible wetlands we hypothesized they would use in their most western migratory paths. We started our surveys for tagged birds at Costa del Este, Panama Bay. If, in our first survey year, we hypothesized that if we found our sandpipers posttagging, heading east towards the Caribbean or northeast to the Yucatan, our survey route through the States and subsequently along the Western Flyway land would alter and would be very different than if we found them migrating up the mainland coast of Mexico and then up into California. Thus, the first year’s tracking was critical. Likewise, if we found tagged birds in Mexico, after tagging in Panama, but did not find them within the reasonable travel time in California, then we could assume that they skipped over our survey areas and California, and had taken a different route, and we would have rearranged our tracking sites in California accordingly. We surveyed all potential and historical routes of western sandpipers, from Panama Bay and the west coast of Mexico, to the last major stopover site before they fan out to breed, the Copper River 21

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Delta/Prince William Sound area. We flew over all historic IBAs designated by various groups (BirdLife International, Audubon, WHSRN, Ramsar), as well as over any other wetland in California, whether listed or not. For areas where we could not fly to listen for radios, we conducted surveys from the ground. There were also areas that we did not survey because they had already been surveyed extensively, and designated as important areas, such as the Ramsar sites in Mexico, Bahia Adair and the Colorado River Delta, and a Hemispheric WSHRN site in Washington, Grays Harbor Estuary, and an International WSHRN site in California, Mono Lake. Partnering along the flyway all four years In addition to our aerial and ground surveys, we alerted bird observation networks along the entire migratory path via email, with pictures and a description of what the birds looked like, in order for both professional and amateur birders to be able to recognize our birds if they passed by, and to report all sightings to us. We also enlisted a vast volunteer in-kind network of researchers in Mexico, southern and northern California, Washington, Alaska, and Canada who listened for our birds during their own surveys. This way we hoped to be able to detect birds that had not stopped over in the areas where we surveyed via plane or car. MILITARY LANDS One of our goals was to determine the annual patterns of shorebird use of military and non-military sites in the U.S. and thus we determined which DoD land had wetlands along the western flyway, and chose these areas to include in our surveys. In the United States, we conducted annual surveys of all military wetlands, in California and coastal Oregon. We also had one survey in Washington State, one in Texas, and two in Alaska. In our surveys, we included other military wetland sites that were not important historically. This comparison was to determine in part if a switch in use had been made. PERMITS We carried out field work under collecting permits from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Canadian Wildlife Service, the USDA, from La Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente (ANAM, the Panama National Environmental Authority) all four years of the project (2005-2008). For the years 2005-2006, the years that we captured birds in Mexico, we had a collecting permit from the Secretaría del Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, ( SEMARNAT), the Mexican equivalent of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. All banding was done under a Canadian Wildlife Permit, using metal bands provided by the Bird Banding Laboratory of the U.S.G.S. Endangered species permits were not needed, as this species is not endangered. Our research methods were approved by the Animal Care Facility of Simon Fraser University, Canada. We submitted reports and all banding data to the United States Bird Banding Laboratory, USGS, and to ANAM, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Equivalent of Panama. A colleague in Mexico, Xico Vega, submitted the summary of work in Mexico to SEMARNAT. We had import permits from the USDA and the USFWS, and an export permit from ANAM, Panama. AREAS SURVEYED Panama As a land bridge between two continents, Panama is the major movement corridor within the western hemisphere for intercontinental migrants (Fig. 15). Millions of shorebirds, songbirds and raptors, migrate through Panama to and from their breeding and non-breeding grounds. Some overwinter there, while others range far beyond, using Panama Bay, or perhaps the lowland tropical forests in the Canal area, as staging and stopover sites to fuel up before they continue their journey. Panama is the southern center of overwintering for many migratory shorebirds and other Neotropical migrants and a staging area for migrants from South America. Over a million birds winter in Panama Bay, and in Chitre mudflats on the south coast of Panama. Figure 15. Panama

22

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Costa del Este

Watts (1998) reports a single day estimate of more than 280,000 small shorebirds in the winter. Extrapolating from this, he conjectured that approximately 31.5% of the global population of western sandpipers pass through Panama each year (Fig. 16). Likewise, Panama Bay is important for other less common shorebirds such as the semipalmated sandpiper, (Calidris pusilla, maximum count 47,000 4.7% of the global population passing through. Other uncommon shorebirds like the semipalmated plover, (Charadrius semipalmatus), had a highest single day count of more than 30,000, 20.1% of the global population (Watts 1998). Watts (1998) estimated that over 1% of the global population (1.6% of North American population), of the black-bellied plover, 4.3% of the global willet population (Catoptrophorus semipalmatus), 10.3% of the North American whimbrel population (Numenius phaeopus), and 1.9% of the global short-billed dowitcher population (Limnodromus griseus), passed through Panama Bay, with the majority concentrating in Costa del Este and the westernmost parts of Panama Bay (Fig 17). This suite of shorebird species is usually found with the western sandpiper, a species which is more common and thus an excellent model of the abundance of other less common species. During migration, shorebirds of all species, as well as waterfowl and seabirds, congregate in dense flocks on the mudflats at Costa del Este just prior to migration (Figs. 18-19).

Figure16. Western sandpipers, Costa del Este

Photo: Karl Kaufmann

23

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Figure 17. Costa del Este

Costa del Este

Figure 18. Mixed shorebird flock with western sandpipers at Costa del Este

Photo: Tim Burr

Figure19. Mixed shorebird flock, Costa del Este 24

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Photo: Karl Kaumann

We began our tagging at Costa Del Este to track western sandpipers northward. Costa del Este and the western part of Panama Bay border heavily urbanized and suburbanized areas, while the eastern part has mangrove forests and is relatively remote and untouched(Fig. 20). The Pacific Ocean is to the south of Panama, and the entire south coast has a mixture of sandy beaches and mudflats adjacent to mangrove forests. Shorebirds only forage on the mudflats. Extensive tidal mudflats up to 3 km wide, cover an area of 11,000 ha,( 27,181acres), from Costa del Este just east of Panama City to the Ensenada de Corral at the mouth of the La Maestra River 70 km to the east. At an extremely low tide (3 cm/0.1ft), the entire mudflats are exposed and available for shorebird foraging and roosting. At a high tide of 4.7 m (15.5 ft), the entire mudflats are inundated.

Figure 20. Costa del Este Panamá

Photo: Tim Burr

Panama Bay adjoins Tocumen Marsh and La Jagua wetlands, (national-level IBAs), and merges with the Chimán Wetlands IBA to the east (Stattersfield et al. 1998). We surveyed these each year—an area of 25

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

approximately 20 km in length (12 mi). Additionally, for two years, we surveyed the south coast of Panama, from Punta Chame to Chiman to Chitre to assess the affinity of tagged birds to the site where they were tagged. We also noted any movement among bays by our tagged birds. We captured and tagged as many western sandpipers as we could at peak migration. We remained in Panama until all radio-tagged birds had departed. Concurrently, after we tagged the first birds, we placed an observer in Mexico, to start listening for radios there. In our first year, we did not know how long the birds would stay in Panama after tagging, or how long it would take them to travel to Mexico. We began our field time in Panama by surveying Panama Bay to locate shorebirds. In some years, there were no western sandpipers visible at Costa del Este or Panama Viejo upon our arrival. In that case, we flew the entire Panama Bay over all mudflats, looking for birds. If they were not at Costa del Este, they would usually be one bay east and they would soon appear at Costa del Este. We then surveyed our study site every day at high tide and counted birds there. At the correct tides, we would then capture and tag them (see page 37) For Panama surveys, we worked with Angel Sosa, Ovidio Jamarillo, Natyrait Montenegro, Arcelys PittitWong, Daniel Mendina, and Maribel Tejeda from the University of Panama, Karl Kaufmann and Enrique Moreno from STRI, Rosabel Miro from Panama Audubon, Tim Burr and Liz Kovach-Hayes from the U.S., and Kim Mathot and Eric Davies from Canada. We surveyed wetlands in Panama from the Darien jungles In the east to the sand beaches in the west, covering all of Panama Bay. We did not survey the Caribbean coast because the habitat there is inappropriate for western sandpipers. Post-tagging, we listened from the ground at Costa del Este and Panama Viejo. We also conducted one aerial survey per year to locate birds post-tagging, from the Ensenada Rica Arriba to Chitré in 2006, and from the Darien to Chitré in 2007, and 2008. Pre-tagging, we only searched for birds in 2007 (6 and 14 March 2007) because there were few birds at Costa del Este when we arrived in early March. These flights over Panama Bay were east to Ensenada Rica Arriba near Chiman, and west to Punta Chame including Bahia de Chame. We found them in the next bay east of Costa del Este, and the first birds arrived at Costa del Este on 6 March. In 2008, we conducted three surveys: on the 8th, 16th, and 26st of March. This latter flight was post-tagging, and covered more ground and included the entire Bay of Panama, from the eastern most mudflats to Chitré in the west. (We only found birds in the mudflats east of Costa del Este). Central America Because most Central American countries north of Panama, (Costa Rica, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala), and southern Mexico have mainly sandy beaches or mangrove swamps along their west coasts, habitat unfit for foraging western sandpipers, the next suitable areas north of Panama Bay were along the west coast of mid-mainland Mexico, from Las Marismas north to the U.S. border. One area in Central America that is important for shorebirds is the Nicoya Gulf coastal area in Costa Rica. However, from a survey by Bird Life International in 2006 (BirdLife International 2009a), no western sandpipers overwintered there. Thus, in order to save expenses, and since the probability of finding western sandpipers there was low, and since our focus was not on Central America, but rather comparing ideal habitat staging areas south of the U.S. border with those in the United States, we did not survey Costa Rica.

Mexico The western mainland Mexican coastline is vast, and, unlike that of Panama and most of the intervening Central American countries, it has extensive coastal wetlands and mudflats that are ideal stopover sites 26

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

for shorebirds. The use of these mudflats would prove to be a valuable comparison to the use of mudflats by shorebirds in the United States. We had a second tagging area in Mexico at Bahia Santa Maria, where over half of the migrant shorebirds south of the United States overwinter (Brown et al. 2001). It is also an important stopover site for spring migrants. The reasons for tagging in Mexico also were to answer the following questions: 1) do migrants from Panama and Mexico mix while on migration, 2) do birds from Panama and Mexico used different stopover sites, 3) are stopover sites consistent for Panama and Mexico birds from year to year, and 4) are stopovers of both Mexico and Panama birds only on known historical sites or on new ones? We trapped and tagged birds in Mexico for two years (2005, 2006). However, from the results of surveys of these birds, we found that birds tagged in Mexico often flew south instead of north after capture, a phenomenon noted also by Nils Warnock (Iverson et al. 1996). We are not sure if these tagged birds that went south ever eventually migrated north to breed, for they were never found on our surveys in California, Oregon, Washington, or Alaska. Thus, we did not know whether a bird we captured in Mexico was going to migrate northwards, or oversummer in Mexico, and we did not want to waste radios on non-migrants. In 2007 and 2008 we subsequently only followed birds tagged in Panama because we felt that we could obtain more information on northward migration routes through the United States by only following them. The first two years, we surveyed wetlands with appropriate habitat for shorebird foraging and staging, along the western mainland coast of Sinaloa Mexico from the border with Nayarit at Las Marismas south of Mazatlan, north to Sonora and Hermosillo in 2005 and to the Colorado River Delta in 2006. From prior research (Hector Hidalgo pers. comm. 2006), we knew that the only appropriate habitat south of Las Marismas in Mexico for western sandpipers is Mar Muerto. However, during the time of the year we surveyed in Mexico, there are fierce annual winds at Mar Muerto which blow from the north during the months of migration, opposite to the migration route north. These winds are unfit to fly a small plane in, and they might possibly interfere with sandpiper migration so much that the western sandpipers would avoid this wetland in the spring migration, and thus we did not survey there. The next suitable wetland north of Mar Muerto is the National Wetlands, Marismas Nacionales, south of Mazatlan. This was our southernmost survey area in Mexico from 2005-2007. This wetlands is so large, that it took over two days to fly and survey its entire extent. From here, our survey route took us north along the coastal wetlands in Mexico to the Colorado River delta and California. Our Mexico surveys in 2005 and 2006 started from the United States border, due south of Phoenix, where the Cessna we used in 2005 and 2006 was located. We flew to the coast at Hermosillo and then south along the northern coast of Sonora and Sinaloa from Guaymas to Culiacan. This took two days, (19-20 March 2005 and 25-26 March 2006). We flew south over all coastal mudflats to Bahia Santa Maria in order to be sure that we would not miss any birds from Panama who had skipped Bahia Santa Maria or Las Marismas Nacionales on their way northward. Figure 21 shows Sinaloa Mexico, the coast that we surveyed.

Figure 21. Sinaloa and the coastal wetlands we surveyed.

27

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

After surveying the northern coast from Hermosillo south to Bahia Santa Maria, we then continued surveys along the west coast south to the southern part of Las Marismas during 2005 and 2006 to the border with Nayarit. After finding only one bird north of Bahia Santa Maria in those two years, we limited our surveys in 2007 to Bahia Santa Maria and Las Marismas south to the border of Sinaloa and Nayarit. We did not survey Mexico in 2008. Post-tagging, as in Panama, we listened for our tagged Mexico birds at Bahia Santa Maria until we no longer heard them. Because the Mexico-tagged birds were on a different radio frequency from Panama birds, we could tell which group we were detecting. We did not track in Baja California, because overwintering populations there are distinct from those elsewhere, and also, the Baja Mexico-through-California data on western sandpipers is well known (Iverson et al. 1996). We did not survey the east coast of Mexico, for we did not know if birds would even travel there from Panama, and thus did not want waste valuable time, money, and personnel, surveying places where birds tagged might not occur. United States We continued to search for birds not only over historical large mudflats, but also in all possible coastal and inland mudflats or inundated areas. We concentrated the majority of our flights in southern and central California, where the majority of habitat for shorebirds was. We flew over coastal wetlands, river estuaries, small and large coastal mudflats, as well as over inland lakes, ponds, and rivers in southern California, including the Salton Sea. Our surveys in California also included interior flooded fields west of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, in the large central valley of California where agricultural 28

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

fields are flooded, and which are known to attract large numbers of migrants. We surveyed up coastal rivers, both channelized and natural, in southern and central California, and over some inland rivers in central California. We also surveyed San Francisco Bay. We had ground surveys from Humboldt Bay by our USFS partners. Northern California, parts of coastal central California, Oregon, and Washington have rocky coastlines, which is not western sandpiper habitat. Therefore, we had partners from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in Oregon to listen in strategic mudflats and along the coast. The State of Washington‘s Fish and Wildlife Department helped survey suitable habitat in Puget Sound mudflats, and we piggy-backed onto their clam surveys in Puget Sound. Our surveys in Alaska were ground at the final post-breeding dispersal stopover sites: the Copper River Delta/Prince William Sound area. Canada In Canada, we had ground surveys at the Fraser River Delta in British Columbia, the main stopover site north of Washington and south of Alaska. Personnel from Simon Fraser University and the Canadian Wildlife Service assisted us. We were not able to track western sandpipers to their final stop on the breeding grounds because the radios’ batteries were not expected to last the entire trip due to the small battery required for the radios to weigh within 3% of the birds’ mass. Likewise, from the Copper River Delta in Alaska, the migrants fan out and are no longer concentrated in their migrating groups, and it would have been impossible to follow them. Surveyed areas for all years are in Figure 22.

Figure 22. All aerial survey areas and stationary listening points for western sandpipers 2005-2008

All Years

Red dots = listening stations on ground Grey shaded area = flight areas

SURVEYS SUMMARY Radios

29

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

We used Lotek NTC-3-1 transmitters (“radios”). Within one frequency, we could have up to 200 codes (birds). Each radio had its unique code within the frequency assigned to each country, and because of this separation of frequencies by country coupled with the codes, we could identify all individual birds that we heard. Having just two frequencies also eliminates two major problems in most telemetry projects: approval of allowable frequencies by the FCC, and the ability to listen continuously on one or two frequencies without cycling through numerous frequencies, the way one does with beeper tags. Description of Trapping Sites Panama. Costa del Este (N = 09º 00.607’ W= 079º 27.565’) is a wide mudflat with unstable mud 200 offshore. This area is “quicksand” and will not support a human’s weight. Thus, we were only able to trap at Costa del Este at a new moon when the high tides were highest, for then the water comes in up to the land, pushing the shorebirds off the quicksand. When the high tides are lower, the birds remain at the tide line, and this is where the quicksand starts, so that it is dangerous to walk on (Figs. 23, 24). We tried trapping on a full moon one year, when the tides were higher than normal tides, but the majority of birds were still so far out that we only caught one. Therefore, the calendar date at which we trapped in Panama varied from year to year, depending on the moon’s phase. Because new moon phases recessed each year by one and half weeks, the actual dates for capturing birds differed each year for the first three years, and then cycled back to the first year’s trapping date in 2008, our last survey year (Table 1). This problem with quicksand in Panama therefore set the start date for all surveys and additional trapping for each year for points northward. In 2007, we had the worst suite of tides. New moon tides were in late February and in late March that year. The radios’ batteries would not have lasted until the birds were in Canada if we activated them at new moon in February. Likewise, we would not have any weight indication of which birds were the most likely candidates to migrate if we had tagged in February for they would have three weeks to fatten up at this early date. (Birds less than 24 g do not have enough fat to migrate, and thus we did not band or radio-tag these birds). The late March new moon was at the tail end of migration from Panama Bay, and we were not sure if these birds would even migrate. However, we decided to trap then. We did try trapping at the full moon in 2007, but with little success (one bird), because the tideline where the majority of the birds were feeding was out over the quicksand. In 2008, we tagged birds in mid-March— the same dates as 2005. These dates are the best ones to trap birds, for birds at this date have another week to regain any weight they might lose by stress of capture, and still have time to flock together for peak migration at the end of March. Table 1. Summary of dates of trapping and listening per site Year 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007

Where Panama México Panamá México Panama

Trap dates 11-13 March 18-19 March 1 -3 March 10 Mar 18-21 March 7 March* and 18-21 March 2007 Mexico No trapping 2008 Panama 8 -11 March 2008 Mexico No trapping no surveys * Only one bird trapped

New Moon 10 March N/A 28 Feb. & 29 March N/A (6 March Full) 19 March New N/A 7 March N/A

Listen - trap site 14-20 Mar 16-30 Mar 3 – 25 Mar 10 Mar – 7 Apr 8 -30 Mar

# Days/ site 7 14 22 28 24

N/A 8 – 28 Mar N/A

N/A 20 N/A

Figure 23. Western sandpipers foraging at high tide in Costa del Este

30

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Photo: Pat Baird

Figure 24. Western sandpipers pushed towards the land at new moon tides, Costa del Este, Panama.

Mexico. In 2005 and 2006, we tagged birds in Bahia Santa Maria, and start dates were always one week after birds were tagged in Panama , (the date that we calculated from published travel times). Our reason for trapping here was to determine if Panama and Mexico birds took the same route north, and we staggered trapping dates to allow any Panama birds to reach Mexico and therefore be able to migrate from Mexico at the same dates as did birds tagged in Mexico. Bahia Santa Maria does not have quicksand, and trapping there is not tide-influenced. Thus we were not constrained in dates and times of trapping (Figs. 25-29), although these dates were set by default from our date constraints in Panama. We started listening in Mexico for Panama birds and for Mexican-tagged birds as soon as we had tagged birds in Mexico.

Figure 25. Map of Bahia Santa Maria

31

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Bahia Santa Maria

Figure 26. Bahía Santa María, Culiacán, México

Photo: Tim Burr

32

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Figure 27. Bahía Santa María, Culiacán, México, setting up the mist nets

Photo: Tm Burr

Figure 28 Miguel Guevarra, lead bio-tech Mexico, California 2005, 2006

Photo: Tim Burr

Figure 29.Tagging Birds in Mexico 33

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

L to R: Xico Vega (Pro Natura), Madellyn Dillon (USFS), members of Channel 3 TV Culiacan, Pat Baird, Photo by Tim Burr

TAGGING AND BANDING PROTOCOL We trapped western sandpipers at Costa del Este Panama (2005-2008) and Bahia Santa Maria Mexico (2005-2006) using mist nets (Figs. 30- 32), following the trapping and banding protocols of the Centre for Wildlife Ecology, Simon Fraser University. We placed nets perpendicular to the water, along the foraging path of the sandpipers in the mud. Birds flew into the net as they moved from one feeding area to another. As soon as a bird became caught in the mist net, we extracted it and carried it in a bird bag to the processing site on dry land.

Figure 30. Setting up mist nets - Panama

L to R: Angel Sosa and Tim Burr, Costa del Este . Photo: Pat Baird

Figure 31. Checking on mist nets - Panama

34

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Kim Mathot, Simon Fraser University a t Costa del Este . Photo: Pat Baird

Figure 32. Extracting western sandpiper from the mist net -- Panama

Photo: Pat Baird

We were able to process birds within ten minutes of trapping them. We weighed birds to the nearest 0.1 g with a Pesola spring scale, and measured each bird’s wing chord, tarsus, and exposed culmen to the nearest 0.5 mm. We affixed a metal numbered band to each bird’s leg from the USGS Bird Banding Laboratory in Patuxent, (Figures 33, 34). We also color-marked the breasts of all trapped birds with nontoxic permanent markers: blue in Panama and green in Mexico. This dye was molted with the feathers as soon as the birds reached their breeding grounds. Figure 33. Measuring the bill of a western sandpiper 35

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Kim Mathot, M.S. Simon Fraser University. Photo: Pat Baird

Figure 34 . Affixing a USGS band to leg of western sandpiper, Costa del Este, Panama.

Photo: Angel Sosa

We used Avian Nanotag radio tags model NTQB-3-2, manufactured by the Lotek Corporation in Canada (use of commercial trade names products does not constitute endorsement by the U.S. or Canadian Governments). Because sandpipers are small, we had to use small radio transmitters due to weight restrictions, and they were not powerful enough to uplink to a satellite. Therefore, the only way we could track was from a small plane or from the ground. As a result of improvements in miniaturization technology, the size and mass of the radios decreased each year, and the range increased, and the last two years, the batteries lasted at least 70 days. We activated the radios with an infrared activator in order to set the start times that the radios transmitted. Lotek radios are on for 12 hours and off for 12 hours in order to save battery power. Radios affixed to birds from one location all had the same frequency, with each frequency having the ability to accommodate up to 200 codes. Each bird had its individual code. This coding saves time during surveys, because it is not necessary to wait for all 36

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

frequencies to cycle through the receiver in order to pick up a signal. Having all birds on one or two frequencies allowed us to fly in a straight line over shorebird habitat, without continuous circling, the way surveys have to be done with birds on multiple frequencies. However, if the bird was too far away from the receiver, its individual code was not registered, although, we would hear the signal, and see the frequency, and thus we would at least know whether the bird was from Panama or Mexico. We affixed these radios, (0.55 g to 0.82 g: < 3% of the birds’ mass), with either unipolar or bipolar antennas, to the rump of all adults, using waterproof Loctite 454 instant adhesive and Loctite 7452 accelerator made by the Henkel Corporation (See Appendix VI, Henkel 2006, and www.henkel.us). The radio was glued to the bird’s skin from which feathers had been clipped, and on the lower back about 5 mm anterior to the uropygial gland. The bipolar field from the dual antennas had a signal that reached farther and wider than did the unipolar antennas (Fig. 35). This type of antenna was developed for use in 2006, 2007, and 2008. The retention time is estimated to be less than three months, since the birds molt their feathers when they reach their breeding grounds (Bishop et al. 2004). To place the radios on the birds, we snipped off feathers from the rump where we wanted to affix the radio, then sprayed on the Loktite accelerator 742, put a drop of Loctite 454 instant adhesive on the radio, and pressed the radio onto the rump (Figs. 36-38). We held it in place for a minute to ensure that it was permanently attached. We checked the radio with the receiver before we placed it on the bird to make sure that it was indeed activated. Although we banded with USGS leg bands all the birds that we trapped, we affixed radios only on adults, the only birds that migrated. Birds too light, or juveniles were not radio-tagged. Our protocol was for the radio to not weigh more than 3.15% of the bird's own mass (Gaunt and Oring 2010). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service allows radios to be 10% of a bird's mass, but, Fernandez et al. (2003) had determined that 24 grams was the weight necessary for any western sandpiper to begin migration, so we adjusted the ratios of radio-to-bird mass accordingly. We did not tag birds who were obviously juveniles because they would probably over-summer in Panama Bay. Radios lasted from 40 days (2004) to 90 days (2007, 2008). This extended life allowed us to survey for tagged birds on their final stop in Alaska. Figures 39-41 show birds with radios firmly attached.

Figure 35. Bipolar antenna

Photo: Pat Baird

Figure 36. Attaching a Lotek radio to a western sandpiper 37

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Photo: Pat Baird

Figure 37. Radio attached to western sandpiper with Loktite #454 glue and accelerator

Photo: Pat Baird

Figure 38. Bidirectional radio glued onto rump of western sandpiper. 38

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Costa del Este (picture by Angel Sosa)

Figure 39. Radio with bidirectional antennas used from 2006-2008, attached to western sandpiper

Photo: Pat Baird

Figure 40. Western sandpiper with unidirectional antenna, used 2005 & 2006. 39

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Photo: Rob Butler

Figure 41. Western sandpiper with unidirectional radio.

Photo: Pat Baird

BLOOD WORK Environmental laws and controls of heavy metals in other countries are not as vast and encompassing as those in Canada and the United States, and there was a possibility that shorebirds would pick up a large metal burden in their overwintering areas. We chose Panama Bay to sample blood from sandpipers because Panama Bay has effluent from a variety of factories, agricultural facilities and sewage, and thus

40

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

may be point sources for heavy metals accumulation. We could not sample in Mexico because of lack of permits. In 2006 and 2008, we drew blood from sandpipers at Costa del Este to test for heavy metal contamination (Fig. 42). Heavy metals interfere with much of the normal physiology of animals, so that a heavily contaminated bird might not be able physically to make the entire migration. We followed protocol from the Ornithological Council (2010) . Birds were handled for not more than 5 minutes. We drew blood from the wing vein of the birds, after swabbing the area with ethanol. We ensured closure of the needle prick with styptic pencil. We placed 1 ml blood per bird into glass vials, and put three contour feathers from each bird in Whirlpak bags. Figure 42. Marking western sandpipers at Costa del Este, and getting blood and feather samples

L to R: : Elizabeth Kovach-Hayes, Laurelcrest School, USA, Eric Davies, University of Toronto, Canada, Nayrit Montenegro, Panamá, Ovidio Jamarillo, Panamá, and Arcelys Pitti Wong, University of Panamá, Patricia Baird, Canada. Photo: Tim Burr

We prepped all blood samples with the help of Enrique Moreno from STRI, head of the analysis laboratory at the Ancon facilty. We used his protocol and washed all capillaries, tubes and capillaries with 2% nitric acid and then flushed with distilled water and let the vials air-dry. Blood and feathers were later analyzed by the IIRMES (Institute for Integrated Research in Materials, Environments, and Society) laboratory at California State University Long Beach (http://www.iirmes.org/). Both blood and feathers were analyzed via a Perkin Elmer 100 Dynamic Reaction Cell (DRC) ICP-MS and High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC). TRACKING SURVEYS After tagging birds with radios, we tracked them from land in the places they were tagged. We tracked birds from the ground and by air. We noted not only tagged birds but also recorded whether or not other sandpipers were present. At the tagging sites, we listened until we had not detected any signals for four consecutive days, when we considered all tagged birds to have migrated. We used Lotek Yagi hand-held 4-element antennas and Lotek SRX-400 receivers with Garvin GPS units in 2005 and 2006, and Lotek SRX-600 receivers with built-in GPS units in 2007 and 2008 (Figs. 43, 44). How we all worked together as a team was via the Internet. When a tagged bird left Panama, we emailed the next team north of there to start looking a set number of days later. When the last bird left, we emailed them again. This way, we had continuous monitoring of all birds where we were surveying, north from Panama, Mexico, California, Oregon, and British Columbia. We only surveyed Washington State once and Alaska twice. Ground surveys 41

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

On the ground in Panama, we surveyed Costa del Este and the adjacent Panama Viejo wetland on foot and by car every day at high tide. We would either stand atop the seawall in Panama (4.6 m, 15 ft) or walk onto the mudflats to get within 300-700 meters of the sandpipers (Figs. 43, 44). If we also searched at low tides, it was necessary to walk farther out onto the mudflats to obtain a code even though a radio signal could be heard from the seawall. In Mexico, we tracked them over the greater Bahia Santa Maria complex by car and by foot and boat (Figure 42).

Figure 43. Listening for birds from land in Panama – Panama Viejo

Pat Baird. Photo, Tim Burr.

In California, some wetlands were situated so as to prevent low overflights. Therefore, we surveyed Bolsa Chica, Newport Back Bay, and Seal Beach wetlands by foot. Our partners listened from land at Mugu NAS, San Francisco Bay, Elkhorn Slough, and Humboldt Bay in California. In Oregon, our partners listened from land at Yaquina and Alsea Bays, Bandon Marsh, and Newport, and in Canada, we listened from land at Boundary Bay and Roberts Bank, south of Vancouver, and in Alaska at Prince William Sound and the Copper River delta. Figure 44. Listening for birds from land in Panama – Coste del Este

Eric Davies. Photo by Tim Burr

Our method from the ground was to stand on an elevated area, pointing the antenna towards the mudflats where sandpipers were foraging. However, at Panama Bay, we were only sure of detecting all radios at full and new moons, when extra-high tides push birds to within counting distance. In between full and new moons, birds were up to a half a kilometer away, at the tide line, and if they were too far 42

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

offshore, we could hear the radio, but not identify the individual. Therefore, after the new moon, when the high tides dropped, it was necessary to walk out onto the mudflats about 100 m, just to the quicksand, to get close enough to pick up a code. (We needed these individual codes to track the posttagging movements and eventual migration date of individuals out of Costa del Este). Figure 45. Western sandpipers pushed up against land at new moon high tide

Photo by Karl Kaufmann

In Panama only, we listened for birds one hour before and after every high tide when birds were closest to land (Fig. 45). Otherwise, they were too far away (> 1 km) for us to hear the signal. In other countries, we had no tide restrictions, and thus listened for birds from land during our scheduled survey routine, without regard to tide regimes. We also looked for our dyed birds in flocks of other sandpipers, in the days post-tagging as we conducted ground (Panama, Mexico), and boat surveys (Mexico). We also posted a description of our tagged birds, with dyes, bands, and radios, to the e-bird and Audubon List Serves in each state. California 2005-2008. We had partners from California Fish and Game listen at Bolsa Chica Wildlife Refuge,and John Connelly from the DoD listened for us at Mugu Naval Air Station over all years. Josh Adams listened in Bodega Bay all years, and John Takekawa, USGS, listened in San Francisco Bay in 2006. In Humboldt Bay, Sherri Miller listened all four years. Oregon 2005-2008. In Oregon, our partners from the USFWS, Roy Lowe and Dave Ledig listened from the ground over the same time period all years. We had three listening stations in Oregon and in all years, at Yaquina and Alsea Bays, Bandon Marsh, and Newport. In Oregon, there were no tidal restrictions, and they listened from elevated cliffs above the beach. They never heard tagged birds there. British Columbia 2005-2008. Batteries did not last till the birds reached British Columbia in 2005. After that, we detected tagged birds each year in Canada beginning in 2006, when the radios had more powerful batteries that could last. In British Columbia, tide heights changed radically, and so to obtain better coverage at the lower tides, we mounted the Yagi on a 7 m (20 foot) pole to listen from a vehicle, thus gaining height and search distance. We conducted no aerial surveys in B.C. The Canadian Wildlife Service listened for our birds in 2007 and 2008. Alaska 2006, 2008. We only listened in Alaska during two years: 2006 and 2008. Batteries in the 2006 radios probably were not strong enough to last till Alaska, and our partners heard no birds there that year. However, in 2008, with miniaturized components, and larger batteries, they lasted till Alaska, and Maryann Bishop and her assistants from the USFS heard two birds at the Copper River Delta/Prince 43

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

William Sound area. In Alaska, there also were no tidal restrictions, and we listened from the ground without a vehicle, as we had in California and Oregon. Aerial Surveys Aerial surveys were our main method to track birds over such a vast area from Panama to Alaska. After birds departed their tagging areas, we tracked them from air in Panama, Mexico, California, and Washington, from a Cessna-172 airplane flown at 500’ AGL in Panama and Mexico, and from a Cessna152 in California. In addition to the southward tracking from Arizona into Mexico in 2005 and 2006, the first areas we tracked in Mexico were adjacent to Bahia Santa Maria, then southward in coastal Sinaloa to the border with Nayarit. Using the same Lotek receiver units as we used on land, we flew over coastal mudflats and estuaries, or along rivers with wide, muddy banks, as well as over inland waterbodies with appropriate habitat surrounding them. We flew all surveys AGL 500-1000 feet, using Telonics and Lotek H antennas mounted on both wing struts of Cessna models 152 (California) or 172 (Panama and Mexico) to listen from both sides of the plane (Figs. 46-50). In Washington in 2006, Lora Leschner of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, collaborated with our project and used our receiver and Washington State’s H antennas on their regular coastal surveys for clams from a Cessna 172. We flew an average of 125 mph over all possible shorebird habitats. Figure 46. Cessna 172 with Telonics H antennas in Mazatlan, Mexico

Left to right: Eric Davies and pilot Roberto Ernesto Aviles – Lopez. Photo by Tim Burr

Figure 47 Cessna 152 used in California surveys, Long Beach California airport

44

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Arrows show the antennas mounted on the wing struts. Photo- Pat Baird

Figure 48. H antennas mounted on a Cessna 172. Antenna wire goes into air intake for cabin.

Photo: Miguel Guevera

Figure 49. H antennas mounted on a Cessna 172, Mexico

Photo: Miguel Guevera

Figure 50. Dual H antennas mounted on Cessna 172, Mexico. Note the angle.

45

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Photo by Miguel Guevera

Figure 51. Data recorder in airplane

Photo Pat Baird

Panamá 2006 2007 2008. We searched for tagged birds on aerial surveys for three years over the main part of Panama Bay (Figures 52-54). On 23 March 2006 we flew from point Ensenada Rica Arriba (8° 56' 8" N, 78° 55' 27" W) to Chame, and on 10 March 2007 we surveyed from Chiman in the Darien to Chitré (Fig. 52). In 2008, we expanded our plane surveys along Panama Bay from the Darien east of Chiman to Chitré (6, 16, and 26 March).

Figure 52. Map of Survey Panama Bay Rio Ensenada Rica Arriba to Chame 2006 46

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Ensenada Rica Arriba River

Chame

www.maps.google.com

Figure 53. Map of Panama Bay Chiman to Chame 2007

Map courtesy of www.embassyworld.com

Figure 54. Map of Survey Panama Bay Chiman to Chitre 2008 47

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Mexico 2005-2007. Of the historical wetlands we surveyed, we found sandpipers at most, but the majority concentrated from Bahia Santa Maria to Las Marismas. In 2005 and 2006 we surveyed the western coast of mainland Mexico from the Colorado River Delta south to Novilero and Tecula south of Mazatlan, and these dates were determined from the ‘last heard’ dates of radios in Panama Bay. We never heard birds’ radios on two early March southbound surveys along the west coast of mainland Mexico, south from Arizona (2005, 2006), and we detected few birds north of Bahia Santa Maria in all three years of Mexico surveys. The majority of birds were at Las Marismas and Bahia Santa Maria. We did not survey Mexico in the final year, 2008. California 2005-2008. In California we listened mainly by air with the same approximate start dates over all years over a period that began when we estimated birds to have arrived there. Most of the surveys were at the recommended peak migration of shorebirds, from 1-13 April (P. Unitt, pers. comm.). We surveyed from the Mexican border along the coast to Morro Bay all four years, and added a segment north to Point Roberts beginning in 2006. We also had listening stations in Central and Northern California coastal wetlands: Bodega Bay, Bolinas Lagoon, and Humboldt Bay. We surveyed all inland wetlands such as the Salton Sea and the flooded agricultural fields in the Central Valley between the coastal mountains and the Sierra Nevada. We had ground listening stations in San Francisco Bay for two years, and surveyed it by plane in 2008. We verified that sandpipers, both radiotagged birds and not, migrate through California, but rarely use the Salton Sea during this time. In California, we heard birds at most of the historical sites, but also in areas never documented for stopover sites. Many of these areas were near small creeks, some at creek estuaries, and some inland along the edges of creeks. Other areas in California where we heard or saw birds consistently was in agricultural fields, inland in the central valley or in small irrigated fields along the coast. We consistently found birds at San Diego Bay, Bolsa Chica, Pt. Mugu, Morro Bay, small wetlands along the coast such as Carpentaria salt marsh refuge and the Pismo/Guadalupe Dunes area, the central valley near the Kern Refuge, and coastal rivers and their estuaries, e.g. the Santa Ynez River and Avila Creek, as well as at San Francisco Bay. Washington 2006. In Washington in 2006, we surveyed mudflats south of Puget Sound, piggybacking our surveys onto the Washington State Fish and Wildlife Department’s clam aerial surveys. Lora Leschner of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, partnered with our project and took our receiver and antennas with them on their regular coastal surveys in Puget Sound. We only flew surveys along mudflats south and west of Seattle from 18-20 April 2006, and found one bird there along the mudflats of the Skagit River mouth in Puget Sound. RESULTS 48

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

In our initial year of study, we summarized all historical stopover sites of the western sandpiper in the western United States (Baird 2004). The information that we found to summarize was of varying quality, and very intermittent in its coverage of the western coasts of North America. Below are lists of the important historical wetlands, from a multitude of sources, in the three western states, California, Oregon, and Washington, as well as a list of important areas noted in the United States Shorebird Plan (Brown et al. 2001). These lists are not in agreement, as we found with all of the literature that we reviewed. However, we used these sites as starting points for surveys once we began our field component, but we also surveyed many more wetlands than are listed in Tables 2, 3, and 4 below. HISTORICAL STOPOVER SITES AND SITES WHERE BIRDS WERE FOUND Table 2 lists the major historical coastal wetlands in California from the review by Baird (2005), and Table 3 lists coastal wetlands deemed important by the Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan for the western states (2001) and the U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (2004) for many different kinds of shorebirds. Some of these listed habitats are unsuitable for western sandpipers (e.g. sand bars or the rocky intertidal). Therefore, in our surveys of the western sandpiper from 2005-2008, we searched for tagged birds in all of the areas of Table 2, and in the majority of the appropriate coastal ecosystems in Table 3. Table 3 also describes which wetlands have been officially designated WSHRN sites. Table 4 lists areas we searched, and Table 5 lists where we found our tagged birds. We also surveyed the southern half of California’s interior valley for shorebirds, but a survey of similar inland areas in Washington and Oregon was beyond the scope of our project. The Fraser River Delta in British Columbia, Canada, is a bottleneck through which the migrants fly, as is the Copper River Delta/Prince William Sound area of Alaska, and thus we also searched at these two bottlenecks, since all of the migrants should be traveling through there. The first year of the study, the radios’ batteries did not last till Alaska, so we did not attempt to search there then. Note that many of these wetlands are absent from the Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan for the Western States (Brown et al. 2001). Table 2. Important Historical Wetlands in California, south to north (Baird 2005)* Wetland area Nearest large towns Years Surveyed Tijuana River NERA Imperial Beach 4 South San Diego Bay National City, Chula Vista, Imperial Beach 4 North San Diego Lagoons Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Solana Beach, Del Mar 4 San Diego NWR – Eastern Spring Valley, Bonita, Chula Vista 4 Units Santa Margarita River Oceanside, Fallbrook 4 Skinner Reservoir Area Murrieta Hot Springs 2 Southern NCCP Planning Area Mission Viejo, San Juan Capistrano, San Clemente 4 San Jacinto Valley-inland Perris, Hemet, San Jacinto 2 Santa Ana River Valley Riverside, Pedley, Rubidoux, Norco, Chino 2 Orange Coast Wetlands Long Beach, Seal Beach, Sunset Beach, Huntington Beach, 4 Newport Beach Pt. Mugu Ecosystems, Oxnard, Port Hueneme, Camarillo 4 including U.S.NAS South Goleta Ecosystems Goleta, Isla Vista 4 Santa Clara River Mouth Santa Barbara 4 Morro Bay Morro Bay 4 Bolinas Lagoon west of San Francisco 4 San Francisco Bay San Francisco 3 Humboldt Bay Eureka 4 * From Audubon Surveys SUMMARY We found western sandpipers with other species of shorebirds not only on large stopover sites, but often alone at small coastal and inland sites along rivers. Largest groups occurred in flooded agricultural 49

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

fields in California’s San Joaquin Valley. We have identified most of the coastal IBAs in Mexico and California and a majority of the inland IBAs in California, and have noted which were the ones where we found our tagged birds. See Tables 3-5. Table 3. Wetlands of importance in the Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan for the western states (2001) and U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan (2004) Use

WHSRN

Years Surveyed

BCR

Site

State

32

Bodega Harbor

CA

L

4

32

Bolinas Lagoon

CA

R

4

32

Central Valley Wetlands (Grasslands)

CA

I

32

Drakes/Limantour esteros

CA

R

32

Elkhorn Slough

CA

R

32

Los Angeles River mouth

CA

L

4

32

Mission Bay

CA

L

4

32

Morro Bay

CA

R

4

32

Mugu Lagoon

CA

R

4

32

San Diego Bay S. San Diego Bay NWR

CA

R

Y

4

32

San Francisco Bay

CA

H

Y

3

32

Seal Beach NWR

CA

L

4

32

Tomales Bay

CA

R

4

32

Upper Newport Bay

CA

L

4

33

Salton Sea—Sonny Bono NWR

CA

I

9

Alkali Lakes

CA

R

9

Butte Valley WA

CA

L

9

Goose Lake

CA/OR

R

9

Honey Lake

CA

R

9

Klamath Basin

CA/OR

R

9

Lyneta Wild Rice Area

CA

L

9

Mono Lake

CA

I

9

Owens Lake

CA

R

9

Piute Ponds

CA

R

9

San Jacinto WA

CA

L

9

Lake Albert

OR

I

9

Summer Lake

OR

R

9 9

Warner Wetlands Harney Basin

OR OR

R R

5

Grayland Beach

WA

L

5

North Beach – Long Beach

WA

R

5

Ocean Shores/Copalis Beach

WA

L

5

Padilla Bay

WA

R

5

Port Susan Bay

WA

R

5

Sequim Bay

WA

L

1

5

Skagit Bay

WA

R

1

5

Snohomish Bay

WA

L

1

5

Totten Inlet

WA

L

1

5

Willapa Bay

WA

I

Y

4

Y

4

Y

3

Y

L=Local: 4,000-20,0000 birds/yr; R= Regional: 20,000 – 100,000 b/yr; I= International: 100,000 - 500,000 b/yr; H= Hemispheric: >500,000 b/yr

Table 4. A list of WHSRN IBAs on the west coast of the US, their status, if we surveyed them, status of sandpipers on them, and Christmas Bird Count Numbers for comparison. IBA

Level

Surveyed?

Tijuana River Reserve South San Diego Bay Mission Bay San Elijo Lagoon Bolsa Chica Ecological Reserve Salton Sea Marina Vista Playa del Rey

State Global Global Global global

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

State

Sandpipers present? Yes Yes Flying over Yes Yes Yes No

Christmas Bird Count Numbers WESAS 0 ~ 680 - ~ 3400 0 Coastal Orange County ~ 4,000- ~ 7,500 ~160 - ~630

50

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Table 5. A list of nationally-recognized wetlands on the west coast of the US, and if we surveyed them RAMSAR/WHSRN Sites Humboldt Bay San Diego Bay Salton Sea Mugu Lagoon Morro Bay Puget Sound Bodega Bay Coos Bay Upper Newport Bay Drakes Estero Bolinas Lagoon – a Ramsar site Sacramento Valley Refuges

Surveyed? Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y N Y Y

51

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Table 6. Surveyed areas in Mexico, the United States, and Canada during our study Area surveyed South to North Country/state Region of Importance, Shorebird Plan, Ramsar, WHSRN Las Marismas Mexico /Sinaloa International (WHSRN) Laguna Grande/Agua Grande Las Marismas Mexico /Sinaloa International, Regional (WHSRN) El Huizache/El Caimanero wetlands Las Marismas Mexico /Sinaloa International Urias/La Piedra wetlands Mexico /Sinaloa Playa Cueta Mexico /Sinaloa WHSRN Regional Huatebalmpo Bay Mexico/Sonora La Guadalupana/Quevedo wetlands Mexico /Sinaloa Pabellones Bahia Mexico /Sinaloa International (WHSRN) Bahia Santa Maria/La Reforma Mexico /Sinaloa International, Hemispheric (WHSRN) Playa Colorado Mexico /Sinaloa Bahia de Ohuira/Navachiste wetlands Mexico /Sinaloa Lechuguila/Topolobampo wetlands Mexico /Sinaloa Jizamuri/Bacorehuis wetlands Mexico /Sinaloa International Yavaros wetlands STOP 23 JUNE 2011 Mexico/Sonora Borabampo wetlands Mexico/Sonora Bahia Tobari Mexico/Sonora Los Melagos wetlands Mexico/Sonora Bocas Las Piedras wetlands Mexico/Sonora Las Cruces/Los Algondones wetlands Mexico/Sonora Bahia Heroica Guaymas Mexico/Sonora Bahia San Carlos Mexico/Sonora Guyamas Bay Mexico/Sonora Sonora river estuary Mexico/Sonora Puerto Liberdad Bay Mexico/Sonora Tepoca Bay Mexico/Sonora Bahia Tobari Mexico/Sonora Penasco Bay Mexico/Sonora Colorado River Delta Mexico/Sonora International Tijuana River estuary US/California International San Diego Bay US/California Regional (WHSRN) Mission Bay US/California Regional, Audubon IBA San Diego lagoons US/California Audubon IBA Camp Pendleton Marine Base US/California Audubon IBA (Santa Magarita River estuary) Newport Back Bay US/California Regional Santa Ana River US/California Audubon IBA Bolsa Chica State Reserve US/California Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station US/California Regional San Gabriel River US/California Los Angeles River estuary US/California Regional San Pedro wetlands US/California Salton Sea US/California Regional Malibu River delta US/California Point Mugu Naval Air Station US/California Salton Sea US/California Audubon IBA Santa Barbara wetlands (Goleta coast) US/California Audubon IBA Santa Ynez River US/California Audubon IBA Vandenberg Air Force Base US/California Morro Bay US/California Regional, Audubon IBA Kern Refuge complex US/California Regional Central Valley Grasslands US/California International (Ramsar) International (WSHRN) Central Valley , including Pixley & Kern Refuges US/California Salinas River US/California Bolinas Lagoon US/California Audubon IBA Elkhorn Slough US/California Regional , Audubon IBA Camp Roberts Military base US/California Tomales Bay US/California International (Ramsar) Regional (WSHRN), Audubon IBA Bodega Bay US/California Regional (WHSRN) San Pablo Bay US/California Audubon IBA Table 6. Surveyed areas in Mexico, the United States, and Canada during our study (continued)

52

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Area surveyed South to North San Francisco Bay Humboldt Bay Newport Bay Oregon Alsea Bay Oregon Yaquina Bay Oregon Bandon Marsh Oregon Gray’s Harbor Washington Skagit River Delta Washington State beaches Puget Sound Fraser River Delta Boundary Bay BC Copper River Delta

Country/state US/California US/California US/Oregon US/Oregon US/Oregon US/Oregon US/Washington US/Washington US/Washington US/Washington Canada/B.C. Canada/B.C. Alaska USA

Region of Importance, Shorebird Plan, Ramsar, WHSRN Hemispheric (WHSRN), Audubon IBA International (WHSRN) Audubon IBA

Hemispheric (WHSRN) Regional (WHSRN)

International (Ramsar) Hemispheric (WHSRN) Regional (Ramsar) International (Ramsar) Hemispheric (WHSRN)

Table 7. Sites where birds tagged in Panama or Mexico were found during our study Name of Site 2005 2006 2007 2008 Agua Hedionda X-P Anaheim Bay NWL Refuge X-P Big Sandy State WL mgt area X-P Bodega Bay X-P Bolsa Chica X-P X-P Buena Vista Lagoon X-P Carpentaria salt marsh Reserve X-P China Camp Park X-P Chula Vista X-P Fiesta Island M.Bay X-P Grasslands W of Rowlee nr Lerdo X-P Guadalupe dunes Kern Refuge Central Valley: Paso Robles Central Valley: Lost Hills/Wasco/Buttonwillow Mission Bay Morro Bay Mugu lagoon Mugu NAS Ormond Beach/Santa Clara River Nipomo Guadalupe Dunes Palo Alto wetlands SF Bay Pixley S of Shafter Central Valley S San Diego Bay Chula Vista Salinas R San Lawrence terrace Salton Sea-E. side near Niland San Pablo/Honker Bays SF Santa Maragarita R mouth Camp Pendleton

X-M X-P X-P X-P X-P X-P X-M X-P

X-P X-P X-P X-P

X-P X-P X-P X-P X-P X-P X-P

X-P X-P X-P X-P

Where CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA

Table 7. (continued) 53

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Name of Site 2005 2006 2007 Santa Maria R mouth Guadalupe Dunes X-P Santa Ynez R Riverbend Park X-P Santa Ynez R mudflats Vandenberg Seal Beach NWLR X-P South San Diego Bay X-P Tijuana River estuary Vandenberg inland W Ventura & Ormond Bch Santa Clara R Agua Brava X-P Aldolfo Lopez Reservoir Culiacan X-M Bahia Santa Maria X-P X-M Las Bocas X-M Canal de Saliaca Montelargo X-M Costa Del Este X-P X-P X? El Caimanero X-P M X-P M X-P El Huizache X-P X-M X-P Jamarillo S of Caimanero X-P X-P La Reforma X X-M Laguna Grande X-P M X-P Las Marismas –south X-P X-M Montelargo Malacatoya X-P M X-M 1 Palmita de Verde N of Caimanero X Quevedo X-M Tobari X-P Skagit Bay N/A XP N/A Boundary Bay X-P Roberts Bank X-P Copper R Delta Hartney Bay N/A N/A 3 1- Tagged bird heard but origin not obtained 2 -We did not survey Mexico in 2008 3- Surveyed Alaska 2006 but batteries did not last till then – no birds heard

2008 X-P X-P

X-P X X

2 2

X 2 2 2 2 2

2 2 2 2

N/A X-P X-P X-P

Where CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA MEXICO MEXICO MEXICO MEXICO MEXICO PANAMA MEXICO MEXICO MEXICO MEXICO MEXICO MEXICO MEXICO MEXICO MEXICO MEXICO WASHINGTON CANADA CANADA ALASKA

DATES OF TRAPPING AND SURVEYING In all years, we found western sandpipers tagged in Panama and Mexico in both historical and new areas, i.e. areas not reported before. This seems to uphold one of our hypotheses that migratory routes may be changing. We trapped 330, and radio-tagged 247, western sandpipers over four years, and were able to follow the migration path of many of them, some all the way to Alaska. Table 6 shows dates we tagged birds, the number banded and dyed, the number radio-tagged, and the dates we listened at the trap site

Dates of Trapping and Listening at Tagging Site and Number of Birds Tagged 54

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Table 8. Dates of trapping and surveying (birds not tagged= juveniles or under weight limits) Year Location Dates trapping New Moon # banded # radio- Dates of listening at trap site & dyed tagged 53 37 2005 Panama 11-14 March 10 March 7 days: 14-20 March 69 50 2005 México 18-19 March N/A 12 days: 18-30 March 13 2006 Panamá 1-3 March 28 Feb 29 March 25 22 days: 3-25 March 37 30 2006 México 10 March & 18-21 N/A 28 days: 10 March – 7 April March 62 59 2007 Panamá 7 March: 1 bird; (6 March Full) 20 days: 8-30 March 18-21 March: 61 19 March New N/A N/A 2007 Mexico N/A N/A 32 days: 13 March – 15 April 80 banded 58 2008 Panamá 8-11 March 7 March 20 days: 8-28 March 84 dyed

Table 9. Numbers of birds tagged per year Costa del Este Table 10. Numbers of birds tagged per year B.S. Maria Number birds 2005 2006 2007 2008 Number birds 2005 2006 Trapped 53 25 62 84 Trapped 68 37 Radio-tagged 37 13 59 58 Radio-tagged 50 30 Known departed* 19 10 59 58 Known departed* 34 15 * Radio heard one or more days post-tagging Radio heard one or more days post-tagging

*

Survey Dates and Where Tagged Birds Were Heard Table 11 compares survey dates in the United States and Canada, and shows listening dates by our partners in red. Table 11. Survey Dates in United States and Canada: Panama and Mexico birds Year 2005 2005 2006 2007

2008

Birds from Panama Mexico Panama Mexico Panama Mexico

California

Oregon

Washington

British Columbia Canada

Alaska

30 March-20 April (1-30 Apr partners*) 30 March–20 April (1-30 Apr partners*) 4-19 April (1-30 Apr partners*) 4-19 April 13-28 April N/A

--

19-30 April (18 Apr-3 May CWS) 19-30 April (18 Apr-3 May CWS) 19-30 April (24 April-15 May CWS) 19-30 April (24 April-15 May CWS) 24 April-15 May N/A

--

Panama

30 Mar-20 April

1-30 April 1-30 April 1-30 April 1-30 April 1-30 April 30 Mar 20 April 30 Mar 20 April

15-30 April

20-25 April

13-30 April 13-30 April --

--

25-29 April 25-29 April -N/A

* Partners = San Francisco Bay, Bodega Bay, Humboldt Bay, San Elijo Lagoon, Bolsa Chica The following tables list all sites where we detected radio-tagged birds. The term X-P means birds from Panama heard; X-M means birds from Mexico heard; and X- P M means birds from both Mexico and Panama detected.

55

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Table 12. Stopover sites in Mexico : radio-tagged western sandpipers from Costa del Este (P) and Bahia Santa Maria (M). In 2007 and 2008, we did not radio-tag birds in Mexico, and in 2008, we did not listen for Panama birds in Mexico. Stopover Site Agua Brava

2005 X-P

2006

2007

2008

Agua Grande

X-P

MEXICO

Aldolfo Lopez Reservoir Culiacan

X-M

MEXICO

Bahia Santa Maria

X-P M

Canal de Saliaca Montelargo

X-M

El Caimanero

X-P M

X-P M

X-P

MEXICO

El Huizache

X-P M

X-M

X-P

MEXICO

Jamarillo S of Caimanero

X-P

X-P

MEXICO

La Reforma

X-M

Laguna Grande

X-P M

Las Bocas

X-M

Las Marismas –south

X-P

X-M

MEXICO

Montelargo Malacatoya

X-P M

X-M

MEXICO

Quevedo

X-M

X-M

MEXICO

Rio Baluarte

X-M

X-M

MEXICO

Sauta Bay

X-P

X-P M

MEXICO

Tobari

X-P

X-M

Where MEXICO

MEXICO MEXICO

X-M

MEXICO X-P

MEXICO MEXICO

MEXICO

Table 13. Stopover sites in California: radio-tagged western sandpipers from Costa del Este (P) and Bahia Santa Maria (M). In 2007 and 2008, we did not radio-tag birds in Mexico. Stopover Site 2005 2006 2007 2008 Where Agua Hedionda X-P CALIFORNIA Anaheim Bay NWL Refuge X-P CALIFORNIA Big Sandy State WL mgt area Bodega Bay

X-P

Bolsa Chica

X-P

Buena Vista Lagoon

X-P

CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA

X-P

CALIFORNIA

X-P

CALIFORNIA

Carpentaria salt marsh Reserve Central Valley: Buttonwillow, Wasco, Lost Hills, San Joaquin Hills, San Joaquin China Camp Park

X-P

X-P

X-P

CALIFORNIA

X-P

CALIFORNIA

X-P

CALIFORNIA

Chula Vista

X?

CALIFORNIA

Fiesta Island M.Bay

X?

CALIFORNIA

Grasslands W of Rowlee nr Lerdo

X-P

CALIFORNIA

Guadalupe dunes

X-M

CALIFORNIA

Kern Refuge

X-P

X-P

CALIFORNIA

Central Valley: Paso Robles

X-P

X-P

CALIFORNIA

Mission Bay

X-P

Morro Bay

X-P

Mugu lagoon Mugu NAS

X-M

CALIFORNIA X-P

CALIFORNIA

X-P

CALIFORNIA

Table 13 (continued) 56

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Stopover Site Nipomo Guadalupe Dunes

2005

2006

2007

Palo Alto wetlands SF Bay Pixley S San Diego Bay Chula Vista

2008 X-P

Where CALIFORNIA

X-P X-P

CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA

X-P

Salinas R San Lawrence terrace

CALIFORNIA

X-P

CALIFORNIA

Salton Sea

X-P

CALIFORNIA

San Pablo/Honker Bays SF

X-P

CALIFORNIA

Santa Maragarita R mouth Camp Pendleton Santa Maria R mouth Guadalupe Dunes

CALIFORNIA X-M

X-P

Santa Ynez R Riverbend Park

X-P

X-P

Santa Ynez R mudflats Vandenberg AFB

CALIFORNIA X-P

South San Diego Bay

X-P

Tijuana River estuary

CALIFORNIA

CALIFORNIA CALIFORNIA

X-P

CALIFORNIA

Table 14. Stopover sites in Washington, British Columbia Canada, and Alaska: radio-tagged western sandpipers from Costa del Este (P) and Bahia Santa Maria (M). In 2007 and 2008, we did not tag birds from Mexico. Stopover Site 2005 2006 2007 2008 Where 1 Skagit Bay Puget Sound N/A X-P N/A N/A WASHINGTON CANADA Boundary Bay

X-P

Roberts Bank

*

2

*

2

X-P

CANADA

X-P

X-P

CANADA

N/A

X-P

ALASKA

ALASKA Copper R Delta Hartney Bay 1 2

N/A

N/A: Did not listen * Listened but no birds detected.

SURVEYS BY GEOGRAPHICAL AREA Coastal Surveys-all years Panama From our surveys of all suitable habitat for western sandpipers on the Pacific coast of Panama via ground and air surveys all four years, the only large concentration of western sandpipers and other Neotropical migrant shorebirds was in the Bay of Panama, Costa del Este. Birds of many species extended from the easternmost Rio Juan Diaz to Panama Viejo Bay, but western sandpipers were mainly at Costa del Este and Panama Viejo. The alternate bay where we found large numbers of western sandpipers, as well as other shorebird species, was east of Costa del Este, east of both Rio Juan Diaz and Rio Pacora. Access was impossible because of the surrounding mangrove forest. Near to the dates that we trapped, birds moved west from here and into Costa del Este. The greatest concentration of all species, mainly shorebirds and larids (gulls and terns), was between two creeks, the mouths of which define either terminus of the Costa del Este developed area, from the mouth of the Rio Juan Diaz (9° 1’ 6.492”, -79° 26’ 11.2272”) to Rio Matías Hernandez at Costa del Este (9° 0’ 32.922”, -79° 28’ 8.3346“) . Mexico. We flew the entire west mainland coast of Mexico between Nayarit and Sinaloa to Guaymas and north to the Colorado River delta in 2005 and 2006. (Bahia Santa Maria-north of Mazatlan). In 2007, because we were no longer following birds tagged in Mexico, and since we had found the majority of Panama birds in the Las Marismas area in prior years, we concentrated our efforts at the National Wetlands, from the Nayarit/Sinaloa border to Mazatlan. We did not fly over Mexico in 2008 due to 57

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

customs problems with our equipment. In all of our surveys over Mexico, we found tagged birds at most estuaries along the coast south of Bahia Santa Maria in all years, with the majority found in Las Marismas and near where they were tagged at Malacatoya/Montenegro area in Bahia Santa Maria. Some birds remained at least a week in the southern wetlands in Sinaloa, and some may have remained longer or did not migrate. Panama-Tagged Birds in Mexico. In all years, we found 21 out of 109 Panama-tagged birds in Mexico (19.3%), listening for them from 7 to 36 days after tagging (not counting 2008 when we did not survey Mexico). They first appeared in Mexico 21-27 days post-tagging. This time from capture in Panama to time of relocating birds in Mexico was one to two weeks, and is consistent with our current knowledge of migration, (birds leave Panama around 15-20 March, and not earlier). For example, although in 2006 we tagged birds two weeks earlier than in 2005, (due to tide height), these birds did not leave until after the 15th, over a week after we tagged them. In 2007, we had the worst tidal regime in Panama for tagging, time-wise, and we tagged birds very late (18-19 March). Some of these birds departed Panama the day we tagged them, and the longest that birds remained there was 11 days. In 2008 we had equipment failure such that bird codes were not recorded but could be seen on the data-logger as we listened, although we may have missed some. Thus we do not have departure dates and LOS in Panama for all birds that year. The majority of Panama birds found in Mexico stopped over at El Caimanero Lagoon. The alternate lagoons used less often were Jamarillo and El Huizache nearby, and Laguna Grande. We also found shorebirds somewhat inland, in mangrove rivulets at Las Marismas Mexico. In 2005, we found a Panama bird whom we had not located in either of the two main foraging areas, Las Marismas and Bahia Santa Maria, and this discovery might indicate that birds skip large stopover sites. This bird was found in one of the most northern mudflats of Sonora: at Bahia de Tobari near Yaquia, Navojoa and Huatabampo. Mexico-Tagged Birds in Mexico. The years 2005 and 2006 were the only two years we tagged birds from Mexico. In Mexico, all wetlands from where the birds were tagged, Bahia Santa Maria, south to the border of Sinaloa and Nayarit, were used by our tagged birds. Only one bay north of Bahia Santa Maria was used. It appeared that birds tagged in Mexico and Panama skipped northern Mexico, once they departed either Las Marismas or Bahia Santa Maria, and they stopped over next in California. We documented the unusual southward migration of birds tagged at Bahia Santa Maria, which Nils Warnock had documented before (2001). Radio-tagged Mexican birds often remained at Bahia Santa Maria where they were first tagged, and a subset also traveled south to near the National Wetlands, Las Marismas, 25˚ 00’ 53.1” N 108˚ 00’ 00” W, near Mazatlan in southern Sinaloa, to forage and stage before some flew northward again. The majority of tagged birds remained at Bahia Santa Maria at the Montelargo Malacatoya Lagoon area. In 2005, out of the 86 birds we tagged, we detected 60 % (30) in Mexico and 8% more (4) in both Mexico and California. Of those detected in Mexico, 24% (12) headed south from where they were tagged and seven never returned to the tagging site. In 2006, despite some GPS failures, we heard 14 (out of 28) Mexico-tagged birds in Mexico, and one headed south. United States. The only appropriate coastal foraging areas on the west coast of the contiguous United States are mainly in southern California and northern Washington. Much of the intervening areas are either rocky, sandy, or developed. Therefore, with the exception of stationary monitoring stations in northern California and coastal Oregon, we concentrated the majority of our surveys in southern and central California.

Table 15. Panama birds found north of Panama* # tagged (# N # only in Year # only in of Panama)

# in Mexico

# only in

# in California

# in Alaska 58

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Mexico 2005 37 (7) 7 2006 13 (2) 1 2007 59 (26) 5 2008 58 (35) N/S * N/S means “not surveyed”

California 0 1 11 19

& California 0 0 8 N/S

BC N/S 0 1 5

& BC 0 0 1 9

N/S -N/S 2

California. The types of wetlands we found in California were very different from what we had found in Mexico and Panama. Whereas many of the mudflats and wetlands in Mexico, as well as Panama Bay, contained many different species and numbers of individuals, the coastal wetlands of California had relatively low numbers of mudflats and very low species diversity. In California, we flew over every wetland and mudflat, historically important or not, on both DoD and non-DoD lands, which were either privately owned or owned by a federal, state or municipal government. We conducted surveys along the coast from the Mexican-California border to coastal Central California, at Morro Bay, and also in the Bodega Bay/Bolinas Lagoon/ mudflats north to San Francisco and San Pablo Bays. In 2005, we surveyed all inland natural and artificial small lakes, but never found one shorebird there, so we discontinued this part of the survey in 2006. In coastal southern California, we consistently found small flocks of sandpipers that we had not tagged, probably western sandpipers, in south San Diego Bay along the salt works area, and we found other small flocks at Bolsa Chica, Mugu Lagoon, Morro Bay, and San Francisco Bay. We also often saw small flocks of sandpipers flying, not foraging. We consistently found radio-tagged birds at Morro Bay, at wetlands along the coast such as Carpentaria salt marsh refuge, Mugu Lagoon NAS, Bolsa Chica National Wildlife Refuge, and Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station. In the Central Valley of California are agricultural fields that are flooded for irrigation. This is where we found many of our tagged sandpipers. The pathways that the birds took each year may have varied somewhat, especially their use of the inland valleys. This use may have been dependent on the amount of precipitation. California gets very little rain, and when it does come, it is in the winter, right before the shorebird migration. See Abiotic section for a summary of precipitation in California over the four years of the project. Panama-tagged birds in California. We found Panama birds along the coast from the Tijuana estuary at the border with Mexico, and including small remnant lagoons like Buena Vista, north to Morro Bay, and at estuaries of coastal rivers in central California, often upriver from the coast, and at DoD-owned Mugu NAS and Vandenberg AFB. We also found Panama birds in northern California at Palo Alto Wetlands, San Pablo, and Bodega Bays and near Camp Roberts on the Salinas River near Paso Robles. We also found many of our tagged birds in wetlands in the central valley, just south of Lemoore NAS and near Pixley and Kern National Wildlife Refuge. The sites where we often found birds in California would not be considered prime stopover sites, based on our previous assumptions. Mexico-tagged Birds in California. After 2006, we no longer tagged birds in Mexico. In the two years that we did tag, their detection in California differed between 2005 and 2006. In 2005,we detected 8% (4) of Mexican-tagged birds in California: three at Mugu Lagoon NAS, and one at the Guadalupe Dunes/Santa Maria River floodplain and agricultural fields. All birds heard in California were heard in Mexico post-tagging. In 2006, we heard no Mexico-tagged birds in California, although one was heard over the mudflats of Puget Sound at the mouth of the Skagit River. California had a 100-year maximum of winter precipitation in 2005 and a dry winter in 2006, which may have influenced the migration route. Perhaps birds in the drier year of 2006 headed inland to areas we did not survey, or else we may have missed their migration dates. 59

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Oregon/Washington. We piggybacked onto Washington State Fish and Wildlife aerial mudflat surveys for clams in Puget Sound, Washington State in 2006 only, sending our data-logger to the researchers (Lora Leschner). Our other partners in Oregon (Roy Lowe & Dave Ledig-USFWS) listened for our birds as well as for theirs at major estuaries/lagoons (Alsea & Yaquina Bays and Bandon Marsh) as well as from listening points situated along the rocky coast. Oregon. Oregon has a rocky coast, except for estuaries and embayments. Our partners listened at three of these, using their receivers, and also listened along the coast to detect any birds flying by but not landing. They listened there for three years during the correct time period, and we heard no Mexico or Panama birds. Because our partners heard none of our tagged birds off the Oregon coast, we assume that western sandpipers traveled north to the Fraser River delta in British Columbia using an inland route. A small sample of our tagged birds demonstrated this possible route because we heard birds in Mexico and California, and found them again in Canada, yet never detected these birds from the coast in Oregon. Although none of our tagged birds were ever heard in coastal Oregon, we have information on shorebirds migrating past Oregon from our partners Roy Lowe and Dan Ledig. An example of the kind of data we have is from 2008. In 2008, by 17 April, the first shorebirds were spotted along the south coast Oregon refuges (Dave Ledig, Roy Lowe, pers. comm.). Over 100 were seen at Bandon Marsh NWR on 17 April, and smaller groups of 15-50 were seen every 5-10 minutes migrating at Crook Point of the Oregon Island NWR, south of Gold Beach on 18 April. Largest migrating numbers were at sunrise. Groups of over 500 started to be seen at Bandon Marsh on 18 April, 2008. Western sandpipers usually peak there around 21-24 April, and despite strong 20-30 knot winds along the south coast of Oregon, pushing the birds onshore, the timing of migration in 2008 was similar to what had been seen in previous years. Washington. In Washington, like Oregon, most of the coast is rocky, and only where there are estuaries of rivers or other mudflats, are sandpipers found. Our partner, Washington State Fish and Wildlife, regularly flies over the mudflats of Puget Sound conducting surveys for clams. We found one of our birds in such a survey in the only year we were able to have assistance in flying over Washington state (2006). Because we piggy-backed onto clam surveys, we were only were able to survey a small area of mudflats river estuaries like Padilla and Skagit Bays in Puget Sound. We did not survey large bays like Willapa Bay and Gray’s Inlet where shorebirds are regularly found during spring. However, we did find one Mexico-tagged bird in Skagit Bay, Puget Sound that year. This absence of birds from Oregon’s coastal flyway validated our decision not to have flown the coast of Oregon where the USFWS listened for our birds. Tagged sandpipers from California must have overflown Oregon or else took a more direct and time-saving inland route from California to Boundary Bay Canada, where we detected them. Panama and Mexico-tagged birds Oregon and Washington. Our partners listened along the coast in Oregon. However, we only surveyed Puget Sound, and did not survey Gray’s Harbor or Willappa Bay, two historically important stopover sites. The mouth of the Skagit River was the one area where we located tagged birds. No birds were heard off the coast of Oregon at our three listening stations. B.C. Canada. The major stopover site on the mainland of British Columbia for shorebirds is at the Fraser River Delta (Boundary Bay and Roberts Bank). We listened there for three years (2006-2008), and found our birds every year. Panama- tagged birds British Columbia, Canada. The only places we surveyed were at the Fraser River delta and Boundary Bay areas. These mudflats have rich foraging habitat for sandpipers, and we found tagged birds there every year from 2006-2008. The batteries did not last till BC in 2005. These two areas provide some of the largest and richest habitat for migrating shorebirds in all of B.C. 60

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Mexico-tagged birds British Columbia, Canada. We found no Mexico-tagged birds in B.C. Alaska. The last major stopover site for shorebirds before they disperse to their breeding sites is at the Copper River Delta in Alaska. We sent our data-logger to our cooperators at the U.S. Forest Service at the Delta, Maryann Bishop’s team, including Xico Vega from Mexico in 2006 and Neil Dawson in 2008. Panama-tagged birds in Alaska. The only year we found tagged birds in Alaska was in 2008, our final year. . We found two Panama birds in the Copper River Delta in Alaska, the major stopover site before they disperse to breed. We did not hear them in the prior year we searched there (2006) which may have been because of battery failure of the radios. Radios in 2008 had stronger batteries which lasted longer than previously Mexico-tagged birds in Alaska. We found no Mexico-tagged birds in Alaska. Thus, we covered the majority of the western flyway in Panama, Mexico, California and British Columbia. We did not listen for birds inland in Oregon, Washington, or B.C. but we did listen in the central valley of California. We feel confident that our results reflect the current migratory pathways of western sandpipers from Panama to Alaska.

Inland Surveys - Details The two main non-coastal historical target areas for our surveys were the Salton Sea, just east of San Diego and the Central San Joaquin Valley (see Appendix I). California—inland wetlands. In southern California in 2005, we surveyed all inland waterbodies west of the coast mountains including the Salton Sea. Commencing in 2006, in addition to listening along the coast, we listened for birds east to the Sierra Nevada mountains. We surveyed the Central Valley/ San Joaquin Valley area which is covered with many temporary and permanent freshwater ponds and agricultural fields flooded for irrigation. We often saw birds in scattered groups near the Grasslands area, Pixley and Kern National Wildlife Refuges, and in privately-owned flooded agricultural fields, although we often saw untagged sandpipers over much of the Central Valley north of Kern Refuge. The Salton Sea. Historically, small groups of western sandpipers have traveled through the Salton Sea, but not in as large numbers as are found on the coast or in the Central Valley (G. MacKaskie, pers. comm.). It is considered a fairly good stopover site for migratory waterbirds, and many shorebirds have been found there in the past. During the majority of our surveys over the Salton Sea, we found no large flocks of sandpipers, and we heard only two of our tagged Panama individuals there. The main species of bird that we found at the Salton Sea, usually were nesting egrets. All other shorebirds, both large and small, were conspicuously absent when we surveyed there in April. California--Inland foraging up rivers. We also surveyed inland along large rivers and small creeks. An unexpected discovery was our finding small groups of foraging western sandpipers during these surveys along the coastal rivers and estuaries, and in adjacent flooded agricultural fields. This type of up-river foraging was similar to the distribution pattern we found along mangrove rivulets at Las Marismas Mexico. In California, we found tagged birds on the edges of creeks and in flooded agricultural fields along the Santa Maria River, Avila Creek, and the Santa Ynez River, (next to Vandenberg Air Force Base), and along mudflats near Big Sandy, on the Salinas River, (near Camp Roberts). Researchers had not reported this up-river foraging for western sandpipers before. Alternate Migratory paths from Panama: Texas mudflats In order to determine whether birds from Panama ever migrated via the major flyway through Texas, we surveyed Bolivar Flats on the Gulf coast in 2007. Colleagues from the University of Corpus Christi had

61

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

told us that this was an important stopover site for western sandpipers. When we surveyed the area, we found no sandpipers there. Department of Defense Lands In southern and central California, the majority of the larger wetlands and estuaries are on Department of Defense lands. Thus, we assumed that shorebirds would utilize these lands disproportionately from other non-military lands. However, we found birds utilizing all kinds of available habitat, not spending a disproportionate amount of time on DoD lands. We found that the DoD only had ~13 % - 17 % of birds on their lands, assuming that the years we heard the most birds was typical. Table 16 compares numbers of birds found on military vs. non-military land in California and Washington.

Table 16. Number of important stopover sites on military and nonmilitary land for tagged birds in California.

Calif. & Wash. 2005 2006 2007 2008 DoD land 1 0 3 3 Non-DoD land 1 4 14 19 Of the DoD lands surveyed in California, only Mugu NAS had a large number of shorebirds, and they were clustered at Mugu Lagoon. Vandenberg AFB occasionally had small flocks of shorebirds, and they were at the Santa Maria River estuary. Likewise, the Santa Magarita estuary (Camp Pendleton Marine Base) always had a handful of shorebirds. Places in southern and central California that had the largest flocks of shorebirds, with the exception of Mugu Lagoon, were at non-DoD lands: South San Diego Bay, a federally protected area; Bolsa Chica, a state protected area; and at Morro Bay, which had the largest coastal number of shorebirds seen on our entire west coast U.S. survey. The Central Valley also had large numbers of tagged shorebirds all years we surveyed there. The newly-documented DoD area that we found for western sandpipers was the Santa Maria River estuary. Birds found there were inland of the mouth, some in flooded fields adjacent to it. Our observations show that Panama- and Mexico-tagged birds did not travel together even though birds in Mexico were tagged and released during the time tagged birds from Panama arrived in Mexico. We never found Panama- and Mexico –tagged birds at the same wetlands on any of our surveys. In California, we found birds tagged in Panama and Mexico at Mugu NAS and lagoon, as well as many other species of sandpipers, but not in the same year. We found Panama-tagged birds in California near Vandenberg AFB, at Camp Pendleton, and at the vast DoD wetlands in San Diego Bay, Camp Pendleton, the Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station.

DETAILS OF SURVEYS ALL YEARS – BY YEAR AND LOCATION OF CAPTURE The results that follow are a short summary of the results for each year in the field. Following the yearly description are tables listing where al birds were heard each year. Data for birds are separated by where they were tagged.

2005 Surveys 2005- Panama-tagged birds in Panama. In 2005, we detected 51.4% of birds tagged over 7 days. That year, we did not stay as long at Costa del Este as in the next three years, and did not remain in Panama till the last bird left, because of scheduling conflicts that arose after we had radio-tagged all birds. Thus, this small percent recovery is most likely linked to the amount of effort spent listening. The time that all birds remained in Panama post-tagging in 2005 is unknown. We had a number of radio failures this year due to malfunction of the infrared activator.

62

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

2005- Panama-tagged birds in Mexico. At the start of our Mexico survey in 2005, we searched southward from the Mexico-U.S. border along the west coast of mainland Mexico, and we found none of our birds, as well as very few shorebirds, which indicated that we were ahead of the major northward migration in timing. We then started listening from the ground for Panama and Mexico-tagged birds in Bahia Santa Maria on 16 March, (the date that we calculated, from published travel times), was the earliest that any birds would have been able to reach landfall in appropriate mudflats in Mexico. We applied this same travel time to start dates of surveys in Mexico for the next four field seasons. We listened until the 31st of March. We detected 18.9% of Panama-tagged birds in Mexico (36.8% of the birds known to have departed Panama). Of the 48.6% never detected post-tagging, the cause was most likely radio malfunction, as determined later. We found seven Panama birds in Mexico in 2005 near Bahia Santa Maria, La Reforma, Laguna Grande, and Caimanero areas at Las Marismas in Sinaloa, and at Bahia de Tobari, (one of the most northern mudflats in Sonora) near Huatabampo and Yaqui, 8-9 days post-tagging (Table 17, Figure 55). This was the only tagged bird ever found in Mexico north of Bahia Santa Maria in all four years of the study. 2005- Panama-tagged birds in California, Oregon, Washington, Canada. We found no Panama birds in California or Oregon in 2005, and did not listen in Washington, or Canada.

63

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Table 17. Sighting of Panama-tagged birds in Mexico and California, 2005. Radio Code

Date Banded

1

3/13/2005

2

3/13/2005

Last date heard in Panama 3/19/2005

1st heard Mexico

Where Mexico

Next Mexico

Where

Next Mexico

Where

3/30/2005

Las Marismas Laguna Grande (9.2 km/5.72 mi)

3/30/2005

Las Marismas: El

1st heard California

Where

Huizache/Caimanero (70.63 km/ 43.884 mi)

3

3/13/2005

4

3/13/2005

3/19/2005

5

3/13/2005

3/18/2005

6

3/13/2005

3/18/2005

7

3/13/2005

8

3/13/2005

9

3/13/2005

10

3/14/2005

12

3/14/2005

13

3/14/2005

14

3/13/2005

15

3/14/2005

3/18/2005

16

3/13/2005

3/20/2005

18

3/13/2005

3/17/2005

3/15/2005 3/27/2005

L.M. El Huizache (3277.22 km / 2036.37 mi)

3/20/2005

BSM: La Reforma (3516.175 km / 2184.85 mi)

3/20/2005

64

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

1st Mexico

Where Mexico

3/13/2005

3/20/2005

Bahia Santa Maria

20

3/13/2005

3/20/2005

BSM: La Reforma (3516.175 km / 2184.85 mi)

21

3/13/2005

23

3/13/2005

79

3/11/2005

80

3/11/2005

4/1/2005

Tobari Bay W of Navojoa City (3738.457 km / 2322.97 mi)

81

3/12/2005

82

3/12/2005

83

3/11/2005

84

3/12/2005

3/19/2005

85

3/12/2005

3/19/2005

86

3/12/2005

87

3/12/2005

88

3/12/2005

89

3/12/2005

90

3/12/2005

3/20/2005

91

3/12/2005

3/19/2005

92

3/12/2005

3/20/2005

Radio code

Date Banded

19

Last date heard in Panama

Last Mexico

Where

Next Mexico

Where Mexico

3/28/2005

El Caimanero & El Huizache LM (317.88 km/ 197.521 mi)

3/30/2005

El Caimanero El Huizache

1st heard California

Where

3/18/2005

65

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Radio code

Date Banded

93

3/12/2005

96

3/12/2005

98

3/12/2005

Last date heard in Panama

1st Mexico

Where Mexico

Last Mexico

Where Mexico

Next Mexico

Where Mexico

1st heard California

Where

3/20/2005

66

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Migration Distance and Length of Stay 2005 Panama-tagged Birds. Calculating the migration distance from Panama to Mexico, birds took a mean of 8 days (SE=0), to cover 3361.87 km (SD=215.7, SE = 81.529). They then stayed in Mexico an average of 2.4 days (SD=3.085, SE=1.166), staying in each stopover site an average of 1.23 days (SD= 0.611, SE=0.231). The mean number of stopover sites was 1.67 (SD= 0.7646, SE=0.289). The average distance moved between sites in Mexico was 119.2 km (SD=134.054, SE 50.668). See Discussion.

Figure 55. All Panama birds which we located in 2005

20005-Mexico-tagged birds in México. In Mexico in 2005, we detected 60 % of the 50 tagged birds (30) in Mexico over 13 days. Of the ones we heard again, 40% (12) headed south of where they were tagged (Table 18). Seven birds went south immediately after tagging (14% of all birds) and were not heard again at Bahia Santa Maria or at any site north of Las Marismas. Twenty-five birds (50% of all birds tagged) were never heard north of Mexico. 2005-Mexico-tagged birds in California. We detected 8% of Mexican-tagged birds in California: at Mugu Lagoon NAS (3), and at the Guadalupe Dunes/Santa Maria River floodplain and agricultural fields (1). All birds heard in California were heard in Mexico. Half of these had first flown south from Bahia Santa Maria to Las Marismas before returning to their northward migration path. 2005-Mexico-tagged birds in Oregon, Washington, Canada, Alaska: We detected no Mexico-tagged birds north of California in 2005.

67

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Table 18. Sighting of Mexico-tagged birds in Mexico and California, 2005. 1st elsewhere in Mexico

Where Mexico

Next Mexico

Where

Last Mexico

Where

1st Calif.

Where first

3/22/2005

Montelargo Malacatoya BSM (40.957 km/ 25.450 mi)

3/23/2005

Montelargo Malacatoya BSM

3/29/2005

El Huizache El Caimanero LM (291.570 km/ 181.17 mi))

4/8/2005

Mugu Lagoon (1844.29 km/ 1145.99 mi)

3/19/2005

3/29/2005

26

3/19/2005

3/23/2005

La Reforma BSM (69.402 km/ 43.125 mi) Montelargo Malacatoya BSM (40.957 km/ 25.450 mi)

27

3/19/2005

28

3/18/2005

3/29/2005

29 South

3/18/2005

3/25/2005

30

3/18/2005

31

3/19/2005

32

3/19/2005

33

3/18/2005

3/23/2005

Montelargo Malacatoya BSM

Radio code

Date Banded

17

3/18/2005

22 South

3/18/2005

24

3/19/2005

25

Last date heard at Bahia Santa Maria

Last Calif.

Where last

La Reforma BSM (69.402 km/ 43.125 mi) Rio Baluarte S of Huizache LM (263.086 km / 163.474mi)

3/26/2005

Montelargo/ Malacatoya BSM (40.957 km/ 25.450 mi)

3/22/2005

Montelargo Malacatoya BSM (40.957 km/ 25.450 mi)

68

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

1st elsewhere in Mexico 3/29/2005

Where Mexico

3/19/2005

3/23/2005

47

3/18/2005

3/31/ 2005

48

3/19/2005

49

3/19/2005

50 South

3/19/2005

51

Radio code

Date Banded

34 South

3/18/2005

42

3/19/2005

46 South

Last date heard at Bahia Santa Maria

Last Mexico

Where

Montelargo Malacatoya BSM(40.957 km/ 25.450 mi) Southern BSM canal near Navolato

3/25/2005

wetlands just south of BSM near Quevedo & Abacho

3/22/2005

Montelargo Malacatoya BSM (40.957 km/ 25.450 mi)

3/29/2005

El Huizache LM (296.58 km/ 184.28 mi)

3/18/2005

3/23/2005

52

3/18/2005

3/26/2005

53

3/19/2005

3/26/2005

Montelargo Malacatoya BSM (40.957 km/ 25.450 mi) Montelargo near La Reforma city Canal de Saliaca BSM Montelargo near La Reforma city Canal BSM

1st Calif.

Where first

3/30/2005

Laguna Grande LM (337.84 km /209.923 mi)

4/8/2005

Mugu Lagoon (1554.952 km/ 966.202 mi)

4/10/2005

Flooded field Santa Maria River East of Guadalupe Dunes/Oso Flaco (1706.347 km / 1060.275 mi)

Last Calif.

Where last

El Huizache El Caimanero LM(246.940 km/ 153.442 mi)

3/28/2005

Near BSM Culiacan Adolfo Lopez Mateo Reservoir (225.806 km/ 140.309 mi)

3/29/2005

La Reforma BSM (24.164 km/ 15.015 mi)

69

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Where Mexico

Next Mexico

Where

3/19/2005

1st elsewhere in Mexico 3/22/2005

Malacatoya BSM (40.957 km/ 25.450 mi)

3/29/2005

La Reforma BSM (24.164 km/ 15.015 mi)

55 South

3/19/2005

3/26/2005

3/29/2005

56

3/19/2005

3/22/2005

57

3/19/2005

3/26/2005

58 South

3/19/2005

3/23/2005

Montelargo BSM near La Reforma city Canal de Saliaca Montelargo Malacatoya BSM (40.957 km/ 25.450 mi) Montelargo near La Reforma city Canal de Saliaca BSM Montelargo Malacatoya BSM (40.957 km/ 25.450 mi)

59

3/19/2005

60

3/19/2005

61 South

3/18/2005

Caimanero Lagoon El Huizache Las Marismas (182.34

Radio code

Date Banded

54

Last date heard at Bahia Santa Maria

3/24/2005

Last Mexico

Where

La Reforma (69.402 km/ 43.125 mi)

3/31/2005

Laguna Grande LM (208.48 mi/ 335.51 km)

3/26/2005

Montelargo near La Reforma BSM Canal de Saliaca

3/28/2005

Adolfo López Mateo Reservoir BSM (37.771 km/ 23.470 mi)

3/26/2005

Montelargo near La Reforma city Canal de Saliaca (182.34 mi /293.45km)

3/29/2005

La Reforma BSM 69.402 km/ (43.125 mi)

3/29/2005

La Reforma (69.402 km/ 43.125 mi)

mi /293.45km)

62

3/18/2005

3/26/2005

Montelargo near La Reforma city Canal de Saliaca BSM

1st Calif. or still Mex.

Where

Last Calif.

Where last

Still in Mexico 3/29/2005

Caimanero Lagoon El Huizache LM 174.31 mi/ 280.52 km)

4/8/2005

Pt. Mugu NAS Lagoon (1612.53 km/ 1001.98 mi)

70

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Radio code

Date Banded

63

3/19/2005

1st elsewhere in Mexico 3/26/2005

64

3/19/2005

3/26/2005

65

3/19/2005

3/22/2005

66

3/19/2005

67

Last date heard at Bahia Santa Maria*

Where*

Last Mexico

Where

Montelargo near La Reforma city Canal de Saliaca BSM Montelargo near La Reforma city Canal de Saliaca Montelargo Malacatoya BSM (40.957 km/ 25.450 mi)

3/29/2005

La Reforma BSM (69.402 km/ 43.125 mi) Santa Maria Bay Culiacan

3/23/2005

Montelargo Malacatoya BSM

3/26/2005

3/22/2005

Montelargo Malacatoya BSM (40.957 km/ 25.450 mi)

3/23/2005

Montelargo Malacatoya BSM

3/26/2005

3/19/2005

3/23/2005

68

3/19/2005

3/29/2005

Montelargo Malacatoya BSM (40.957 km/ 25.450 mi) La Reforma BSM (69.402 km/ 43.125 mi)

69

3/19/2005

70

3/18/2005

71

3/18/2005

72 South

3/19/2005

3/31/2005

3/26/2005

Montelargo near La Reforma city Canal de Saliaca BSM

3/29/2005

La Reforma BSM (69.402 km/ 43.125 mi)

3/22/2005

Montelargo Malacatoya BSM (40.957 km/ 25.450 mi)

3/29/2005

La Reforma BSM (24.164 km/ 15.015 mi)

3/30/2005

Montelargo near BSM La Reforma city Canal de Saliaca Montelargo near BSM La Reforma city Canal de Saliaca

1st Calif

Where first

3/29/2005

La Reforma (24.164 km/ 15.015 mi)

Last Calif

Where last

El Caimanero Lagoon El Huizache LM (182.34 mi /293.45km)

71

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Where*

Next Mexico

Where

Last Mexico

3/19/2005

1st elsewhere in Mexico 3/22/2005

Montelargo Malacatoya BSM (40.957 km/ 25.450 mi)

3/23/2005

Montelargo Malacatoya BSM

3/29/2005

El Caimanero Lagoon El Huizache LM (182.34 mi /293.45km)

3/19/2005

3/23/2005

Montelargo Malacatoya BSM (40.957 km/ 25.450 mi)

3/26/2005

Montelargo near BSM La Reforma city Canal de Saliaca

3/29/2005

Las Marismas El Huizache

3/22/2005

Montelargo Malacatoya BSM (40.957 km/ 25.450 mi)

3/26/2005

Montelargo near BSM La Reforma city Canal de Saliaca

Montelargo near La Reforma city Canal de Saliaca BSM Montelargo Malacatoya BSM (40.957 km/ 25.450 mi)

3/29/2005

La Reforma (69.402 km/ 43.125 mi)

3/23/2005

Montelargo Malacatoya BSM

Radio code

Date Banded

73 South

74 South

Last date heard at Bahia Santa Maria*

75

3/19/2005

76

3/19/2005

77

3/19/2005

78

3/19/2005

94

3/18/2005

3/26/2005

95

3/18/2005

3/22/2005

97

3/18/2005

1st Calif

Where first

Last Calif

Where last

(182.34 mi /293.45km)

BSM = Bahia Santa Maria near Culiacan, Laco Largo; LM = Las Marismas, the National Wetlands south of Mazatlan

72

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Migration Distance and Length of Stay 2005- Mexico-tagged Birds Bahia Santa Maria is a very large wetlands, and the area where many of tagged birds were found, Montelargo Malacatoya, is on the edge of Bahia Santa Maria, so it is essentially the same mudflat, although it is over 40 km from where we tagged the birds. Within Mexico, Mexico-tagged birds moved a mean of 51.23 km (SD=60.752, SE=10.269), taking an average of 3.78 days to travel between sites (SD=2.006, SE=0.339). The average time at each site was 1.28 days (SD=0.645, SE=0.109), with all birds changing sites twice. We recorded four Mexican-tagged birds in California, three in Mugu Lagoon, and one in the Santa Maria River mouth near Guadalupe Dunes. It took Mexico-tagged birds a mean of 14.5 days (SD=5.196,SE=1.0) to fly 1630.65 km (SE 50.467) from Mexico to California. In California, average stopover time at each site was 1.0 day (SD=0,SE=0), and birds were not heard at more than one site. Data from Partners Reports from our request for information on California e-bird gave a summary of other sightings of western sandpipers and small shorebirds, but not our tagged birds. It seems as if 2005 was an unusual migration year, perhaps because of the very wet winter. Two to three hundred western sandpipers were seen in the San Diego River channel on the first few days of April, (John Martin), and there were approximately 1000 western sandpipers at Bolsa Chica on April 8th 2005, (as well as several hundred dowitchers, but not much else, which was unusual –Victor Leipzig). Likewise, 800-1000 mixed western and least sandpipers were in the National City D street fill in late March/early April, plus another 1000-1500 at the Saltworks in south San Diego Bay (just after these two sightings, the rest of San Diego county was pretty much devoid of sandpipers, as well as other shorebirds –John Barth). In the Central Flyway, the first western sandpipers were spotted on April 9th at the Great Salt Lake (Bill Fenimore, Wild Bird Center, Layton Utah). Inland in California, there were 75 Western Sandpipers and 400+ Long-billed Dowitchers at the San Joaquin Wildlife Sanctuary in Irvine on 7 April 2005 (Nancy Kenyon). Guy McCaskie (San Diego) that he was seeing far fewer shorebirds, particularly "peeps" (western and least sandpipers), than normal on the Salton Sea, although he mentioned irrigated fields to the south were attracting such species as Whimbrel (at least 1500 in the area on April 9th) and greater yellowlegs. Normally there is a major passage of Western Sandpipers and Dunlin, along with dowitchers, through the Salton Sea in April. However, the depth of the sea increased in March, so the shoreline in 2005 was now in areas that were dry mud in February. Perhaps there was no prey in this recently-inundated mud (Guy McCaskie). Our partners at San Francisco Bay, Annie Shultz and John Takekawa (USGS) had a definite hit on their receiver from one of our birds, but they also found many false codes too.

Figure 56 shows locations of all Mexico-tagged birds 2005, and Figure 57 shows all birds located in 2005 post-tagging. Panama birds are tagged in green and Mexico-tagged birds are in red. Note how Panamá and México birds overlap at La Reforma, El Caimanero, El Huizache, and Laguna Grande.

73

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Figure 56 Migratory stopover points of birds tagged in Mexico 2005

Mexico birds

M e x i c o b i r d s

Figure 57. Migratory stopover sites of all birds found post-tagging, 2005.

2006 Surveys 74

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

2006- Panama-tagged birds in Panama. We detected 61.5% of tagged birds in 22 days of listening in 2006. Success of radio detection corresponds with listening effort, and that is why this percent increased from 2005. We heard no radios after 25 March 2006. Tagged birds stayed 6 to 18 days at Costa del Este post-tagging, mean = 13.8 days (SD=4.131, SE=1.306). From these times, we assume that birds could have migrated as early as 15 March and as late as 26 March. Leaving Panama during this time would give enough time, based on known rates of migration, for the birds to reach Alaska in time to breed. In 2006, we conducted one aerial survey over the majority of mudflats in Upper Panama Bay, from Ensenada Rica Arriba to Chitré, searching for presence of any sandpipers (see Figure 52). We found very few birds elsewhere than at Costa del Este. Peregrines and ospreys were present every day at Costa del Este, as were black vultures. Caracaras also frequented Costa del Este occasionally. 2006- Panama-tagged birds in Mexico. We found only one Panama bird in Mexico in 2006, in El Caimanero Lagoon (Table 19). We heard it 14 through 17 days after it had left (after it was no longer heard in) Panama and 27 days post-tagging. It remained in Mexico longer than we expected.

2006- Panama-tagged birds in California. In 2006, in addition to flying the California coast from the Mexican border to Monterey Bay in 2006, we had partners listening at stationary sites in Bodega Bay, South San Francisco Bay, and Humboldt Bay. Only one Panama bird was heard in California. We found this Panama bird in the San Diego lagoons between San Diego and San Clemente, and near Camp Roberts on the Salinas River. This bird had taken a maximum of 15 days, to fly 4722.24 km (2934.26 mi) from Panama to California. She had remained in Panama post-tagging for 22 days, was never heard in Mexico, and was heard in California 15 days later, in lagoons north of San Diego, where she remained for at least one day. She stopped again in California three days later and 418 km north, where she remained for 5 days, along the Salinas River near Paso Robles and Camp Roberts, inland from the coast. Four days later, she was heard at the Skagit River mouth in Puget Sound, and four days after that, in the Fraser River Delta B.C., Boundary Bay, for one day in April (see below). Buena Vista Lagoon, the most southern stopover site in California for tagged birds in 2006, is just north of San Diego and is a very small lagoon remnant of a much larger estuary of the Buena Vista River which empties into the Pacific Ocean. It is anthropogenically built-up and heavily used by recreationists. The Salinas River area where we heard this bird later is an unremarkable area with small mudflats along the bends of the river. These mud flats along the river are adjacent to the major north-south highway, Highway 101, which leads from Santa Barbara to San Francisco. The bird was next to the river just south of Paso Robles and Camp Roberts. Both of the sites where we found this bird would not be considered prime stopover sites, based on our previous assumptions. 2006- Panama birds in Oregon and Washington. We heard no birds at our three stationary listening sites along the Oregon coast. However, on our Washington survey on Puget Sound, one of our birds whom we detected in California was found in Skagit bay, Washington, west of La Conner and Mt. Vernon, on the mudflats of the Skagit River estuary. 2006- Panama birds in Canada. We detected one Panama-tagged bird in British Columbia at the Fraser River Delta/Boundary Bay area. We listened there over 10 days and found the same bird, number 115, that we had found in California eight days before at the Salinas River. She thus traveled over 1496.3 k (929.8 mi) in 10 days from California to British Columbia. She was also the last tagged bird to depart Costa del Este, the 25th of March. Thus she took 30 days to fly from Panama to the Canadian border along the western flyway, a distance of 6637.18 km (4124.19 mi).

75

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

2006- Panama birds in Alaska. We heard no birds at the Copper River Delta and Prince William Sound in 2006. The radios’ batteries most likely did not last long enough for detection there, almost three months after their activation.

76

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Table 19. Sighting of Panama birds in Mexico, California, Washington, British Columbia, 2006. Red italics= heard in San Francisco Bay but never verified (Takekawa pers Radio Code

comm.). Date Tagged

Date Left Panama

111

3/3/2006

3/15/2006

114

3/3/2006

3/18/2006

115

3/3/2006

3/25/2006

115 cont. 116

1st BC

4/24/2006

3/3/2006

nvr heard

117

3/3/2006

nvr heard

118

3/3/2006

3/15/2006

119

3/3/2006

3/13/2006

120

3/3/2006

3/10/2006

121

3/3/2006

3/14/2006

122

3/2/2006

3/14/2006

123

3/1/2006

nvr heard

124

3/1/2006

3/17/2006

125

3/1/2006

3/14/2006

1st Heard Mexico

Where BC

3/28/2006

Where

Next Mexico

Where

1st California

Where

Next California

Where

Last California

Where

1st Washington

Where

4.9/2006

Buena Vista Lagoon mouth (4722.24 km /2934.26 mi)

4/12/2006

San Lawrence Terrace near Salinas River N of Paso Robles & S of Big Sandy State WL Mgt. Area (418.64 km /260.12 mi)

4/16/2006

San Lawrence Terrace near Salinas River N of Paso Robles & S of Big Sandy State WL Mgt Area

4/20/2006

Mouth Skagit R Puget Sound (1416.12 km/ 879.936 mi)

Boundary Bay Fraser River Delta near Boundary Bay Bird Sanctuary (80.18 km/ 49.821 mi)

El Caimanero (3230.88 km /2007.58 mi

3/29/ 2006

El Caimanero

4/17/2006

San Francisco Bay

3/30/2006

El Caimanero

3/31/2006

El Caimanero

77

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Migration Distance and Length of Stay 2006- Panama Birds. The mean travel time between Panama and the next stopover site where a bird was detected (Mexico or California) was 14.5 days (SD= 0.707, SE = 0.5), and the mean distance traveled between Panama and first detected touch-down in Mexico was 1615.79 km (SD=1.799,SE=0.499). The one Panama bird we detected in Mexico never moved out of El Caimanero Lagoon, where it remained for 4 days. For all short-distance travel within California, Panama-tagged birds flew an average of 638.31 km (SD=1.2, SE 0.333), and stayed an average of 3.25 days in California (SD=6.962,SE =1.931). The one bird we detected in British Columbia stayed one day. Figure 58 shows location of all Panama-tagged birds, 2006-Mexico, California, Washington, and Canada.

Figure 58. Stopover sites of all Panama birds tagged in 2006.

2006- Mexican-tagged Birds. Radio-tagged Mexican birds remained at Bahia Santa Maria where they were first tagged, and one traveled south to near the National Wetlands, Las Marismas, near Mazatlan in southern Sinaloa (Table 20). We assumed that the bird who traveled south was foraging and staging before it flew northward again, although we never detected it north of Mexico. This southward travel was unexpected but predicted from work that Nils Warnock did in 2001 (Iverson et al. 1996), and from our surveys in 2005. Both Mexican and Panamanian birds were present in Las Marismas in 2005, and just one Panama- tagged bird was there in 2006. The lagoon where the majority of birds was found is El Caimanero Lagoon, south of Mazatlan. We located 50% of all birds (14 found) post-tagging, all in over a 28 day period . We banded 37 birds but some were too light to hold radios, and some were juveniles which we did not tag. Five birds were heard four days after tagging south of where they were tagged: at Malacatoya and La Reforma bays, but 78

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

still in the greater Bahia Santa Maria complex. Only one Panama bird was heard in Mexico, at El Caimanero. It had stayed in Panama for 13 days post-tagging, and arrived in Mexico two weeks after it left Panama, remaining in Caimanero Lagoon for four days. 2006-Mexican-tagged Birds in California. We heard no Mexico-tagged birds in California in 2006. 2006-Mexican-tagged Birds in Oregon, Washington, Canada, Alaska. We heard one Mexico-tagged bird at the Skagit River in Washington State the same day we heard a Panama bird there. This bird had traveled 2906.1 km (1805.76 mi) from its tagging site in Mexico. Our partners heard none of our birds in Oregon and Alaska, and we heard no tagged birds in Canada. Migration Distance and Length of Stay 2006- Mexico-tagged Birds Within Mexico, Mexico-tagged birds moved a mean of 77.02 km (SD=37.454,SE=10.01), taking an average of 8.9 days to travel between sites (SD=3.293,SE=0.880). Mexico-tagged birds averaged a stay of 1.5 days (SD=1.871,SE= 0.50) at each stopover site in Mexico. We only detected one Mexican-tagged bird north of Mexico in 2006. Figure 59 Shows all locations of Mexico- tagged birds 2006.

79

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Table 20. Location of Mexico-tagged birds in Mexico, 2006. Red italics heard in San Francisco Bay but never verified (Takekawa pers comm.).

Radio 35 36

Date tagged 3/22/2006

Next found Mexico

3/22/2006

3/27/2006

Bahía Santa María (BSM) nr La Reforma (69.402 km/ 43.125 mi)

Where

37

3/22/2006

38

3/22/2006

3/27/2006

BSM nr La Reforma (69.402 km/ 43.125 mi)

3/22/2006

3/27/2006

BSM nr La Reforma (69.402 km/ 43.125 mi)

4/1/2006

Bahia Santa Maria

39 40

3/22/2006

41

3/22/2006

43

3/22/2006

44 45 47 49 52 53 55 72 83

3/22/2006 3/22/2006

3/27/2006

3/22/2006

4/1/2006

3/22/2006

4/1/2006

3/22/2006

4/1/2006

3/22/2006

4/1/2006

3/22/2006

4/1/2006

3/22/2006

4/1/2006

3/22/2006

4/1/2006

3/22/2006

4/1/2006

93

101

BSM nr La Reforma (69.402 km / 43.125 mi) BSM nr La Reforma (69.402 km/ 43.125 mi) BSM nr La Reforma (69.402 km/ 43.125 mi) BSM nr La Reforma (69.402 km/ 43.125 mi) BSM nr La Reforma (69.402 km/ 43.125 mi) BSM nr La Reforma (69.402 km/ 43.125 mi) BSM nr La Reforma (69.402 km/ 43.125 mi) BSM nr La Reforma (69.402 km/ 43.125 mi) BSM nr La Reforma (69.402 km/ 43.125 mi)

3/10/2006

102

3/10/2006

103

3/10/2006 3/10/2006

104 105

3/10/2006

106

3/10/2006

107

3/10/2006

108

3/10/2006

109

3/10/2006

110

3/10/2006

Last Mexico

3/28/2006

Where

Las Marismas El Huizache (204.46 km/ 127.043 mi)

1st Calif. Or Washington

4/17/2006

San Francisco Bay

4/19/2006

San Francisco Bay

4/17/2006

San Francisco Bay

4/17/2006

San Francisco Bay

4/20/2006

Mouth Skagit R Puget Sound (2906.1 km / 1805.76 mi) San Francisco Bay

4/17/2006

3/27/2006

inland from BSM in flooded field Malacatoya (40.957 km/ 25.450 mi)

4/17/2006

San Francisco Bay

80

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Figure 59. Stopover sites of Mexico-tagged birds, 2006.

Figure 60. Stopover sites of Panama and Mexico-tagged birds, 2006.

81

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

2007– Panama-tagged birds in Panama. In 2007, we were at Costa del Este from 27 February - 30 March 2007. Number of birds was low (25 birds) the last week of February through the first week of March. On 6 March, suddenly thousands arrived at Costa del Este, in synchrony with the full moon tides from 5-7 March. However, these tides were only 4.54 – 4.61 m (14.91 to 15.13 ft, mean = 4.59 m ; 15.06 ft), and the high water was not near the solid mud and thus we were able to capture only one bird due to presence of quicksand beyond on 6 March. We had to wait till the new moon tides of 4.89 – 5.48 m (16.04 – 17.99 ft, mean = 5.22 m; 17.14 ft) on the 17-24 March for the majority of our captures on non-quicksand mud. We tagged 62 birds total from 18-21 March, and listened for 13 d (new moon birds)- 24 d (full moon bird) post-tagging and detected all but one all radio (99.4%). We performed ground surveys at Costa del Este every day at high tide. We were able to follow these birds to Mexico, California, and British Columbia (Table 21). We did not tag birds in Mexico in 2007 (or in 2008), so there are no comparable data on Mexico birds as there was for the years 2005 and 2006. 2007- Panama-tagged birds in Mexico. We found over 19% (12) of our tagged western sandpipers in Mexico, and ~ 18% of these (11) stopped at El Caimanero Lagoon. 2007- Panama birds in California. We listened from 13-26 April, 2007, and heard birds only on five days. Of the 61 birds that had departed Panama, we found over 29% (18 birds) in California. 2007- Panama birds in British Columbia Canada. We found only two of our tagged western sandpipers in Canada in 2007 (~3%) .

Migration Distance and Length of Stay 2007- Panama Birds Long Distance. From Panama to Mexico, western sandpipers flew an average of 3230.28 km (n=10, SD=4.1426, SE=1.31), and from Panama to California, they flew an average of 4830.23 km (n=12, SD=168.631, SE= 48.68). Only one bird was only detected in BC north of Panama, and that bird flew 6022.12 km. From Mexico to California, the average trip length was 1819.54 km (n=6, SD= 164.767, SE=67.266) and from California to BC, one bird was found to fly 1531 km. Short Distance. Within Mexico, only one bird was detected changing wetlands, and that bird flew 13.04 km. Within California, birds moved among wetlands an average of 267.96 km (n=10, SD=136.377, SE=43.13). Length of Stay. In Mexico, birds remained an average of 5 days (n=7, SD=3.416, SE = 1.29), and in California, the mean stay was one day (n=3, SD=SE=0).

82

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx Table 21. Stopover sites Panama western sandpipers 2007 Radio Date Date left 1st Mexico Where code Banded Panama 101 3/21/ 3/27/ 2007 2007

102

3/21/ 2007

3/30/ 2007

104

3/21/ 2007

3/28/ 2007

105

3/21/ 2007 3/7/ 2007

3/30/ 2007 3/30/ 2007 3/18/ 2007

106 107

3/18/ 2007

108

3/18/ 2007

109

3/19 /2007

110

3/19/ 2007

112

3/19/ 2007

4/17/2007

Last Mex.

Where

El Caimanero (3231.59 km/ 2008.02 mi)

Where first

Last Calif

Where last

In B.C.

Where

4/22/2007

Flyover Fiesta Bay mudflats Mission bay just N of San Diego Bay (4693.06 km/ 2916.13 mi)

4/26/2007

Central Valley flooded field nr Wasco NE of I-5 South of Jackson Rd (379.65 km/ 232.8 mi)

5/08/2007

Roberts Bank (1531.96 km/ 951.92 mi)

4/22/2007

South San Diego Bay mudflats/ Chula Vista (4674.87 km/ 2904.83 mi) Santa Maria River W of 101 E off Guadalupe Dunes (1946.47 km/ 1946.47 mi)

4/26/2007

3/18/ 2007 3/30/ 2007

3/23/ 2007 3/23/ 2007

1st Calif

4/25/2007

Santa Ynez R Lompoc Riverbend Park area (5052.70 km/ 3139.60 mi)

4/26/2007

Central Valley San Joaquin nr Buttonwillow (5007.91 km/ 3111.77 mi) Morro Bay (5116.57 km/

4/21/2007 4/17/2007

El Caimanero (3231.59 km/ 2008.02 mi)

4/26/2007

El Caimanero El Huizache

83

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx Radio Date Date left 1st Mex Where Last Mex Where 1st Calif code Banded Panama 113 3/18/ 2007 3/18/ 4/24/2007 2007

Last Calif

Where

Flying over San Diego Bay (4684.63 km/ 2910.9 mi) Flyover Mission Bay –Sail Bay-San Diego (4696.27 km/ 2918.13 mi)

4/26/2007

Central Valley San Joaquin nr Lost Hills (396.3 km/ 246.25 mi) Central Valley San Joaquin nr Lost Hills (384.72 km/ 239.05mi)

127

3/19/ 2007

3/30/ 2007

128

3/19/ 2007 3/19/ 2007

3/24/ 2007 3/23/ 2007

130

3/19/ 2007

3/27/ 2007

4/18/ 2007

El Caimanero Lagoon (3231.59 km/ 2008.02 mi)

4/23/ 2007

El Caimanero

4/26/2007

Central Valley E of I-5 S of Paso Robles Hwy & Kern NWL Refuge Rowlee Rd (1912.76 km/ 1188.53 mi)

4/26/2007

Central Valley San Joaquin nr Lost Hills (19.96 km/ 12.4 mi)

131

3/19/ 2007 3/18/ 2007 3/19/ 2007

3/23/ 2007 3/30 /2007 3/29/ 2007

4/18/ 2007

El Caimanero (3231.59 km/ 2008.02 mi)

4/23/ 2007

El Caimanero

4/26/2007

Central Valley San Joaquin W of Kern City, Kern NWL Refuge (1920.49 km/ 1193.34 mi)

4/26/2007

Central Valley San Joaquin W of Kern City, Kern NWL Refuge

3/19/ 2007 3/19/ 2007

3/30/ 2007 3/28/ 2007

4/18/ 2007

El Caimanero (3231.59 km/ 2008.02 mi)

4/18/ 2007

El Caimanero

4/26/2007

Central Valley San Joaquin near Wasco (1910.06 km/ 1186.85 mi)

3/19/ 2007 3/19/ 2007

3/26/ 2007 3/23/ 2007

129

132 133

134 135

136 138

4/22/2007

Where

4/26/2007

1st BC

Where

5/08/ 2007

Roberts Bank (6022.12 km/ 3741.97 mi)

84

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx Radio Date Date left 1st Mex Where Last Mex Where 1st Calif code Banded Panama 139 3/19/ 3/30/ 2007 2007 141 3/20/ 3/30/ 2007 2007 142 3/20/ 3/23/ 2007 2007 144 3/20 3/30/ /2007 2007 145 3/20/ 3/30/ 4/26/2007 2007 2007

146

3/20/ 2007 3/20/ 2007 3/20/ 2007

3/30/ 2007 3/23/ 2007 3/30/ 2007

3/20/ 2007 3/20/ 2007

3/30/ 2007 3/23/ 2007

152

3/20/ 2007

3/26/ 2007

153

3/20/ 2007 3/20/ 2007

3/20/ 2007 3/30/ 2007

3/20/ 2007 3/20/ 2007

3/30/ 2007 3/31/ 2007

147 148

149 151

154

155 156

4/18/2007

4/10/2007

El Caimanero (3231.59 km/ 2008.02 mi)

4/20/ 2007

El Caimanero

Where

Last Calif

Where

Central Valley east of I-5 & SW of Kern NWL Refuge (5013.95 km/ 3115.52 mi)

4/26/2007

Central Valley San Joaquin near Wasco & Kern NWL Refuge

4/22/2007

Flying over Mission Bay (1551.12 km/ 963.82 mi)

4/22/2007

Flying over Camp Pendleton (55.14 km/ 34.26 mi)

4/22/2007

Agua Hedionda Lagoon (4719.4 km/ 2932.5 mi)

4/26/2007

Central Valley San Joaquin near Wasco (330.11 km/ 205.12 mi)

1st BC

Where

El Caimanero (3231.59 km/ 2008.02 mi)

85

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx Radio Date Date left 1st Mexico Where First Last Mex. Where Last 1st Calif. code Banded Panama 157 3/20/ 3/30/ 4/10/ El Caimanero 4/20/2007 El Caimanero 2007 2007 2007 (3231.59 km/ 2008.02 mi) 158 3/20/2007 3/28/ 2007 159 3/20/2007 3/30/ 4/10/2007 El Caimanero 4/10/2007 El Caimanero 4/19/2007 2007 (3231.59 km/ Lagoon 2008.02 mi)

160

3/20/2007

3/20/ 2007 3/30/ 2007 3/30/ 2007 3/25/ 2007

161

3/20/2007

162 164

3/21/ 2007 3/21/2007

165

3/21/2007

3/23/ 2007

166 167

3/21/ 2007 3/21/2007

168

3/21/2007

3/23/ 2007 3/30/ 2007 3/23/ 2007

169

3/21/2007

170

3/21/2007

4/17/ 2007

El Caimanero (3231.59 km/ 2008.02 mi)

4/27/ 2007

Where 1st

Last Calif.

Where Last

Bolsa Chica* (1676.34 km/ 1041.63 mi)

4/26/2007

Central Valley San Joaquin near Wasco (252.93 km/ 157.16 mi)

4/20/2007

Bolsa Chica (4806.25 km/ 2986.47 mi)

4/26/2007

Central Valley San Joaquin near Wasco (242.4 km/ 150.62 mi)

4/22/2007

Flying over San Diego Bay (4686.51 km/ 2912.06 mi)

4/26/2007

Central Valley San Joaquin near Wasco (379.42 km/ 235.76 mi)

1st BC

Where

Jamarilla Lagoon near Laguna Grande (13.04 km/ 8.1 mi)

3/25/ 2007 3/30/ 2007

86

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx Radio Date Date left 1st Mexico Where First Last Mex. Where Last 1st Calif. code Banded Panama 171 3/21/2007 3/30/ 2007 172 3/21/2007 3/30/ 4/25/2007 2007

173

3/21/2007

174

3/21/2007

175

3/21/2007

177

3/21/2007

178

3/21/2007

3/30/ 2007

179

3/21/ 2007

3/30/ 2007

180

3/21/ 2007 3/21/ 2007 3/21/ 2007

3/24/ 2007

181 182

3/30/ 2007 3/23/ 2007 3/23/ 2007 3/30/ 2007

4/25/2007

El Caimanero (3231.59 km/ 2008.02 mi)

4/28/2007

El Caimanero

4/27/2007

Jamarilla Lagoon near Laguna Grande (3218.49 km/ 1999.88 mi) 4/20/2007

Where 1st

Last Calif.

Where Last

Anaheim Bay NWL Refuge Seal Beach NWS (4810.66 km/ 2989.20 mi)

4/26/2007

Central Valley San Joaquin near Wasco (238.18 km/

Bolsa Chica (4806.25 km/ 2986.47 mi)

4/26/2007

Central Valley San Joaquin near Wasco (243.16 km/ 151.09 mi)

1st BC

Where

3/30/ 2007

87

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

In addition to birds we had tagged, we spotted thousands of sandpipers at Bolsa Chica on April 19th/20th, not just our radio-tagged birds. Likewise, every time we listened over the Central (San Joaquin) Valley of California, we also saw thousands of them. (The San Joaquin valley is defined as: north to Boundary Road, San Joaquin River, East to Sierra Nevada Mountains, South and West to Coastal Range Mountains). Figure 61 shows all locations of western sandpipers in 2007—Mexico, California, Canada. Figure 61. Stopover sites of all western sandpipers tagged in Panama 2007.

2008 Surveys We radio- tagged 58 birds In Panama in 2008, and banded 80. North of Panama, we re-heard over 60% (35) : in California only (19), British Columbia only (5), California and B.C. (9)and in Alaska, which recorded just two, but more were heard but not registered. 2008 Panama-tagged Birds in Panama. In 2008, we tried to listen for 18 days post-tagging from 8 through 28 March from the ground, but the equipment gave false readings due to equipment malfunction, and so we did not include those data in our analysis of time spent in Panama post-tagging. We were, however, able to listen from a Cessna-172 airplane flown at 500’ AGL using the H antennas. Our plane surveys were at Costa del Este on March 6th and 16th, with one on March 26th, along Panama Bay from Ensenada Rica Arriba to Chitré. The equipment was repaired by 27 March, and from two final days of surveys, we determined that all birds had departed by the 28th of March. Of the 58 radios applied, we heard all but one at Costa del Este. Because our receivers had a recording problem, and the signals were not recorded daily, and so Table 22 is incomplete in the Panama segment.

88

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

2008 Panama-tagged Birds in Mexico. The Mexican government would not allow us to bring in our equipment in 2008, and since we had three years’ tracking data from Mexico, where we had found that all Panama birds went to the same sites consistently, we did not survey Mexico in 2008. 2008 Panama-tagged birds in California, Oregon, Washington. As in previous years, we listened for radios along the California coast from the Mexican border to Camp Roberts, over the Salton Sea, the southwestern Central Valley, and the Kern-Pixley Refuges, as well as at San Francisco, San Pablo, Bodega, and Humboldt Bays in northern California (30 March-20 April). We found birds along the coast from the Tijuana estuary at the border with Mexico, and including DoD-owned Mugu NAS and Vandenberg AFB, north to Morro Bay, and at estuaries of coastal rivers in central California, often upriver from the coast, as well as in northern California at Palo Alto Wetlands, San Pablo, and Bodega Bays. We also found many of our tagged birds in wetlands in the central valley, just south of Lemoore NAS and near Pixley and Kern National Wildlife Refuge. Some data points near the coast appeared to be inland, but were actually from birds flying, for the data points kept moving northward as we took a second pass over the area. Other inland data reflect foraging along rivers, e.g. Santa Ynez River. Most data points were confirmed by visual observation. We heard no more birds after 16 April in California, although we listened till 20 April. Our partners continued to listen for birds along the rocky Oregon coast, at Newport, at the USFWS station, and at Alsea Bay and Bandon Marsh, Oregon from 30 March -20 April, and heard no birds. We did not survey Washington in 2008. We found 28 of our Panama-tagged birds in California. Birds that we heard sequentially moved around southern California, staying from one to 12 days there x͞ = 7.0 ± 1.10, SD=4.11 . It took them 7 days (N=2) to reach the San Francisco Bay area from southern California. See Discussion. 2008 Panama bird in Canada. In 2008, we listened at Roberts Bank and Boundary Bay, B.C., just south of Vancouver, from 15-30 April. We heard 16 of our tagged birds there. For all birds found in BC, the mean stay was 2.187 days, ± SE 0.547, SD = 2.187083, N = 16. Of the birds whose arrival and departure at Roberts Bank or Boundary Bay we verified, two stayed one day, one stayed two days, two stayed four days, and one each stayed six and eight days, overall: (͞x = 4.167 ± SE 1.046, N=6 , SD= 2.563. Five of the birds we found in Canada, we had never heard in California (>31% of all birds heard in Canada, and 14% of all birds heard again). See Discussion. 2008 Panama bird in Alaska . Neil Dawson, who works with Maryann Bishop at the Prince William Sound Science Center in Cordova, listened for birds near the Copper River Delta. and Prince William Sound from 15-20 May, where he heard a number of birds and recorded two of our tagged birds over two days. He did hear more, but was unable to retrieve the information from the receiver. The two birds he found that we had heard in B.C. took 16 days each to reach Prince William Sound.

89

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Migration Distance and Length of Stay 2008- Panama Birds Migration Distance. Number of kilometers flown Long distance between Panama and California were 4957.33 km (n=27, SD=205.165, SE= 39.484), between Panama and British Columbia were 6019.67 km, (n=5, SD=1.556, SE=0.70). Distances flown between California and B.C. were 1472.09 km (n=10, SD=172.438, SE= 54.530), and between British Columbia and Alaska were 1918.93 km (n=2, SD=0.820, , SE=0.58). Short-distance migration within California was 300.86 km (n=18, SD=213.8822, SE=50.41252), and within British Columbia were 8.19 km (n=3, SD=SE=0) Length of Stay. We were not able to obtain length of stay for many birds. In California we only had data enough for two birds who stayed an average of 2.5 days (SD= 0.707, SE = 0.5). In British Columbia, birds remained an average of 4.5 days (n=8, SD=3.071, SE=1.09). The Fraser River delta and environs in B.C. were the final satisfactory stopover site before the birds arrived at the Copper River delta in Alaska.

90

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Table 22. Stopover sites and dates of contact of birds tagged in Panama 2008 Radio Date Date left code Banded Panama1 10 3/8/ 2008

1st Calif. 4/4/ 2008

11

3/8/ 2008

4/3/ 2008

12

3/11/ 2008 3/8/ 2008 3/9/ 2008 3/9/ 2008

13 14 15

3/16/ 2008

Where first

4/4/ 2008

Tijuana River & later in day, Bolsa Chica (4673.68 km/ 2904.09 mi)

3/9/ 2008

4/4/ 2008

Point Mugu (4914.53 km/ 3053.75 mi)

17

3/9/ 2008

4/16/ 2008

18

3/9/ 2008

Palo Alto Wetlands, SF Bay (5316.89 km/ 3303.76 mi) Tijuana River (4673.68 km/ 2904.09 mi)

19

3/9/ 2008

20

3/9/ 2008

4/4/ 2008

4/7/ 2008 4/3/ 2008

Where

Next Calif.

Where

Next Calif.

Where

4/9/ 2008

Pt. Mugu (858.60 km/ 3019.1 mi)

4/11/ 2008

Pt. Mugu

4/13/ 2008

Kern Refuge (207.31 km / 128.82 mi

Next Calif.

Where last

Calif. / B.C.

Where

In B.C.

Where

Next BC

Where

Alaska

Where

4/27/ 2008

Roberts Bank ( 1513.03 km/ 940.15 mi) Roberts Bank

4/28/ 2008

Roberts Bank

5/16/ 2008

Prince William Sound/ Hartney Bay (1919.51 km/ 1192.73 mi)

4/28/ 2008

Roberts Bank

Roberts Bank (1193.59 km/ 741.66 mi)

4/28/ 2008

Roberts Bank

5/16/ 2008

Prince William Sound/ Hartney Bay

Flying off Malibu (4892.69 km/ 3040.17 mi) Morro Bay (5119.57 km/ 3181.15 mi)

16

3/15 /200 8

Next Calif.

Salton Sea (4580.85 km/ 2846.41 mi) Santa Ynez R mudflats Vandenberg AFB (5062.58 km/ 3145.74 mi)

4/4/ 2008

Bolsa Chica (155.22 km/ 96.45 m i)

4/11/ 2007

Morro Bay (536.35 km/ 333.27 mi)

4/7/ 2008

Salton Sea (235.3 km/ 146.21)

4/11/ 2008

Morro Bay (536.05 km/ 333.09 mi)

4/13/ 2008

Kern Refuge(12 2.01 km/ 75.81 mi)

4/23/ 2008

Roberts Bank (1697.02 km / 1054.48 mi)

4/27/ 2008

4/16/ 2008

Bodega Bay (419.39 km/ 260.6 mi)

4/20/ 2008

91

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Radio Date Date left Banded Panama Code

1st Calif

Where first

4/9/ 2008

flying near Mugu Lagoon (4914.53 km/ 3053.75 mi)

4/11/ 2008

Pt. Mugu (4914.53 km/ 3053.75 mi)

4/13/ 2008

Carpintería Salt Marsh reserve (4964.48km/ 3084.78mi) Flying off Malibu ((4892.69 km/ 3040.17 mi) Santa Ynez R mudflats Vandenberg AFB (5062.58 km/ 3145.74 mi) Pixley Refuge (5021.92km/ 3120.478 mi)

4/13/ 2008

4/13/ 2008

Central Valley Pixley Refuge (272.88 km/ 169.56 mi)

4/13/ 2008

Central Valley Pixley Refuge (169.72 km/ 105.46)

21

3/9/ 2008

22

3/9/ 2008

23

3/9/ 2008

4/3/ 2008

24

3/9/ 2008

4/4/ 2008

25

3/9/ 2008

4/3/ 2008

26

3/9/ 2008

4/3/ 2008

27

3/9/ 2008 3/9/ 2008 3/9/ 2008

4/9/ 2008

Bolsa Chica Refuge (4808.35 km/ 2987.77 mi)

30

3/9/ 2008

4/4/ 2008

31

3/9/ 2008

Bolsa Chica (4808.35 km/ 2987.77 mi) Carpintería Salt Marsh reserve (4964.48km/ 3084.78mi)

28 29

3/14/ 2008

3/14

4/3/ 2008

Next Calif

Where Calif

Next Calif

Where

Next Calif

Where

Last Calif

Where last

Next Calif

Where

In B.C.

Where

4/27/ 2008

Roberts Bank (1697.56 km/ 1054.815 mi)

Next BC

Where

Alaska

Central Valley Pixley Refuge (203.44 km/ 126.41 mi) Central Valley Pixley Refuge (169.72 km/ 105.46 mi)

4/27/ 2008

Boundary Bay (1494.28 km/ 928.5 mi)

92

Where

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Radio Date code Banded

Date 1st left Calif. Panama

32

3/9/ 2008

33

3/9/ 2008

3/14 / 2008

4/4/ 2008

34

3/9/ 2008

3/16 / 2008

4/9/ 2008

Pt. Mugu (4914.53 km/ 3053.75 mi)

35

3/9/ 2008 3/9/ 2008

4/13/ 2008

Central Valley Pixley Refuge (5021.92km/ 3120.478 mi)

3/9/ 2008 3/9/ 2008

4/13/ 2008

Central Valley Pixley Refuge (5021.92km/ 3120.478 mi)

4/4/ 2008

Santa Margarita River mouth Camp Pendleton (4731.4 km/ 2939.96 mi)

36

37 38

39 40 41 42

4/16/ 2008

Where first San Pablo Bay (5380.57 km/ 3343.32 mi) Flying over Pt. Loma (4690.95 km/ 2914.82 mi)

Next Calif.

Where

Next Calif.

Where

4/9/ 2008

Mugu Lagoon (235.86 km/ 146.55mi)

4/16/ 2008

San Pablo Bay (531.71 km/ 330.39 mi)

4/13/ 2008

Pixley NWL Refuge (203.44 km/ 126.41 mi)

4/9/ 2008

Pt. Mugu (183.93 km/ 114.29 mi)

Next Calif.

Where

Last Calif.

Where last

Next Calif.

Where

In B.C.

Where

4/23/ 2008

Roberts Bank (1225.67 km/ 761.59 mi)

4/25/ 2008

Roberts Bank

4/28/ 2008

Boundary Bay (1494.97 km/ 928.93)

4/25/ 2008

Roberts Bank

Next BC

Where

4/2/ 2008

Boundar y Bay (8.19 km/ 5.09 mi)

Alaska

3/9/ 2008 3/9/ 2008 3/10/ 2008 3/10/ 2008

43

3/10/ 2008

44

3/10/ 2008

4/16/ 2008

Palo Alto Wetlan ds, SF Bay (463.50 km/ 288.01 mi)

4/23/ 2008

Roberts Bank (1293.0 km/ 803.43 mi)

93

Where

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Radio Date code Banded 45

3/10/ 2008

46

3/10/ 2008

47

3/10/ 2008 3/10/ 2008 3/10/ 2008 3/10/ 2008 3/10/ 2008 3/10/ 2008 3/10/ 2008 3/10/ 2008 3/10/ 2008 3/10/ 2008 3/10/ 2008

49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58

Date 1st left Calif. Panama

Where first

3/14 / 2008

Central Valley Pixley Refuge (5021.92km/ 3120.478 mi) Santa María R. Guadalupe Dunes (5080.96 km/ 3157.16 mi)

4/13/ 2008

4/3/ 2008

59

3/10/ 2008

4/3/ 2008

Pixley Refuge (5021.92km/ 3120.478 mi)

60

3/10/ 2008 3/10/ 2008

4/16/ 2008

Bodega Bay (5434.46 km/ 3376.82 mi)

61

Next Calif.

Where

4/9/ 2008

Flooded field Guadalupe (5.06 km/ 3.15 mi)

4/16/ 2008

China Camp San Pablo Bay (61.18 km/ 38.02 mi)

Next Calif.

Where

Next Calif.

Where

Last Calif.

Where last

Next Calif.

Where

In B.C.

Where

4/23/ 2008

Roberts Bank (1580.88 km/982.32 mi)

4/27/ 2008

Boundary Bay (8.19 km/ 5.09 mi)

4/27/ 2008

Roberts Bank (1494.01 km/ 928.33 mi)

4/27/ 2008

Roberts Bank (1230.469 km/ 764.578)

Next BC

Where

4/28 / 2008

Boundar y Bay (6022.4 5 km / 3742.17 8 mi)

4/28 / 2008

Bounda ry Bay (8.19 km/ 5.09 mi)

Alaska

94

Where

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Radio code 62

Date Date left Banded Panama 3/10/ 3/14/ 2008 2008

1st Calif. 4/3/ 2008

Where first

Next Calif.

Where

Next Calif.

Where

Next Calif.

Where

Last Calif.

Where last

Next Calif.

Where

In B.C.

Where

4/27/ 2008

Roberts Bank (6018.97 km/ 3740.02 mi) Roberts Bank (6018.97 km/ 3740.02 mi)

3/10/ 2008

64

3/10/ 2008

65

3/10/ 2008

66

3/10/ 2008

4/27/ 2008

3/10/ 2008

4/25/ 2008

67

3/14/ 2008

68

3/10/ 2008

4/28/ 2008

69

3/10/ 2008

4/13/ 2008

Where

Alaska

Pt. Mugu (4914.53 km/ 3053.75 mi)

63

4/13/ 2008

Next BC

Central Valley Pixley Refuge (5021.92km/ 3120.478 mi) Roberts Bank (6018.97 km/ 3740.02 mi) Roberts Bank (6018.97 km/ 3740.02 mi)

Central Valley Pixley Refuge (5021.92km/ 3120.478 mi)

1/ Departure dates from Panama unknown due to malfunction of receivers. Dates shown in this column are positive detections on one day only. 2/ Also detected during interim day

95

Where

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Figure 62. Stopover sites of western sandpipers tagged in Panama 2008.

Length of Stay and Distances within each Country In addition to tracking the birds, we also determined what the length of stay of each bird was at the location we heard it, and also the distances traveled between sites within each country. Distances within each country. In Mexico, birds from both Panama and Mexico traveled short distances between foraging sites, while in California, distances that Panama birds travelled were large (Figure 63). This is most likely because of the abundance of contiguous coastal wetlands in Mexico, and the comparable paucity of such wetlands in California. If birds did change stopover sites within a country, in Mexico they were able to find another one very quickly, whereas in California, wetlands are rarer, and when they do occur, they are far from each other. Mexico-tagged birds and Panama-tagged birds were only found together in Mexico in 2005. That year, Panama-tagged birds traveled farther distances in Mexico than did the Mexican-tagged birds which for the most part remained near the estuary where they were tagged.

96

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Figure 63. Short Distance travel—Mexico vs. California*

* “M” refers to birds tagged in Mexico, and “P” refers to birds tagged in Panama

Number of Stopover Sites. The mean number of stopover sites was 1 ½ per country (Figure 64). The mean number of stopover sites in Mexico for Mexico-tagged birds was significantly larger than for Panama-tagged birds who stopped over in Mexico. This may reflect the familiarity with numerous wetlands adjacent to the banding site for overwintering Mexico-tagged birds and their post-tagging travel among multiple sites close to where they were tagged. Additionally, many birds tagged in Mexico traveled south post-tagging before they migrated north. Panama birds, however were on migration when they arrived in Mexico, and thus might be less likely to linger and frequent a multitude of sites. In California, birds tagged in Mexico stopped over in fewer sites than did birds tagged in Panama. The apparent fewer number of stopover sites used in California for Mexico birds and the greater number for Panama birds may be simply a reflection of low sample size. North of where they were radio-tagged, we had records of Mexico birds in only three sites in two years, and for Panama birds, we had records in all years. The Discussion provides explanations for this.

97

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Figure 64. Mean number of stopover sites of Panama and Mexico birds*

* “M” refers to birds tagged in Mexico, and “P” refers to birds tagged in Panama

Length of Stay at stopover sites. Birds tagged in Mexico not only traveled to more stopover sites in Mexico than did Panama birds, they also stayed a shorter time in each site (Figure 65). This was expected, because they had not yet started their northern migration, and were still most likely foraging in many wetlands, perhaps avoiding depletion or competition, to fuel up to commence the journey to their nesting grounds. Birds from Panama that stopped in Mexico had just finished a long leg of flight with few intervening wetlands, and thus it is logical that they would stop in Mexico and stay longer in mudflats to re-fuel. Time on foraging area post-tagging.. Panama birds remained at the tagging area about a week to two weeks post-tagging. Mexican-tagged birds who went south instead of north post-tagging remained about a week and a half post-tagging, whereas those who headed north stayed approximately a week. Table 23. Time at capture site before departure. Mexico post-tagging Mean N Std Dev. Std Error

2005 S 10.36 11 1.286 0.388

2005 N 8.22 23 2.954 0.616

2006 N 7.77 13 1.964 0.545

Panama post-tagging

2006

2007

Mean

13

7.12

N Std Dev. Std Error

10 4.028 1.274

60 4.009 0.518

In California, a short distance from Mexico, Panama birds traveled among a variety of sites, small and large, and did not remain in one site for long. However, when they arrived in British Columbia, they were faced with another long migration leg before reaching adequate mudflats along the Alaskan coast, e.g. Sitka River and Copper River deltas. Thus we expected them to remain at Boundary Bay/Roberts Bank in British Columbia to re-fuel for the final leg of their migration to Alaska longer than they would at California stopover sites .

98

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Figure 65. Time per stopover site of Mexico- and Panama –tagged birds in Mexico, California, and/or BC.

DISCUSSION Shorebirds have only a short time to travel to their breeding grounds from the overwintering ones. Their stopover sites are usually consistent from year to year, as are their dates of travel. They have some leeway in departure times from Panama, as they wait for the right winds, but delays of longer than a week can negatively impact their reproductive success in Alaska due to late arrival. Their time at any one stopover site is rarely more than a few days. Because of the consistency of their stopover sites, and of the dates of travel, management of shorebird migration habitat on military or non-military land becomes simple, with a cessation of human disturbance at military sites and careful monitoring for disturbance at or else closure of other sites during the two weeks that most of the birds are passing through. Western Sandpipers forage in saturated to flooded substrates with vegetation that is sparse or lacking (Helmers 1992). Migration habitat in interior locations is typically pond or lake margins, and intertidal mudflats and river mouths are usually used in coastal areas (Wilson 1994). The maximum water depth that the species will forage in is approximately 10 cm, with most foraging occurring on bare ground and areas flooded up to 2 cm deep (Wilson 1994). Semipalmated Sandpipers, Least Sandpipers, Dunlins, Pectoral Sandpipers, and Stilt Sandpipers are considered direct competitors with Western Sandpiper for food resources and they share the same foraging and stopover sites. The following shorebirds, while not direct competitors, share habitats with the western sandpiper: Black-necked Stilts, both Dowitcher species, Greater Yellowlegs, Wilson’s Phalarope, Lesser Yellowlegs, and Buff breasted sandpipers Therefore, all new habitats found with our study are also potentially adequate stopover sites for all of these species too.

99

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

SUMMARY We are the first research group to discover one of the exact routes of overwintering Panama birds to one of their last staging sites, the Copper River delta, before they reach their nesting grounds in Alaska. We identified the current major IBAs on the Pacific Flyway in Panama, Mexico, California, and B.C., as well as some minor areas that were consistently used. We fulfilled one of our goals in this Legacy Project: to discover if migratory populations of western sandpipers, as well as other shorebirds that overwintered in Panama and Mexico, might be using alternate habitats other than what had been noted historically. We not only found tagged birds where we expected to find them: in large mudflats along the southern and central California coast, the historical stopover sites, (e.g. Morro Bay, Mugu Lagoon, and Bolsa Chica wetlands); we also found tagged birds in areas where we would not have expected to find them, and in sites not noted in the literature—in very small wetlands and isolated from large flocks of birds-- thus supporting one of our theories of change in migration route. Some of these small wetlands had only a few numbers of sandpipers using them, and these would probably be overlooked in a typical aerial survey of stopover sites. Presence of western sandpipers on these new sites before our surveys was not published. These data are in the tables above and in Appendix 1. Another goal was to ascertain if there was any habitat loss, fragmentation, or other kind of threat to stopover sites, and we found some kind of habitat alteration, degradation, or impact at all sites where we found sandpipers. A third important goal was to ascertain whether or not sites on U.S. Department of Defense–owned lands were used preferentially or disproportionately to other stopover sites. We found that only one DoD site was used consistently as well as used by a large number of birds—Mugu Naval Air Station which includes Mugu Lagoon. The next-most frequently-used DoD site used was the estuary at Vandenberg AFB. Most other non-DoD-owned sites were used more than was Mugu NAS. Indeed, some of the smaller sites, such as flooded agricultural fields or river banks, might prove to be important in the future, especially if some other historical habitats become fragmented or degraded, or if predator populations increase at the larger stopover sites. The main hurdles of this study were limitations on trapping dates in Panama, since we could only trap during the new moon. These dates therefore set all the rest of our trapping dates there and in Mexico. Initial trapping dates in Panama were also dictated by the amount of time it would take for birds to reach Canada, combined with the strength of the radios’ batteries to last that long a time. Four of the most important discoveries from this project were: 1) the finding of atypical habitat or stopover sites not listed in historical surveys, 2) the location of birds multiple times, 3) the ability to calculate stopover times and distance traveled, and 4) the relative use of DoD-owned sites compared to non-DoD sites. DISCUSSION BY AREA Habitat requirements for migratory shorebirds are specific. No two mudflats are exactly the same, and individual wetlands can vary greatly with season. Therefore, migrating sandpipers must first locate stopover sites, but these sites must also be able to support needs of feeding, roosting, and protection from predators during the time of migration. Any change in water depth, roost site, emergent vegetation, invertebrate population, predator numbers, or geography may greatly reduce a mudflat’s ability to support shorebirds on migration or overwintering.

100

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Today, wetlands in the Western Flyway, that is, along the Pacific Coast, are scarcer than historically, and over 90% of the wetlands in California have been lost over the past 100 years. If any of the remaining wetlands begin to disappear, the value of those left increases tremendously, and they become critically necessary for migration to continue. Before the anthropogenic buildup of coastal California and mainland Mexico, coastal wetlands underwent natural sedimentation and often filled in, while at the same time coastal forces allowed new ones to be created elsewhere. However, since most potential wetlands have been diked, filled in, controlled, altered for other use, or are otherwise unavailable to the creation of new habitat, any loss of stopover sites is a permanent deficit for all migratory or resident birds. Thus, it was not surprising to find western sandpipers in habitats not previously listed as important. In fact, perhaps some of these newly documented wetlands, often temporary, may serve as important stopover sites for shorebirds, and perhaps were overlooked in previous surveys. Before our study, most other research on western sandpipers addressed local populations and their migration over a very small area. Much prior work was done with volunteers, such as during Christmas bird counts, and most other information was anecdotal. Population counts were unreliable, and length of stay at various sites was not known except for birds in closely monitored areas like San Francisco Bay. That is why our new study, a multi-national study among Panama, Canada, the U.S., and Mexico, was so important on many levels: for an understanding of shorebird populations and shorebird migration, for cooperation among partners sharing this flyway, and for training of students from all four countries. Figure 66 is the summary of all stopover sites for all years. Birds averaged two months to fly between Panama and Alaska, a total of 7,866.88 km (4,888.24 miles). Information we found for stopover sites (both well-documented historical sites, and new smaller sites) will help balance how managers approach shorebird use of various areas—especially the more well-publicized areas such as South San Diego Bay, Point Mugu NAS, and San Francisco Bay. Our documentation in this study of the use of intermittently flooded small agricultural fields, and river estuaries especially, in California will allow managers to expand their annual monitoring surveys. Our studies also showed how important the contiguous wetlands in Mexico were and documented the movement of birds both south and north along these wetlands in their northward migration.

101

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Figure 66. Stopover sites for all tagged birds 2005-2008.

Our study was the first one to compare lengths of stay of the same birds in each country through which they migrate. Prior to our study, researchers had looked only at parts of the migratory route. Studies had been done in California and Baja California (e.g. Iverson et al. 1996, Bishop and Warnock 1998, Bishop et al. 2004), , and in parts of Panama (e.g. Pat O’Hara, Kim Mathot, pers. comm.). However, none of these studies followed the same cohort of birds migrating northward from Panama to Alaska, so it was impossible to draw conclusions about what that migratory path was. Ours was the first study ever to have followed a subset of the population moving among estuaries in Panama, Mexico, California, Canada, and Alaska synchronously. The other difficulty with interpreting prior results is that some of the accounts were old and outdated and based on anecdotal information, and the data-gathering accuracy and research methods were not equivalent among studies. Thus, even if the separate prior studies were assumed to cover the real path of migration, because the same birds were not followed through each country, it is impossible to compare those results among themselves or with our data. New protocols have recently been published so that shorebird research methods in the western hemisphere will soon be able to be the same. WHSRN has produced a standardized data sheet that we used in our surveys over all areas studied. Now anyone can repeat our work, using the same data sheet template, and the studies will be able to be compared.

102

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Overview In total, we radio-tagged 247 individuals, 195 departed the tagging sites, and we re-located 114 (46.2%) of them. We found birds from both Panama and Mexico in California and in Canada. We also found Panama birds in Mexico every survey year. Because of the increased duration of the radios’ batteries over the life of this study, batteries all four years lasted at least to California, and in 2006-2008, they lasted through British Columbia surveys. Radios affixed in 2007 and 2008 were built to last at least until the birds reached Alaska, and in 2008, we detected Panama-tagged birds in Alaska. Because we only tagged in Mexico in 2005 and 2006, we have no record of Mexico-tagged birds arriving in Alaska, although it is certain that they did reach Alaska in both of these years, from previous studies (Iverson et al 1996). None of our bird network observers looking for our birds saw dyed or banded and tagged birds, which points out the importance of telemetry in any migration study, vs. relying on visual observation. Birds remained in Panama a minimum of three days to two weeks after being tagged, and in Mexico, 3 days to one and a half weeks (Table 23. They took one month to one and a half months to reach California, and approximately one and a half months to reach the Fraser River mouth in British Columbia, if they did not stop in California. The majority of tagged birds heard from Mexico stayed at the tagging site from 4-13 days (means 7-10 days), to an indefinite time after we departed the area three weeks later, since some individuals were still in Mexico when we departed for the California survey. Many of Mexico-tagged birds also headed south post-tagging. They took 11 to 13 days to reach California (2005) and only one bird was heard north of there, in 2006, over the Puget Sound Washington mudflats, which it had taken 29 days to reach. Rate of re-sightings We had a fairly high rate of what we are calling “re-sightings” which are simply the recording of the radio frequency by our receivers over the survey areas. We heard a fairly high number of birds post-tagging (Table 24). We were fortunate that during the final years of the project, the batteries were still active until the birds reached Alaska. We are therefore the first research team to document the number of days that it takes to migrate from Panama to Alaska. Table 24. Re-sighting of tagged birds each year Year 2005 2005 2006 2006 2007 2008

Tagged in Panama Mexico Panama Mexico Panama Panama

# re-sighted north of trapping site 7 out of 37 tagged 18.9% 34 out of 50 tagged = 68.0% 2 out of 13 tagged = 15.4% 14 out of 30 tagged = 46.7% 26 out of 59 tagged = 44.1 % 35 out of 58 tagged = 60.3%

Coastal Surveys All Years –Detailed Summary Panama. We found, from four survey flights along the south coast of Panama from the Darien to Arriba Rica, Chame, and Chitré, that the areas of shorebird abundance occurred in Panama Bay, specifically, at Costa del Este, and Panama Viejo. This concentration of shorebirds was similar to concentrations found in prior surveys that covered a distance of over 1,565 km along the shoreline (Watts 1998, Watts and Paxton, 2008; see Figure 67). Our surveys were a distance of ~250 km (Chiman - Chame) and ~400 km (to Chitré). Their surveys included the most comprehensive survey to date over the Golfo de San Miguel, Bahia de Panama, Bahia de Parita, Golfo de Montijo, and Bahia de Muerta during three 3 days in October, 2008

103

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

(Watts and Paxton 2008). They found more than 490,000 shorebirds, seabirds, herons and egrets. Highest densities were at Bahia de Panama with the area 30-km east of Panama City, which included Costa del Este, having the greatest numbers (72.5% of all birds detected), although it makes up less than 2% of the Pacific Coast shoreline. Waterbird densities here averaged 12 birds/m of shoreline. The 2008 Watts and Paxton survey differed from ours in that they censused in late fall (between 21 and 24 October, 2008), not at peak migration in the spring (late February to late March). Their survey included not only shorebirds, but also seabirds, herons and egrets. Our surveys covered approximately 250-400 km, and although we also found other species on the tidal flats during our eight surveys over three different years, we took note of the shorebird population only. Over 90% of all shorebirds we saw were in Costa del Este and Panama Viejo in Panama Bay, which corroborates with what Watts and Paxton found in the late fall. Watts and Paxton (2008) stated that Panama was “the most significant continental crossroad in the western hemisphere” with “hundreds of millions of birds” passing through each year between breeding and wintering grounds. Our research supports Watts’ findings. Figure 67. Map of shorebird concentrations in 2008 in the winter- from Watts 2008.

Mexico. The years 2005 and 2006 were the only two years we tagged birds from Mexico. In Mexico, all wetlands from where the birds were tagged, Bahia Santa Maria, south to the border of Sinaloa and Nayarit, were used by our tagged birds. Only one bay north of Bahia Santa Maria was used. We did not expect this low use of bays north of the tagging site. Birds tagged in Mexico and Panama skipped northern Mexico, once they departed either Las Marismas or Bahia Santa Maria, stopping over next in California. We documented the unusual southward migration of birds tagged at Bahia Santa Maria, which Nils Warnock had documented before (2001). Panama-tagged birds did not head south once they started on migration. Radio-tagged Mexican birds often remained at Bahia Santa Maria where they were first tagged, and a subset also traveled south to near the National Wetlands, Las Marismas, 25˚ 00’ 53.1” N 108˚ 00’ 00” W, near Mazatlan in southern Sinaloa, to forage and stage before some flew northward again. The majority of tagged birds remained at Bahia Santa Maria at the Montelargo Malacatoya Lagoon area. In 2005, out of the 86 birds we tagged, we detected 60 % (30) in Mexico and 8% more (4) in both Mexico and California. Of

104

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

those detected in Mexico, 24% (12) headed south from where they were tagged and seven never returned to the tagging site. In 2006, despite some GPS failures, we heard 14 (out of 28) Mexico-tagged birds in Mexico, and one headed south. Southern movement of birds in Mexico. Many sandpipers we tagged in Mexico moved south from the tagging site at Bahia Santa Maria, and traveled to Las Marismas, the national wetlands, ~295 km (~185 mi) south. There was no relationship between mass of birds tagged at Bahia Santa Maria and those which moved south to feed at Las Marismas. One hypothesis of pre-migration is that perhaps that Las Marismas has more high-quality food than does Bahia Santa Maria and thus the birds might go south to stage and fatten up before they leave for their northward migration. However, no prey sampling has been done simultaneously at the two sites. Another hypothesis is that in overwintering latitudes like those in northern Mexico, birds forage within a certain range of latitude before they initiate migration. This is a logical hypothesis, since in northern Mexico at this time of year, birds from the lower latitudes in Central and South America are gathering in the same mudflats as Mexican birds which overwintered there and should be tested. Thus, if crowding occurs, if predators are rampant, or if competition for food or space occurs, it is not a long trip to fly a few degrees of latitude north or south to another good foraging area. Las Marismas, the National Wetlands and Marshes, are huge, taking two days to survey by air, and thus have a lot more space and food than do the mudflats at Bahia Santa Maria. Perhaps the presence of more opportunities to forage in this large foraging area is the reason that birds tagged at Bahia Santa Maria went south. We did not have time to remain at Las Marismas, however, to detect whether or not all of these southern-headed birds ever did migrate north, or if they indeed did remain at these wetlands over the spring and summer. We did hear a few farther north, so we know that at least some of them continued their northward migration. One important stopover site for many migrants in Mexico was at El Caimanero Lagoon. We found both Mexican birds at El Caimanero Lagoon in 2005 and 2006, and Panama birds there all years, suggesting that this lagoon is important for Panama and Mexican migrants. Apparently the river feeding this lagoon is scheduled to be dammed soon, and what effect this damming will have on bird abundance and distribution is not known. According to Pro Natura, this area at Las Marismas is scheduled to have a dam built upstream which will cut off the natural water flow (Xico Vega, pers. comm.). This lagoon is small but very important for shorebird migration, and it is in a part of Las Marismas that is neither protected under Mexican law or International agreements such as Ramsar or WHSRN. California. Reasons for low numbers and low species diversity are that the wetlands in California are much smaller than those in Panama and Mexico, and there is probably not enough food for large groups of sandpipers stopping over there. Likewise, in Panama, and in Mexico, birds are congregating and staging for very long-distance flights, and so they spend longer at these sites to fuel up, and there may be more birds there because of this. Once birds get to southern California, there are a number of smaller sites to chose from, and thus they may not congregate as much. Likewise, there are large areas in the more northern regions of the state like the San Joaquin Valley and San Francisco Bay where they go in large numbers each year.

105

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Panama-tagged Birds in California. Our data for timing, as well as for using historical migratory routes differ from what we expected. Sites where we found tagged sandpipers would not often be considered prime stopover sites, based on our previous assumptions. For example, Panama birds heard in 2006 were found at two small wetland areas: Buena Vista Lagoon, just north of San Diego, and along the Salinas River near Paso Robles, inland from the coast- not a typical habitat. Buena Vista Lagoon is heavily impacted by people, and is a very small lagoon which empties into the Pacific Ocean- not a wetland that is highlighted as a stopover site in the literature. Likewise, the Salinas River area near Camp Roberts has small exposed muddy areas on either side in the Camp Roberts-Paso Robles area.

Mexico-tagged Birds in California. After 2006, we no longer tagged birds in Mexico. In the two years that we did tag, their detection in California differed between 2005 and 2006. In 2005,we detected 8% (4) of Mexican-tagged birds in California: three at Mugu Lagoon NAS, and one at the Guadalupe Dunes/Santa Maria River floodplain and agricultural fields. All birds heard in California were heard in Mexico posttagging. In 2006, we heard no Mexico-tagged birds in California, although one was heard over the mudflats of Puget Sound at the mouth of the Skagit River. California had a 100-year maximum of winter precipitation in 2005 and a dry winter in 2006, which may have influenced the migration route. Perhaps birds in the drier year of 2006 headed inland to areas we did not survey, or else we may have missed their migration dates.

Inland Surveys California California—inland wetlands. In southern California in 2005, we surveyed all inland waterbodies west of the coast mountains including the Salton Sea. Commencing in 2006, in addition to listening along the coast, we listened for birds east to the Sierra Nevada mountains. We surveyed the Central Valley/ San Joaquin Valley area which is covered with many temporary and permanent freshwater ponds and agricultural fields flooded for irrigation. We often saw birds in scattered groups near the Grasslands area, Pixley and Kern National Wildlife Refuges, and in privately-owned flooded agricultural fields, although we often saw untagged sandpipers over much of the Central Valley north of Kern Refuge. Sandpipers that stopover at the Salton Sea are usually present one to two weeks earlier than we usually start surveying (during March 21-28; Guy McCaskie, pers. comm.) He usually has found peak numbers (thousands) of western sandpipers at the south end of the Salton Sea, at the end of March, about a week after a full moon, at the time when we were usually surveying in Mexico. By the first week in April, when we normally surveyed the area, numbers drop substantially (G. McKaskie, pers. comm.). For example, we found very few numbers of any species of sandpipers on 6 April 2008 when we flew over the Salton Sea in 2008. Guy McKaskie’s theory that shorebird migration through this area seems to be linked to the phase of the moon accounts for our lack of finding many sandpipers around the Salton Sea. Our research was also hindered by the phase of the moon due to our need to tag birds in Panama during the new moon. These dates in turn determined when we surveyed in California, and therefore the subsequent moon phase during our California surveys. The combination of when we tagged birds and the time it took them to fly to California always placed them and our California surveys off-phase with the full moon time that MacKaskie

106

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

noted for peak shorebird migration at the Salton Sea. Therefore, we might always have missed the majority of Panama or Mexico birds stopping over at the Salton Sea, for we rarely flew a week after the full moon. Because we were constrained by tides in Panama, we may have missed some of the peak migration in some areas. The main stopover site that had few birds during the dates we surveyed was the Salton Sea, an inland sea in southern California. At the Salton Sea, the peak of sandpiper migration is one week after the full moon. In 2005, the full moon occurred on 25 March and 24 April. Since birds left Panama around the 25th, took 10-14 days to reach Mexico, and stayed in Mexico for another 3-5 days, the times that we surveyed the Salton Sea were not at one week after full moon. Likewise, in 2006, the new moon occurred 1-3 March, and the full moon was 14 march and 13 April—and this coincided better for peak migration through the Salton sea. In 2007, the new moon was 18-21 March, with the full moon 2 April. With birds leaving Panama around the 30th, taking 10-14 days to reach Mexico, and again staying in Mexico for 3-5 days, the peak of shorebird migration over the Salton sea was the second week of April, earlier than our birds could have reached the area. Again, in 2008 the new moon 8-11 March, and the full moon was 22 March, with the birds not leaving Panama till the 30th, the peak migration had already occurred at the Salton Sea. We concluded that the birds that migrate through the Salton sea are probably from Baja California, because the peak migrations from the two population enters, Costa del Este and Bahia Santa Maria, are from around the end of March. Thus, these waves of migration would never coincide with peak numbers at the Salton Sea. Data from other studies can be found in Iverson et al. (1996) and Bishop and Warnock (1998).

Because the peak migration from Panama starts around the 20th of March, and it takes the birds over two weeks to arrive in California, , it is possible that migrants from Panama do not usually migrate via the Salton Sea, if past sightings there are consistent in timing from year to year. In corroboration with this fact, we did not see more than 50 western sandpipers at any year in our flights over the Salton Sea over all four years of surveys. Thus, the birds that pass through the Salton Sea may be either ones that overwintered in Baja California or Southern California, not mainland Mexico. Table 25 Year Dates of Full Moon 2005 25 March 24 April 2006 14 march 13 April 2007 3 march & 2 April 2008 20 Feb & 21 March* * April new moon

Dates of California Surveys 30 March- 15 April 4-19 April 15-28 April 30 March – 20 April

At the south end of the Salton Sea there are large areas of exposed mudflats immediately to the west of the north end of Poe Road, within Unit 1 of the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge at the north end of Vendal Road, at the mouth of the New River stretching eastward to the west end of Bowles Road, at the southern and eastern side of Red Hill (including the Hazard Unit of the Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge located on the east side of Garst Road), and along the shore of Morton Bay stretching from the mouth of the New River eastward and northward up into the Wister Unit managed by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife - a vast area covering 15-20 miles of shore. When Western Sandpipers are found at the Salton Sea, the largest concentrations are usually along the south and southeast shore, although large numbers can occur elsewhere, e.g. at the southern end of Salton City on the west shore, and around the mouth of the Whitewater River at the north end of the Salton Sea (Guy McKaskie, pers. comm. 7 Apr 2008).

107

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

The birds we found were within this area. Largest concentrations that we saw were on south and SE shore, and also south of Salton city on the west shore.

Surveys Oregon and Washington. Because most of the Washington and Oregon coasts are rocky, there are few stopover sites for shorebirds. They concentrate where bays or large estuaries occur. One of the more important areas is the Puget Sound area. Drut and Buchanan (2000) state that there are at least three sites of regional importance in the area(Port Susan Bay, Skagit Bay, Padilla Bay). Evenson and Buchanan state (1997) that many other sites in the winter can have >25,000 shorebirds. Butler (1994) suggests that shorebirds use as one large wetlands some of the larger sites within Puget Sound and the nearby Fraser River delta (a WHSRN site of international significance just across the border in British Columbia, Canada). Drut and Buchanan (2000) suggest that the Puget Sound areas and the Fraser River delta should be considered as a complex that together are of international significance

Figure 68. Western sandpipers in Panama

(Photo: Karl Kauffmann)

108

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Figure 69. Western sandpipers at Costa del Este

(Photo: Karl Kauffmann)

Alternate Migratory paths from Panama: Texas mudflats Table 26 shows typical monthly counts by the Houston Audubon Society during the months when Panama birds would be migrating through, and these do not support the hypothesis that Bolivar Flats is an important spring migratory route. Numbers of birds there are much too low to represent any major migration from Panama. Panama birds all leave their overwintering areas in Panama by the end of March (Kaufmann pers. comm.), and if they headed to Texas, we would have seen them. Bolivar Flats might only harbor Panama birds on their southern migration back to the wintering grounds, for numbers are high in July, August, and October, as well as in the winter months. An alternative hypothesis is that sandpipers found in Texas later in the year might instead be birds just from Cuba, and might also include sandpipers that overwinter there (Mueller, unpubl. rept., Eubanks, unpubl. rept.). Fall is a time of greater sandpiper numbers there. The historical numbers for April, when we surveyed, are less than 100 (Table 26). Mudflats along the Gulf of Mexico in Texas are a major stopover site for sandpipers coming through the Central flyway. They have records there of large flocks along the mudflats, but these are on the southward migration in August. Few western sandpipers or peeps of any species are present in April, when Panama birds would come through. Main species we found at this time were American avocets and dunlins. There were very few sandpipers present.

109

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Table 26. Western and other small sandpiper counts on Bolivar Flats, Texas 2003-2007. Date

15-Mar-03

13-Apr-03

17-May-03

21-Jun-03

19-Jul-03

16-Aug-03

20-Sep-03

18-Oct-03

15-Nov-03

16-Dec-03

Monthly Count 2003 Western Sandpiper "Peep" species Date

N/A

N/A

Monthly count 300+

Monthly count 100+

Monthly count 4

Monthly count

Monthly count 650

Monthly count 65

Monthly count 25

Monthly count

Monthly count 450+

Monthly count 455

19-Mar-04

16-Apr-04

21-May-04

Monthly Count 2004 Western Sandpiper Date

Monthly count 41

Monthly count 200

Monthly count 2

15-Jan-05

19-Feb-05

19-Mar-05

16-Apr-05

21-May-05

18-Jun-05

16-Jul-05

20-Aug-05

17-Sep-05

15-Oct-05

19-Nov-05

20-Dec-05

Monthly Count 2005

Monthly count

Monthly count

Monthly count

Monthly count

Monthly count

Monthly count

Monthly count

Monthly count

Monthly count

Monthly count

Monthly count

CBC

Western Sandpiper

520

90

101

3

4

2

110

2535

1

4008

6000

1210

6

2,500

200

2100

"Peep" species Date

2000+

21-Jan-06

18-Feb-06

18-Mar-06

15-Apr-06

20-May-06

17-Jun-06

15-Jul-06

19-Aug-06

16-Sep-06

21-Oct-06

18-Nov-06

19-Dec-06

Montlhy Count 2006

Monthly count

Monthly count

Monthly count

Monthly count

Monthly count

Monthly count

Monthly count

Monthly count

Monthly count

Monthly count

Monthly count

CBC

Western Sandpiper

4300

2003

23

123

5

538

2300

3500

445

304

745

WesternSemipalmated

2900

2000

Date

20-Jan-07

17-Feb-07

17-Mar-07

21-Apr-07

Montlhy Count 2007

Monthly count

Monthly count

Monthly count

Monthly count

Western Sandpiper

30

641

10

6

"Peep" species

110

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Abiotic influences Precipitation in California. Southern California gets very little rain, and when it does come, it is in the winter, right before the shorebird migration, November to early February. There is an indication that the amount of precipitation there may influence where in the state birds stopped over, and the pathways that the birds took. Table 27 summarizes total precipitation in California in the months preceding our surveys. October through April are the months that most influence habitat conditions in California for Western Sandpipers on their northward migration. Therefore, the total precipitation for those months only is shown, with totals for the WESA northward migration ‘year’ (June and July are usually zero inches of precipitation). Table 28 is a month-by-month summary of precipitation in California from the winter of 2004/2005 to the winter of 2007/2008, which includes the rainy season in California. Included in Table 28 below for reference are also August and September, where there is usually zero precipitation. In 2005, our surveys occurred the closest to the documented peak of shorebird migration in southern California, yet there was an absence of high numbers of shorebirds from most of the large wetlands such as San Diego and Morro Bays and Mugu Lagoon, although we did find a few birds in small wetlands. This absence of birds may have been the result of an unusually high amount of precipitation that year in southern California. The winter of 2004-2005 in southern California had received just one inch shy of the 100-year flood maximum precipitation, so we hypothesized that the aberrant abiotic factors of this year might have influenced the sandpipers’ migration patterns. Lew Oring (University of Nevada, pers. comm.) hypothesizes that in wet years, sandpipers might select inland routes where there might be a new abundance of pothole ponds from the rain, where they can stop over to forage. In 2006 and 2008, normal years of precipitation in California, we found Panama birds along the coast, as well as inland in both large and small wetlands. This large amount of fresh water, which flowed into the coastal wetlands, may have affected the presence of shorebirds there by changing the accessibility of their prey. In super-wet years, many temporary potholes form east of the Sierra Nevada mountains, and these foraging areas may not only be more predator-free, they may also have less competition from other resident species, and thus shorebirds may choose these inland routes in wet years. The year 2007 was a drought, and we did not find many birds at all throughout our searches, except in Mexico and Canada (http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs) . See Tables 24 and 25 below.

Table 27 Total Precipitation in California 2005-2008 Year 2005 2006 2007 2008

# cm 88.9 29.6 9.70 32.2

# in 37.06 12.34 4.08 13.42

111

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Table 28. Precipitation in coastal southern California 2005 Year Month Inches WESA Migratory Year 2004 August 0.00 2005 September 0.00 October 4.56 November 0.20 December 8.77 2005 January 9.32 February 11.02 March 2.14 April 1.05 TOTAL 05 TOTAL Precip. 05 37.06 August 0.00 2006 September 0.29 October 1.35 November 0.22 December 1.03 2006 January 2.06 February 2.37 March 2.87 April 2.15 TOTAL 06 TOTAL Precip. 06 12.34 August 0.00 2007 September 0.00 October 0.34 November 0.16 December 0.81 2007 January 0.19 February 0.92 March 0.05 April 0.74 TOTAL 07 TOTAL Precip. 07 4.08 August 0.00 2008 September 0.52 October 0.95 November 0.56 December 1.73 2008 January 7.97 February 1.64 March 0.01 April 0.04 TOTAL 08 TOTAL Precip. 08 13.42

112

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Climate Change. The one hypothesis we did not address, which could be a possible cause of decreasing populations of shorebirds, is climate change. This was beyond the scope of this project. However, it is clear that most habitat of shorebirds would be threatened if sea levels were to rise. For example, Figure 70 below depicts the protected coastal areas in Panama, many of which are important mudflats. Figure 71 depicts the most important areas in Panama Bay that would be flooded if sea levels rose. Note that the protected area and the potentially flooded area overlap, and that much shorebird habitat would be lost if sea level rose. Figure 70. Designation of proposed protected wetlands in Panama, selected to sustain biological diversity with special interest in migratory shorebirds and seabirds, February 2009 (protected areas in red)1 Area in Figure 71

1-Map by Panama Audubon

Figure 71. Areas that would be flooded with a 0.5 m rise in sea level (vulnerable areas for sea level rise in red)1

1-Map by Panama Audubon

113

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Changes in mudflats in Panama. The biggest change between 2005 and the subsequent three years was that in Panama, the number of birds we found foraging at Costa del Este in late February to early March 2006 was about 70% lower than numbers in 2005, and in 2007-2008, it was about 30% less. In 2006, we attributed this at first to our earlier arrival in their annual cycle in 2006, but even in mid-March, a time when we were present at Costa del Este in 2005, numbers were still lower in 2006 than in 2005. We hypothesize that this decrease was primarily due to an ecological change in the mudflats themselves. (Refer to Baird 2006a,b for a more complete analysis and Baird 2006c for a visual description). The mudflats in 2005 were soft and we often sunk in about 10 cm as we walked over them. In very soft spots, we would become stuck, falling in about 0.5 m. The shorebirds had no trouble walking, for they are so light. In 2006, the substrate of the mudflats had changed completely. It had become hard and dried into polygons (Baird 2006a,b,c). There were very few soft spots of mud, and these areas were the only places the shorebirds were able to feed. They walked over the polygons, dipping their bills in between the hard polygons, but they did not seem very successful in prey capture. These were qualitative observations, not quantitative, but the obvious paucity of birds and our observations on lack of successful feeding seem to corroborate. Coastal mangrove forests in Panama grow to approximately 11.5 to 17.5 m in their mature state. They alter their habitats completely, trapping debris, seeds of other plants, and trash. The soil beneath them changes also from the original silty mudflat, good for sandpiper prey. The taller mangroves began to trap soil and raise the substrate from what it was in 2005, allowing the mudflat to dry out and thus form polygons as it dried. Thus, a combination of cessation of runoff plus added silt from dredging up-current from Costa del Este, have allowed the mangroves to begin to alter the mudflats into a mangrove forest. With deforestation of tropical rain forests comes land degradation and soil erosion, and this soil flows out to sea and often builds up along the coast, depending on currents. At present there is no plan as to what to do with this mangrove forest that is encroaching onto the mudflats. Panama Audubon has been advised, and they were going to report the information to ANAM (Panama’s equivalent of the USFWS). Panama Bay was just dedicated as a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network in October 2005, yet it may cease to be a shorebird habitat if the mangroves become established. I presented this information at the Partners in Flight meeting in Maine in 2006 (Baird 2006c). Changes in mudflats in Mexico. In Mexico, there are also environmental issues along the coastline. There is a scarcity of hazardous waste disposal facilities, and much of this, according to personnel from Pronatura (Xico Vega pers. comm.), are along the coast. There is also a rural-to-urban migration of people, and many coastal cities are expanding near estuaries and mudflats. In Mexico, natural fresh water resources are scarce and often polluted in the northern part of Mexico, according to Pronatura, where raw sewage and industrial effluents are polluting rivers in urban areas (Xico Vega pers. comm). Upstream deforestation produces widespread erosion and desertification in the drier parts of the country in the north. Shrimp farms are another source of wetland eradication and pollution. They block the natural ebb and flow of water through wetlands. They only have a life of a few years, after which they deteriorate with wastes, and with shrimp parasites that usually enter the system. They change the abiotic and biotic factors so much that they can no longer be used and are abandoned. The problem is that the rectangular aspect of the ponds is still present, even after they the farms themselves are no longer used: no one opens them up to the sea so that a natural water flow through the estuaries can occur. The Mexican government

114

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

considers the lack of clean water and deforestation national security issues, and is in the process of trying to correct the myriad of environmental problems (Xico Vega, pers. comm.). Changes in wetlands in the United States. There is a large body of literature summarizing changes in wetlands in the United States, especially the wetlands along the coast of California. The subject is beyond the scope of this report. However, for example, below is a comparison of historical wetlands in San Francisco Bay to those in the 21st century.

Historical and Current wetlands San Francisco Bay—an example Historical 1800 CE Modern 2000 CE

www.bay.org

Pollutants. We did not test the water or land for pollutants, and a literature review of this subject is beyond the scope of this project. Suffice it to say that our analysis of heavy metals taken up by the birds can act as a proxy for pollution. This material is in a separate report. However, there are many others sorts of pollutants, some directly emptied into the ocean. Industrial Facilities Reporting Pollutants, 2005. An example of how widespread pollutant discharge is can be explained by an example for locations of polluters in North America in 2005. Figure 72 shows the locations of almost 35,000 industrial facilities in North America that reported on releases or transfers of pollutants in 2005.

115

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Figure 72. Industrial Facilities in North America

Metadata. Pollutants are often displayed by assembling metadata from many sources. This mapped data set (Fig. 72) shows the locations of more than 35,000 industrial facilities in North America that reported releases and (or) transfers of pollutants in 2005. The data were assembled from the three North American countries' Pollutant Release and Transfer Registers (PRTRs): the National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) in Canada, the Registro de Emisiones y Transferencias de Contaminantes (RETC) in Mexico, and the Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) in the United States. Additional information on North American pollutant releases and transfers is available through the Commission for Environmental Cooperation's Taking Stock web site at http://www.cec.org/takingstock/. Another example of how specific types of pollutants can be displayed is in Figure 73. This map illustrates the estimated air emissions of sulfur (SOX as SO2) from cargo traffic in shipping lanes serving North American coastlines in the year 2002 (Wang et al. 2007). This information is also available for carbon dioxide, particulate matter, hydrocarbons, nitrogen, and carbon monoxide. Energy of the vessels can also be found on the website http://www.cec.org/atlas/ . SO2 emissions were estimated using a model called the Waterway Network Ship Traffic, Energy and Environment Model (STEEM), which characterizes ship traffic, estimates energy use, and assesses the environmental impacts of shipping. Annual gridded inventories are also available for nitrogen, carbon dioxide, particulate matter, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide.

116

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Figure 73. Commercial Marine Vessel Emissions, 2002 1, 2, 3

1/ Canada: National Pollutant Release Inventory (NPRI) 2/ USA: Toxic Release Inventory (TRI) 3/ Mexico: Registro de Emisiones y Transferencia de Contaminantes (RETC)

Department of Defense Lands In its role of protector of the people and its land holdings of the United States, the DoD has set aside vast tracts of land for testing and training exercises. One of the byproducts of this set-aside is that much of the United States’ natural habitats have been protected from development. For example, military lands are corridors of migration or retreat for a variety of species. These lands maintain a high biodiversity due to their large size and contiguous landholdings. Because the military is mandated to set aside important areas for flora and fauna that use its property, species and habitat both are protected- perhaps more than in surrounding non-DoD lands are. Species do not have to reside on DoD land year-round to be afforded this protection. Birds, for example, could migrate from South America and nest in Canada, yet they are protected on these military-owned lands during the time they are present. This protection does not detract from Military Readiness, for the birds are transient, and only travel through the area over a few weeks each spring. Our research helped the DoD determine when this occurs. The importance of DoD property is that it encompasses enough square kilometers in each state for large contiguous tracts of land that are relatively undeveloped. For example, in the United States, the DoD owns

117

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

1.30% of all the land (49,362.713 sq mi = 31,592,136 Acres = 127,849.419 sq km), ,, and 163,707 .0 sq mi (424,001.13 sq km), 4.13%, of all land in California (4,329,228 Acres = 6, 764.419 sq mi = 17,519.796 sq km) . Although DoD lands have some of the largest acreage in California, they do not rank as the most used stopover sites. Other wetlands, both large and small, had more use by sandpipers. This land, including training areas, while not pristine, has not been as fragmented, or turned into biodiversity-poor land, as have many other large tracts of private or public land, such as publically-owned land in cities , (e.g. parks, government buildings), or private golf courses, agricultural areas, shopping centers, or housing tracts. Military training lands especially are often large enough to easily accommodate large buffer zones needed around sensitive habitat. In southern and central California, the majority of the larger wetlands and estuaries are on Department of Defense lands. Thus, we assumed that shorebirds would utilize these lands disproportionately from other non-military lands. However, from our study, we found that the DoD only had ~13 % - 17 % of birds on their lands, assuming that the years we heard the most birds was typical. Therefore it is vital that state and federal agencies cooperate with the military to ensure safe habitat elsewhere. Tagged birds which were present at DoD lands were only there for a short time—3-5 days at the most, and usually one day. The notable fact was that the peak was always near the same two-three week period in late March/early April. Thus, their progress northward is predictable. Because the military’s mission is to promote stewardship of its land, yet not to have stewardship hamper its readiness, this knowledge of when shorebirds come through Military land, and their use of military land versus non-military land, deemphasizes the need to set aside mudflats exclusively for shorebirds. These mudflats are only in heavy use during migration. Knowledge of the use of this military land by migrants along with knowing the timing of migration, the military can plan its testing and training schedules around this short migration period. Managers should work with State and Federal agencies during the migration period to keep all alternate non-military sites open for stopover sites e.g. lagoons north of SD Bay. The military has a very effective predator control program but there is no such plan on other Federal, State, Municipal, or private wetlands. Therefore, there needs to be surveillance in non-protected places like Bolsa Chica, Mugu Lagoon, Morro Bay, San Francisco Bay for predators and for other birds that migrate with western sandpipers in order to determine annual changes in numbers. The military could set up a volunteer program with local conservation groups to ensure that predators were excluded during these peak two-to-three weeks in April in non-military lands. They could work with local school groups to conduct counts on non-military lands to encourage timed set-aside of land during this migration period. Department of Defense Lands – importance and conflict. The mission of the U.S. Department of Defense is “to provide the military forces needed to deter war and to protect the security of the United States. In providing these forces, military readiness..... for quick response is important.” However, readiness is sometimes hampered by conflicting use of its lands, for example, shorebird migration, which prevents necessary tests and training for quick response. Since another mission of the DoD is also to promote stewardship on its lands, this dual mission might appear to conflict with readiness and stewardship for land use.

118

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

AREAS OF EMPHASIS for DoD Regional Ecosystem Management Initiative One of the many Areas of Emphasis for the DoD is the “Regional Ecosystem Management Initiative.” As stated in the DoD website, “This process promotes adaptive management, sustainable usef for ecological and human purposes, and the best available science. It also promotes the protection of species on adjacent non-DoD lands, thereby encouraging partnerships and reducing the management burden to DoD.” Our studies show that DoD lands can be managed for both ecological and human purposes. Sandpipers do not use DoD lands exclusively, and DoD lands are not the main area where shorebirds stop over on migration; they forage in many different areas. When they do stop on DoD land, they remain less than two days. In addition, the entire migration time through DoD lands in California, (some of the larger wetland areas in the western flyway in the U.S.), takes place over a period of two to three weeks. With knowledge of migratory routes and timing of the vast number of Neotropical shorebirds which could migrate through military lands in the western flyway, the military can plan its testing and training schedules around this short migration period. This will decrease any potential bird strikes as thousands of these birds migrate up the flyway. Monitoring & Predicting Migratory Patterns of Birds Another Area of Emphasis of the DoD is “Monitoring & Predicting Migratory Patterns of Birds.” Our project satisfied in part the military’s efforts of monitoring and predictive modeling of movements during migration added information for timing to be used in scheduling training activities. Cooperative Conservation A third area of Emphasis is “Cooperative Conservation.” Data we collected over four years provides information to the Department of defense for “ Cooperative Conservation” so that the military can have collaborative action between the DoDand other entities such as Federal, State, Tribal and local governments, other nongovernmental entities, and private institutions. Integrated Natural Resources Management A fourth Area of Emphasis is “Integrated Natural Resources Management.” Our project also helped the Department of Defense in “Integrated Natural Resource Management” by providing a time frame for peak migration of shorebirds through miliatry lands such that DoD land managers can determine how best to minimize negative impacts of diverse and sometimes conflicting requirements. National and International Initiatives A fifth Area of Emphasis of the DoD is “National and International Initiatives.” Our project also fit into the “National and International Initiatives” (e.g. the North American Bird Conservation Initiative -NABCI), as well as into initiatives by conservation groups in Panama and Mexico (Panama Audubon, Pro Natura, Mexico). This project likewise aids NABCI’s Guiding Principles, for it helps in comprehensive biological planning for intcontinental (North and Central America) . Environmental Issues Many species of shorebirds face a number of challenges to their overwintering and migrating stages in their annual cycle, and most of the obstacles and their challenges come from lack of protective and enforceable legislation in Panama and Mexico. There are multiple threats to migration for many different species of shorebirds, and lack of habitat protection in most wetlands in Panama and Mexico seems to be the biggest

119

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

one. Some wetlands in Mexico, the United States and Canada are protected under a variety of national and international laws and/or agreements, e.g. Ramsar, WHSRN (Tables 29, 30). In Canada and the United States, various groups like Audubon or BirdLife have indicated some areas as IBAs. Likewise, local municipalities or states or provinces have set aside various wetlands for protection or conservation that are not protected under international conventions. Furthermore, wetlands along the west coast of the United States, especially in California, are not as numerous as they are in Mexico and Panama. It is perhaps a combination of enforceable and strong environmental legislation in Canada and the United States but not in Mexico and Panama, as well as the apparent limitless supply of wetlands in Mexico and Panama, that allow this potential challenge to Neotropical migrating shorebirds to grow. Public Outreach The first public outreach for our Legacy Project was by Rosabel Miro, Director of Panama Audubon who interviewed me and wrote an article published in the Panama city daily newspaper (2005). We discussed the reason behind the project, what we hoped to accomplish, and why we chose Panama (Appendix 2). I was also interviewed by Channel 3 Television in Culiacan Mexico about the project in 2006. My interview was translated into Spanish simultaneously by Xico Vega, and broadcast over Radio Culiacan in March 2006. This documentary highlighted our work in Mexico as well as the assistance in tagging by Pro Natura, and their long-term conservation work in the wetlands. Lotek of Canada, our supplier of radios, featured our project on their website and in their displays at ecological conferences. Our project made the front page of the major Orange County California and San Diego County newspapers, the Orange County Register 9 May 2005 (Appendix IV), and the San Diego Tribune 25 May 2005 (Appendix V). Our project was highlighted in a newsletter of Henkel International, a multinational German-based company that supplied our radio adhesive (Appendix VI), and our project was featured at the Alaska Natural History Museum in Anchorage in 2006, which showcased a display on migration (Appendix VII). I wrote a speech for the U.S. Department of Defense Head of Partners in Flight for the black-tie dinner celebrating the dedication of the Bay of Panama as a WHSRN site of international importance (2006). Present were the mayor of Panama City, and the American and Canadian Ambassadors to Panama, among other dignitaries. I also had the speech translated into Spanish, and the head of Panama Audubon read it out at the dinner. These speeches are in Appendices VIII and IX. The French branch of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CBC, Radio Canada, featured a program and video on our project in 2009 in their Planète Verte program (Appendix X). The Canadian Wildlife Service, Simon Fraser University in Canada, Pro Natura, Panama Audubon, the Smithsonian Institute of Tropical Biology, the University of Panama, Environmental Flying Services, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S. Geological Survey, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Laurelcrest School for Girls (Long Beach California) all contributed in-kind assistance to our project. Public Relations One of the emphases of our project was public relations/public education. Table 29 lists the products of this emphasis.

120

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Table 29. Publication relations and Public Outreach of our Legacy Project Year Product 2005 Interview by Panama Audubon President published in La Prensa, Panama City’s major newspaper (Appendix II) 2005 Front page reference article, Orange County Register 1, southern California’s second largest paper (Appendix IV) 2005 Third page full page article, Orange County Register 1, southern California’s second largest paper (Appendix IV) 2005 Front page article San Diego Tribune (Appendix V) 2005 Speeches at the reception and ceremony of the dedication of the Bay of Panama as a WHSRN site (Appendices VIII & IX) 2006 TV program on Canal Tres, Culiacan, showcasing partnering with universities and non-profits in Mexico 2006 Display and Power Point presentation on migration using our project as an example, at Migration Exhibit, Alaska Museum of Natural History in Anchorage (Appendix VII) 2006 Feature article in the monthly corporate magazine by the German international company Henckel, our glue manufacturer (Appendix VI) 2007 Our project is featured on the website of the Lotek Corporation, our radio manufacturer www.Lotek.ca 2007 Distribution of trilingual pamphlet to schools in Panama, Mexico, the U.S., and Canada (Appendix III) 2009 Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, the Francophone weekly TV program, “La Semaine Verte” (the Green Week), featured our project2 (Appendix X) 2005- Training in Panama, Mexico, USA: University of Panama, Tec de Monterey, University of Alaska — 2008 trained students in ecological methods 3 2007 Training in Mexico: Universidad de Mazatlan—trained students in ecological methods3 2005- Training in Canada: Simon Fraser University 2005-2006 & University of Toronto 2007-2008 3 2008 1/ main newspaper of the second-most populous county in southern California. Archives at www.orangecountyregistar.com can be searched for the article DO SAME FOR SAN DIEGO TRIBUNE 2/ The link to this program can be found at the following address: http://www1.radio-canada.ca/actualite/semaine_verte/reportage.aspx?idDocument=79460&idItemenu=32 and then the URL http://www1.radio-canada.ca/actualite/semaine%5Fverte/index.aspx, and click on “Les Reportages” and then on “Les Semaines” and finally click on “25-04-09.” Click on “Les becasseaux” (shorebirds in French), and then on the camera, and the program will upload 3/ Six students U. of Panama (with DoD PIF certificates-- Maribel Tejada, Daniel Medina, Angel Sosa, Arcelys Pitti-Wong, Natyi Montenegro, and Ovidio Jamarillo), one from Tec de Monterrey in Culiacan (Miguel Guevera) one from U. of Alaska (Audrey Smith), one from Simon Fraser U (Kim Mathot), and one from U of Toronto (Eric Davies). Training students and researchers was one of our goals, and we accomplished this in Panama, Mexico, Canada, and the United States. We trained a total of 16 students from all four countries. We trained six students from the University of Panama and gave them DoD PIF certificates for their assistance (Maribel Tejada, Daniel Medina, Angel Sosa, Arcelys Pitti-Wong, Natyi Montenegro, and Ovidio Jaramillo) . One of the residents at Costa del Este, Beatriz Schmidt, became so interested in our project, that she volunteered to be the PIF representative for Panama. In Mexico we trained five students from Tec de Monterrey in Mexico (Miguel Angel Medina Guevara, Eric González, Ulises Trinidad Gastelum, Marco Antonio González and Jesus Salvador Martinez Bastidas). We worked closely with a professor from Tec Universidad de

121

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Monterrey (TUMC), Xico Vega Pico, and one from Universidad de Mazatlan, Guillermo Fernandez, and his student Luis Sauma, the principal surveyor for Mexico in 2007. We were able to assist them in their shorebird projects by providing equipment. Likewise we trained Madelyn Dillon of the U.S. Forest Service ([email protected]) and she helped us radio-tag in Mexico. One student from TUMC, Miguel Guevara, listened for our birds along the west coast of Mexico from Las Marismas north to the Colorado River Delta and in California during 2005 and 2006. He now works for Pro Natura, Mexico, an NGO. Luis Sauma from Universidad Mazatlan, listened for birds in Mexico in 2006 and 2007. We trained volunteers from the Bolsa Chica Conservancy in California in survey techniques. Sherri Miller, John Takekawa, Josh Adams and others listened for our birds in the Humboldt Bay, San Francisco, Point Mugu, and Elkhorn Slough areas. We partnered with Mexico’s Pro Natura, an NGO, with the Tec Universidad de Monterrey, Culiacan (TUMC), and with Universidad Mazatlan (UM), in training students to listen for our birds in wetlands near Culiacan and Mazatlan. Xico Vega, from TUMC, and Guillermo Fernandez, from UM, were the professors with whom we partnered during those years. We trained Miguel Gueverra, the principal researcher in Mexico and California, and in Canada, we trained Eric and Evan Davies, from Simon Fraser University and the University of Toronto, in survey techniques. MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS Panama. We worked with Panama Audubon and Panama Partners in Flight and suggested improvements to the wetland habitat, how to control mangrove intrusion, and we discussed future management plans for the area. We recommended a set-aside of high tide roosting areas, since there is no room on the mudflats for birds to roost when the tide is high, and some former roosting areas at Costa del Este have been drained and developed for high-end houses. Mexico, United States, Canada. There is a lack of protection in most coastal areas along both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Development and recreation have increased exponentially over the past decades in areas important to shorebirds. For some shorebirds, a condition called arrested molt is brought about by disturbance, and this condition usually indicates stress in the stopover site, lack of food, or too frequent disturbance by humans (Niles 2010). This has not yet been reported in the Western Flyway. Our main suggestion for management of lands where shorebirds stopover on their migration to the breeding grounds is to close the wetland for peak migration, usually two weeks, if the wetland is heavily disturbed by recreationists. This could be done on both military and non-military lands. Other recommendations for this project are for managers of all land, public, military, and private, to ensure that predators are excluded during migration time, mainly the first three weeks of April in California, and the last two weeks of April in British Columbia. The Mexico wetlands are too inaccessible to be able to manage for predator exclusion. We also recommend that local schools establish volunteer programs for students to count birds on all nonmilitary wetlands, especially the new wetlands where we encountered sandpipers. We developed a form for them to do this. Additionally, we recommend that schools and amateur birdwatchers partner with local Audubon societies whose members have unpublished records over the years of where sandpipers are sighted. The military and federal, state, and local governments, as well as NGOs who are landowners must work with local groups to ensure predators are excluded from stopover sites during the first three weeks in April in California, and the last two weeks of April in British Columbia. The DoD can work with local school groups

122

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

to conduct counts on non-military lands while they are simultaneously counting birds on DoD lands. This will encourage timed set-aside of land over any ownership during migration. If our assumptions are valid, the DoD only had a mean of 15.56% of our tagged birds on their lands. Therefore, other groups like the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Game need to cooperate with the DoD and ensure safe habitat on lands that they own. Likewise, the military needs to work with partners in Central America and Mexico to ensure stable habitat there. The USFS has a Latin America branch that works with migratory birds, and would be the logical partner to pair with at the outset. One recommendation to the DoD is that their managers need to keep alternate sites open for stopover sites during this short time period, e.g. if there are military manoeuvres near wetlands in South San Diego Bay, then managers could work with state, federal, and private managers of lagoons north of San Diego Bay to facilitate sandpipers’ stopping there. Managers could even set up a predator watch in non-protected places like the San Diego County bays, Morro Bay, or San Francisco South Bay. Other birds that have similar flight ranges and which also migrate with western sandpipers, for example dunlins, or species that might be on a protected list, can also be aided by this kind of management (see Gonzalo-Castro and Myers 1989). They showed that both big and small species have similar flight ranges because of their similar aerodynamics— that size has nothing to do with flight range. There is precedent for closing beaches for shorebirds during their migration (http://www.state.nj.us/dep/parksandforests/). Almost all of the beaches in coastal New Jersey and surrounding areas are used heavily for recreation — beach-goers and picnickers in the summer, and offroad vehicles in the fall and winter. In New Jersey, The New Jersey Department of Environment and Parks, Division Parks and Forestry, and the City of Brigantine NJ closed an entire beach, Brigantine Natural Area, for all use, in order to experimentally test the effect of disturbance on migratory shorebirds (Niles 2010). Brigantine Natural Area is one of the most important Atlantic coast beaches for southbound migrating shorebirds, and it provides a site that has an abundance of food such as small invertebrates like clams, marine worms, and mussels. There are only a few such southbound stopovers with enough area and habitat diversity that migrating shorebirds need for stopover sites. During southward migration, these beaches are also used heavily for recreation. These state and city agencies tested the effect of human disturbance by temporarily closing half of the North Brigantine Natural Area to all use for two migratory seasons (Niles, 2010 to test the effect of removal of disturbance on migratory shorebirds. Migrating birds were not disturbed during the closure, and the US Department of Parks and Forests reports more stable flocks during this experiment. In addition to managers’ communicating with each other, they must communicate with PIF, WHSRN, and NABCI. NABCI, unlike the others, is a voluntary partnership. NABCI helps in coordination of bird conservation initiatives in North America. They discuss both the biological and the institutional parts of conservation. One of their main purposes is to facilitate coordination among managers and sites, and to integrate all of their bird conservation initiatives. Our study helps researchers and managers in conservation planning by providing detailed new data on migration in Panama, Mexico, the western U.S., and Canada. Our protocol and research methods could be considered as an example ongoing monitoring. International cooperation. We propose that National priorities should be considered, as well as policies that address migration through all countries. Overall management should include all three North American countries, and Panama. Any decision or management practice should be both regional and global, and should include input by partners in Central America, Mexico, the U.S., and Canada, including Federal, State, and Municipal agencies, as well as the military in order to work to ensure stable habitat throughout.

123

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

NABCI has an integrated approach to management, and has international agreements and instruments such as 1) The Commission for Environmental Cooperation; 2) The Trilateral Committee for the Conservation and Sustainable Use of Wildlife and Ecosystems: Canada—México—the United States of America; 3) The North American Waterfowl Management Plan; and 4) The Ramsar Convention. We recommend that an effort should be made to train others in the same methods such that datacollection and data forms are all the same. This way, results can be compared across all countries. It is especially important to train those in Mexico and Central America, who might not have easy access to standard field forms, etc., so that a greater number of trained people (scientists, ornithologists, managers, conservationists) will be able to conduct surveys in the future. We have built partnerships with local communities, with other government agencies, and with nonprofits in Panama, Mexico, the United States, and Canada, fulfilling goals of the North American Bird Conservation Initiative proposes in their goals. With our use of Henkel adhesive products, and of Lotek transmitters and receivers, we have partnered with private industry, internationally, and in the United States and Canada. We have developed outreach and communication tools with our two television interviews (Mexico and Canada), with our newspaper article (U.S.), and with our museum display (U.S.), also fulfilling goals for cooperative research of the NABCI. We have engaged schools in Panama, the U.S., and Canada, and have led field trips for some of these schools. CONCLUSIONS OVERVIEW We tracked migrating radio-tagged western sandpipers from their major overwintering areas in Panama Bay, Panama, to one of their last stopover sites in southeast Alaska, on their way to the breeding grounds in more northwest parts of Alaska. Our goal was to answer questions posed by the Shorebird Research Group of the Americas regarding apparent decrease in many shorebird populations over the past two decades and to provide the most up-to-date summary of distribution of sandpipers on military and non-military land, along with windows of dates of migration through them for the Department of Defense. There were four main hypotheses to explain this perceived decrease in numbers. The first was that the birds were not utilizing historical stopover sites and migration routes, and thus that absence of birds in historic sites might be explained by broadening searches during migration. We found this to be true—that they used both historical as well as non-traditional stopover sites. The second hypothesis was that habitats, whether historical or newer, might be altered or radically changed such as to be unacceptable for stopovers. We found this also to be true. The third hypothesis was that raptor populations such as those of peregrine falcons had increased steadily since the 1980’s, ever since DDT was banned in the U.S. We found raptors at all stopover sites south of the Mexico-U.S. border. A large part of the diet of some of these raptors used to be shorebirds, so perhaps with newly increased numbers of raptors, shorebird populations might be returning to former numbers which were lower. The final assumption was that shorebirds’ stopover sites might be contaminated with heavy metals, as there are no environmental controls regarding such products in Panama, and enforcement is difficult in Mexico. We found this to be true, from examination of blood and feathers.

124

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

NEW FINDINGS • Some historical areas are used less than historically (Salton Sea, Newport Back Bay). • Small areas, especially along rivers, are used consistently • Irrigated agricultural fields important • Mexico and Panama birds overlap in Mexico • Mexico and Panama birds did not overlap in California NEW QUESTIONS FROM OUR RESEARCH • Regarding the lessened use of some historical stopover sites, – why was there a change? • Regarding the use of small areas, especially along rivers—why was there a change? • Has the use of agricultural fields in California been overlooked in the past or is this a more recent use? • Mexico and Panama birds did not overlap at stopover sites in California. Was this due to their timing or the different routes they took? RECOMMENDATIONS • Managers need to be aware of the myriad of other sites where shorebirds stopover, and start targeted surveys in these areas to keep a better record • Managers need to keep sites other than large wetlands open and monitored during the short time period of migration (April) e.g. lagoons north of San Diego Bay • In large mudflats, there needs to be a systematic predator watch, e.g. Morro Bay, San Francisco Bay, to record shorebird behavior when predators are around • If numbers are noted to be fewer in large mudflats than historical records show, then a wide net for surveys along mudflats of rivers and irrigated fields needs to be initiated to determine if birds are going elsewhere or if these numbers represent real declines

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Birds carry no passports. They do not stop at Customs. They are international---belonging to the world. Neotropical migrants are as much a part of the United States as they are a part of Mexico, of Panama, and of Canada. Partners in Flight and the Department of Defense Legacy Program understand that by working together in partnerships, we can achieve more than working with just our individual efforts. Neotropical migrants unite us. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

125

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This project would never have gone forward without the foresight and imagination of Tim Burr (retired US Navy, Southwest Engineering Command) and Chris Eberly (US DoD, Partners in Flight). Their encouragement and ideas launched and nurtured the project from beginning to end. I would also like to thank Pedro Morales and Jane Mallory of the US DoD, who were always eager to share ideas and thoughts about the project, as well as Peter Boice who always supported it. Without the superhuman field work of team leaders Tim Burr and Eric Davies (Simon Fraser University and University of Toronto), during the last two years of the project, Tim’s leadership in Year 2, Xico Vega’s and Miguel Guevara’s dedicated work in years 1 and 2, and Guillermo Fernandez’s work in Year 3, this project would not have produced such great results. I would enlist them for any project of mine anywhere on the planet. They are unbelievable assets. Kim Mathot also was instrumental in familiarizing me with the entire Panama ecosystem and the ins and outs of the Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute (STRI) in the first year of the project. She set the pace early on in the project. STRI also proved to be one of the best research environments I have ever experienced. All of the personnel were not only extremely helpful, they also became good friends during the time we were there. These personnel at STRI went out of their way to make our stay pleasant and to help us in every way possible. Maria Leone, Yara Clemons, and Orelis Arosemena helped smooth our way at STRI, and Ben Turner kindly opened his lab and he and his assistants in the soil lab provided bench space and helped with soil analysis. I thank especially Eduardo Moreno, Ancon Laboratory at STRI, for going above and beyond his regular research capacity in helping with our preparation for blood analysis of metals and elements. We could not have completed this project without the incredible help of Panama Audubon, and the University of Panama students . Angel Sosa, Maribel Tejada, Arcelys Pitti Wong, Natyarith Montenegro, Ovidio Jamarillo, and Daniel Medina were some of the fastest learners I have met and contributed hours and hours to surveys, banding, and radio-tagging. Liz Hayes from Laurelcrest School Long Beach was also a fast learner volunteer who, although trained as an engineer, jumped right in and became a top-notch field biologist. Rosabel Miro, Panama Audubon, and Karl Kaufmann , STRI, our main Panama partners for four years, helped tremendously in logistics, information, and sending me students from the University of Panama. This project succeeded because of them also. Xicoténcatl Vega-Picos (Xico Vega), our lead partner in México in 2005 and 2006, and his Pro Natura and Technological University of Monterrey at Culiacan Mexico [Universidad Tecnológico de Monterrey, Culiacan] team consisting of: Miguel Ángel Medina Guevara, Eric González, Ulises Trinidad Gastelum, Marco Antonio González and Jesús Salvador Martínez Bastidas, did most of the trapping and tagging at Bahia Santa Maria. We would not have tagged so many birds without their help. Xico Vega facilitated all of our research in Mexico, and without his knowledge and connections, we would not have been able to proceed as easily. Guillermo Fernandez, Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, UNAM, Unidad Académica Mazatlán, was our partner in Mexico in 2007 and arranged all surveys, with the help of his graduate student, Luis Fernando Sauma Castillo. Miguel Guevara tracked birds in Mexico by air and boat and also tracked by air in California. Madelyn Dillon from the USFS helped us capture birds in Mexico in 2005. Luis Fernando Sauma Castillo conducted surveys over Mexico in 2007. Eric Davies flew all surveys in California in 2007, and Evan Davies flew all surveys in California in 2008.

126

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Sherri Miller and Linda Long, USFS Humboldt, John Takekawa and Annie Marshall, USGS San Francisco, Josh Adams, USGS Santa Cruz, and their assistants listened for our birds in the Humboldt Bay, San Francisco, Point Mugu, and Elkhorn Slough areas respectively. Roy Lowe and Dave Ledig, USFWS Oregon, listened for our birds in coastal Oregon. Lora Leschner, Washington State Fish and Wildlife, facilitated our piggy-backing our surveys onto clam survey flights. Maryanne Bishop and Neil Dawson , USFS Cordova, helped in Alaska, as did Xico Vega when he was there in 2006. Zed Mason and Brian Livingston at California State University Long Beach, analzyed our blood and feather samples at the IIRMES laboratory there. Ron Ydenberg, Chair of the Centre for Wildlife Ecology at Simon Fraser University, was invaluable in listening for birds in B.C. as well as being a sounding board throughout the project. He helped steer me through pages of data and helped whittle the information down to the most important facts. Ron was able to synthesize our ideas of how to study use of military lands by shorebirds, and he produced the ultimate research plan that we eventually followed. His guidance and friendship throughout the project are greatly appreciated. Numerous anonymous birders also looked for our dyed and radi0-tagged birds in mudflats from Panama north to California after we distributed a description of our birds and a request for sightings on the internet sites ebird and Cal-bird. I am fortunate to have worked with all of these people. I thank the myriad of contacts that I have throughout the world that allowed our project to gain international recognition: Jenifer McKim (currently with The Boston Globe) and Pat Brennan of the Orange County Register newspaper where our project got front page coverage, Richard Nysewonger and Denise Lavoie from Henkel International Inc. who featured our project in their quarterly report, the personnel from Canal Trés TV in Sinaloa Mexico who highlighted our research on Sinaloa television, and Térèse Champagne from Planète Verte, French language Canadian Broadcasting Company (CBC), for their shorebird documentary. The personnel from Lotek Wireless who provided our transmitters and receivers also were in constant contact with us throughout the tracking phase, and solved many mysterious problems: Mike van den Tillaart and Paul Wigglesworth—the project could not have gone forward without their help and troubleshooting problems that they had never anticipated. Mike van den Tillaart also assisted in the field in 2007, the experience of which enabled him to take back our needs to his R&D department. And – to my husband Joe who put up with many absences and to my daughters Hanna and Aravis who grew up through the project – thank you for your patience and for notes from home tucked into my field pack. A project like this never succeeds because of one person. It is always born of extraordinary team work. Our multinational helpers have made this project succeed, and we are very thankful for everyone whom we have or have not mentioned. We must also thank our funding agency, the U.S Department of Defense, Legacy Resource Management Program, with Peter Boice, Jane Mallory, Chris Eberly, and Pedro Morales especially for their trust in and support for this project. I especially want to thank Tim Burr, USN retired, who thought of this project to begin with and approached us to see if we would like to do it. Without him, none of this would have happened.

127

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

LITERATURE CITED and BACKGROUND BIBLIOGRAPHY Baird, P. 2004. Annual Report to the DoD Legacy Project. Literature Review of Migratory Pathways of the Western Sandpiper along the Western Flyway. Unpubl. Rept. 03-199 Baird, P. 2005. Final Annual Report FY 2004 to the DoD Legacy Project. A Multinational Study of Neotropical Migrants, the Western Sandpiper as an example. Unpubl. Rept. 04-199 Baird, P. 2006a. Interim Report to the DoD Legacy Resources Project. A Multinational Study of Neotropical Migrants, the Western Sandpiper as an example. Unpubl. Rept. 05-199 Baird, P. 2006b. Semi-annual report FY 2005 to the DoD Legancy Resources Project. A Multinational Study of Neotropical Migrants, the Western Sandpiper as an example. Unpub. Rept. 05-199 Baird, P. 2006 c. Ecological Changes in Costa del Este and a summary of surveys in 2005 and 2006. Paper presented at the Partners in Flight meeting, Acadia National Park, Maine, 2006 05-199 Baird, P. 2009. Migration of Western Sandpipers: Costa del Este Panama, Bahia Santa Maria Mexico to Alaska. Paper presented at the 33rd annual meeting of the Waterbird Society, Cape May, Maryland. Baird, P. 2011. Historical and Current Stopover Sites of Western Sandpipers, Costa del Este Panama and Bahia Santa Maria Mexico to Alaska. Paper presented at 3rd Shorebird Symposium, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby BC. Bart, B. and B. Paxton (2008). Aerial Waterbird Survey in Panama. Electronic communication from [email protected], 10 Nov 2008. Barth, J. 2005. Personal communication. Cal-bird list server. Berlanga, H., J. Kennedy, T. Rich, M. Arizmendi, C. Beardmore, P. Blancher, G. Butcher, A. Couturier, A. Dayer, D. Demarest, W. Easton, M. Gustafson, E. Inigo-Elias, E.Krebs, A. Panjabi, V. Rodriguez, K. Rosenberg, J. Ruth, E. Santana, R. Vidal, and T. Will. 2010. Saving Our Shared Birds: Partners in Flight in Tri-National Vision for Landbird Conservation. Unpubl. Rept. Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY. BirdLife International 2008. State of the world’s birds: indicators for our changing world. Unpubl. Rept. Cambridge, UK, 28 pp. BirdLife International 2009a. Important Bird Area factsheet: Nicoya Gulf mangroves and coastal areas, Costa Rica. Unpubl. Rept. BirdLife International 2009b. Important Bird Area factsheet: Upper Bay of Panamá, Panama Bowman, M. 1999. International treaties and the global protection of birds. J Environmental Law 11: 87120. Bishop, M.A., N. Warnock, and J. Takekawa, 2004. Differential spring migration by male and female Western Sandpipers at interior and coastal stopover sites. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, Massachusetts, USA.

128

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Bishop, M.A. and Nils Warnock , 1998. Migration of Western Sandpipers: Links between Their Alaskan Stopover Areas and Breeding Grounds. The Wilson Bulletin, Vol. 110, No. 4 (Dec., 1998), pp. 457-462 Brown, S., C. Hickey, B. Harrington, and R. Gill, [Eds.], 2001. United States Shorebird Conservation Plan, Second Edition. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, Massachusetts, U.S.A., Unpubl. Rept. Butler, R. 1994. Distribution and abundance of Western Sandpipers, Dunlins, and Black-bellied Plovers in the Fraser River estuary. Pp. 18–23 in The abundance and distribution of estuarine birds in the Strait of Georgia, British Columbia (R. Butler and K. Vermeer, Eds.). Canadian Wildlife Service Occasional Paper No. 83, Ottawa, Ontario. Butler, R. 1999. Winter abundance and distribution of shorebirds and songbirds on the farmlands on the Fraser River delta, British Columbia, 1989–1991. Can. Field-Nat 113::390–395. Butler, R., F. Delgado, H. de la Cueva, V. Pulida, and B. Sandercock. 1996. Migration routes of the Western Sandpiper. Wilson Bulletin 108:662–672. California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base: Special Animals, 1999. Unpubl. rept. dated June 1999. Canadian Shorebird Breaks Record For Longest Migratory Flight, 2010. Global Animal. Cooper, D. 1999. Rapid assessment of shorebird migration in the lower Los Angeles River, Los Angeles County California. Unpubl. Rept., The Audubon Center, Los Angeles, California. Cornell Laboratory of Ornithology. All About Birds. http://www.allaboutbirds.org/guide/Red_Knot/lifehistory Coulter, M. and P. Frederick 1997. Movements and population dynamics of colonial waterbirds as guides for the temporal and spatial scales of conservation. Colonial Waterbirds. Colonial Waterbirds 20: 295-297. De Silva, Hector Gomez, Mexico. 2005. North American Birds 59 (3): 500- 505. Di Leo, M., ed., Henkel Life 2006. Fine Feathered Friends Fly with Loctite. Henkel Life. Summer 2006: 14. Drent, R, 2006. The timing of birds' breeding seasons: the Perrins hypothesis revisited especially for migrants. Ardea 94: 305-322. Drut, M. and J. Buchanan 2000. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan, Northern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Management Plan. Unpubl. Rept. USFWS, Office of Migratory Bird Management, Portland Oregon, 31 pp. Duncan, C. and P. Duncan. Shorebirds Across the Americas. 2011. BirdWatch Canada. 57: 8-12 (originally published in Aves Argentinas Volume 24, 2009).

129

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Ellis, S. 2010a. Grid-Arendel, United Nations Environment Programme. http://www.grida.no/photolib/collection/the-red-knot-and-long-distance-migration Ellis, S. 2010b. http://www.globalanimal.org/2010/10/12/canadian-shorebird-breaks-record-for-longestmigratory-flight/19188/ Eubanks, T.L. , no date. Waders of Bolivar Flats, Galveston County, Texas. Unpublished report. Evenson, J. and J.Buchanan. 1997. Seasonal abundance of shorebirds at Puget Sound estuaries. Washington Birds 6:34-62. Fernández, G., H. de la Cueva, N. Warnock and D.B. Lank. 2003. Local survival rates of Western Sandpiper wintering in northwest Baja California, Mexico. Auk 120:55-61. Fernandez, G., N. Warnock, D. Lank, and J. Buchanan. 2010. Conservation Plan for the Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri). Unpubl. Rept. Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. 48 pp. Fernández, G., N. Warnock, D.B. Lank, and J.B. Buchanan. 2010. Conservation Plan for the Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri). Version 1.1. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, Massachusetts USA Garrett, K.L., ed. 1993. The biota of the Los Angeles River: An overview of the historical and present plant and animal life of the Los Angeles River Drainage. Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County Foundation. Gaunt, A. and L. Oring [eds.],. J. Fair, Editor-in-Chief, E. Paul and J. Jones, Associate Eds. 2010. Guidelines to the Use of Wild Birds in Research, 3rd Edition, Special Publication by the Ornithological Council. http://www.nmnh.si.edu/BIRDNET/guide/guidelines.html?Operation=ENTER+HERE+~+English Glick, R., 2010. Personal Comment, Guadalupe Dunes. California State Parks. Gonzalo-Castro, A. and J. P. MYERS, 1989. Flight Range Estimates for Shorebirds. Auk 105: 474- 476. Helmers, D. L. 1992. Shorebird management manual. Western Hemispheric Shorebird Reserve Network, Manomet, MA. 58 pp. Iverson, G.C., S.E. Warnock, R.W. Butler, M.A. Bishop, and N. Warnock. 1996. Spring migration of western sandpipers along the Pacific Coast of North America: A telemetry study. Condor 98: 10-21. Kaiser, G. , W. D. Shuford, J. Kjelmyr & L. Stenzel , 1992. Shorebird Numbers in Wetlands of the Pacific Flyway. Unpubl. Rept. Point Reyes Bird Observatory Kenyon, N. 2005. Personal communication. Cal-bird list server. King, D., M. Baumgartel, J. DeBeer, T. Meyer. 1987. The birds of San Elijo Lagoon, San Diego County, California. Western Birds 18(4):177-208.

130

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Kushlan, J., M. Steinkamp, K. Parsons, J. Capp, M. Acosta Cruz, M. Coulter, I. Davidson, L. Dickson, N. Edelson, R. Elliot, R. Michael Erwin, S. Hatch, S. Kress, R. Milko, S. Miller, K. Mills, R. Paul, R. Phillips, J. Saliva, B. Sydeman, J. Trapp, J. Wheeler, and K. Wohl. 2002. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas : The North American Waterbird Conservation Plan, Version 1. Waterbird Conservation for the Americas, Washington DC. USA , 78 pp. Live Science 2010. Record Migration: Small Birds Travel 50,000 Miles. http://www.livescience.com/6022record-migration-small-birds-travel-50-000-miles.html Luecke, D., J. Pitt, C. Congdon, E. Glenn, C. Valdes-Casillas, M. Briggs, 1999. A Delta Once More: Restoring Riparian and and Wetland Habitat in the Colorado River Delta. Environmental Defense Fund Unpubl. Rept. United States, 95 pp. Martin, T., I. Chades, P. Arcese, P. Marra , H. Possingham, D. Norris. 2007. Optimal conservation of migratory species. PLoS ONE 2:1–5. McCaskie, G. 1997. Field checklist of the birds of San Diego County. Unpubl. Rept., County of San Diego Dept. of Parks and Recreation. Mellink, E. and E. Palacios, 1993. Notes in breeding coastal waterbirds in northwestern Sonora. Western Birds 24: 29-37. Mellink, E., E. Palacios, and S. Gonzales. Non-breeding observations on the Delta Rio Colorado, Mexico. Journal of Field Ornithology 68: 113-123. Morales-Gopar, L. , and Carmona, R, , (Centro Interdisciplinario de Ciencias Marinas, La Paz, México, and Universidad Autonoma de Baja California Sur, La Paz, México, personal communication ([email protected] and [email protected] ). 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. Occasional Paper No. 104, Canadian Wildlife Service, Ottawa, Ontario. 64 pp. Kaiser et al. 1992 Mueller, A.J. no date. Bolivar Flats, A Galveston Bay Highlight. Galveston Bay Foundation Newsletter. National Audubon Society. 2002. Audubon WatchList 2002. www.audubon.org. Rainfall at Los Angeles Coastal Station 2004-2008 (http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs and http://cdec.water.ca.gov/cgi-progs/queryMonthly?LAN&d=12-Aug-2006+13:19&span=2years) Niles, Lawrence, 2010. http://www.arubewithaview.com/blog/2010/10/24/north-brigantine-natural-areaexperimental-closure-to-study.html Palacios, Eduardo, and Eric Mekkink, Breeding birds of Esteros Tóbari and San José, Southern Sonora. unpubl. Rept. Univ. New Mexico. Payne, J.M, F. Reid, E. Carrera Gonzalez, 1992. - Feasibility Study for the Possible Enhancement of the Colorado Delta Wetlands: Baja California Norte, Mexico. Unpubl. Rept. prepared by Ducks Unlimited

131

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Rattner, B. J. Capizzi, K. King, L. LeCaptain,and M. Melancon. 1995. Exposure and effects of oilfield brine discharges on Western Sandpipers (Calidris mauri) in Nueces Bay, Texas. Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 54: 683-689. Regional Shorebird Conservation Plan Western States 2001. Unpubl. Rept. U.S.F.W.S. Stattersfield, A., M. Crosby, A. Long, and D. Wege. 1998. Endemic bird areas of the world: priorities for biodiversity conservation. BirdLife International, Cambridge, United Kingdom. Stephens, D., J. Brown, and R. Ydenberg, [eds]. 2007. Foraging: Behavior and Ecology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Unitt, P. 1984. The birds of San Diego County. San Diego Society of Natural History. Memoir 13. U.S. Shorebird Conservation Plan. 2004. High priority shorebirds, 2004. Unpubl. Rept., U.S.F.W.S., 4401 N. Fairfax Dr., MBSP 4107, Arlington, VA, 2203,U.S.A. U.S.F.W.S. Shorebird Plan 2009. Unpubl. Rept. U.S.F.W.S. Valdes-Casillas, Carlos , 1996. Development and testing of a procedural model for the assessment of human/wetland interaction in the Tobari system on the Sonoran coast, Mexico. PhD. Dissertation, Oregon State University. ([email protected]) Vega, Xico 2002. Wetland Restoration and Conservation Will Help Southbound Shorebirds that Stop along the Gulf of California. Unpubl. Rept. , Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, Massachusetts, USA, August - September 2002 Vermillion, W.G. 2007. Fall Habitat Objectives for Priority Gulf Coast Joint Venture Shorebird Species Using Managed Wetlands and Grasslands, Version 2.0. Gulf Coast Joint Venture, Lafayette, LA. 26 pp + appendixes. Wang, C., J.J. Corbett, and J. Firestone. 2007. Modeling energy use and emissions from North American shipping: Application of the ship traffic, energy, and environment model. Commercial Marine Vessel Emissions, 2002. Environ. Sci. Technol., 41 (9), 3226-323. Warnock, N. and J. Takekawa 1996. Wintering site fidelity and movement patterns of Western Sandpipers Calidris mauri in the San Francisco Bay estuary. Ibis 138: 160-167. Watts, B. 1998.Migrant shorebirds within the Upper Bay of Panama. Unpubl. Rept., The Center for Conservation Biology, The College of William and Mary. Wilson, W. H. 1994. Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri). In The Birds of North America, No. 90 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The American Ornithologists’ Union. [also online: Ithaca: Cornell Lab of Ornithology; Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/bna/species/090]

132

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Wilson, H. E. 1994. Western Sandpiper (Calidris mauri). In A. Poole and F. Gill [Eds], The Birds of North America, no. 90. Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Retrieved from the Birds of North America Online: http://bna.birds.cornell.edu.proxy.lib.sfu.ca/bna/species/090 . Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca.

Research partners Partners in Panama: ANAM , Smithsonian Tropical Research Institute, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Partners In Flight, University of Panama, Panama Audubon Partners México: Universidad de Sinaloa, SEMTRA, Pro Natura, Technological University of Monterrey at Culiacan Mexico [Universidad Tecnológico de Monterrey, Culiacan], Instituto de Ciencias del Mar y Limnología, UNAM, Unidad Académica Mazatlán Partners USA: U.S. Navy San Diego, San Diego Audubon, U. S. Navy Seal Beach, U.S. Marine Corps Camp Pendleton, California Department of Fish and Game Bolsa Chica, California State University, USFWS Carlsbad, Santa Ana, San Francisco Bay, Oregon; the Point Reyes Bird Observatory, USGS San Francisco Bay, U.S.Navy Point Mugu, U.S. Forest Service: Northern California , México, & Alaska, U.S. Geological Survey San Francisco Bay; and the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife Partners Canada: Canadian Wildlife Service, Simon Fraser University, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation/Radio Canada, University of Toronto Our co-workers in México in 2006 were Xico Vega Pico, senior scientist Pro Natura ([email protected]) , and Pro Natura biotechnicians Miguel Angel Medina-Guevara, Eric González, Ulises Trinidad Gástelum, Marco Antonio González and Jesús Salvador Martínez- Bastidas. Likewise Madelyn Dillon of the U.S. Forest Service ([email protected]) helped us radio-tag in Mexico. David Ledig, USFWS Refuges SW Oregon and Roy Lowe (USFWS Oregon) helped with listening in Oregon. Anse Windham, Kingsville, TX, ([email protected]) piloted the survey plane in Texas, Carlos Diaz and Enrique Melik piloted the planes in Panama, and Roberto Ernesto Aviles – Lopez and Sandy Lanham piloted the planes in Mexico. Mike Morrison and Jim Choo piloted the planes in California. Personal Communications John Barth San Diego Audubon Nathan Darnall USFWS Mountain Prairie region [email protected]

133

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Rhys Evans Natural Resources Lead Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA 30 CES / CEVNN (805) 606-4198 [email protected] Nancy Kenyon Irvine, CA Sea & Sage Audubon [email protected] G. Victor Leipzig, Ph.D. Southwest Birders 17461 Skyline Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92647 (714) 848-5394 http://www.southwestbirders.com

John Martin Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve and Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge Guy McCaskie 954 Grove Avenue Imperial Beach, CA 91932 619-423-7524 Kim Mathot Vancouver, B.C. Canada Chet Ogan Research Technician-Wildlife [email protected] 707-825-2952 Pat O’Hara CWS/EC Sydney, B.C. Canada Shorebird Research Group of the Americas 2005. Summary points of conference held at Simon Fraser University.

134

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

PART 2 – APPENDICES

135

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

APPENDIX I Areas of Importance, Panama to Alaska ANNOTATED LIST OF STOPOVER SITES, PANAMA TO ALASKA(including Panama, Mexico, California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia Canada, Alaska)

136

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

PANAMA The best area suitable for shorebirds in Panama is the upper bay of Panama. Much of the rest of the coast has sandy beaches, and are inappropriate foraging areas. The mudflats at Chitre also harbor shorebirds, but in fewer numbers. Likewise, Playa el Algalito used to have thousands of western sandpipers before the mangrove swamps were cut down and altered the natural runoff (Delgado, pers. comm.). UPPER PANAMA BAY (Alta de la Bahía de Panamá )— Costa del Este and Panamá Viejo Panama Bay Jurisdiction: Government of Panama up to high tide. Above: private Habitat: Mudflats Area: 48,919 hectares (120,883 acres): 130 x 3 km Closest towns: Panama City

Photo: Pat Baird

Panama City Costa del Este

maps.google.com

Importance of Use: High When: Year-Round Designation Ramsar Wetland of International Importance (2003), an IBA, and a Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN) of Hemispheric Importance (2005--at least 500,000 shorebirds annually or at least 30% of the biogeographic population for a species) Latitude-Longitude: 08°35'N 078°30 'W to 09°00'N 079°30’ Summary: The Upper Bay of Panama on the Pacific Coast is a complex of broad continuous wetlands east of Panama City. This intertidal mudflat is intersected by several estuaries (e.g. Rio Chep), mangrove forests, swamp forests, and freshwater pools. The main part extends from Costa del Este, heavily urbanized, to Ensenada de Corral at the mouth of the La Maestra River, 70 km to the east, a relatively inaccessible area. It is contiguous with Tocumen Marsh and La Jagua, national-level IBAs, and it abuts the Chiman Wetlands IBA to the east. Wildlife Values: It is an important shorebird overwintering and oversummering area for over a million migrants. Raptor populations have increased in this area in the past few years. January – mid-April is the time of highest abundance. 31% of the world population of Western Sandpipers Calidris mauri, with some estimates up to half of the world population of the species as they pass through on migration. with records of over 280,000 birds at a time. Likewise, this area hosts 20% of of the Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus population, and over 1% of the biogeographical populations of Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla, Willet Tringa semipalmata, @Charadrius wilsonius, Numenius phaeopus, Catatrophorus semipalmatus, Arenaria interpres, Limnodromus griseus, , Calidris minutilla, Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus, Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus, and Grey or Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola. (http://www.ducks.org/media/Conservation/Conservation_Documents & http://www.birdlife.org) Threats: Little direct use by humans. Indirect use is the accumulation of trash from the rivers, heavy metals outfall from industry, and untreated sewage from an offshore pipe. Specific threats are: Urban development ( proximity to Panama City: housing & retail development has altered or degraded roosting areas) Drainage: construction of seawall closed natural runoff Pollutants: Untreated sewage, industrial & agricultural pesticides, and agricultural chemicals discharged directly into ocean.

137

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

MEXICO We surveyed all suitable habitat for western sandpipers on the mainland Pacific coast of Mexico from Rio Las Cañas at the border between the states of Sinaloa and Nayarit, north to Hermosillo (states of Sinaloa and Sonora) in 2005 and 2006, to Bahia Santa Maria in Sinaloa only in 2007, and once in 2006 at the mouth of the Colorado River, via air surveys. The largest concentrations of western sandpipers and other Neotropical migrant shorebirds were at Bahia Santa Maria and Las Marismas. We found the majority of Panama-tagged birds at one small area in the northern part of Las Marismas, Laguna El Caimanero. Areas surveyed in Mexico:

Surveys 2005 & 2006

Survey 2007

138

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

The major historically-documented wetlands are below.

Map: Expedia.com

Map: Expedia.com

139

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

MEXICO —Las Marismas Las Marismas Jurisdiction: Federal and private: administered by the Federal Government. Stewards of Marismas Nacionales in Sinaloa are: Ejidos de Escuinapa, Las Cabras, Rosario, El Caimanero y Teacapan. Stewards in Nayarit are: Los Ejidos del Novillero, Quimichis, Mexcaltitán, Palmar de Cuautla, Santiago Ixcuintla, Sentispac, Santa Cruz, Francisco Villa, Pescadero, Pimientillo, Pericos, Tuxpan, San Vicente, Chacalilla y San Blas. Habitat: coastal lagoons, wetlands, mangroves, swamps, and saltmarshes Area: 200,000 ha (494,211 acres) Closest towns: at border of Sinaloa and Nayarit

Importance of Use: High When: Spring and fall migration, winter Designation: Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance, WHSRN Globally Important Area Latitude-Longitude:22°15’ 04’’ to 22°17’07’’N and -105° 11’05’’ to 105°13’36’’ W

Map: WHSRN

Map:http://ramsar.wetlands.org/Database/

Marismas Nacionales

Summary: Las Marismas (Marismas Nacionales), the National Wetlands, is located in the states of Nayarit and Sinaloa, and is bounded on the north by Rio Baluarte, and at the south by Matanchen Bay. It is a network of coastal lagoons fed by several rivers. Las Marismas include estuaries, and the most extensive mangroves of the Mexican Pacific (20% of all the mangroves in the country). At least 60 species of nationally or internationally endangered vertebrates occur here, including 51 endemic ones, 36 of which are endemic birds. Feather palm forests (Orbygnia) on sand bars are a threatened community. Wildlife Values: Bird species number 446, of which 38 species are shorebirds. Over 206,000 individual shorebirds have been recorded there, with highest numbers of (Recurvirostra Americana- nearly 61,000 1994 and 46,234 in early 2000). Charadius wilsonia, Charadrius alexandrinus, and Himantopus mexicanus breed there. There are also 14 species of native plants that are endemic, threatened, and/or at risk of extinction. Additionally, 99 endemic animal species (mammals, birds, reptile, and amphibians), and 73 threatened or endangered species or species at risk of extinction live there. Threats : There has been much habitat loss, destruction and fragmentation along the wetlands. Numerous creeks have been altered into large prawn farms, which have the potential of becoming an economically important activity in the area, yet one with dire consequences for the wetlands themselves. Construction of dams, roads, and shrimp pond dikes, as well as the opening of the Cuatla Channel, are modifying the ecosystem by modifying water flow and flooding. Effects of river channelization are evident. Wetlands are being lost due to restriction of water flow, and there is much erosion. Fishery, agriculture, cattle ranching, shrimp farming all impact the wetlands via runoff of pesticides, herbicides, waste, and fertilizers. Surrounding forests are being exploited commercially. Transportation and infrastructure development are negatively impacting the wetlands. Human activities negatively impact the area: shrimp farms, ranches, and farms produce agricultural runoff into the area. Fishing activities leave nets in the area which can drown birds. Fruit and seeds and leaves of many plants are exploited by industry and native peoples (for handicrafts and roof thatch).

140

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Las Marismas middle MEXICO — Las Marismas-- El Caimanero Laguna

Las Marismas - El Caimanero Laguna Jurisdiction: Government of Mexico, states of Sinaloa and Nayarit. Stewards of Marismas Nacionales in Sinaloa include the Ejidos of Escuinapa, Las Cabras, Rosario, El Caimanero y Teacapan; in Nayarit, the Ejidos of el Novillero, Quimichis, Mexcaltitán, Palmar de Cuautla, Santiago Ixcuintla, Sentispac, Santa Cruz, Francisco Villa, Pescadero, Pimientillo, Pericos, Tuxpan, San Vicente, Chacalilla y San Blas. Habitat: Mudflats, beaches, inlets, brine coastal lagoons, bogs, mangroves, salt marshes, sandbars, spits, permanent shallow marine waters in most cases less than six metres deep at low tide; includes sea bays and straits Area: 220,000 hectares (543,000 acres) Closest towns: Mazatlan to Tepic

Importance of Use: High When: Spring Migration Designation: IBA and WHSRN of International Importance, submitted to the National Commission of Protected Natural Areas (CONANP) to register as Biosphere Reserve category. Ramsar siteWetlands of International Importance Latitude-Longitude: 22°15’ 04’’ 22°17’07’’ N 105° 11’05’’ - 107° 56' 58.56" W

Las Marismas middle part

Las Marismas southern end

Summary: Las Marismas is a chain of lagoons, mangroves, muddy bogs or swamps, and ravines south of Mazatlan. Thousands of shorebirds use Las Marismas as a refueling and resting ground during spring and fall migrations. Western sandpipers are one of the most ubiquitous species there. Most of the mudflats are not accessible, and thus do not get much use by humans, although there is use of the area by fishermen. Wildlife values: Las Marismas has a large biodiversity of many important species. Shorebirds large and small, ducks, geese, seabirds, all use the area. The area contains 14 species at-risk native flora (endemic, threatened, and/or extinction), and 99 endemic fauna species (mammals, birds, reptile, and amphibians), and 73 species threatened or endangered of extinction. There are 446 avian species, 38 of them shorebirds. Over 46,000 American Avocets live there (Recurvirostra Americana), and Wilson’s plover (Charadius wilsonia), snowy (formerly Kentish) plover (Charadrius nivosus , formerly C. alexandrines), and black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanu)s breed there. More than 60 species of nationally or internationally endangered vertebrates live in Las Marismas (51 endemic of which 36 of are endemic birds). Threats: Construction of dams, roads, and shrimp pond dikes, as well as the opening of the Cuatla Channel, are deeply modifying the ecosystem.There are plans to build a dam on the El Caimanero river, (estuary heavily used by Panama birds), which would radically change the ecology of the mudflats. Shrimp farms (waste and dikes that disrupt water flow, agricultural runoff (pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers), and the opening of the Cuatla Channel, will modify the site ecosystem.

Esquinapa

Maps: Ramsar

El Caimanero Lagoon

Las Marismas San Blas

141

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Laguna El Huizache/Laguna Caimanero-Las Marismas Laguna El Huizache/Laguna Caimanero-Las Marismas Jurisdiction: National Commission of Protected Natural Areas (CONANP) Regional Director for Northwest and Upper Gulf of California, with partners: Mayor of Rosario Municipality, President of the Aguaverde ejido community, Ducks Unlimited of Mexico, and the Autonomous National University of Mexico’s Institute of Ocean Sciences and Limnology in Mazatlán, National Water Commission of Mexico Habitat: Mudflats Area: 18,000 hectares (44,000 acres) , 17,100 ha: Huizache (6,000), Caimanero (12,000). Total area wetlands and uplands , encompass 48,283 ha (119,310 acres) Closest towns: Rosario and Mazatlan in Sinaloa (border of Sinaloa and Nayarit)

www.panoramio.com

Importance of Use: High When: Spring and Fall migration Designation: Ramsar and WSHRN Site of Regional Importance (at least 20,000 shorebirds annually or at least 1% of the biogeographic population for a species); an Important Bird Conservation Area and a National Priority Wetland for shorebirds and waterfowl. IUCN Protected Area Category IV, Latitude-Longitude: 22° 50’ N, 105° 55’ W to 22° 52' 23° 06' N, 106° to 106° 13' W

Summary: The lagunas of Huizache and El Caimanero are 17 km southeast of Mazatlán, and support more than 20,000 shorebirds of 23 species. They are part of the long and narrow wetlands that cover the west coast of Sinaloa. Wildlife Values: The most numerous species are American Avocet (Recurvirostra Americana ~ 3,000+), dowitchers (Limnodromus spp ~ 2,000+), Marbled Godwit (Limosa fedoa ~1000), and Western Sandpipers (Calidris mauri, ~15,000). Other migratory birds of high importance are the American White Pelican (Pelecanus erythrorhynchus) and the Roseate Spoonbill (Ajaia ajaia). It has a large population of mallards (Anas platyrhynchos), and a diversity of fish and mammals. Important reptiles also inhabit the lagoons, notably the American Crocodile (Crocodylus acutus), the Mexican Beaded Lizard (Heloderma horridum), the Boa (Boa constrictor), and the Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea). Important flora include the red (Rhizophora mangle), black (Avicennia germinans) and white (Laguncularia racemosa) mangroves. Threats: Many shrimp farms and agricultural lands surround the area, and the lagoons are used heavily for recreational fishing and boating. Among the negative factors affecting the site are: the sedimentation of rivers (rios Presidio and Baluarte), deforestation, overfishing, wastewaters discharged into the lagoon, and entanglement of birds in fishing nets. El Caimanero

Map: Google.com

Laguna Huizache/Caimanero

Photo by Enrique Villanueva Map: Wetlands International/Ramsar

142

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

MEXICO: Bahía Santa María (includes La Reforma, Altamura, Sálica/Playa Colorado) Bahía Santa María complex (La Reforma/Altamura/Sálica/Playa Colorado) Jurisdiction: Federal Government Mexico with partner of Pronatura Noroeste-Mar de Cortes and American Bird Conservancy Habitat: Intertidal flats, beaches, estuaries, marshes, mangroves Area: 53,140 hectares (131,311 acres) IBA = 165,099 hectares (Birdlife International/Audubon) Closest towns: Playón, Guamúchil, Novolato, Angostura, La Reforma, Culiacán in Sinaloa

Importance of Use: High When: Spring and Fall migration Designation: Ramsar and WHSRN Sites of Hemispheric Importance (at least 500,000 shorebirds annually and at least 30% of the biogeographic population for a species), Audubon/Birdlife International IBA A4i status, meaning that the site supports regularly 1% or more of the North American population of a waterbird species simultaneously, or 5% over a season. Latitude-Longitude: midpoint 25°02'N 108°09'W (24°25' - 25°30' N, 107°35' - 108°25' W) Summary: Bahia Santa Maria is a complex consisting of three wide bays, 153 islands, 25 marshes, and 18,700 hectares of mangroves. It is noted for its four species of mangroves buttonwood (Conocarpus erecta), red mangrove (Rhyzopha mangle), black mangrove (Avicennia germinans), and white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa). Marshes and mudflats surround the area, attracting many species of migrating and overwintering shorebirds, as well as many species of waterfowl and marine birds. The area is very diverse biogeographically. Wildlife Values: Over 500,000 shorebirds and thousands of waterfowl species stopover on their annual migrations. The area is very important for these species. Raptors like white-tailed hawks (Buteo albicaudatus) are found there, and a number of other birds nest there, such as cormorants, herons, stilts, gulls, and terns.

Photo: Tim Burr

Threats: Agricultural runoff (pesticides, fertilizers, fungicides), human disturbance, shrimp farms.

Bahia Santa Maria

Maps: Microsoft Inc. 2006

143

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

MEXICO — La Reforma La Reforma Jurisdiction: Federal Government Habitat: Intertidal flats, beaches, estuaries, marshes, mangroves Area: La Reforma only: 1,500 hectares (3,700 acres); Closest towns: Playón, Guamúchil, Sinaloa

Photo by Reynaldo Castro

Importance of Use: High When: Spring and Fall migration Designation: Ramsar Site of Regional Importance (at least 20,000 shorebirds annually or at least 1% of the biogeographic population for a species) and a WHSRN international site as part of the Bahia Santa Maria complex (more than 300,000 birds). Latitude-Longitude: 25°02'N 108°09'W

Summary: La Reforma is one part of the larger wetland complex of Bahia Santa Maria in Sinaloa (Laguna Playa Colorada-Santa María -La Reforma). It is separated out here because it was used so often by our tagged birds. The intertidal flats are stopover sites for over 300,000 individual shorebirds. It is one of the most significant commercial fishing areas on the Pacific coast of Mexico, with over 2,000 small fishing boats navigating its waters. Main fish species taken are mullets (Mugil cephalus and M. curema), Bullseye Puffers Sphoeroides annulatus, Mojarra Diapterus peruvianus, Spanish Mackerels Scomberomorus sierra, snappers Lutjanus spp., and snooks Centropomus spp. Other commercial interests are shrimp farms, covering more than over 10,000 hectares. Wildlife Values: The endangered Black-vented Shearwaters Puffinus opisthomelas, the Brant Branta bernicla and other numerous waterfowl species use the site regularly. Seabirds like frigatebirds, (Fregata magnificens), blue-footed boobies, (Sula nebouxii), terns, and gulls are plentiful, as are migrating shorebirds.

Laguna Playa Colorado-Santa María-La Reforma

Map: Wetlands International/Ramsar

Threats: Agricultural runoff, modification of normal water flow by dikes, shrimp farms. Shrimp farms have brought many environmental impacts, such as silting, pollution with pesticides, spread of viruses from farmed to wild populations, drying up of nearly 10% of the mangroves and disruption of the hydrological flows. Conservation International and the Universidad Autónoma de Sinaloa are spearheading management initiatives for the coastal wetlands and raising environmental awareness among locals.

144

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

MEXICO — Playa Cueta/ Guadalupana/Quevedo/La Boca (between Santa María and El Dorado) Playa Cueta/Guadalupana/Quevedo/La Boca Jurisdiction: Comisión Nacional de Áreas Naturales Protegidas, State of Sinaloa, City of Elota Habitat: Mudflats, shallow lagoon Area: 1,497 hectares (3,699.17 acres) Closest towns: Santa María, El Dorado, Sinaloa

Importance of Use: High When: Spring Migration Designation: A WHSRN Site of Regional Importance: at least 20,000 shorebirds annually or at least 1% of the biogeographic population for a species. Ramsar Site of International Importance Latitude-Longitude: 24º02’N 107º04’W Latitude. 24.183°, Longitude. -107.283°

Summary: Playa Cueta is formed by several lagoon complexes and marshes, with mangrove vegetation adjacent, and includes Playa Cueta (Queta), La Guadalupana, Quevedo, La Boca— between Santa María and El Dorado.

Photo: travelingduck.com

Wildlife Values: Large and small shorebirds, seabirds, ducks, egrets, herons, and other waterbirds use Playa Cueta. Major species are: western sandpipers (Calidris mauri--20,000), Wilson’s phalaropes (Phalaropus tricolor --15,000), American avocets (Recurvirostra Americana--(15,000), snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus --650), and royal terns (Sterna maxima --2,500). The Leatherback turtle (Lepidochelys olivacea) nests on its beaches. Threats: Threats to birds are entanglement in fishing nets, aquaculture (toxins and disruption of water flow), and agricultural runoff.

Playa La Cueta/Quevedo/La Boca

http://travelingluck.com/North%20America/Mexico/Sinaloa/_3976485_Bah%C3%ADa%20La%20Guadalupana.html#local_map

145

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

MEXICO -- -Ensenada de Pabellones Ensenada de Pabellones Jurisdiction: Privately owned, but Pro Natura Noroeste, an NGO, has a conservation easement Habitat: Mudflats, lagoons, estuaries, swamps, marshes, meadows. Area: 45,000 hectares (111,150 acres) WHSRN, 76,147 hectares (187.8 acres) IBA area Closest towns: Culiacán Sinaloa

Importance of Use: High When: Spring Migration Designation: Ramsar Site of International Importance and an Important Bird Conservation Area. It is an Bird Life International/Audubon IBA category A4i, meaning that it contains ≥1% of the North American population of a waterbird simultaneously; or ≥5% over a season. WHSRN Site of International Importance- more than 100,000 shorebirds annually or at least 10% of the biogeographic population for a species is there. Mexican Protected Natural Area and Priority Wetland. It is in the IUCN 1b category: “Wilderness Area.” Latitude-Longitude: 24° 26´24.46” N 107° 33´43.02” W Summary: Ensenada de Pabellones. This is one of the southern lagoons in the Bahia Santa Maria complex. Because of its varied habitat, it has high biodiversity of flora and fauna. Pabellones is a very important area for waterfowl, supporting more than 292 species of migratory and resident bird species.

Ensenada de Pabellones

Wildlife Values: Pabellones is of international importance for shorebirds (10% of the total world population of a species or more than 300,000 wintering shorebirds) for the following shorebirds: American avocet (Recurvirostra Americana, western sandpiper (Calidris mauri), and marbled godwit (Limosa fedoa). Important flora include the red mangrove, Rhizophora mangle, black mangrove, Avicenia germinans, white mangrove, Laguncularia racemosa and the endemic and threatened guayacán, Guayacán coulteri (caltrop family). Threats: The main land uses are aquaculture and fishing. Runoff or leakage from, and disruption of natural water flow by aquaculture negatively affects all wildlife. Likewise, birds get caught in fishing nets and drown.

Ensenada de Pabellones

146

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

MEXICO – Montelargo/Malacatoya Montenegro/Malacatoya Bay Jurisdiction: Private landowners Area: 1530 ha (3789 acres) Closest towns: La Reforma, Melchor de Campo, Culiacán (51.94 km, ~32.3 mi)

Importance of Use: High When: Spring Migration Designation: None Latitude-Longitude: 24° 57' 28.97 " N, -107° 56' 58.56" W

Summary: Irrigated agricultural fields and low vegetation surround the area, which included small estuarine lagoons, mudflats and beaches at the outlet of a small river near the towns of Montelargo and Malacatoya, south of La Reforma, northeast of Culiacan. This area is in Bahia Santa Maria. Many of our tagged sandpipers stopped over there, and thus we have highlighted it separately from the rest of Bahia Santa Maria and La Reforma. Wildlife Values: The same wildlife as are in the general Bahia Santa Maria area abound in this extended wetlands. www.sinaloaenelmundo.com/wysiwyg/uploads/ bahiasantamaria04.JPG

Las Marismas Mantacoya

Photo by David Sanchez Gutierrez

Threats: Agricultural runoff with herbicides, fungicides, and pesticides pose the biggest threat to wildlife. Additionally, alteration of the natural flow of the river and changing the runoff pattern of fresh water is a problem rampant throughout this area.

Photo by licdorado

Laguna Malacatoya

147

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

MEXICO -- Tobari Bay Tobari Bay Jurisdiction: Privately landowners: habitation and agriculture (e.g. Irragodora del Yaqui S.A.) Habitat: Mudflats, lagoons, estuaries, rocky shore, marshes, estuarine intertidal & palustrine emergent wetland. Area: 8,274 hectares (20,445.5 acres) 20 km x 4 km Closest towns: Ciudad Obregón, Yaqui & Huatabampo, Sonora

Photo by Rabago

Ciudad Obregόn

Tobari Bay

Huatabampo

Importance of Use: Moderate When: Spring Migration Designation: Audubon/Bird Life International IBA category A1 NT - Species of Global Conservation Concern because the Reddish egret (Egretta rufescens) breeds there. A1 means “The site regularly holds significant numbers of a globally threatened species, or other species of global conservation concern.” Latitude-Longitude: 26° 59' 26.23" N -109° 57' 43.77" W Summary: Tobari Bay is a typical Sonoran bay with multiple uses: fishing, recreation, and . It is complex coastal lagoon made of 15 small estuaries, mudflats, and bays. The barrier islands have sand dunes and coastal plains. Surveys there show consistent use by seabirds, waders, seaducks, and shorebirds. It is an alternate stopover site for other more heavily used areas. Wildlife Values: Black-bellied plovers (Pluvialis squataroh), marbled godwits (Limosa ledoa), whimbrel (Numenius phaeopus), long-billed curlews (Numenius americanus), willet (Catoptrophorus semipa/matus), dowitchers, (Limnodromus spp.), sanderlings (Calidris alba), western sandpipers (Calidris mauri), black tern ( @), California least terns (Sternula antilarum browni), American Oystercatchers (Haematopus palliatus), Wilson's plover (Charadrius wilsonia), common moorhen (Gallinula chloropus), roseate spoonbill (Ajaia ajaja), white ibis (Eudocimus albus), black-crowned nightheron (Nycticorax nycticorax), green heron (Butorides virescens), reddish egret (Egretta rufescens), tricolored heron (Egretta tricolor), little blue heron (Egretta caerulea), snowy egret (Egretta thula), great egret (Casmerodius albus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), yellow-crowned night-heron (Nycticorax violaceus), and Laughing Gull (Larus atricilla). Threats: Water discharge from the nearby shrimp and oyster farms could cause excessive plant growth or eutrophication in the Estero de San Jose. A collector from industrial and urban wastewater discharges into the bay. Agricultural runoff from farms and animal facilities carry pesticides, fertilizers, and animal waste. Tobari is one of the most polluted systems on the coast of Sonora. Discharge of sediments has increased and they are not being removed by tidal currents, because of the causeway linking Isla Huivulai. Alteration of natural water flow by drainage ditches and canals threaten the estuary. As a result of road construction between the two islands, with 4 kilometers of fill, lack of water and sediment exchange has altered the sedimentation patterns and transformed the system into two semi-independent subsystems.

148

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

MEXICO-- Estero Rio Colorado/Colorado River Estuary Jurisdiction: U.S. (DoI, EPA) and Mexican (Secretariat of the Environment, Natural Resources, and FisheriesSEMARNAP) federal agencies, states of California, Arizona, and Sonora, NGOs (e.g. Sonoran Institute, EDF, Pacific Institute, Pro Natura), local communities, and indigenous people, are all partners. The only institution with binational authority over surface water resources in the border region is the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), known as Comisión Internacional de Limites y Aguas (CILA) in Mexico. Habitat: Mudflats Area: 60,000 hectares (150,000 acres) WHSRN International area: 593,000 hectares (240,000 acres) Closest towns: Sonora, Baja California

Photo: Manuel Villanueva

maps.google.com

increasing. Likewise, if water is put back into the river post-irrigation, it often contains pesticides and herbicides. The Salinity Control Project for desalination of irrigation water might lower the amount of water entering the Ciénaga de Santa Clara area yet would highly increase the salinity of any remaining water returned to the canal that feeds this wetland. management of existing water resources, such as agricultural drainage, wastewater, and floodwater, could make a significant difference.

Importance of Use: High When: Spring Migration Designation: WSHRN Site of International Importance (more than 100,000 shorebirds annually), Audubon IBA NT1 (The site regularly holds significant numbers of a globally threatened species, or other species of global conservation concern--nearly threatened species) and A4i (Globally Important area: The site is known or thought to support, on a regular basis, 1% or more of the North American population of a waterbird species simultaneously, or 5% over a season) categories Latitude-Longitude: 32° 35' 49.2" N, -117° 6' 26.64" W

Summary: The Colorado River delta once had vast riparian, freshwater, brackish, and tidal wetlands that covered 780,000 ha (1,930,000 acres). Dam construction and water diversions in the United States and Mexico altered the delta to a remnant system of small wetlands and brackish mudflats. However, it has recently started to make a comeback, although water flow is unreliable and intermittent, and wastewater is high in salinity and pollutants. It was dedicated as the Islas del Golfo Biosphere Reserve in 1993, which gives some protection to the area. This used to be one of the major stopover sites for shorebirds when there was still a large volume of output from the Colorado River. Currently, the flow has almost stopped, and the mudflats do not have the extant that they had in prior years. However, there still is a large plume of sediment exiting the mouth, forming mudflats. Numbers of birds have decreased from historical numbers-in 1994 Mellink et al. 1997 counted 45,586 shorebirds (15 species). Wildlife Values: Small sandpipers like western sandpipers (Calidris mauri), marbled godwits (Limosa ledoa), black-bellied plovers (Pluvialis squataroh),whimbrels (Numenius phaeopus), dowitchers, long-billed curlews (Numenius americanus), American oystercatchers (Haematopus palliatus), willets (Catoptrophorus semipa/matus), black-necked stilts (Himantopus mexicanus), American avocets (Recurvirostra americana) abound. Coots, grebes, ibises, loons, herons abound.There are 21 species of seabirds, (> 16,000 individuals); 6 heron species, (> 220 individuals); 20 shorebird species, (~ 150,000 Individuals). Egrets, sandpipers, avocets, cormorants, 7 species of ducks, 4 species of goose, white and brown pelicans, gulls, and 3 species of terns, & black skimmers (Rhynchops niger) breed there. A winter survey found more than 160,000 birds in the delta, (~ 9000 avocets, ~8000 willets). Over 45,000 ducks and 200 geese also winter there. The following 5 species are listed as threatened species: the yellow-footed gull, Heermann’s gull, elegant tern, reddish egret, and peregrine falcon; three species have special protection: the brant, house finch, and mockingbird; and one species is considered rare: the great blue heron. Raptors include bald eagles, peregrine falcons, northern harriers, and ospreys. The endangered desert pupfish, the endangered Yuma clapper rail, the vaquita porpoise, the smallest marine mammal in the world, lives there and is listed as a species of special concern, and the totaba, a 136 kg (200 lb), 2 m (7 ft) fish inhabit the delta. Threats: Agricultural use of Colorado River water has reduced the flow of the Colorado River to a halting current. The salinity of the Colorado River Basin is

149

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA There were no large concentrations of western sandpipers in California as there had been in Mexico, for they spread out as they fly north when they have so many alternate stopovers. We found western sandpipers which may have originated from Baja California colonies on many sites, but only found Panama birds at a handful of sites, even though we surveyed in California for four years. Westerns always fed or roosted among other Neotropical migrant shorebirds. The following pages describe each geographical area in which we found western sandpipers. Below are the major wetlands in California.

Flooded agricultural areas

150

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — San Diego Bay area San Diego Bay Jurisdiction: U.S. Federal Government, California State Government, Cities of Coronado & Imperial Beach Habitat: Mudflats and eelgrass beds Area: 1,594 ha (3,940 acres) Closest towns: San Diego, Imperial Beach, Coronado

Photo by calisurfer

Importance of Use: High When: Spring Migration Designation: WSHRN Site of Regional Importance (at least 20 k shorebirds annually and at least 1% of the biogeographic population for a species) Latitude-Longitude: midpoint 32°37’30.68 “ N , 117°07’28.40“ W

Summary: San Diego Bay was severely degraded in the 20th century, leaving only a small remnant of the former wetlands. From 90 to 100 % of submerged lands, intertidal mudflats, and salt marshes were eliminated in the north and central Bay. The refuge is in the South Bay where remnant wetlands were preserved and others were restored to ensure that the bay's thousands of migrating and resident shorebirds and waterfowl have a stopover site Small groups of shorebirds are present on migration, but their timing is such that it is doubtful they are from Panama. They most likely are birds from more nearby areas like Baja California or other parts of Mexico. Some of the birds found there also could be oversummering juveniles. Numbers are small compared to those at coastal wildlife refuges to the north, or in the Central Valley. Wildlife Values: Thousands of resident and over-wintering waterfowl, seabirds, and shorebirds use the intertidal and mudflats, including snowy plovers, California least terns, gull-billed terns, Forster’s and elegant terns, egrets, great blue and night herons, and California, western, ring-billed, and other gulls overwinter, breed, or migrate through.

Maps.google.com

Threats: Mudflats are accessible yet fairly undisturbed because there is little human activity or access. Street runoff of petroleum products, as well as plastic and other debris that washes into the area are hazardous to the birds. Leakage of a steady small amount of petroleum products into San Diego Bay from them many commercial, pleasure, and government vessels is constant.

151

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve and Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve and Tijuana Slough National Wildlife Refuge Jurisdiction: Federal-US Navy 7%, USFWS-National Wildlife Refuge 16%, California State Parks—State Recreation Area 27%, and 50% for: International Boundary Water Commission, NOAA (National Estuarine Reserve Research System), County of San Diego, Cities of San Diego & Imperial Beach, California State Coastal Conservancy, and the site is administered jointly by California State Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS) Habitat: Mudflats, estuary salt pan, tidal salt marsh, open water, vernal pools, riparian, brackish ponds, beach dunes Area: Estuarine Reserve: 1,133.12 hectares (2800 acres), NWR: 433.82 hectares (1072 acres), 222.58 hectares (550 acres) of which are owned by the U.S. Navy. Nearest town: Imperial Beach California, Tijuana Mexico

Photo by California Coastal Project

Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve

Map: Wetlands International/Ramsar

Importance of Use: Highest When: Spring migration, overwintering Designation: Ramsar Site, Globally Important Bird Area (IBA) American Bird Conservancy, Designated in the National Estuary Research Reserve System (NOAA) One of southern California’s “Top 10” IBAs designated by Audubon Society. Latitude Longitude: 32° 33' 16.20"N -117° 07' 39.36" W

Summary: The refuge is included with other public lands in the Tijuana River National Estuarine Research Reserve. There are only 26 in the entire United States. Tijuana Estuary has critical habitat for nationally endangered species and subspecies. Tijuana Estuary is one of the few unfragmented estuaries and coastal lagoons in Southern California. Freshwater only flows into it during the wet winter period, although the mouth remains open all year. Sensitive habitats are sand dunes and beaches, vernal pools, tidal channels, mudflats and coastal sage scrub. Wildlife Values: Over 370 species of birds overwinter, nest, or migrate through the area. Endangered or threatened species like the California least tern (Sternula antilarum browni), light-footed clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes), the western snowy plover, and the salt marsh bird’s beak plant (Cordylanthus maritimus maritimus) are found there. The California brown pelican, recently downlisted, also is found there. The San Diego Fairy Shrimp Branchinecta sandiegonensis,and the Diamond turbot (Hypsopsetta guttulata) and California halibut (Paralichthys californicus) occur there. Threats: Urbanization, especially border patrol off-road vehicles are a primary cause of concern. Continuous lighting, noise, sedimentation and erosion are high on the list of threats from these causes. Urban runoff from both the U.S. and Mexico is also a major threat. Introduced species such as red foxes, and feral cats, prey on any ground-nesting birds, as well as on small mammals and reptiles. Currently, there is a restoration and management plan which will restore tidal exchange and wetland habitats.

152

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — South San Diego Bay National Wildlife Refuge South San Diego Bay NWR Jurisdiction: USFWS, National Wildlife Refuge Complex Habitat: wetlands, open water, tidal mudflats, eel grass beds, coastal salt marsh, channelized river and riparian areas, salt ponds Area: 1,594 hectares (3,940 acres) Closest towns: Imperial Beach, Coronado, National City, San Diego, California

Photo by calissurfer

Importance of Use: Moderate When: migration, nesting, overwintering, oversummering Designation: American Bird Conservancy Globally Important Bird Area, WHSRN Site of Regional Importance. Protected by the California Bays and Estuaries Policy. BirdLife Int’l IBA A1NT (nearly threatenedP and A4i categories, meaning that the site supports regularly 1% or more of the North American population of a waterbird species simultaneously, or 5% over a season. Latitude-Longitude: 32° 35' 27.37"N, -117° 6' 56.88"W

Summary: The South Bay maintains a remnant of the former intertidal mudflats and salt marshes eliminated in Central and North San Diego Bays. Numerous endangered and threatened species migrate through, nest, or overwinter in the South Bay. Eel grass surrounds much of the wetlands. Wildlife Values: Waterfowl, shorebirds, and seabirds overwinter, nest, or migrate through the South Bay. Threats: Feral cats, urban runoff, oil spills

South San Diego Bay photo: calissurfer

maps.google.com South San Diego Bay

maps.google.com

153

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — Mission Bay Mission Bay Jurisdiction: City of San Diego, oversight by California Coastal Commission Habitat: Lagoon, bay, mudflats Area: 1714 hectares (4235.39 acres) Closest towns: Pacific Beach, San Diego, California

Importance of Use: Low When: migration Designation: Recognized for protection by the California Bays and Estuaries Policy, BirdLife International IBA A4i, meaning that the site supports regularly 1% or more of the North American population of a waterbird species simultaneously, or 5% over a season. Latitude-Longitude: midpoint : 32°46’45”N to 32°47’ 17.79 and - 117°14’03”W to -117° 13’ 18.18”W

Fiesta Bay, Mission Bay Summary: Mission Bay is a lagoon that has beenmodified for recreation. It is part of arecreational park- is the largest maMissionn-made aquatic park in the U.S. It was originally a tidal marsh. It is mainly anthropogenic. Half of it used to be tidelands. Wildlife Values: Nesting habitat for the California Least Tern has been established at four different colonies around Mission Bay. Western snowy plovers nest within the tern colonies. Migrating shorebirds forage on the mudflats at the north end of the bay where there are mudflats and not sand.

www.Streetview.com

Threats: Anthropogenic changes, runoff from fertilizers, herbicides, oil discharge from pleasure craft, human disturbance.

Mission Bay

San Diego Bay

www.bing.com/maps

154

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — Salton Sea and Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Salton Sea and Sonny Bono Salton Sea National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) Jurisdiction: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat: marsh, open water, brackish ponds, Salton Sea shoreline, and agriculture fields. Area: Sonny Bonon NWR 890.31 hectares (2,200 acres), Salton Sea: 15,216 hectares (37,600 acres) Closest towns: Imperial Valley 66 km (40 miles) north of U.S.-Mexico border

Importance of Use: Moderate When: Spring and Fall migration Designation: WHSRN Regional Important Bird Area , BirdLife Int’l IBA Category A1 VU & A4i, meaning that the site supports regularly 1% or more of the North American population of a waterbird species simultaneously, or 5% over a season. American Bird Conservancy Globally Important Bird Area. Latutude Longitude south end : 33° 10’N, -115°36’W

Salton Sea Summary: The Salton Sea is an important migratory stopover site for passerines, shorebirds, and seabirds, and is an alternative to coastal migration stopover sites. The Salton Sea is California’s largest lake. It was once the northernmost reach of the Colorado River delta, although it was dry by 1901 when the first large canal began to bring Colorado River water to the Imperial Valley. In 1905, floods breached the canal walls, and for two years, the Colorado Rver flowed into the area, creating the Salton Sea.

Salton Sea

Wildlife Values: Around 40 shorebird species and migratory ducks and geese utilize the Salton Sea as a stopover point on the annual migration. It supports more than 20,000 shorebirds annually. Also, endangered species and species of concern depend on the Salton Sea (e.g. Yuma clapper rail, brown pelican, snowy plover, desert pupfish). Threats: Agricultural runoff, water restriction, salinization, evaporation.

maps.google.com

155

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — Lagunas north of San Diego: Buena Vista, San Elijo, Batiquitos, Agua Hedionda Lagoons Summary: Four lagoons at the mouths of streams north of San Diego are regular stopover sites for migratory birds: Buena Vista, San Elijo, Batiquitos, and Aqua Hedionda. They all have different kinds of jurisdictions or management. However, wherever there is water and mudflats and marsh, shorebirds, waders, and waterfowl abound, especially in Southern California where waterbodies are scarce. These lagoons are all anthropogenically enhanced estuaries that had been degraded and fragmented in the mid-20th century. Now they are being restored as wetlands with the goal of attracting a diverse array of natural flora and fauna that lived there historically. Wildlife Values: Great blue and night herons, western snowy plovers, and California least terns nest there. They are all designated as in the Top Ten IBAs of southwestern California by the Audubon Society. Threats: Habitat fragmentation and degradation, agricultural & industrial runoff, human disturbance

156

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — Lagunas north of San Diego: Buena Vista Lagoon Buena Vista Lagoon Jurisdiction: California Department of Fish and Game, private. Partner: Audubon Society Habitat: Intermittent mudflats, lagoon, upland, salt marsh Area: 90.25 hectares (223 acres), owned by CDFG: 80.13 hectares (198 acres) Closest towns: Oceanside, Carlsbad

Importance of Use: Medium When: Spring migration Designation: State Ecological Reserve, part of BirdLife International’s Orange Coast Wetlands, a category A4i, meaning that the site supports regularly 1% or more of the North American population of a waterbird species simultaneously, or 5% over a season. One of southern California’s “Top 10” IBAs designated by Audubon Society. Latitude-Longitude: 33° 10' 16.51"N, -117° 21' 8.46"W

Summary: Buena Vista Lagoon, just north of San Diego, and very small-a remnant of a much larger estuary of the Buena Vista River. The lagoon is used mainly for recreation and fishing. It is a site of low use by migrating birds, with many duck species passing through and overwintering. Only a few hundred shorebirds also overwinter and stage there. It is very built-up and most of the mudflats are highly accessible, to humans, and thus migration stopover refueling is often disturbed.

www.maps.google.com

Wildlife Values: 103 bird species, 18 mammal species, and 14 amphibian and reptile species. Two nesting islands for California least terns were built in the 1980s. Marbled godwits, sanderlings, ruddy ducks, California least terns, snowy egrets, blackcrowned night herons, redhead ducks, black-necked stilts, ruddy turnstones, small sandpipers are among the more common birds there.

Batiquitos Lagoon

Carlsbad

maps.google.com

Threats: Some of the more important threats to birds are human disturbance, urban runoff, and petroleum deposits from recreation craft. A sewage spill extirpated at least seven fish species in 1994. Sedimentation and runoff threaten it, and a watershed enhancement program. Erosion controls have been implemented.

157

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — Lagunas north of San Diego: San Elijo Lagoon Ecological Reserve San Elijo Lagoon Jurisdiction: State of California (managed by the California Dept Fish & Game), County of San Diego (managed by the County Dept Parks & Recreation), and San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy Habitat: Tidal-estuarine wetland, mudflats, salt marsh, open water, flushes to the Pacific Ocean, surrounded by urban area Area: 404.67 hectares (1000 acres) Closest towns: Solana Beach, Encinatas, Rancho Santa Fe

Importance of Use: Low When: Spring & fall migration, overwintering, breeding season Designation: Part of BirdLife International’s Orange Coast Wetlands, a category A4i, meaning that the site supports regularly 1% or more of the North American population of a waterbird species simultaneously, or 5% over a season. One of southern California’s “Top 10” IBAs designated by Audubon Society. Latitude-Longitude: 33° 0' 30.07" -117° 16' 13.65"

San Elijo Lagoon

Photo: californiacoastalproject.org

San Elijo Lagoon

www.bing.maps Photo by Batiquitosfoundation.org

Summary: San Elijo Lagoon, part of the Ecological Reserve, is a county & state regional park, and is one of San Diego's largest coastal wetlands. Important bird species there are migratory shorebirds & waterfowl, and resident pelicans and other seabirds like terns and gulls. There are six plant communities (340 plant species), and 363 animal species: 23 fish, 20 reptiles and amphibians, 24 mammals, and 296 species of birds (65 species nest there). For such a small ecosystem, the biodiversity is large, containing submerged vegetation, flowering plants, benthic invertebrates, fishes, aquatic and terrestrial invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles, and small and large mammals (rodents to canids). Wildlife Values: Birds: 106 species are rare to uncommon migrants, and 74 are considered sensitive, threatened, or endangered species, including 16 of the 65 nesting species. Additional migrant species occur, particularly offshore. Migratory shorebirds and waterfowl number in the thousands, and resident pelicans cormorants, coots, gulls, terns, swallows, warblers, and sparrows number in the hundreds. Endangered light-footed clapper rails, snowy plovers, and least terns are present, as are peregrine falcons. Historically, wood storks, black rails, and sandhill cranes were there. Threats: The lagoon is dissected by a major highway, a freeway, and a railroad, and runoff from all of these end up in the lagoon. Over 250,000 cars pass over it every day. Anthropogenic modifications have reduced the natural flow of oxygen-rich seawater into the lagoon. When this gets blocked during dry spells, oxygen levels plummet, fish die, and food for birds and other animals is severely reduced. When the inlet closes off, the beaches lose their supply of silt and sand. San Diego County, San Elijo Lagoon Conservancy, and the State of California have combined efforts to improve water quality, habitat, and biodiversity. Loss of habitat and habitat degradation. Accumulation of toxins from past and current industrial and agricultural products, including continued use elsewhere of chemicals banned in the U.S.

158

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — Lagunas north of San Diego: Batiquitos Lagoon Nature Reserve Batiquitosa Lagoon Nature Reserve Jurisdiction: California Department of Fish and Game. Partners: Port of Los Angeles,City of Carlsbad, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and State Lands Commission Habitat: Tidal lagoon, Intertidal mudflats, marshlands, open water, subtidal area, and upland plant communities (coastal sage scrub, grasslands, riparian, chaparral) Area: 246.85 hectares (610 acres) Closest towns: Leucadia, Encinitas, 48.28 km (30 mi) north of San Diego

Importance of Use: Low When: Spring migration shorebirds, waterfowl, seabirds, waders, Designation: Part of BirdLife International’s Orange Coast Wetlands, a category A4i, meaning that the site supports regularly 1% or more of the North American population of a waterbird species simultaneously, or 5% over a season. One of southern California’s “Top 10” IBAs designated by Audubon Society. Latitude-Longitude: 33° 5' 21.46" -117° 17' 33.34"

Picture: www.sandiegocoastlife.com Summary: Batiquitos Lagoon one of the few remaining tidal wetlands on the southern California coast of the United States. The watershed draining into the lagoon is 22, 257.71 hectares (55,000 acres). Wildlife Values: Over 185 bird species have been found, including shorebirds like the: American avocet, Black-necked Stilt, Willet Marbled Godwit, Long-billed Curlew, Whimbrel, Short-billed Dowitcher, Long-billed Dowitcher, Western and Least Sandpiper, Killdeer, Snowy Plover (endangered), Black-bellied Plover, Clapper Rail (endangered). Waders include the : Great Blue Heron, Great and Snowy Egrets, Green Heron, Black-crowned Night-Heron, and the White-faced Ibis. Waterfowl include ducks and waderes: Mallard, Northern Pintail, Northern Shoveler, Gadwall, American Wigeon, Green-winged Teal, Cinnamon Teal, Bufflehead, American Coot, Piedbilled Grebe, Western Grebe. Seabirds present are the: Brown Pelican, American White Pelican, Western Gull, Ring-billed Gull, Caspian Tern, Forster’s Tern, Least Tern (endangered), Black Skimmer, and Double-crested Cormorant. Belted Kingfishers forage in the lagoon. The one endangered passerine there is the Belding’s Savannah Sparrow. There were only 5 species of fish before the lagoon was opened to the ocean in 1996. Now there are over 65. Marsh and wetland plants like Pickleweed, Sarcocornia pacifica,Alkali Heath, Frankenia salina, Saltgrass, Distichlis spicata, Alakali Weed, Scientific Name:Cressa truxillensis, Cattails, Typha spp, California Bulrushes, Scirpus californicus, and Fat Hen plants, Atriplex triangularis abound.

maps.google.com

Threats: The lagoon has been silting in, and a dredging project Accumulated silt has been filling up Batiquitos Lagoon, and the lagoon was expected to fill up within 50 years. Instead, a large dredging and enhancement project began in 1994 to open the lagoon to the ocean’s tidal changes and flows, thus slowing down the filling of the lagoon with silt. A restoration plan was instigated in 1987, and the restoration, whcich included opening the lagoon to the sea served as mitigation for loss of marine resources in the Outer Los Angeles harbor due to Port of L.A.construction activities. The California Department of Fish and Game manages the Lagoon using funds provided by the Port of Los Angeles.

159

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — Lagunas north of San Diego: Agua Hedionda Lagoon Agua Hedionda Jurisdiction: Cabrillo Power, LLC , City of Carlsbad, California. Partners San Diego Gas & Electric, NRG energy, owner of Encina Power Station Habitat: Intertidal mudflats, marshlands, open water, subtidal area, and upland plant communities (coastal sage scrub, grasslands, riparian, chaparral) Area: 161.87 hectares (400 acres) Closest towns: Carlsbad

Importance of Use: Low When: Spring migration shorebirds, waterfowl, seabirds, waders, white sea bass hatchery, aquaculture for mussels & oysters Designation: Part of BirdLife International’s Orange Coast Wetlands, a category A4i, meaning that the site supports regularly 1% or more of the North American population of a waterbird species simultaneously, or 5% over a season. One of southern California’s “Top 10” IBAs designated by Audubon Society. Latitude-Longitude: 33° 8' 27.86"N -117° 19' 27.12"W

Agua Hedionda

Summary: Agua Hedionda is an anthropogenic lagoon that is shared by humans and wildlife. The extent of Agua Hedionda Lagoon is 1.7 miles inland and up to .5 miles wide. Highway 101, railroad tracks, and Interstate 5 cross the Lagoon divide Agua Hedionda into 3 sections moving from the coast inland – each 8-10 feet deep at their deepest part of the high tide.

Photo by San Diego County

Wildlife Values: Agua Hedionda hs a diverse flora and fauna, with 70 species of fish (e.g. stingrays, mullets, flounder, white sea bass), 20 species of amphibians and reptiles, 25 species of mammals, 192 species of birds (e.g. California brown pelican, red-tailed hawks, western snowy plovers, California least terns), 175 species of invertebrates, and 100 species of plants. Agua Hedionda Lagoon

Maps.google.com

Threats: Erosion is constantly changing its shape. Herbicide, pesticide, and fertilizer runoff is a constant issue.

Photo: California State University Long Beach-Geology Dept.

160

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — Camp Pendleton Marine Base- Santa Margarita River Camp Pendleton-Santa Margarita River Jurisdiction: Camp Pendleton Importance of Use: Low Marine Base When: Spring and fall migration shorebirds, dabbling ducks (nesting Habitat: Mudflats California least terns). Area: 22.26 hectares (55 acres) Designation: Camp Pendleton is of southern California’s “Top 10” Nearest town: Oceanside IBAs designated by Audubon Society, with bird species in the A1 Nearly Threatened and A4i categories, meaning that it supports more than 20,000 shorebirds annually. BirdLife Int’l IBA categories A1NT (nearly threatened) and A4i, Part of BirdLife International’s Orange Coast Wetlands, a category A4i, meaning that the site supports regularly 1% or more of the North American population of a waterbird species simultaneously, or 5% over a season. American Bird Conservancy globally important bird areas. Latitude-Longitude: 33° 13' 52.91" N, -117° 24' 55.57"W Camp Pendleton Santa Margarita River mouth Summary: Camp Pendleton is of importance to species other than shorebirds during the breeding season. The IBA designation pertains to the least Bell’s vireo and California least tern, both of which nest there. Military Reserve. This discussion only pertains to the mudflats along the corridor of the Santa Magarita River and the estuary at its mouth. Photo: CaliforniaCoasatlines.org

Wildlife Values: The mudflats along the Santa Margarita river are rich in invertebrates, and are a stopover site for shorebirds like the western sandpiper. Threats: Potential oil spills from offshore oil development. The military manages it land well, and as such, there is little urban and agricultural runoff as in other river corridors.

Santa Margarita estuary Camp Pendleton

maps.google.com

161

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — Newport Back/Upper Bay, Newport California Newport Back Bay Jurisdiction: State of California Department of Fish and Game, Orange County Habitat: riparian, freshwater marsh/pond, mudflat, salt marsh, upland Area: 304.32 hectares (752 acres) Closest towns: Costa Mesa, Newport Beach

Photo by David Y. Allen Upper Newport Bay Upper Newport “Back” Bay

maps.google.com

Importance of Use: moderate When: winter, spring migration, summer Designation: ABC Globally Important Bird Area, Newport Back Bay is protected by the California Bays and Estuaries Policy, California Critical Estuary. One of southern California’s “Top 10” IBAs designated by Audubon Society. Latitude-Longitude: 33°38’ 51.42”N, -117°53’ 0.96” W Summary:Newport Back Bay is one of the largest coastal wetlands in southern California, and is considered a “critical estuary” by the state of California. Six rare or endangered species use the bay. In the winter,over 30,000 birds can be found in one day, and a variety of species nest there, including 6 rare and endangered species. Ospreys were recently attracted back to the area, with the first nest found there in 2006, the first in over 100 years. Winter use of the area is very important for shorebirds, waterfowl, and seabirds. Over 200 species of birds are found there. Wildlife values: Spring and summer nesters (e.g. the endangered light-footed clapper rail, Rallus longirostris levipes, and California least tern, Sterna antillarum browni), and year-round residents abound (e.g. the endangered Least Bell’s vireo Vireo bellii pusillus and the endangered Belding’s savannah sparrow Passerculus sandwichensis beldingi). Black rails, brown pelicans, and peregrine falcolns are common there. In the 1990’s, over 70% of the U.S. population of the light-footed clapper rail bred at Newport Bay. The endangered plant, the saltmarsh bird’s beak is found there.

Threats: Wildfire & landslides in the upland watershed, and the Bay/urban interface affect sediment processes, and change the dynamics for flood management. One of the major concerns is the regulation of water and need for constant flow into the area. Imported water might not be available during droughts or environmental issues in the Sacramento Delta. (The allocation of water from the Sacramento Delta was recently reduced by is carried to the bay by storm drains during winter rain storms. It is dangerous to the marine life and the birds that occupy the bay. They get tangled up in, or consume plastic, mistaking it for food. Anthropogenic threats are dumping of motor oil, gasoline, paint, and other hazardous liquids and the run-off of pesticides and fertilizers.

162

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — Santa Ana River mouth Santa Ana River mouth Jurisdiction: City of Huntington Beach, California Coastal Commission Habitat: Mudflats Area: Mouht: 154.41 hectares (38.156 acres), corridor: 1,698.06 hectares ( 4,196 acres) Nearest towns: Huntington Beach, Costa Mesa

Importance of Use: Moderate When: Spring and fall migration shorebirds, waders, summer nesting least terns Designation: The Santa Ana river corridor is designated as an Audubon IBA (endangered and nearly threatened species) and in the top 10 IBAs of southern California.. Latitude-Longitude: 33°37’56.37”N -117°57’22.68” W

Santa Ana River mouth

www.Coastalrecordsproject.org

Santa Ana River

Maps.google.com www.maps.google.com

Description: This channelized river provides necessary water to arid southern California bird and mammal populations. It is also a wildlife corridor, and is designated an IBA by Audubon. Santa Ana River mouth is the outlet of a channelized river in southern California. The bottom has sediments from upstream such that muddy areas for foraging are exposed in shallow water during the nonrainy months. Upstream, mud has been deposited along the banks, and these areas become important for foraging shorebirds and waders. Wildlife values: Shorebirds, Great Blue Herons, Great Egrets and Snowy Egrets. Pelicans dive in deeper areas. California least terns (Sternula antilarum) nest at the mouth in a fenced area. Threats : Sediments and heavy metals from street runoff, agricultural runoff, channelization of creeks for flood control , which increases stream velocity and scouring out of rich mud deposits. Invasive species such as giant reed (Arundo donax) often fill in mudflats or clog the stream flow.

Photo by cyclerider

163

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge Jurisdiction: USFWS Wildlife Refuge, US Department of Defense—U.S. Navy: Seal Beach Naval Weapons Station Habitat: tidal saltwater marsh, mudflats Area: 390.52 hectares (965 acres) Nearest town: Seal Beach

Seal Beach NWL Refuge

Photo: Miguel Guevarra

Seal Beach NWR

Importance of Use: High When: fall winter spring Designation: Globally Important Bird Area -American Bird Conservancy. One of southern California’s “Top 10” IBAs designated by Audubon Society. Latitude Longitude: 33° 43' 51.6"N, -118° 04' 40.8"W Summary: Seal Beach National Wildlife Refuge in Anaheim Bay, is part of the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge Complex. It is a remnant of a wetland complex that extended along the California Bight from the Los Angeles and San Gabriel Rivers to the Santa Ana River. The Naval Weapons station is a buffer preventing further destruction of the wetlands. Seal Beach NWR is used by over 200 species of birds, and has one of the highest concentrations of raptors in the USA during the winter. Many species of migrant waterfowl and shorebirds, and other water birds use the area for nesting, overwintering, or migration. Wildife Values: The refuge has a high level of biodiversity, and is a critical migration stopover and wintering habitat for thousands of migratory waterfowl, and shorebirds. California least terns and three other species of tern nest there, as well as: black skimmers, light-footed clapper rails, Belding’s savannah sparrows, various species of waterfowl (brant, mallard, gadwall), black-necked stilts, avocets, great blue herons, red-tailed hawks, and American kestrel. The refuge is a protected area for raptors like hawks, kestrels, bald and golden eagles, as well as grey smooth-hound sharks, round stingrays, green sea turtles, monarch and painted lady butterflies. Many species at risk, in decline, or in threat of extinction use the Refuge. Threats: Expanding human populations, feral cats, introduced red foxes, agricultural and urban runoff

Map: google.com

164

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA Bolsa Chica State Ecological Reserve Bolsa Chica Jurisdiction: State of California, City of Huntington Beach. Partners: Bolsa Chica Land Trust, Southern California Edison. Partners in restoration: U.S. F.W.S., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, State Lands Commission, California Coastal Conservancy, California Department of Fish and Game, and the State Resources Agency. Habitat: Tidal marsh, tidal sloughs, mudflats, uplands, tidal basin Area: 485.6 hectares (1200 acres), wetlands 121.4 hectares (300 acres) Nearest towns: Sunset Beach, Huntington Beach

Photo: Californiacoastalproject.org

Photo: Caopenspace.org Sunset Beach

Importance of Use: High When: spring and fall migrations: shorebirds and waterfowl, summer breeding: waders, terns, American avocets, black-necked stilts, raptors Designation: California State Ecological Reserve, Ramsar site of International Importance. Latitude Longitude: 33°41′59″N 118°02′20″W

Summary: Restoration of Bolsa Chica was the largest and most expensive coastal wetland restoration project in southern California and the second largest construction project ever directed by the USFWS. Eight Federal and State agencies coordinated the planning and design of it. In 2006, tidal flow was restored at the mouth of Bolsa Chica—the first time since 1899 that natural flow occurred at Bolsa Chica. Mudflats are exposed twice a day and during migration are covered with migrating shorebirds. Ponds with artificial islands provide foraging habitat for waterfowl and waders and nesting areas for 5 species of terns. Funding in part came from the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which provided $79 million to offset impacts associated with their economically port expansion programs. Also, bonds approved by California voters helped fund the restoration. Wildlife Values: There are over 420 birds at Bolsa Chica, among the important water birds are: shorebirds: snowy plovers, western and least sandpipers, black-necked stilts, and American avocets; waders: great and snowy egrets, great blue and night herons, coots; seabirds: California least terns, royal, Forester’s, elegant, and Caspian terns; waterfowl and loons: lesser scaups, red-breasted mergansers, ruddy ducks and common loons; and the passerine, the endangered Belding’s savannah sparrow. Important fish are shovelnose guitarfish and grey smooth-hound sharks. Threats: Habitat conversion, un-permitted fill, construction of 111 homes above Bolsa Chica wetlands, cumulative impacts (runoff, flood control changing water flow, etc.). Flood control in the housing plan violates the Local Coastal Plan for Huntington Beach and The Coastal Act. Disturbance of Native American ancestors and artifacts on the site due to habitat conversion.

165

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA --- Los Angeles River mouth near Los Angeles / Long Beach Harbors Los Angeles River mouth Jurisdiction: City of Los Angeles, State of California, Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles Co. Dept. of Public Works Habitat: channelized estuary and river with mud substrate Area: Approximately 125 hectares (300 acres) from Del Almo Blvd to the river mouth at Ocean Blvd. Nearest town: Long Beach, Los Angeles, Paramount

http://winandsong.wordpress.com/ 2009/10/08/birding-along-the-los-angles-river/

Los Angeles River

Importance of Use: Moderate When: fall winter spring Designation: Protected by the California Bays and Estuaries Policy Latitude Longitude: 33 45’ 34” N 118 12' 0.81" W

Summary: The lower Los Angeles River is an 18 km long, channelized river with a narrow (3 m wide), fast channel of water in the and a shallow, slowly-flowing area of water extending out to the base of the sloping, concrete walls in the rainy season. An abundant invertebrate and algal community, has re-formed in the channel, allowing natural wetlands to develop. Wildlife Values: All native fish and freshwater vertebrate species were extirpated after channelization of the Los Angeles River in 1938. They were: the rainbow trout, arroyo chub, river shrimp, Chinook salmon, Sacramento pike-minnow, Pacific lamprey, three-spined stickleback, and Santa Ana sucker. Also, before channelization, the Los Angeles River supported a variety of mammals which included the California golden bear (removed 1897), Grey wolf (removed 1890's), coyote, mule deer, and North American beaver. A total of 32 non-shorebird species can be found there, including: snowy egret, black-necked stilt, great blue heron, mallard, blue-winged teal, cinnamon teal, northern shoveler, gadwall, American widgeon, ruddy duck, Canada goose, greater-white-fronted goose, Muscovy duck, white pelican, osprey, American coot, western gull, California high desert mourning dove, black-chinned hummingbird, barn owl, red tailed hawk, black and Say’s phoebe. Over 5,500 individual shorebirds of 17 species have been found include: the most abundant (#s in thousands) black-necked stilt, western and least sandpipers, (these 3 make up ~88% of individuals), and in the 100’s: dowitcher species (most=long-billed), American avocet, greater & lesser yellowlegs, and fewer still: pectoral sandpiper, killdeer, willet, Wilson’s phalarope, semipalmated & black-bellied plover, marbled godwit, spotted sandpiper, red-necked phalarope, and Baird's sandpiper. Their peak abundance and diversity is during fall migration in August and early September when there is low water flow. Threats: The ecological value of the Los Angeles River for migrating shorebirds is well known to birders (e.g. Garrett 1993), but has received little attention from the conservation community. Threats include heavy metal and hydrocarbon pollution, mainly from runoff, pesticides and herbicides from agricultural runoff, and trash like plastic bags that accumulate in the water. There is a Los Angeles River Revitalization Master Plan to help improve the quality of the river, but it has not been completely implemented yet.

166

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — Mugu Lagoon and Naval Air Station Mugu Lagoon and U.S. Naval Air Station Jurisdiction: Department of Defense Habitat: Mudflats, open water, tidal marsh, tidal flats, tidal creek, salt pan. Area: 1011.7 hectares wetland (2,500 acres) Nearest town: Port Hueneme, Oxnard

Importance of Use: High When: Year-round Designation: One of southern California’s “Top 10” IBAs designated by Audubon Society, Globally Important Bird Area- American Bird Conservancy Latutude Longitude: 34° 6' N 119° 5' W Summary: Mugu Lagoon and the adjacent tidal flats are the largest remaining coastal lagoon and wetland in southern California.. A submarine canyon also approaches within a few hundred feet of the beach. Immediately offshore is a State Area of Special Biological Significance. Wildife Values: There are over 310 species that use Mugu Lagoon and the area 1 km surrounding it, 152 of which are water associated, including 32 sensitive species. It is an important stopover wetland for waders, shorebirds, ducks, terns, swifts. Rock: loons, murrelets, shearwaters, scoters, phalaropes. At sea: whales, seals in season. It is a foraging area for California least terns nesting nearby at Ormond Beach, and a nesting area for plovers. The lagoon hosts four federally listed endangered and threatened species: California least tern, light-footed clapper rail, snowy plover, and salt marsh bird’s beak. The California brown pelican also is found there, and it was just recently de-listed.

Photo: kermadio

Mugu Lagoon www.maps.google.com

Threats: The breakwater seven miles north at Port Hueneme has significantly reduced sand export to this area. As a result, the shoreline at Mugu has receded by over a hundred meters during the past several decades. Agricultural lands surround the lagoon, and runoff from pesticides and fertilizers pose a threat to wildlife there. High concentrations of banned pesticides are found in the sediment and invertebrates, and Mugu Lagoon is listed as an “ impaired water body” because of values that exceed safe sediment and tissue toxicity. Amphipod survival of sediment toxicity tests ranged from poor to fair. Iceplant is also a threat to native vegetation. The Navy restored 3 wetland areas since

1995, with a total of 23.5 acres of tidal mudflat, sand-flat, channels, ponds, salt marsh and sand islands; mitigation plans were developed in 1997 for restoration of a 37-acre site to predominantly salt marsh.

167

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA --- Santa Clara Estuary Natural Preserve Santa Clara Estuary Natural Preserve Jurisdiction: California State Park, California Coastal Conservancy, sandy beach Habitat: Tidal saltwater, mudflats Area: Esutary: Area 203.21 hectares (501.98 acres), River corridor: 11084.34 hectares (27, 390 acres). Entire river valley declared as IBA 27,390 ha (acres) Nearest town: Oxnard, Ventura

Importance of Use: Moderate When: fall winter spring Designation: Audubon IBA A1 category, Endangered, Vulnerble, Nearly Threatened (entire corridor), BirdLife International IBA A1 EU VU (vulnerable) NT (nearly threatened) categories Latutude Longitude: 34° 13' 13.66" N, --119° 15' 26.5" W

Summary: The Santa Clara River is one of only two natural river systems remaining in southern California. Agricultural fields are found on either side of the river, along the Los Angeles/Ventura counties border. These fields are often flooded and present alternate foraging areas for migrating sandpipers.

Photo by Gertjan van Noord

Wildlife Values: Sandpipers can be found during spring migration along the mudflats in the estuary and along the river. The river corridor is an IBA because of the following species: The western pond turtle, Clemmys marmorata, populations have been severely decreased because of urbanization, and are considered vulnerable. The Santa Clara river corridor is one of the few places where they remain at higher population levels. The Southern steelhead – rainbow trout, Oncorhynchus mykiss, is federally endangered, and the current population is less than 1% of its historical population size. Least Bell's vireo, Vireo bellii pusillus, is federally and California State listed as endangered. The Santa Clara river corridor between Ventura and Los Angeles counties, has been designated as critical habitat. The Tidewater Goby , Eucyclogobius newberryi, endemic to California, is federally threatened, and is found in small coastal lagoons like the Santa Clara Estuary.

Santa Clara River Estuary

Maps.google.com

Threats: Water diversion impacts populations of pond turtles, steelhead, and gobies. Agricultural and urban runoff threaten the entire river corridor. Oil wells have been developed in the ocean west of the river, and present potential threats. Likewise, the introduced African clawed frog, Xenopus laevis, has outcompeted other species of frogs from the area, and the Giant reed , Arundo donax, from eastern Asia, is a weedy invader and is displacing many native plants.

168

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA --- Morro Bay State Park and Estuary Natural Preserve, Marine Reserve Morro Bay Jurisdiction: California State Parks, California Fish and Game Habitat: estuary, wetland, saltmarsh, mudflats, freshwater riparian, grasslands, coastal sage scrub, lagoon, coastal dunes, dune Elfin Forest Area: State Park: 1092.65 hectares (2700 acres), Estuary Natural Preserve: 323.75 hectares (800 acres) Closest towns: Morro Bay, Los Osos

Importance of Use: High When: Spring and fall migration, winter Designation: Globally Important Bird Area, American Bird Conservancy, Marine Protected Area California State Latitude-Longitude: 35°20’25.14”N - 120° 49’ 56.95”W

Summary: Morro Bay is protected by the California Bays and Estuaries Policy, and is an important migratory stop on pacific flyway for over 100 species of birds. The Morro Bay SMRMA (State Marine Recreational Management Area) permits limited recreational fishing and hunting, and the Morro Bay SMR (State Marine Reserve) protects all living marine resources from disturbance. Wildlife Values: Over 100 bird species migrate through Morro Bay, and winter populations are in the tens of thousands. February to June in the heron rookery are found nesting great blue herons, Ardea herodius,, double-crested cormorants, Phalacrocorax auritus, and great egrets. Morro Rock has nests of peregrine falcons. Falco peregrinus. Threats: Peregrine falcons are a threat to migrating shorebirds. Runoff from golf course, development.

Photos Eric Cobb Moro Bay

maps.google.com

169

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA --- Grasslands Ecological Area and National Wildlife Refuges of Pixley and Kern Grasslands Ecological Area and National Wildlife Refuges of Kern and Pixley Jurisdiction: US Fish and Wildlife Service National Wildlife Refuge, and State of California Department of Fish and Game, Partners: California Waterfowl Association, Ducks Unlimited, Sierra Club, National Audubon Society, Natural Resources Defense Council, Campaign to Save California Wetlands, Wilderness Society, Private Landowners. Habitat: Mudflats, wetlands, marsh, grasslands, alkali playa, saltbush, scrub, riparian, cropland Area: The Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex consists of 2 national wildlife refuges, Kern, and Pixley which total 18,082 acres of habitat. Pixley Refuge = 2765 hectares (6,833 acres) total: 728 hectares (1800 acres) of wetlands and riparian habitat and 1777 hectares (4,392 acres) of grasslands, alkali playa, saltbush scrub, vernal pools with the rest row croplands Kern Refuge = 4,552.31 hectares (11,249 acres). Formerly this area was a 252,928 ha (625,000 acres) lake. Closest towns: Grasslands: Delano, Bakersfield, Pixley NWLR: 8.4 km Earlimart 56.33 Tulare Kern NWLR:30.58 km w of Delanao

Photo Alison Sheehey natureali.org/KNWR.htm Pixley Refuge

Kern Refuge

www.maps.google.com

Importance of Use: High When: Winter: waterfowl and spring & fall migration: waterfowl & shorebirds Designation: National Wildlife Refuge, California State Park, Important Bird Area WHSRN , Ramsar Site, Wetlands International Site, Globally Important Bird Area: American Bird Conservancy [ABC] Latitude-Longitude: Kern: 35° 43’ 58.22”N -119 °35’ 17.67” W Pixley: 35°54; 23.59 “N -119 °21’ 22.158 “W

Summary: These areas need to be considered together, as they are all important stopover sites for migratory waterfowl and shorebirds. Farmers in the Central Valley of California irrigate their fields by flooding, and this standing water attracts migrant shorebirds and waterfowl, which feed on invertebrates in the mud there. Pixley National Wildlife Refuge is located in the San Joaquin Valley. It contains some of the only remaining grasslands, vernal pools, and playas that once bordered historic Tulare Lake, the largest lake west of the Great Lakes until the late 1800s. Kern National Wildlife Refuge is a remnant of a half million acre lake and its surrounding grasslands ecosystem. All of these habitats are valuable to migrating waterfowl and shorebirds. Wildlife Values: Refuges and the Grasslands area are important stopover sites for migrating birds, shorebirds, waders, and waterfowl. Restored and remnant grasslands provide habitat for the endangered Buena Vista Lake shrew, San Joaquin kit fox, the Tipton kangaroo rat, and the blunt-nosed leopard lizard. migrating birds, shorebirds, marsh and waterfowl in the southern San Joaquin Valley. Pixley Refuge also houses the endangered Buena Vista Lake shrew, San Joaquin kit fox, and blunt-nosed leopard lizard (in the alkali playa areas). Threats: agricultural runoff, introduced species, water control.

170

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA – Grassland Ecological Area The Grasslands Ecological Area Jurisdiction: U.S. National Wildlife Refuge, California State, Private Area: WSHRN area =78,476 ha (193,918 acres); Ramsar Site = 65,000 ha (160,618.5 acres) Habitat: itinerate mudflats, semi-permanent and permanent marshes, riparian corridors, vernal pool complexes, wet meadows, native uplands and grasslands Nearest town: Los Baños, Delano California

Designation: Globally Important Bird Area -American Bird Conservancy (ABC), WSHRN Site of International Importance. Ramsar site Wetlands of International Importance Importance of Use: Highest: Fall & spring migration, winter Latitude-Longitude: 37° 10'N, - 120° 50'W

Summary: Grassland Ecological Area. National Wildlife Refuge, Central Valley, San Joaquin River Basin is the largest remaining contiguous area of freshwater wetlands in California. Rare and endangered plants and animals are found there (e.g. the bunch grass alkali sacaton, Sporobolus airoides, Delta button celery, Eryngium racemosum, California tiger salamander, and the endangered vernal pool fairy shrimp, Brachinecta lynchi, and tadpole or shield shrimp, Lepidurus apus.

Photo: UC Merced Engineering Department

Grasslands Ecological Area

Wildlife: Hundreds of thousand waterbirds each winter, including Sandhill Cranes (Grus canadensis), 19 species of duck, 6 species of geese, and tens of thousands of shorebirds, especially western sandpipers, dunlin, (Calidris alpine) and Long-billed dowitcher (Limnodromus scolopaceus), endangered shrimps and the threatened Giant garter snake (Thamnophis gigas). Sixteen species of hawks, peregrines, kestrels, and falcons have been found there, as well as 5 species of owls, 8 species of egrets and herons, and over 30 species of swans, geese, and ducks. Grebes, cormorants,and over 30 species of shorebirds, including phalaropes, are found there. Western sandpipers are abundant in both the spring and fall migrations. Threats: Agricultural runoff, water control, introduced species

San Luis NWR Grasslands

171

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA – Kern National Wildlife Refuge Kern National Wildlife Refuge Jurisdiction: US Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat: Grassland, wetlands, alkali playa, saltbush scrub, riparian, cropland Area: 2,428.11 hectares (6,833 acres) total: 728.43 hectares (1800 acres) of wetlands and riparian habitat and 1,618.74 hectares (4,392) acres of grasslands, alkali playa, saltbush scrub, vernal pools with the rest row croplands Closest towns: 30.58 km (19 mi) w of Delanao and 72.42 km (45 mi) north of Bakersfield

Kern NWR

Importance of Use: High When: spring and fall migration: waterfowl and shorebirds, and winter: waterfowl, some shorebirds Designation: National Wildlife Refuge Latitude-Longitude: Pixley 35°54; 23.59 “N -119 °21’ 22.158 “W

Summary: Kern National Wildlife Refuge in County is in San Joaquin Valley, the “Central Valley” of California. The Refuge is on the southern edge of what was once the largest freshwater wetland complex in the western United States, Lake Tulare, now reduced to a relict wetland. The Refuge also has relict valley uplands. The goal of refuge management is to maintain diversity of native habitat. Wildlife Values: Twenty-eight species of mammals, and 226 species of birds are found there. Eleven species of ducks, four of grebes, 6 species of the heron, ibis, egret family, 4 species of raptors, and other species nest there. Thirty three shorebird species pass through the refuge, mainly in the spring and fall. Threats: Historically, damming of the San Joaquin Valley’s rivers for flood control and irrigation depleted the water supply to the natural lakes and marshes. Today, agricultural water use in surrounding areas can also affect the natural water flow. Likewise, agricultural runoff from surrounding areas inputs pesticides, funcgicides, fertilizers. Water is diverted from the ponds from May to August to control disease vectors, and they dry up.

172

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA – Pixley National Wildlife Refuge Pixley National Wildlife Refuge Jurisdiction: US Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat: Valley Grassland plant community, marshes, flooded fields Area: 2,428 ha (6,389 acres) Closest towns: Earlimart 8.4 km (5.2 mi), 56.33 km (35 mi) south of Tulare

Pixley NWR

http://natureali.org/pixley.htm

Photo by Mike Farnesi

Importance of Use: High When: spring and fall migration: waterfowl and shorebirds, and winter: waterfowl, ibis, egret and heron families. Designation: National Wildlife Refuge Latitude-Longitude: Pixley 35°54; 23.59 “N -119 °21’ 22.158 “W

Summary: Pixley National Wildlife Refuge in Tulare County is one of the few remaining examples of the grasslands, vernal pools, and playas that once bordered historic Tulare Lake, the largest lake west of the Great Lakes until the late 1800s. Portions of the Refuge are within the historic Tulare Lake Bed. Pixley is 20 km (12 mi) NE of Kern NWR, and the two refuges are often described together ecologically. The refuge was established in 1959 to provide wintering habitat for waterfowl. The refuge controls water flow in the wetlands to encourage use by waterfowl. Additionally, mudflats exist because of flooding of normally arid land, and these attract shorebirds. Three hundred acres of seasonal marsh is flooded in the winter and irrigated in the spring for migrating waterfowl, shorebirds, and seabirds. The upland habitat is managed by cattle grazing to limit vegetative cover, to provide nesting habitat for grassland birds. Wildlife Values: More than 100 species of birds, 26 species of mammals, 8 species of reptiles and 7 of amphibians use the Refuge. Grassland birds nest in the managed areas (rare in other agricultural areas of the central valley). Waterfowl, shorebirds, waders (e.g. ibises, egrets, herons), and seabirds use the area for overwintering or migration. More than 2,000 white face ibises have been found there in a single day in the winter. Common birds of prey are Red-tailed Hawks, American Kestrel, Burrowing Owl, and Black-shouldered Kites. Three threatened and endangered species inhabit 4,392 upland acres at Pixley NWR, the blunt-nosed leopard lizard (alkali playa), the San Joaquin kit fox (grasslands), and the Tipton kangaroo rat (saltbrush scrub). “ It is believed that the endangered species of the area evolved in a more open environment before the introduction of exotic annual grasses.” Over 6,000 sandhill cranes abound in the winter. Threats: Agricultural runoff and water use & control, introduction of exotic grasses.

173

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA –Pismo Dunes , Santa María River Estuary, and Santa María River Valley Guadalupe/ Pismo Dunes, Santa Maria River Estuary, and Santa Maria River Valley Jurisdiction: U.S. Government—National Wildlife Refuge, Santa Barbara County Habitat: Sand dunes, river estuary, agricultural areas Area: ~ 6,800 hectares (~16,900 acres) State Recreation Area & Guadalupe/Nipomo Dunes NWR- not all shorebird habitat Closest towns: Grover Beach, Oceano, Santa Maria

Importance of Use: High When: Spring and Fall migrations Designation: National Audubon IBA Latitude-Longitude: 34.961 N, -120.6254 W

Summary: The estuary and Dunes are at the border of Santa Barbara & San Luis Obispo counties. The mouth of the Santa Maria River is one of the more important shorebird sites in all of coastal Santa Barbara County, and Santa Maria Valley is important for shorebirds because of the intermittent flooded fields either side of the river which provide stopover sites. Wildlife Values: Many species besides shorebirds use the area: seabirds & shorebirds are snowy plovers, California least terns, Hutton's vireos, horned larks, chestnut-backed chickadees, Swainson's thrushes, Nuttall's white-crowned sparrow http://mysite.verizon.net/res0d1yq/NorthCoast.html

Birds of Note: Magnificent Frigatebird, Marbled Murrelet, American Golden-Plover, Little Curlew, Red-necked Stint, Buff-breasted Sandpiper, Ruff, Great-crested Flycatcher, Tropical Kingbird, Nelson's Sparrow During fall migration (late June through October) the estuary can be teeming with activity as sandpipers, wading birds, pelicans, gulls and terns stop and feed here in large numbers. When the estuary is flooded, waterfowl are often present along the eastern shoreline and may include geese and swans. Pelagic birds can be spotted offshore and regularly include loons, grebes, scoters, shearwaters and the occasional alcid. Threats: The area is protected from development, and the main threat is human disturbance and offshore oil spills. Feral cats may also be a problem.

174

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA –Pismo State Beach and Guadalupe/Pismo Dunes , temporary ponds, and Santa Maria River Guadalupe/ Pismo Dunes and Santa Maria River Jurisdiction: Private, county, state, and corporate owners are represented within the preserve: Counties of San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara, California State Parks, Nature Conservancy, private Dunes Center, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Center for Natural Lands Management, and the Land Conservancy. Habitat: flooded fields, estuarine & riparian wetlands, mudflats Area: Riparian & agricultural habitat: ~1000 hectares (~2500 acres) Closest towns: Pismo Beach, Grover Beach

Importance of Use: Low When: Spring and Fall migrations Designation: Dunes: National Natural Landmark: US Department of Interior (National Park Service). Latitude-Longitude: midpoint = 34°58’ 11.0532”N -120°34’ 48.9828”W

Flooded field near Santa Maria river

Photo by Piese Pank

Santa Maria River

flooded fields

temporary lakes

Summary: The Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes Preserve and temporary lakes near Grover Beach are unique habitat. The dunes are the largest intact coastal dune ecosystems in the world. This Preserve is an 18mile stretch of coastal dunes between Pismo (Oceano) Dunes State Vehicle Recreation Area (San Luis Obispo County) and Point Sal State Beach (Santa Barbara County). There are inland wetlands, riparian areas, and flooded farm fields just east and northeast of the dune system, where temporary mudflats are exposed. There are some well known pastures associated with the City of Guadalupe wastewater facility (Google O’Connell Park in Guadalupe). Wildlife Values: More than 200 birds live in, or migrate through, the preserve. One of the last known nesting colonies of the federally endangered California least tern is located in the dunes south of the Santa Maria River. They nest from April to August. The California brown pelican is another former federal and state protected bird that is at the dunes from July through November. Other birds include the snowy plover and the black-shouldered kite, and reptiles include the coast garter snake. A number of endemic and little-studied insects also inhabit the dunes. Threats: Human disturbance, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides on flooded fields themselves, and agricultural runoff into the Santa Maria River. Feral cats.

http://mysite.verizon.net/res0d1yq/NorthCoast.html

Santa Maria river mudflats Photo by Doug Shore

175

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA – Elkhorn Slough Elkhorn slough Jurisdiction: NOAA (Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary & National Estuarine Research Reserve), California Department of Fish and Game Ecological Reserve and Wildlife Management Area, The Nature Conservancy and Elkhorn Slough Foundation (private) Habitat: wetlands, marsh, mudflats, grasslands, uplands Area: 1,416 ha (3,499 acres) Closest towns: Watsonville ( North Monterey County)

Importance of Use: High Supports more than 20,000 shorebirds annually and at least 1% of the biogeographic population for a species When: migration of shorebirds, waterfowl, year-round: seabirds shorebirds, raptors, marine mammals, fish, insects Designation: WHSRN Site of Regional Importance, National Audubon Society Globally Important Bird Area, American Bird Conservancy Globally Important Bird Area, Designated in the National Estuary Research Reserve System (NOAA) Latitude-Longitude: 36° 50' N, -121° 46'W

Summary: Elkhorn Slough is the largest tidal salt marsh in California, excepting San Francisco Bay. Estuaries are some of the most threatened ecosystems in California, with loss rates of habitat from 75 to 90 percent. In the Elkhorn Slough watershed, two dozen species are endangered or threatened. It is a very diverse environment, is part of part of the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary and is a National Estuarine Research Reserve (NOAA). It is a California State Ecological Reserve and a Wildlife Management Area. The slough has three California marine protected areas: the Elkhorn Slough State Marine Reserve and Conservation Area and Moro Cojo State Marine Reserve.

Photo by NOAA

Elkhorn Slough

Elkhorn Slough maps.google.com

Wildlife Values: Elkhorn Slough has critical habitat for more than 135 aquatic bird, 550 marine invertebrate, and 102 fish species. Sea lions, harbor seals, and California sea otters use the area, and more than 200 bird species migrate through. Brown and white pelicans, Caspian and Forster’s terns, Bonaparte’s, western, and ring-billed gulls, great blue herons, great egrets, snowy plovers, least, spotted, and western sandpipers, acorn woodpeckers, white-tailed kites, dunlins; long-billed curlews; double-crested and pelagic cormorants; tundra swans; allards; buffleheads; common goldeneyes; Scaup, northern pintails; hooded and red-breasted mergansers; northern harriers; Cooper’s, red-shouldered and red-tailed hawks; American kestrels Threats: Urban development, agricultural runoff, eutrophication, changes to waterflow, human and cattle disturbance, are the most important causes. Changes in tide flow from diking, draining, and river diversion have resulted in tidal erosion and marsh loss and drowning. There is not enough sediment because of river diversion, subsidence, and construction of Moss Landing Harbor, which widened the mouth of the slough. The increased rate of bank and channel erosion in Elkhorn Slough has caused tidal creeks to deepen and widen, impacting estuarine fish, and collapsing salt marshes into the channel. Construction of a road and railroad have interfered with water flow also. Invasive species are Asian mud snail, European green crabs (replacing native rock crabs), and upland weeds such as poison hemlock, ice plant and mustard ,have replaced native plants in much of the area.

176

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — Salinas River area near Big Sandy Wildlife Area Salinas River—Big Sandy Wildlife Area Jurisdiction: Private property and State of California, Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge, San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Complex Habitat: Flooded agricultural fields and Intermittent Mudflats along the river Area: 343.98 hectares (850 acres) Nearest towns: Camp Roberts, Paso Robles

Importance of Use: Low When: Spring Migration and winter Designation: none Latitude-Longitude: 35° 44' 49.17" -120° 41' 21.91"

Salinas River

, California Coastal Project.org

Summary: The Salinas River is the largest river of the central coast, and is 170 miles (270 km) long and which drains 4,160 square miles. The Salinas River area has small mudflats along its bends. These mud flats are adjacent to the major northsouth highway, Highway 101, from Santa Barbara to San Francisco. The river is just south of Paso Robles and Camp Roberts. The Big Sandy Refuge is along the river. Farmers’ fields are on the plateau above the river. The mudflats are small and scattered, and the flooded fields are intermittent, and are accessible to humans, but these areas are used by shorebirds. Mudflats along the river and the surrounding fields in the Big Sandy area provide one of the few protected riparian associations on the Salinas River. Wildlife Values: Remnants of the threatened Central Coast Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) spawn in the Salinas River watershed. It is also an important link for salmon migrating from the Salinas River to Tassajara Creek and other small tributaries. Intermittent mud flats provide habitat for migrating shorebirds. Threats: Agricultural runoff. Habitat disturbance. Status of contaminants is unknown. Sewage ponds with exposed mud occur along the west bank of the Salinas River. Habitat restoration activities are underway.

www.dfg.ca.gov/lands/wa/region4/bigsandy.html

177

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — Bolinas Lagoon – Tomales Bay – Bodega Bay complex These three areas are distinct geographically, geologically, and ecologically, but they all empty into a very short distance of the California coastline. They are all part of a much larger protected natural habitat complex in the region. The two maps below show how they are geographically distributed. Each site has its own page, below. Bodega Bay Tomales Bay Bolinas Lagoon Bodega Bay

Tomales Bay San Pablo Bay

Tomales Bay

www.Tomalesbay.net San Pablo Bay

Bodega Bay Tomales Bay

Bolinas Lagoon

178

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA --- Bodega Bay Bodega Bay Jurisdiction/Administration: . Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary, U.S. Federal and California State Government, private Habitat: Mudflats Area: 1280 hectares (3,170 acres) Closest towns: Bodega Bay, 60 km (40 mi) NW of San Francisco Bodega Bay

Importance of Use: High When: Spring and fall migration shorebirds, ducks, seabirds; fall, winter residents waterfowl , fall: sandhill cranes summer: and nesting waders, Designation: Globally important bird area, American Bird Conservancy (ABC) Latitude-Longitude: 38° 19' 19.848" N, -123° 2' 40.56" W Summary: More rare birds have been spotted in Bodega Bay than in any other area in Sonoma County. Bodega Bay is recognized for protection by the California Bays and Estuaries Policy. The San Andreas fault lies beneath it, and it opens onto Tomales Bay to the south. Bodega Bay is protected by the California Bays and Estuaries Policy.

Californiacoastline.org

Bodega Bay

Wildlife Values: Willets, Marbled Godwits, and phalaropes are present in summer, and Pigeon Guillemots and Pelagic Cormorants nest on the cliffs. Western Gulls and Black Oystercatchers nest on a sea stack. Shorebirds- e.g. Semipalmated Plovers, western sandpipers, Black and Ruddy Turnstones, and pelicans are on the mudflats in late July and Baird Sandpipers and Buff-breasted Sandpipers are found in August. Elegant, Forster’s and Caspian terns forage in Bodega Bay, and Black-crowned night herons are found along the shore. September is the tail end of shorebirds migrating south. In the winter, Emperor Geese and Steller's Eiders can be found as well as Rough-legged and Ferruginous Hawks. The main migration of the shorebirds northward starts in spring, with many moving through to their northern breeding grounds, and the ones that breed at Bodega remaining. Great blue herons and great egrets nest there in spring. Threats: Urban development, flood control. Flood-control irrigation projects have altered the hydrology of the area, although water quantity and quality are managed and controlled via canals, to mimic natural flow, such that there is enough water for wildlife and plants

Maps.google.com

179

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — Tomales Bay Tomales Bay Jurisdiction: U.S. National Seashore (Point Reyes), U.S. National Park Service, California Department of Parks and Recreation, the Marin County Parks and Open Space District, California State Water Resources Control Board Habitat: Mudflats, sandbars, coastal estuary, Intertidal marshes Area: 4000 hectares ( 9,884.22 acres) Ramsar hectares 2850 (7042.5 acres) Nearest towns: Marconi, Point Reyes, Inverness; 48 km (30 mi) NW of San Francisco Tomales Bay

Photo: Kenneth and Gabrielle Adellman Californiacoastline.org

Tomales Bay

Importance of Use: Highest When: Spring and fall migration: shorebirds, seabirds, & ducks, fall: sandhill cranes, fall residents & overwintering: waterfowl Designation: Globally Important Bird Area -American Bird Conservancy, Ramsar Wetlands of International Importance, IUCN Category V, U.S. Marine Sanctuary Latitude-Longitude: 38° 06.05’N - 122° 50.88’ W to 38°09'00''N -123°23'00''W

Summary: Tomales Bay forms the eastern boundary of Point Reyes National Seashore. Tomales Bay is recognized for protection by the California Bays and Estuaries Policy. The bay opens to the North onto Bodega Bay, which shelters it from the direct current of the Pacific. Tomales Bay is unique because it was formed from an earthquake along a submerged portion of the San Andreas Fault. Tomales Bay has no industrial development and has a low human population density, and thus is relatively pristine. It is protected by the California Bays and Estuaries Policy. The subtidal area is 90% of the bay area is subtidal with a much greater area of open water at low tide than most other Pacific coast estuaries, good for waterbirds during the entire tidal cycle. Wildlife Values: Tomales Bay is an important overwintering are and migratory stopover site for waterbirds. There are over 20,000 individuals in the winter months, most notably of surf scoter (Melanitta pespicillata), bufflehead (Bucephala albeola), and greater scaup (Aythya mariloides), eelgrass beds (Zostera marina), sand dune systems, and restored emergent tidal marshes Threats: There is potential for agricultural runoff, sedimentation or siltation, sewage pollution, eutrophication, and habitat loss/destruction/fragmentation.

Californiacoastline.org

180

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — Bolinas Lagoon Bolinas Lagoon Jurisdiction: U.S. Federal Govt. (Nat’l. Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration), surrounding land publically owned (Pt. Reyes National Seashore, Golden Gate Nat’l Recreation Area, Mt. Tamalpais State Park: 66%), Bolinas County Park/Golden Gate National Recreation Area, California Department of Fish and Game, and or privately owned (Audubon Canyon Ranch: 404.69 hectares (1000 acres) of adjacent watershed: 34%). Habitat: Mudflats, marsh, open water Area: 445 ha (1099.62 acres) Closest towns: Stinson Beach, Bolinas (Marin Co.) Bolinas Lagoon

Importance of Use: High When: Spring migration shorebirds, nesting waders Designation: Ramsar Site—Wetland of International Importance ; American Bird Conservancy Globally Important Bird Area 75% of land set aside for conservation purposes. Latitude-Longitude: 37°55’N 122°41’W

Description: Bolinas Lagoon is a tidal embayment located 15 miles northwest of San Francisco. The lagoon is long, 5.63 x 1.6 km (3.5 by 1 mile) at its widest, and millions of shorebirds and waterfowl stopover on their northward migration. Mudflats ring the lagoon (242.811 hectares, 600 acres), which is less than a meter deep, even at high tide. Bolinas Lagoon is part of the Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary managed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Wildlife values: Staging and stopover site for migratory shorebirds, nesting site for Great Blue Herons, Great and Snowy Egrets, and overwintering site for shorebirds, geese, ducks. Also has productive, diverse habitat for marine mammals and fish .

Photo: Christopher Schardt

Bolinas Lagoon and San Francisco Bay

San Francisco Bay

Threats : sediments from runoff, channelization of creeks for flood control increases stream velocity so that sediments don’t settle out along the way, but are carried into the lagoon. Winds that scour the sediments are now blocked by anthropogenic structures.

Bolinas Lagoon

181

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — Mountain View Shoreline and Palo Alto Baylands Park Mountain View Shoreline and Palo Alto Baylands Preserve Jurisdiction: Cities of Mountain View and Palo Alto California Habitat:, tidal salt marshes, seasonal marshes, creeks and reservoirs, mudflats, open bay, tidal sloughs, freshwater wetlands Area: Mt. View: 303.5 hectares (750 acres), Baylands: 785.1 hectares (1,940-acres) Closest towns: Mountain View, Palo Alto Tidal slough and salt marshes Baylands Park

Importance of Use: High When: spring and fall migration Designation: WHSRN site of Hemispheric Importance. Protected by the California Bays and Estuaries Policy as part of San Francisco Bay Latitude-Longitude: 37.436N, -122.088 W

Summary: These areas are some of the largest tracts of undisturbed wetlands remaining in San Francisco Bay. They have both fresh and marine wetlands. At high tide, when the marsh becomes a shallow lake, waterfowl and waders, (e.g. egrets and herons), are present. At low tide, the area becomes a channelized mudflat where shorebirds forage. Pickleweed and cordgrass are found there. Wildlife Values: Stopover site for shorebirds, nesting habitat for waders like great blue heron, snowy egret, and for waterfowl. Habitat for burrowing owls.

Photo: Hank Lee

Threats: Pestide/heribicide runoff from golf courses, sewer-main pollution, land conversion, non-endemic plants.

Mudflats

Photo : www. transcend.com Palo Alto

182

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — San Pablo Bay – China Camp San Pablo Bay – China Camp Jurisdiction: California State Parks, Marin County, NOAA National Ecological Research Reserve (NERR) Habitat: estuary, tidal salt marshes, mudflats, open bay Area: 566.6 hectares (1400 acres) Closest towns: Tiburon, Richmond

Importance of Use: High When: spring and fall migration Designation: NOAA NERR. WHSRN site of Hemispheric Importance. Latitude-Longitude: 38° 1’ 11.33”N, -122°29’ 43.64 W

Summary: China Camp, on San Pablo Bay, is one of two of the tidal wetlands left in the San Francisco Bay estuary, and is protected as part of the SF Bay NERR (Rush Ranch Open Space Preserve in Solano County is the other). The habitat is considered reference habitat to compare with restored estuary habitats. It is called a “Sentinel site”—an area that are used for long-term monitoring of environmental conditions. The habitat includes a large intertidal salt marsh, meadows, and oak habitats. China Camp is the only California State Park with a historical Chinese fishing village museum. It is one of the last pieces of undeveloped shoreline in San Francisco Bay, with 8.05 km (5 miles) of shoreline.

China Camp

Photo by Kevin Collins

Wildlife Values: There is a variety of wildlife, including deer, squirrels, coyote, and numerous birds. Endangered species such as the California clapper rail and the salt marsh harvest mouse, live in the salt marsh. It is a stopover site for migrating shorebirds.

China Camp

Threats: The State Park at China Camp is threatened to be closed because of California’s budget problems. Numbers of mountain bikers on the trails needs to be limited because of erosion. It gets heavy use by runners and picnickers.

Source: U.S. Census Bureau

183

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — San Francisco Bay San Francisco Bay Jurisdiction: NOAA (National Estuarine Reserve Research System), State of California, counties and cities surrounding the bay, private ownership Habitat: mudflats, marshes, tidal wetlands, agriculture, urban, salt flats Area: 22,489 ha (55,572 acres) Nearest towns: San Francisco, Berkeley, Palo Alto

www.articles.sfgate.com

maps.google.com

Importance of Use: High When: overwintering waterfowl, shorebirds; fall and spring migration waterfowl, shorebirds; nesting: larids, waders, ducks Designation: Globally Important Bird Area by American Bird Conservancy, WSHRN Hemispheric Importance: at least 500,000 shorebirds annually or at least 30% of the biogeographic population for a species, Designated in the National Estuary Research Reserve System (NOAA) Latitude Longitude: 38° 0' 40.20" N -122° 22' 16.356" W to 37° 25' 1.2" N -121° 57' 43.11" W Summary: In the late 19th century & early 20th century, over 1/3 of the bay was filled in either on purpose or from sedimentation by hydraulic mining. Fifty percent of the birds that use the western flyway pass through the area. Water entering the bay drains approximately forty percent of California. Rivers that flow into the bay are the Sacramento , Napa, and San Joaquin rivers. Their watershed reaches to the Sierra Nevada mountains. through San Francisco Bay. It is one of the four most important wetlands on the Pacific Flyway. Wildlife Values: San Francisco Bay has the largest number of wintering and migrating shorebirds on the U.S. Pacific coast. The Bay hosts more than half of eleven species of shorebirds in at least one season. It is also the northernmost regular breeding area of the American avocet and black-necked stilt on the Pacific coast of North America, and about 10% of the U.S. Pacific coast population of the Western Snowy Plover breeds in the salt ponds of the South Bay. The California least tern and the California clapper rail, both federally endangered, nest here. The abundance of brine shrimp feed the millions of shorebirds that pass through on migration. For the first time in 65 years, Pacific Harbor Porpoise (Phocoena phocoena) returned to the Bay in 2009. Threats: Dredging, changes in salinity, development of adjacent uplands, changes in tidal regimes, conversion to agriculture or salt ponds. Over 90% of the original wetlands have been lost to urban development or degraded by pollution, exotic species introductions, and habitat destruction. Many non-native animal & plant species and weedy invasive plants have altered much of the historical ecology.

184

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CALIFORNIA — Humboldt Bay

Humboldt Bay –Arcata Marsh Jurisdiction: USFWS National Wildlife Refuge, California Department of Fish & Game, Bureau of Land Management, Partners: City of Arcata, Humboldt State University, California Northcoast Chapter of The Wildlife Society , Humboldt Bay National Wildlife Refuge, State of California Bays and Estuaries , lagoons. Habitat: Mudflats, tidal sloughs, grasslands, salt, brackish, and freshwater marsh Area: 19,500 ha (48,100 acres) Nearest towns: Eureka, Arcata

Importance of Use: High When: Spring & fall migrations, winter, summer breeding Designation: American Bird Conservancy Globally Important Bird Area, Ramsar site of Regional Importance ( at least 20,000 shorebirds annually or at least 1% of the biogeographic population for a species), WHSRN site of International Importance (over 100,000 birds annually) Latitude Longitude: 40° 45’ N -124° 13’ W

Summary: Humboldt Bay is the second largest enclosed bay and estuary in California. In addition to being a seasonal or permanent home to more than 200 bird species and 100 species of fish, the second largest estuary in California is the site of the largest commercial oyster production operation in California. Its rich eelgrass beds attract waterfowl like black brant. Lanphere Dunes at Humboldt Bay comprise the most pristine remaining dune ecosystem in the Pacific Northwest. The bay is protected by the California Bays and Estuaries Policy. Arcata Bay www.californiacoastline.org Humboldt Bay & Humboldt Bay NWR

http://www.fws.gov/humboldtbay/maps/refugemap.pdf

Wildlife Values: Over 80 species of waterbirds, 2 endangered bird species (peregrine falcon, bald eagle), and 2 endangered plant species (Humboldt Bay wallflower, and beach layia). A total of more than 200 other avian species, use Humboldt Bay to migrate through, overwinter, or nest. During the winter, Humboldt Bay is a feeding and resting site for more than one hundred thousand birds, and at spring and fall migration, tens of thousands of shorebirds, ducks e.g. widgeons, geese, and swans. It is one of the most important areas in the U.S. south of Alaska for black brant (Branta canadensis leucopareia) in their spring migration. Over 20,000 Aleutian cackling geese () use the grasslands during spring migration. Over 100 species of fish, including steelhead, Coho, and Chinook salmon, use the bay. Castle Rock Refuge in the bay is the second-largest seabird nesting colony in California, and has the largest breeding population of common murres (Uria aalge) in California. Castle Rock Refuge is also a haul-out area for harbor seal, northern elephant seal, California sea lion, and Stellar's sea lion. Threats: European green crab (Carcinus maenas), cordgrass (Spartina densiflora), introduced Eastern soft shell clam (Mya arenaria) and the Japanese cockle (Venerupis phillippinarium).

185

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

OREGON

-- Yaquina and Alsea Bays, Brandon Marsh

We had three stationary listening areas in Oregon, but did not fly the coast because most of it is so rocky and thus not habitat for western sandpipers. Yaquina and Alsea Bays and Bandon Marsh all have extensive mudflats, so that is where we had partners with radio receivers to record our birds’ passage if they flew the coast. None of our birds were ever found in Oregon.

Yaquina Bay

Alsea Bay

Brandon Marsh

Yaquina Bay Newport OR

Yaquina Bay Newport OR

http:/blog.oregonlive.com

186

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Waldport Oregon, Alsea Bay

Alsea Bay

www.newslincolcounty.com Bandon Marsh

Bandon Marsh

www.trekaroo.com

187

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

WASHINGTON: None of our birds were found in coastal estuaries in Washington state. Two birds were heard in Puget Sound. WASHINGTON –Willapa Bay Willapa Bay Jurisdiction: U.S. Federal Government, USFWS, Partners: Nature Conservancy, local farmers, USDA, Washington State Habitat: Mudflats, estuary, sand dunes, salt and freshwater marshes, eelgrass beds, sandbars, coastal dunes, grasslands, and old growth western red cedar-western hemlock surrounds it. Area: 6,474.97 ha (16,000 acres) Nearest towns: Long Beach, Ocean Park, Washington

Photo: Ducks Unlimited

Willapa Bay

Wetlands International

Importance of Use: High When: Spring Migration Designation: Globally Important Bird Area by American Bird Conservancy Latitude-Longitude: 46° 32' 2.3994" -123° 58' 40.7994"

Summary: Willapa Bay has shallow water and extensive mud flats, supporting eelgrass, shellfish, and spawning habitat for fish. It is second largest estuary on the Pacific coast. The emphasis atWillapa Bay is to manag wetlands to increase overwintering habitat for Pacific brant, to maintain current habitat for overwintering waterfowl, especially the six subspecies of Canada geese, wigeons, and canvasbacks, and to provide for maximum use and production by other migratory birds, especially bald eagles and marsh and wading birds. Water levels are managed to provide food for migratory waterfowl, rearing habitat for salmonids, and breeding habitat for amphibians. G grazing, haying, and pest plant control, is used to maintain foraging habitat for geese. Wildlife Values: During spring migration, more than 100,000 shorebirds are present. Sandbars are used by harbor seals for pupping and for roosting by migratory birds. Seabirds, (e.g. brown pelicans), are found in summer and fall. Important bird species include the marbled murrelet, bald eagles, great blue herons, and brant and western sandpipers. Surrounding areas support various mammals (bears, elk, bobcats, silver-haired bats, flying squirrels), birds (woodpeckers, spotted owls), and Pacific tree frogs. Chum, chinook, and coho salmon inhabit the bay. Threats: Invasive smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) & herbicides to kill it, introduced European green crab (Carcinus maenas)

188

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

WASHINGTON — Gray’s Harbor

Gray’s Harbor Jurisdiction: USFWS National Wildlife Refuge; Washington State Departments of Parks and Recreation, Natural Resources, and Fish and Wildlife; The Nature Conservancy; Army Corp of Engineers; Weyerhauser Corporation Habitat: Estuarine bay with mudflats, rocky shores, salt marsh, and open water Area: 24,346 hectares (60,160 acres) Nearest towns: Aberdeen Washington, 72 km (45 mi) north of the Columbia River

Importance of Use: High When: Spring and fall migration Designation: WHSRN of Hemispheric importance, American Bird Conservancy IBA Latitude-Longitude: 46° 57’ 6.3144” N -123° 55’ W

Summary: Grays Harbor NWR within Grays Harbor Estuary, at the mouth of the Chehalis River, is the second largest watershed in Washington state.

www.Shorebirdfestival.com

Wildlife Values: Grays Harbor is one of four major staging areas for migrating shorebirds in the coastal Pacific Flyway (Stikine & Fraser River Deltas, San Francisco Bay). Up to one million shorebirds gather here in spring and fall to feed and rest. The Refuge at Grays Harbor occupies two percent of the intertidal habitat and hosts up to 50 percent of the shorebirds that stage in the estuary. As many as 24 species of shorebirds use Grays Harbor, with the most abundant species being western sandpipers and dunlins. Semi-palmated plovers, least sandpipers, red knots, and black bellied plovers are common during migration. Peregrine falcons, bald eagles, northern harriers, Caspian terns, great blue herons, songbirds, and many species of waterfowl occupy Gray’s Harbor. Threats: An abundance of cordgrass (Spartina) that has invaded about 3237.5 hectares (8,000 acres) of estuaries and wetlands.

www.thefullwikii.org

189

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

WASHINGTON – Skagit River Delta Skagit River Delta – Skagit Bay- Puget Sound Jurisdiction: State of Washington Wildlife Area, Washington Department of Game, Nature Conservancy Habitat: Mudflats, tidal marsh, farmlands Area: 4856.23 hectares—Skagit Bay Wildlife Management Area (12,000 acres) Nearest towns: Skagit City, Conway, Le Conner Washington

Importance of Use: High When: Spring and fall migrations, winter Designation: Globally Important Bird Area by American Bird Conservancy Latitude-Longitude: 48° 22’ 0.8754” N - 122° 30’ 14.076” W

Summary: The Skagit River estuary contains critical habitats for waterfowl, shorebirds, fish and other aquatic species. Prior to habitat alteration for recreation, the Skagit estuary covered approximately 25,766 acres of intertidal marsh and tidelands on Skagit Bay. Waterfowl use the area on migration, and the estuary is important for fish nurseries, especially that of salmon.

www.skagitnutria.howitworks.com

Wildlife Values: 150,000 dabbling ducks and 65,000 shorebirds pass through on migration. An important overwintering area for Snow Geese and Trumpeter Swans. Harbor seals abound in the Skagit Bay, at the mouth of the Skagit River. Threats: Loss of local wetlands by habitat transformation to agriculture and recreation have reduced populations of native salmon and over 12 species of waterfowl. Dams upstream have negatively impacted stocks of salmon.

www.nps.gov

www.maps.google.com

www.soundwaves.usgs.gov

www.nashery.com

190

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

WASHINGTON – Padilla Bay Padilla Bay Jurisdiction: State of Washington Wildlife Area, Washington Department of Game, NOAA, Washington State Department of Ecology Habitat: Mudflats, tidal marsh, eelgrass, uplands, freshwater sloughs, and high salt marsh Area: 4,637.7 hectares, 3,237.49 in eelgrass (11,460 acres, 8,000 in eelgrass) Nearest towns: Anacortes Washington

www.estuarylive.pb.com Padilla Bay National Estuary Reserve Boundary

Importance of Use: High When: Spring and fall migrations, winter Designation: Designated Natural Estuary Research Reserve System (NOAA). Latitude-Longitude: 48° 22’ 0.8754” N - 122° 30’ 14.076” W

Summary: Padilla Bay, (12.87 x 4.83 km), is just north of Skagit Bay where the Skagit River empties. Both bays are important stopover sites for shorebird migration. Padilla Bay is a shallow (4 m in parts) tidal bay-- flooded at high tide and completely exposed at low tide. Dikes were built surround part of the tidal flats built to create farmland. The Swinomish Channel is a saltwater channel in Washington State which connects Skagit Bay to the south and Padilla Bay to the north. In the past, the Skagit River emptied into Padilla Bay. Padilla Bay is close to Boundary Bay in British Columbia, and empties into the common Salish Sea (northern Puget Sound). Sediment from the Skagit River fills the bay and makes it shallow, flat, and muddy. Wildlife Values: Padilla Bay has one of the largest eelgrass (Zostera marina and Z. japonica) beds on the western flyway, second only to Izembek Lagoon in Alaska, so it is heavily used by Black Brant. herring, smelt, pink and chum salmon, herring, perch, Dungeness crab, ducks (including Black Brant), eagles, shorebirds, and peregrine falcons. Mammals found in Padilla Bay include harbor seals and river otters.

http://www8.nos.noaa.gov/reserves/boundarymap/pdb.kml

http://www.padillabay.gov/brant/sites/images/salish.gif

Threats: Two oil refineries in the bay and agricultural runoff are the biggest threats.

Photo: Dave Wenning

191

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

CANADA: The main suitable stopover site in the British Columbia coast is the Fraser River Delta. We found many birds from all years there. CANADA — South of Vancouver: Boundary Bay, Roberts Bank, Sturgeon Bank: Fraser River Delta and Estuary Fraser River Delta and Estuary Jurisdiction: Canadian Wildlife Service, Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection, Province of British Columbia. Boundary Bay: Wildlife Management Area (B.C.Parks) Habitat: Mudflats, sandflats, intertidal salt marshes , and open water marine habitats. Behind dykes are cultivated fields. Area: 31,648 hectares (78,204 acres), Boundary Bay: 11,470 hectares, Roberts Bank: 75,396 hectares Nearest towns: Delta (closest), Vancouver, B.C.

Photographs: Pat Baird Roberts Bank

Boundary Bay

Importance of Use: Highest: 1 of 4 most important coastal stopover sites on Pacific Flyway When: Spring & fall migration, summer breeding, Designation: WHSRN Hemispheric site: > 500,000 shorebirds during spring, Nature Canada IBA Latitude-Longitude: 49° 5'N -123° 12'W Roberts Bank: 49.1° N -122.968° W

Summary: The Fraser River Delta system is Canada’s largest Pacific estuary, encompassing 400 km2, with over 300 species. Of all Canadian sites, it has the greatest number of migratory birds with at least 1% of their global population. The most important sub-areas for migrating shorebirds are Boundary Bay and Roberts Bank where millions of waterfowl and shorebirds forage in the spring. The majority of the world’s 3.5 – 4.0 million western sandpipers are spring migrants through Boundary Bay or Roberts Bank. Tens of thousands shorebirds remain in the winter. Boundary Bay is a critical, internationally significant habitat for year-round, migrating and wintering waterfowl, and has important fish and marine mammal habitat. Over 1.5 million birds from three continents (20 countries) are found there, with the largest wintering shorebird and waterfowl populations in Canada. Intertidal zones have large eelgrass beds. The Roberts Bank substrate is most important for shorebirds, because of its high density of invertebrates (> 1000 / 10 cm diam. mud core, and diatoms & bacteria are in a thin top biofilm of seawater). Biofilm contributes high food values for shorebirds at Roberts Bank, attracting greater densities than at Boundary Bay. Wildlife Values: Boundary Bay: Over 225 bird species use Boundary Bay. Mallards, American wigeons, brants, great blue herons, black-bellied plovers, dunlins, western sandpipers, mew gulls, rough-legged hawks, red-tailed hawks, northern harriers, peregrine falcons, and bald eagles are some of the most important species there. The last Canadian nesting population of barn owls is in the Fraser delta; they forage in Boundary Bay. Boundary Bay also has almost two-thirds of the Fraser estuary’s harbor seal population, and grey and killer whales are offshore. Boundary Bay is an important nursery and foraging area for salmonid fish, and Pacific herring spawn in its eelgrass beds. Large Salicornia spp. (Sea Asparagus) communities are found throughout, and eelgrass is in shallow areas. Roberts Bank: Biofilm contributes high food values for shorebirds at Roberts Bank, attracting greater densities than at Boundary Bay. Important spring migrants there are dunlin, black-bellied plovers, and brant. Shorebird species like dowitchers and yellowlegs (feeding on marine worms and small fish) are in surrounding marshes, and black-bellied plovers and dunlins (feeding on terrestrial insects and worms) inhabit the sandflats and cultivated and flooded fields. Falcons are year-round. Important fall migrants are American widgeons, northern pintails, and in winter, gray-bellied brants and glaucous-winged gulls are numerous. Threats: Agricultural runoff and development, agricultural encroachment, pollution, Port of Vancouver shipping traffic with possibly oil spills, expansion of the port, urbanization, and industrial growth, avian predators, and feral cats & dogs, invasive Japanese kelp, Undaria pinnatifida.

192

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

ALASKA — Copper River Delta, Prince William Sound Copper River Delta and adjacent Prince William Sound, Hartney Bay Jurisdiction: U.S. Forest Service: Chugach National Forest, Private landowners. A 5-party MOU to manage additional land is among Chugach NF, the city of Cordova, the State of Alaska, Eyak Corporation, and the Chugach Alaska Corporation, in accordance with the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA). Habitat: Tidal, intertidal, fresh water, barrier islands with estuarine mudflats, marshes Area: 151,256 hectares (373,762 acres) Copper River Delta Closest towns: Cordova

Importance of Use: High When: Spring & fall migration, summer breeding Designation: WHSRN Hemispheric site: more than 500,000 shorebirds annually, American Bird Conservancy Globally IBA, BirdLife International A4i designation Latitude-Longitude: 60º30' N, -145° 00' W Hartney Bay : 60° 29' 53.016"N -145° 52' 42.996"W

Summary: Over 1.1 million shorebirds use the Copper River Delta during peak migration (April 25 - May 15). It is the first good stopover site since the Stikine and Fraser River deltas, hundreds of kilometers to the south. Shorebirds use not only the estuarine mudflats, but also the mudflats of the adjacent islands in Prince William Sound.

Western sandpipers Hartney Bay: photo

Wildlife Values: Numerous and important shorebirds that migrate through the area are: short-billed dowitchers, least sandpipers, greater yellowlegs, common snipe, red-necked phalaropes, spotted sandpipers, and semipalmated plovers. Breeders in the area are dunlin and lesser yellowlegs. Hartney Bay is an important staging area for dunlins, western sandpipers, and short-billed dowitchers. It is also an important area for salmon, halibut, cod. Other important fish in the Copper River system are dolly varden, cutthroat trout, steelhead, and all five species of Pacific salmon. Mammals include beavers, black and grizzly bears, mountain goats, wolverines, foxes, minks, martins, coyotes, wolves, land otters, and moose. Threats: Any future development of natural resources could contaminate the area, and leached chemicals, and oil spills in the Gulf of Alaska and in Prince William Sound could adversely affect habitat. The heavy human use of the area via local air traffic, ATV and airboat use, or foot traffic on the mud flats may adversely affect invertebrates as well as discourage shorebird use. Hartney Bay contains mineral deposits of pyrite, pyrrhotite, zinc, lead, copper, and silver, which could be developed, and this development would be detrimental to migrants and breeders.

Photo: Steve Mo

Hartney Bay

Copper River Delta

Copper River Delta

Copper River Delta: www.wshrn.org

193

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

APPENDIX II Interview by the President of the Panama Audubon Society for La Prensa, the Panama City daily newspaper, 2005

194

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

APPENDIX II Interview Questions from Rosabel Miro, President Panama Audubon. What exactly will we be doing in Panama? We were there to radio-tag as many western sandpipers as we could because the route they take from Panama to the United States is not known. Why did we select Panama for this study? Panama is a major overwintering center for western sandpipers How could this study help migratory shorebirds. We hope to locate specific stopover sites that are consistently used from year to year. The identification of these sites will serve two purposes: 1) to compare with our historical knowledge of stopover sites, and 2) to determine ownership of the sites and if they are protected during time of migration. Why do shorebirds come to Panama and from where Shorebirds come to Panama for probably two reasons: 1) the Bay of Panama has a very rich source of food that is so great as to be able to accommodate numerous feeding birds in the winter, 2) there might be less competition for resources, as well as more abundant resources in Panama than in sites north of Panama Bay. What other sites do they use before coming to Panama? Some of the shorebirds that we trap in Panama may have come from points south, as far south as Peru, and others had the Bay of Panama as the final stop in their fall migration. Are shorebird populations declining? Yes, certainly. Some populations are declining much faster than others. Why? We do not know why the populations are decreasing, or if they are indeed decreasing. This apparent decrease could simply be a diversion of use of stopover sites on the northward migration to new areas that are not being surveyed, or it could be a real decrease. If real, the decrease could be from fragmentation of habitat (not enough habitat to support large migrating populations) , pollution of habitats by various chemicals, heavy metals, or organochlorines. Decreases could also be from an increase in raptor populations, which have increased since the banning of DDT in the USA and Canada. We have taken blood and feathers from the birds and have analyzed them for heavy metals and trace elements. What are the conservation actions that would help them out? One action would be to provide secure and ample stopover sites in wetlands along the western flyway. This might entail fencing, temporary removal of predators during migration. This also entails construction of roosting sites if there are none at high tides. How many times do we trap the same bird? In my entire life I have only trapped one bird on migration twice, and it was at Costa del Este. Is it common? It is very, very uncommon.

195

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Who is supporting me for this study? The Department of Defense of the United States is supporting me because some of the best wetlands on the west coast of California are owned by the military, and they want to determine shorebird use of their lands vs. lands owned by others. How many countries/partners are involved in this study? This is a great question. The University of Panama, members of the Panama Audubon Society, Partners in Flight in Panama, Mexico, Canada, and the United States, the University of Toronto and Simon Fraser University Canada, California State University Long Beach, the U.S. Department of Fish and Wildlife in California and Oregon, the U.S. Department of Forestry from Alaska, Washington, and California; the U.S. Geological Survey in California; Laurelcrest School for Girls in California, and the Canadian Wildlife Service in British Columbia, our partners in Mexico: Pro Natura in Mexico, Universidad Tec de Monterrey in Sinaloa Mexico, and the Universidad de Mazatlan, and most importantly, amateur bird watchers in Panama, Mexico, California, Oregon, Washington, and British Columbia via their e-bird sites. Here are the maps I provided:

Banding and trapping area

Aerial survey area—along the coast

196

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

APPENDIX III Trilingual Pamphlet

197

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

APPENDIX III Trilingual Pamphlet Please go to http://dodpif.org/legacy/07-199-Report_trilingual.pdf to view the pamphlet in English, Spanish, or French. Below are the cover and first page of the pamphlet.

198

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

APPENDIX IV Article from the Orange County Register 9 May 2005, by Pat Brennan

199

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Title: Local scientists are for the birds. 9 May 2005 by Pat Brennan Distribution: Orange County Register http://nl.newsbank.com/nlsearch/we/Archives?p_product=OC&p_theme=oc&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_field_multi0=Section&p_text_multi0=%28news%29&s_dispstring=allfields%28migration%29%20and%20allfields%28shorebird%29%20AND%20 section%28news%29%20AND%20date%28all%29&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced0=%28%22migration%22%29%20and%20%28%22shorebird%22%29&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D& xcal_useweights=no

200

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

You may not know it now, but for the past few months, thousands of small chunky grey-brown birds called western sandpipers have been winging their way southward to their overwintering grounds in Central and South America. They started leaving their breeding grounds in Alaska and Canada in July, and are ending their migration around now, the end of September. They stop over at familiar places like Point Mugu, Bolsa Chica wetlands, Newport Back Bay, and South San Diego Bay, as well as the mudflats at the Westminster/Second Street and PCH intersection in Long Beach. There, on the mudflats, you can view them probing in the soft mud for invertebrates by the hundreds. Some of them even choose to remain in the southern California area. The birds are fairly nondescript, looking a muddy color from a distance, and they are not dramatic at all, being small, and blending in with the mudflats. Nevertheless, they are important indicators of the health of the ecosystem, for they feed at the interface of the sea and the land. If there is pollution, or severe changes in their invertebrate prey, or in the plankton on which the invertebrates live, the effect of these factors will be seen rapidly in these birds, the so-called ‘thermometers’ of the shore, for they ‘take the temperature of the health of the shoreline.’ In spring 2005, however, when you look for these birds migrating northward to breed, you may detect some with colored bands and little colored flags on their legs. They may also have small plastic devices glued onto their backs. The bands and flags are a unique identifying system to let observers from a distance know where and when the birds were found overwintering. The plastic devices are miniature radio transmitters, weighing less than an ounce, which will transmit the birds’ positions up the coast, and which will fall off once the sandpipers reach their breeding grounds. All of this manipulation, of course, has been stringently looked at and approved by an animal welfare committee. This kind of tracking has been going on for years on larger birds, and only recently have the radios been miniaturized enough to be carried by the small sandpipers. The project is being funded by the U.S. Navy, the Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program, with partnering by Environment Canada, the environmental branch of the Canadian government. The reason for this partnership is that both governments are concerned that shorebird populations have been dropping precipitously over the past twenty years. Places that used to have thousands of birds staging on their ways north now have an order of magnitude less birds present. Scientists from California State University at Long Beach, and Simon Fraser University in Vancouver Canada are collaborating to determine if pollution, long-term changes in habitat, or some negative effect on their food abundance, for example, has contributed to this decrease. Only by being able to follow marked birds will scientists know if populations have altered their historical stopover sites or if birds are dying before they reach their arctic breeding grounds. Western sandpipers were the species chosen for this project, because they are so abundant, and therefore detectable, and also since they frequent the largest variety of habitats, and are generalist eaters, so that they are sampling more of the environment than might other species. Thus, they can be used as a model for other species in similar studies. Scientists from Cal State and Simon Fraser Universities are training local students in Vancouver, Seattle, San Francisco, Long Beach, and San Diego, as well as students in Mexico and Panama, in proper banding and detection techniques needed to follow these birds northward. Researchers are not studying the southward migration because it takes place over three months. The northward migration takes place over a period of

201

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

about three weeks, so that the amount of time spent searching, and thus the amount of money needed, is much less. Right now, the research team is also constructing an interactive website where you can log onto and watch the progress of these birds as they fly northward. Training of volunteers will start in late November or early December. For more information, or to volunteer to become part of the search team, in Long Beach, contact Dr. Patricia Baird in the Department of Biological Sciences at California State University, and in San Diego, call Mr. Timothy Burr at the U.S. Navy Engineering Facilities Command. So, starting this February, find the mudflats closest to you and start to pick out which of the little brown birds are the western sandpipers. Then, next February, you may be lucky enough to detect one of the color-banded ones, or one with a little radio backpack!

202

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

APPENDIX V Article from the San Diego Tribune 2005 Migrating sandpipers go missing By Pat Brennan KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS SERVICE 25 May 2005

203

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

From San Diego Tribune http://www.utsandiego.com/uniontrib/20050525/news_lz1c25migrat.html Also archived at: http://dodpif.org/legacy/07-199-OCReg_MSNBC_Mystery_with_wings.pdf

Migrating sandpipers go missing By Pat Brennan KNIGHT RIDDER NEWS SERVICE May 25, 2005 May 25, 2005 The Cessna 172 took a steep plunge toward the reeds and water channels below, buzzing a wetland full of shore birds from a height of just 500 feet.

File photo Populations of sandpipers (shown) and other shore birds are dwindling for unknown Ecologist Pat Baird noted dowitchers and godwits, but something reasons. Recent efforts to track important – to her, something very important – was missing. their migration routes have just Where were the sandpipers? Eighty-seven of them, to be exact, that Baird added more mystery. and her co-workers captured in Mexico and Panama in March and fitted with tiny radio transmitters. And they'd simply disappeared. "We've gone up to the Salton Sea, twice down to the border, San Pedro, Morro Bay," Baird said last month as she prepared for yet another survey flight. "You just wonder where they are." The birds should long since have arrived in Southern California's coastal wetlands – that is, if they were migrating as expected. Whatever the reasons for the sandpipers' unexpected detours, Baird hopes her findings will open a new window into bird behavior. The seasonal migrations of sandpipers, and possibly other species, could be much more complex than scientists assumed. That could be important for efforts to preserve enough of the right habitat to keep migrating shore-bird populations healthy. Western sandpiper populations are decreasing – one reason Baird chose to study them in a pilot project that could lead to further use of radio transmitters in shore birds. Other migrating shore-bird species are also in trouble. "Their populations are declining, and no one knows why," Baird said. "It could be pollution, increasing predators." It also might be because much of their habitat has vanished along coastal Southern California, and is now mostly confined to small preserves. "The wetlands are so disturbed and fragmented," she said. "People always want to build houses near the ocean." Earlier this month, even after several more weeks of searching, Baird had discovered fewer than half of the 87 birds. And what those were doing, she said, was "very weird."

204

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

A handful appeared on a river not far from Vandenberg Air Force Base. A few apparently stayed behind in Panama, choosing, for unknown reasons, not to fulfill their evolution-driven imperative to migrate. Sixteen others actually flew farther south in Mexico, rather than north. Baird thinks the rest might have taken a different route to their Alaskan breeding grounds. "Many could be flying east of the Sierras," she said. "It could be a coping strategy for a wet year." In other words, heavy winter rains could have flooded the birds' usual coastal haunts, causing them to adopt plan B: getting to their breeding grounds in Alaska via a different path across the United States. But Baird's two-year, $113,000 project, paid for by the Department of Defense, did not cover a trip to the eastern Sierra. And despite many e-mails and phone calls, she could get little help from scientific colleagues to eavesdrop on her birds' radio frequencies. Few other biologists along the possible alternate route were monitoring radio frequencies for other tagged animals this year. So Baird will have to wait until next year to solve the mystery of the missing birds. A new crop of birds will have to be captured and tagged, because once this year's sandpipers arrive in Alaska and have their first molt, the transmitters will fall off. The eastern Sierra route is her next target. "Next year, we're going to go up to that area and look," she said. "We're going to have more people listening in more geographic places."

205

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

APPENDIX VI Article published in Henkel-Life magazine, Summer, 2006, page 14.

206

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

APPENDIX VI Archived at: http://dodpif.org/legacy/07-199-Loctite-WESA_Baird.pdf

Fine-Feathered Friends Fly only with Loctite 98You probably never thought of a bird as a potential user of Loctite products, but Richard Nighswonger, Adhesives and Sealants Specialist in California, uncovered a unique application for Loctite 454 and 7452. Funded by the DOD Legacy Program and facilitated by Partners in Flight, the Kahiltna Research Group based at Cal State University Long Beach, in cooperation with Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, is spearheading a research project to study the reasons for the decrease in shorebird populations over the last 20 years. According to Pat Baird, Ph.D., Director of Kahiltna Research Group, “By studying the migration of Western sandpipers as indicator species, from their over wintering areas in Panama to their nesting grounds in Alaska, we hope to learn important information about the health of the environment.” Possible reasons for decreases could be changes in migration routes, contaminants in the environment, habitat destruction or increase in predators. After clipping a few feathers near the bird’s tail, researchers gently apply a radio transmitter to the sandpiper using a small amount of Loctite 454 and 7452 Accelerator. Now they are able to follow the birds they catch by listening for the radio signals from small planes. They also note all changes in habitat and predators along the way and collect samples for contaminants. Obviously, the adhesive must withstand vibration, marine conditions, and stresses associated with birds migrating great distances through all types of weather conditions. After trying various products, they felt that Loctite products worked best because they bond well to the bird’s skin so the transmitter doesn’t fall off during flight and they are very safe and non-toxic. When the sandpipers get to their roosting destination, they molt and the transmitter falls off. So, the next time you’re admiring a shorebird just remember, it might be flying with Loctite! For more information on this study, visit: www.sfu.ca/biology/wildberg/species/wesa.html.

207

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

APPENDIX VII Alaska Museum of Natural History display October 2005. Brochure handed out while power point presentation on migration from this study was running.

208

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Centre for Wildlife Ecology

MIGRATION OF SHOREBIRDS Introduction Birds carry no passports. They do not stop at Customs. They are international--belonging to the world. These migratory birds are as much a part of South America as they are a part of Panama, Mexico, the United States and Canada. International groups of researchers and managers understand that by working together in partnerships, we can achieve more than if we were all separate. The migrating birds unite the people of the countries through which they pass. Shorebirds especially hold a record for long distance migration. They are an interesting group of birds because they breed and overwinter in vastly different places, traveling long distances during the spring and fall. They may overwinter in Mexico or Central America and breed in Canada or Alaska. In between these two phases of their lives, they must fly and rest and refuel; fly and rest and refuel. One may ask why don't they just stay in Panama or Mexico, two of their overwintering stops, the entire year? This is a good question that can best be explained by a crowding phenomenon. Food and space are of course always at a premium, whether one is a human, a monkey or a bird. During the breeding season, places that during the winter can feed an adult male and female, must now provide food for young also. Often, there is not enough food to go around during the breeding season at these overwintering sites. Over a period of thousands of years, some birds flew north by chance at the breeding time, and it just so happened that there, they found more food and less competitors than at their overwintering grounds. As a result, they were able to produce more offspring than those who stayed behind, and the northwardtendency was born. We do not know exactly how this occurred, or where the first northward sites to breed were, but we do know that these groups of birds did develop a pattern of movement from overwintering sites to breeding grounds and back that we now call migration. Thus today, the majority of shorebird species migrate from their breeding grounds to their overwintering grounds in the fall and return to them in the spring. Breeding grounds have an abundance of food for the birds. With the large amount of daylight in the north during the summer, plant populations grow, and with them, the insect populations who eat the plants. Shorebirds feast on these—either in the adult form or when they are larvae in the many pothole ponds throughout the tundra. It is this food that sustains them and their offspring through the short summer, giving them fat stores for the long migration south in the early fall/late summer.

209

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Most people are familiar with shorebirds, for this group will feed in coastal mudflats, coastal estuaries or rocky shores along the North, Central or South American coast, or at inland ponds, lakes and reservoirs at some point during the annual cycle: breeding, overwintering or migrating. Thus, shorebirds are an ideal group to study, for they are widespread, often abundant, and very predictable in their schedule. Scientists have been conducting surveys on shorebirds for over 30 years, in places as far apart as the YukonKuskokwim Delta and the North Slope in Alaska, the Fraser River Delta and Vancouver Island in British Columbia, San Francisco to San Diego Bays in California, Bahia Santa Maria to Las Marismas in Mexico, and in Panama Bay, just outside Panama City. Mudflats in these areas vary from globally to locally important breeding, overwintering or stopover sites along the west coast of North and Central America. Shorebirds that nest in Alaska use a large part of the western hemisphere for stopover sites. The stops are transient, and shorebirds touch down on North American soil for only a brief time during their annual cycle, yet all sites are important. They are links in a migratory chain. Shorebirds can only fly so far before they need to refuel. However, the long-distance migrations to and from their breeding grounds, a tendency to aggregate, and a dependence on wetlands, have placed many shorebirds at risk. These long distance migrants have wintering, migrating and breeding ranges that extend over vast areas. During their annual spring and fall migrations, they are dependent on a variety of critical habitats like wetlands, estuaries, beaches, or rocky shorelines that are typically limited in size and distribution. Concentration in some of these areas makes shorebirds vulnerable to environmental disturbance, e.g. 10% of their population stops at Bahía Santa Maria in Sinaloa Mexico. Because of the tremendous energy demands of these long distance migratory flights, stopover habitats and resources for rest and refueling are critical to the survival and successful reproduction of shorebirds. Different species of shorebirds have different habitat needs. These stopover points are "migratory bottlenecks" that the birds must fly through twice each year. The comparatively limited availability of these areas, and the prey resources that they must share, present energetic demands on shorebirds that influence their migration, reproduction, and even survival. If contamination, habitat degradation, disturbance etc. is at these stopover sites, then the birds may fail to breed, don’t migrate, or become adversely affected by lack of proper nutrients. Recent census data from North America have revealed widespread declining trends, giving ample reasons for concern about population health for many species in this group, including birds like sandpipers, knots and plovers. For example, semipalmated sandpipers in the east and midwestern parts of Canada and the United States have shown annual declines of negative 2 to 4 percent per year. Western sandpipers on the west coast have shown similar declines. Population surveys of many shorebird species show that they co-occur with western sandpipers at some of the same wetlands; thus, any information that we can find from this very common species will apply to a myriad of other Neotropical migrant shorebird species. Western sandpipers are one of the most common and numerous shorebird species. They are found at most wetlands in the western hemisphere. Even these populations have been declining. Because they are so common, they are a good model for all shorebirds.

210

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Western sandpipers (Calidris mauri) overwinter in Central and South America and breed in Alaska. They traverse the continental United States in spring (northward) and late summer and fall (southward). On their northward migration along the west coast, they stage in large numbers on large open mudflats, at estuaries or alkali flats, where they probe or glean for invertebrates. The intermountain population, on its northward journey, uses alkali flats or river banks, ponds or reservoirs where the water level fluctuates, thus exposing prey-rich mud. Much of the populations of western sandpipers and many other shorebirds overwinter or pass through Panama Bay. Panama is a land bridge between two continents, providing one of the major movement corridors within the western hemisphere for intercontinental migrants. Millions of shorebirds migrate through Panama to and from their overwintering and breeding grounds between North and South America; others overwinter there. Between the breeding grounds in Alaska and the overwintering grounds in Panama Bay, there are 16 major wetlands that have been set aside as part of the Western Hemisphere Reserve Shorebird Network. These wetlands are protected by law, and are recognized internationally as important. Because of the decline of many populations of shorebirds throughout North America, the Shorebird Group of the Americas, a consortium of university, government and nonprofit organizations, has come together to address this problem systematically. They selected the Western Sandpiper, Calidris mauri, as the first species to begin the study on migration patterns and changes in population numbers. This species was chosen in part because they are present along most wetlands in all north American flyways, they are generalists, eating many different kinds of food, and because of this, are not as limited as specialists in the kinds of habitat they may choose. Also, their population is fairly large compared to that of other shorebird species, so they are easy to find during surveys. There also have been many studies on their migration, and the biology is well-known, so historical stopover, overwintering and breeding sites, as well as historical numbers from these sites, are well-know also. Understanding western sandpiper use of wetlands and its migratory ecology will help to advance understanding of various other species of shorebirds with similar ecology, and will help to address a broad range of problems in the conservation of migratory birds in general, as well as their North American Pacific coastal and inland habitats. Because western sandpipers occurs from Alaska to Central and South America, multi-national research teams have come together to study it throughout its range. Cooperative international partnerships are the key to preserving migration corridors. The environment functions as a whole, and parts of it cannot be isolated. The many partners in this project displayed in our two power point presentations coordinate management of the habitat and protection for these migrants on a broad scale to ensure widespread conservation and maintenance of these stopover sites.

Below, we present hypotheses for the causes of decline: • • • • •

Recovering predator populations Degradation, loss or fragmentation of the habitat: breeding, wintering and migratory Toxins in the environment A possible shift in current migration routes from historical ones Climate Change

211

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

PREDATORS The presence of top predators can affect prey behavior, morphology and life history, and thereby can produce indirect population consequences greater and further reaching than direct depredation would have alone. The pesticide DDT (dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane) was banned in the United States in 1973 and conservation measures were implemented. The breakdown products of this chemical, DDE, affected the formation of egg shells in birds. Top predators such as hawks and falcons were affected the most, because these toxic chemicals bio-accumulated in their bodies. That is, the higher up the food chain a bird was, the more of this chemical was incorporated into their bodies from the prey that they ate. Eggshells thinned and eggs broke while in the nest, thus killing the chick inside. Predators' populations plummeted. However, once DDT was banned, their populations slowly began to grow, and today, predators such as the peregrine falcon, are experiencing healthy population growth. This has been likened to a hemisphere-wide predatorreintroduction experiment. The recovery of peregrines began in the 1980s, and they were removed from the endangered species list in the United States in 1999.This reintroduction of raptors by eliminating DDT is hypothesized to have had profound effects on populations of their prey, mainly shorebirds. They are now major threats. Many falcons and hawks have a seasonal migration, as do shorebirds along the same route. Thus, shorebirds are vulnerable to predators at their stopover sites where they stop to refuel. Smaller sites that are near raptor cover have had large decreases in populations. The reason for this is that the wetlands are sheltered by trees and give cover to falcons, which can attack stealthily and with enough speed that sandpipers cannot escape. Data from the Canadian Wildlife Service show decreased population trends on the northward migration, where numbers have slowly been decreasing since the 1980’s (83% since 1992). Length of stay and body mass of western sandpipers have also been decreasing at these small sites. Large sites, on the other hand, are usually vast mudflats where approaching avian predators are easily seen and thus the shorebirds can escape. These are the sites where numbers have not decreased radically at large sites. However, it is not known yet whether or not birds from small sites have assimilated into populations at the larger sites. Such behavioral changes in times at refueling stations are probably general among migratory shorebird species, and may be contributing to the reported widespread census declines reported in North America. LOSS OF HABITAT Habitat fragmentation is linked with predator increase, in that birds are no longer as safe in small sites as in large. If shorebirds do move to large sites, this can be a dangerous change in behavior if more and more birds are concentrated in fewer and fewer areas. Any kind of natural or human-caused disaster at one of these places when birds aggregate can thus have an effect on a large percent of the population. However, what we do not know is whether or not there has been a concomitant increase in numbers at the large sites. Our radio-tagging studies over the next few years will address this question. Many of the stopover sites are near large urban centers, or are in areas used by humans for recreation. Urbanization and human use have encroached upon historical habitats of these birds, with habitat

212

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

fragmentation, destruction and conversion. Likewise, there is runoff from urban areas and adjacent agricultural areas as well as from golf courses. Thus, direct or indirect loss of migration habitat has been extensive and continues to increase. Exempt sites are those on refuges, national parks, and on many Department of Defense lands. These are all mainly federal or state lands, and as such, they have more stringent legislation dictating what kinds of activities and uses can and cannot be done on them than do private lands. Generally, the public has access to refuge of national park land, although times and places of entry may be restricted, and DoD lands are usually off limits to the general public. In some areas like California, for example, where increasing use of wetlands by humans has resulted in habitat disappearance, fragmentation or contamination, the few remaining large wetlands are on federally protected lands—lands owned by the military. If not for partnerships among federal, state, and local governments and often non-profit groups, these wetland staging sites on the migration route of shorebirds would have probably disappeared long ago, or else would have been reduced tremendously in extant. CONTAMINANTS Intertidal mudflats and estuaries often have high levels of cadmium, and the invertebrate prey living in the mud bioaccumulate this heavy metal. At stopover sites, birds consume more food than they require for maintenance because they must fuel their migration northward. The birds are at risk for consuming high levels of cadmium and other heavy metals like mercury and lead. However, metal accumulation is often site-specific, with highest concentrations in large urbanized estuaries such as San Francisco Bay and Boundary Bay, B.C. or along urban channelized rivers, which receive urban runoff, such as those in southern California. Other suspect stopover sites that might have contaminants are Grays Harbor (Washington) and Humboldt Bay (California). Comparison of cadmium residues among sandpipers of increasing age suggest that exposure is occurring along the Pacific Coast, at stopover sites as the birds migrate north to Alaska and south to Panama. This study points to the importance of considering the ecology of the species (e.g., in this case migratory behavior) in interpreting trace metal residues. Mercury and lead are also other heavy metals known to bioaccumulate in invertebrates that live in mudflats. The toxicity of cadmium in sandpipers may be increased by the coexistence of other heavy metals in their bodies. CHANGE IN MIGRATION ROUTES One hypothesis is that birds have altered their migration routes from historical ones, due to the various factors above. The way to discover this is to track them from their overwintering grounds to their breeding grounds. Perhaps numbers aren’t as depressed as scientist think. Perhaps the birds have indeed altered their routes. The joint consortium of Kahiltna Research Group, The Centre for Wildlife Ecology at Simon Fraser University, the Department of Defense and Partners in Flight summarized the extensive knowledge of western sandpiper northward migration, using all known studies through 2004. Why the northward migration only? –1) males and females and first time breeders migrate together only on the northward journey, and thus counts are for all migrants, 2) breeding populations pose difficult censusing counts because the nests are so scattered, so this method is not feasible, and 3) birds migrating south are not aggregated in time or space, but birds on the northward migration are concentrated in a small number of

213

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

wetlands, and in large numbers, so accurate and more complete counts are more available during the northward migration. After summarizing the historical data, the next step was to determine where these birds go—i.e. what is their current route? Our approach was to track them via radios, and follow them in a small plane. During our second year, we placed radios on the birds in Panama and followed them up the coast towards Alaska. We radio-tagged birds in Panama Bay and tracked them up the west coast of Mexico. These birds made a very long initial flight, stopping at Las Marismas, (the National Estuaries, only parts of which are protected), and also at Bahia de Santa Maria, a major overwintering and staging area for shorebird migration. From there the birds went north along the large west coast Mexican estuaries to the border of California. None of the Panama birds took the California coastal route. Mexican birds, radio-tagged in Bahia Santa Maria, skipped southern California and first appeared near Vandenberg Air Force Base and Morro Bay in Central coastal California. We believe that the Panama birds may have flown an inland route east of the Sierra Nevada mountains through Nevada or Utah. The next step is for researchers to fly the east coast of Mexico, up the Yucatan to Texas, and then inland to Utah and Nevada, to determine if this inland route is now the one most common. Nils Warnock has found that birds from Bahia Santa Maria make it at least to San Francisco Bay. For many years, Mary Ann Bishop has observed birds at the Copper River Delta for many years, which is similar to Panama Bay in that it is a funnel through which migrating shorebirds fly. With pooled results from all studies, we should be able at last to determine if birds have changed their routes.

CLIMATE CHANGE We do not have enough information on changes in western sandpiper distribution or abundance to comment on climate change at present. POWER POINT PRESENTATIONS OF RADIO-TAGGED BIRDS The power point presentations that you see here show our study on migrating shorebirds, following them from Panama to Alaska. The first presentation is of the tagging project and the second is of the tracking portion of our study. PLANS FOR THE FUTURE • • •

Dedication of Panama Bay as an internationally significant site and part of the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network: October 2005 Discovery of other routes for Panama and Mexico shorebirds An educational program from Panama to Mexico, California, Canada and Alaska as part of the Shorebird Sister Schools Program

214

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

APPENDIX VIII Speech at the black tie reception for the dedication of the Bay of Panama, Costa del este, as a WHSRN Site of International Importance , 19 October 2005 (Written and translated by Patricia Baird, Delivered in English by Chris Eberly, Partners in Flight, and in Spanish by Rosabel Miro, President of Panama Audubon. Dignitaries present: President of Panama Martín Torrijos, Mayor of Panama City Juan Carlos Navarro, Canadian Ambassador to Panama José Herrán Lima, U.S. Ambassador to Panama William Eaton, Director Canadian Wildlife Service Trevor Swerdfager, President Panama Audubon Rosabel Miro)

215

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

START: “President Torrijos (of Panama), Mayor Navarro (of Panama City), Ambassador Herrán-Lima (Canada), Ambassador Eaton (USA), Director Swerdfager (CWS), Ms. Miro (President Panama Audubon): It is a pleasure and an honor today to be part of this historical event. This dedication is a culmination of years of good science and documentation by cooperating researchers from many countries, the vision of many hard-working officials, at both the national and local levels here in Panama, and of an international cooperative effort to recognize and set aside an ecologically unique and valuable part of the planet. Because of these efforts over the past decade and more, those who come after us will still be able to regard, with awe and wonder, this Bay and the birds that have depended on it for centuries. The U.S. Department of Defense Legacy Resources Management Program has played an integral yet often behind-the-scenes role in the events leading up to this dedication. The Legacy Program has provided more than $800,000 for research and conservation projects in Panama over the past decade. As a land bridge between two continents, Panama is the major movement corridor within the western hemisphere for intercontinental migrants. Millions of shorebirds, songbirds and raptors, migrate through Panama to and from their breeding and non-breeding grounds. Some overwinter here, while others range far beyond, using Panama Bay, or perhaps the lowland tropical forests in the Canal area as staging and stopover sites to fuel up before they continue their journey. Many migration stopover sites for shorebirds in the United States are on large unfragmented wetlands owned by the Department of Defense, and are often the last intact remnants of what were once much larger ecosystems. The purpose of the Legacy Program is to conserve resources proactively, and it encourages cooperative international partnerships. These resources include neotropical migrants from Panama which touch down on North American soil for only a brief time during their annual cycle. The Legacy Program promotes ecosystem management projects, recognizing that the environment functions as a whole, and parts of it cannot be isolated. Partners in Flight—Aves de Las Americas , was initiated by the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation in 1991, to focus the resources of international conservation partnerships on the long-term health of birds and their habitats throughout the Western Hemisphere. Partners in Flight brings together a diverse array of individuals and groups, including government, non-profit and academic researchers and managers. Since 1991, the Legacy Program has spent over $15 million on projects that benefit the goals of Partners in Flight. I manage the Partners in Flight program for the U.S. Department of Defense, and spend a lot of my time working to build partnerships that can celebrate conservation success stories, like the one we are celebrating today. The Legacy Program is currently funding a study in Panama Bay looking at northward migratory patterns northward for the western sandpiper, which nests in Alaska. Their journey follows a series of wetlands, including as many as 16 other sites in the WHSRN, and covers at least 8,000 km. Last year, Dr. Patricia Baird and her researchers uncovered previously undocumented migratory routes through Mexico. This year, with the help of the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, we have set up an educational program to be initiated spring 2006 at Colegio Brader school and two others here in Panama City. These schools will be the southernmost of schools in the Shorebird Sister Schools Program, and will join similar schools along the migration path in Culiacan Mexico, Long Beach California, Vancouver Canada and the north slope of Alaska where these birds nest. Partners in Flight is proud to be part of this process and will continue its support for the Panama Bay ecosystem, which is a vital link in the Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network.

216

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Birds carry no passports. They do not stop at Customs. They are international--belonging to the world. These birds are as much a part of Panama as they are a part of Mexico, the United States and Canada. Partners in Flight and Department of Defense Legacy Program understand that by working together in partnerships, we can achieve more than just our individual efforts. The birds of Panama unite us. Thank you, and congratulations on this wonderful success.”

217

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

APPENDIX IX Speech at the Black Tie Reception for the Dedication of the Bay of Panama, Costa del Este, as a WHSRN Site of International Importance , 19 October 2005 Written in Spanish by Patricia Baird Read simultaneously to the audience by Rosabel Miro, President, Panama Audubon

(Dignitaries present: President of Panama Martín Torrijos, Mayor of Panama City Juan Carlos Navarro, Canadian Ambassador to Panama José Herrán Lima, U.S. Ambassador to Panama William Eaton, Director Canadian Wildlife Service Trevor Swerdfager, President Panama Audubon Rosabel Miro)

218

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Bienvenidos a todos los oficiales de Las Américas Es para mi un placer y un honor poder participar en este evento histórico. Esta dedicatoria es la culminación de años de realización y documentación de estudios científicos gracias a la cooperación de investigadores de muchos países; la visión de muchos oficiales a nivel local y nacional aquí en Panamá; y de cooperación a nivel mundial del esfuerzo de varios grupos que han reconocido y designado partes ecológicamente únicas y especiales de nuestro planeta. Gracias a estos esfuerzos colectivos realizados durante mas de una década, las generaciones futuras podrán contemplar esta Bahía y a las aves que han dependido de ella durante varios siglos, con respeto y admiración. El U.S. “Department of Defense Legacy Resource Management Program” ha jugado un papel importantísimo, a veces desde detrás de escena, haciendo posible esta dedicación. “ El Legacy Program” ha patrocinado mas de $800,000 (ocho cientos mil) dólares para estudios, investigaciones y proyectos de conservación durante la pasada década aquí en Panamá. Como un puente uniendo a dos continentes, Panamá es el mayor pasillo/corredor del hemisferio occidental para las aves migratorias intercontinentales. Millones de aves playeras, passerines y aves rapaces pasan por Panamá. Algunas pasan aquí el invierno y algunas otras viajan mas lejos. Estas ultimas usan la Bahía de Panamá y el bosque tropical lluvioso a lo largo del Canal como parada para alimentarse antes de continuar su viaje hacia el norte o el sur. Muchos de estos sitios de parada o reposo en los Estados Unidos se encuentran en territorios pantanosos amplios y no fragmentados apropiados y manejados por el Departamento de Defensa. Dichos territorios son con frecuencia los últimos sobrevivientes de lo que en un tiempo fueron ecosistemas mucho mas amplios. El objetivo del “Legacy Program” es conservar proactivamente los recursos, promoviendo la cooperación internacional. Estos recursos incluyen a las aves migratorias neotropicales de Panamá, las cuales reposan en territorio norteamericano solo por un tiempo muy breve durante su ciclo anual. Tuve el privilegio de conocer al Doctor Eugene Odum mientras trabajaba en mi doctorado en la Universidad de Georgia. El Dr. Odum es considerado el padre del manejo moderno de los ecosistemas. Sus estudios demostraron que el ecosistema como un todo es mayor o más amplio que la suma de sus partes individuales. El “Legacy Program” promueve la administración y manejo de los ecosistemas, reconociendo que el medioambiente funciona en forma compleja como un todo y sus partes interdependientes no se pueden aislar. El Departamento de Defensa de Estados Unidos “Partners in Flight” -“Aves de Las Américas”—fue creado en 1991 para focalizar los recursos de las asociaciones de conservación internacionales, al bienestar a largo plazo de la avifauna y sus hábitats a lo largo del hemisferio occidental. PIF/Aves de Las Américas unifica a los varios y diversos individuos y grupos, incluyendo grupos patrocinados por el gobierno, grupos de beneficencia, e investigadores y directores académicos.

219

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Desde 1991, el “Legacy Program” ha gastado mas de quince millones de dólares ($15 millón) en proyectos que benefician los objetivos de” Partners in Flight”/Aves de las Américas. Yo estoy encargado de manejar el programa de Partners in Flight para el Departamento de Defensa de los Estados Unidos y paso mucho de mi tiempo buscando socios que deseen crear asociaciones que celebren historias de éxito en la conservación, tales como la que estamos celebrando aquí hoy. El “Legacy Program” actualmente esta patrocinando un estudio en la Bahía Panamá para investigar y observar los patrones migratorios con dirección hacia el norte de los correlimos occidentales (Calidris mauri) los cuales suelen anidar en Alaska. Este viaje se realiza sobre y a través de una serie de humedales, incluyendo otros 16 sitios que forman parte del “Western Hemisphere Reserve Shorebird Network” (Red de Reservas de Aves Playeras del Hemisferio Occidental), y cubre al menos ocho mil (8.000) kilómetros. El año pasado, la Doctora Patricia Baird y sus asistentes descubrieron algunas rutas migratorias a través de México las cuales eran desconocidas hasta entonces. Este año, con la ayuda del US Fish and Wildlife Service (Departamento de Peces y Fauna de los Estados Unidos), se iniciará una programa educativo en el Colegio Brader aquí en el Ciudad de Panamá, el cual se lanzara en la primavera del año 2006. Esta será la escuela mas al sur en el Programa de Las Escuelas [Escuelas Hermanas por los Aves Playeros], y se unirá a varias escuelas similares a lo largo del sendero migratorio en Culiacán México, Long Beach California, Vancouver Canadá y el norte de Alaska. Para PIF es un honor ser parte de este proceso y continuaremos apoyando a este muy importante ecosistema de la Bahía Panamá, que es un eslabón vital en la Red de Reserva de Aves Costeras / marítimas en el Hemisferio Occidental. Las Aves no llevan pasaportes. No tienen que pasar por la aduana. Son internacionales y pertenecen al mundo. Estas aves pertenecen tanto a Panamá como a México, a los Estados Unidos o a Canadá. Partners in Flight/Compañeros de Vuelo y DoD “Legacy Program”/Programa de Legacía están conscientes de que al unirnos y trabajar lado a lado lograremos más que si trabajamos aisladamente. Las Aves de Panamá nos unen. Muchas gracias y felicitaciones por este magnífico logro.

220

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Appendix X French language broadcast on Canadian Broadcasting Company La Semaine Verte 26 April 2009

221

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

Website: http://www.radio-canada.ca/audio-video/pop.shtml#urlMedia%3Dhttp://www.radiocanada.ca/Medianet/2009/CBFT/LaSemaineVerte200904261244.asx&promo%3DZAPmedia_LaSemaineVert e And : http://www.radiocanada.ca/actualite/semaine_verte/reportage.aspx?idDocument=79460&idItemMenu=32

222

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

223

C:\Users\Pat Barid\Documents\Shorebirds\WESAs\WESA FINAL REPORT DoD UPLOAD 26 NOVEMBER 2013.docx

DISCLAIMER This report was prepared by Kahiltna Research Group in the course of performing work for, and sponsored by, the Department of Defense Natural Resources Program (hereafter the "Sponsor"). The opinions expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect those of the Sponsors, the United States Government, Partners in Flight, California State University, or Simon Fraser University, and reference to any specific product, service, process, or method does not constitute an implied or expressed recommendation or endorsement of it. Further, the Sponsor and the Department of Defense make no warranties or representations, expressed or implied, as to the fitness for particular purpose or merchantability of any product, apparatus, or service, or the usefulness, completeness, or accuracy of any processes, methods, or other information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report. The Sponsor, the United States Government, Simon Fraser University, California State University, and Kahiltna Research Group make no representation that the use of any product, apparatus, process, method, or other information will not infringe privately owned rights and will assume no liability for any loss, injury, or damage resulting from, or occurring in connection with, the use of information contained, described, disclosed, or referred to in this report.

224