Piping Plover - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

More documents

Recommendations

Info

accelerated habitat changes, there could be adverse effects on the birds’ survival rates or reproductive fitness. Table WM8 displays the potential for adjacent development and/or hardened shorelines to impede response of habitat to sea-level rise in the eight states supporting wintering piping plovers. Although complete linear shoreline estimates are not readily obtainable, almost all known piping plover wintering sites in the U.S. were surveyed during the 2006 International Piping Plover Census. To estimate effects at the census sites, as well as additional areas where piping plovers have been found outside of the census period, USFWS biologists reviewed satellite imagery and spoke with other biologists familiar with the sites. Of 406 sites, 204 (50%) have adjacent structures that may prevent the creation of new habitat if existing habitat were to become inundated. These threats will be perpetuated in places where damaged structures are repaired and replaced, and exacerbated where the height and strength of structures are increased. Data do not exist on the amount or types of hardened structures at wintering sites in the Bahamas, other Caribbean countries, or Mexico. Table WM8. Number of sites surveyed during the 2006 winter International Piping Plover Census with hardened or developed structures adjacent to the shoreline. An asterisk (*) indicates additional piping plovers sites not surveyed in the 2006 Census. State Number of sites surveyed during the 2006 winter Census 52 Number of sites with some armoring or development Percent of sites affected North Carolina 37 (+2)* 20 51 South Carolina 39 18 46 Georgia 13 2 15 Florida 188 114 61 Alabama 4 (+2)* 3 50 Mississippi 16 7 44 Louisiana 25 (+2)* 9 33 Texas 78 31 40 Overall Total 406 204 50 Sea-level rise poses a significant threat to all piping plover populations during the migration and wintering portion of their life cycle. Ongoing coastal stabilization activities may strongly influence the effects of sea-level rise on piping plover habitat. Improved understanding of how sea-level rise will affect the quality and quantity of habitat for migrating and wintering piping plovers is an urgent need. Storm events Although coastal piping plover habitats are storm-created and maintained, the 1996 Atlantic Coast recovery plan also noted that storms and severe cold weather may take a
toll on piping plovers, and the 2003 Great Lakes recovery plan postulated that loss of habitats such as overwash passes or wrack, where birds shelter during harsh weather, poses a threat. Storms are a component of the natural processes that form coastal habitats used by migrating and wintering piping plovers, and positive effects of storm-induced overwashand vegetation removal have been noted in portions of the wintering range. For example, Gulf Islands National Seashore habitats in Florida benefited from increased washover events that created optimal habitat conditions during the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons, with biologists reporting piping plover use of these habitats within six months of the storms (M. Nicholas, Gulf Islands National Seashore, pers. comm. 2005). Hurricane Katrina (2005) overwashed the mainland beaches of Mississippi, creating many tidal flats where piping plovers were subsequently observed (N.Winstead in litt. 2008). Hurricane Katrina also created a new inlet and improved habitat conditions on some areas of Dauphin Island, Alabama (D. LeBlanc, USFWS, pers. comm. 2009). Conversely, localized storms, since Katrina, have induced habitat losses on Dauphin Island (D. LeBlanc pers. comm. 2009). Noel and Chandler (2005) suspect that changes in habitat caused by multiple hurricanes along the Georgia coastline altered the spatial distribution of piping plovers and may have contributed to winter mortality of three Great Lakes piping plovers. Following Hurricane Ike in 2008, Arvin (2009) reported decreased numbers of piping plovers at some heavily eroded Texas beaches in the center of the storm impact area and increases in plover numbers at sites about 100 miles to the southwest. However, piping plovers were observed later in the season using tidal lagoons and pools that Ike created behind the eroded beaches (Arvin 2009). The adverse effects on piping plovers attributed to storms are sometimes due to a combination of storms and other environmental changes or human use patterns. For example, four hurricanes between 2002 and 2005 are often cited in reference to rapid erosion of the Chandeleur Islands, a chain of low-lying islands in Louisiana where the 1991 International Piping Plover Census tallied more than 350 piping plovers. Comparison of imagery taken three years before and several days after Hurricane Katrina found that the Chandeleur Islands lost 82% of their surface area (Sallenger et al. 2009 in review), and a review of aerial photography prior to the 2006 Census suggested little piping plover habitat remained (Elliott-Smith et al. 2009). However, Sallenger et al. (2009 in review) noted that habitat changes in the Chandeleurs stem not only from the effects of these storms but rather from the combined effects of the storms, long-term (>1,000 years) diminishing sand supply, and sea-level rise relative to the land. Other storm-induced adverse effects include post-storm acceleration of human activities such as beach nourishment, sand scraping, and berm and seawall construction. As discussed in more detail in WM 2.2.2.1, such stabilization activities can result in the loss and degradation of feeding and resting habitats. Storms also can cause widespread deposition of debris along beaches. Removal of debris often requires large machinery, which can cause extensive disturbance and adversely affect habitat elements such as 53
Page 1:
Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)
Page 4 and 5:
NGP 2.4.4 Synthesis ……………
Page 6 and 7:
Table AC1. Tier 2 (project-specific
Page 9 and 10: 1.1 Reviewers Review Team (primary
Page 11: 1.3.4 Review history The piping plo
Page 14 and 15: 2.1 TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION AND AP
Page 16 and 17: Table 1. Number of piping plover ad
Page 18 and 19: population segment to the species t
Page 20 and 21: eeding adults (unpubl. data from Ma
Page 22 and 23: Piping plovers in both the U.S. and
Page 24 and 25: Evaluation of the persistence of th
Page 26 and 27: clarification of the listing would
Page 28 and 29: Lingle, G. R. and J.G. Sidle. 1989.
Page 30 and 31: Goossen, J.P. 2008. Discussion info
Page 32 and 33: Figure WM1. Breeding population dis
Page 34 and 35: Coast, suggests that shared over-wi
Page 36 and 37: in December 2006 to peak counts of
Page 38 and 39: drawn attention to washover passes,
Page 40 and 41: Gulf of Mexico region (Helmers 1992
Page 42 and 43: At least 668 of 2,340 coastal shore
Page 44 and 45: Table WM4. Number of recent groin i
Page 46 and 47: Tilling beaches to reduce soil comp
Page 48 and 49: While public lands may not be at ri
Page 50 and 51: crouching when in the presence of a
Page 52 and 53: insufficiency of regulations to pro
Page 54 and 55: inlet where off-road vehicle use is
Page 56 and 57: consultation was concluded informal
Page 58 and 59: In sum, although the risk for impac
Page 62 and 63: wrack. Another example of indirect
Page 64 and 65: Brault, S. 2007. Population viabili
Page 66 and 67: Gibson, M., C.W. Nathan, A.K. Killi
Page 68 and 69: Lott, C.A., P.A. Durkee, W.A. Gierh
Page 70 and 71: Roche, E.A., J.B. Cohen, D.H. Catli
Page 72 and 73: USFWS. 2008c. Biological opinion on
Page 74 and 75: Farley, R. 2009. Phone conversation
Page 76 and 77: GL 2.3 UPDATED INFORMATION AND CURR
Page 78 and 79: Habitat degradation and loss contin
Page 80 and 81: commitments to implementation. Incr
Page 82 and 83: average rate of 1.76 (Stucker et al
Page 84 and 85: GL 2.3.2.4 Taxonomic classification
Page 86 and 87: 4% 28% 13% Great Lakes Region 78 Fe
Page 88 and 89: GL 2.3.3 Five-factor analysis In th
Page 90 and 91: GL 2.3.3.2 Factor B. Overutilizatio
Page 92 and 93: plovers. As predation by merlins is
Page 94 and 95: acknowledged that a large percentag
Page 96 and 97: Several years of population growth
Page 98 and 99: Roche, E.A., J.B. Cohen, D.H. Catli
Page 100 and 101: Recovery Criterion A. Number of bir
Page 102 and 103: Recovery Criterion C. The Canadian
Page 104 and 105: Piping Plover Pairs 900 800 700 600
Page 106 and 107: Piping Plover Pairs 600 500 400 300
Page 108 and 109: NGP 2.4.2 Biology and habitat Since
Page 110 and 111:
the population trend for the entire
Page 112 and 113:
year period on average. The upper b
Page 114 and 115:
International Piping Plover Census
Page 116 and 117:
Individual Ploves Surveyed 1200 100
Page 118 and 119:
provide sandbar habitat for plover
Page 120 and 121:
etween available acres, plover abun
Page 122 and 123:
Alkali lakes As on the Missouri Riv
Page 124 and 125:
occurs in the middle of the season,
Page 126 and 127:
Freshening of water on saline wetla
Page 128 and 129:
nation for wind energy potential, a
Page 130 and 131:
The 1988 recovery plan suggests the
Page 132 and 133:
In addition, the states in which pi
Page 134 and 135:
2009). Overhead power lines have be
Page 136 and 137:
difficult to ascertain, because the
Page 138 and 139:
NGP 2.4.5 Section references Americ
Page 140 and 141:
Haig, S., T. Eubanks, R. Lock, J. S
Page 142 and 143:
National Research Council. 2004. En
Page 144 and 145:
USACE. 2008b. Northwestern Division
Page 146 and 147:
Mulhern, D. 2008. Electronic mail d
Page 148 and 149:
Recovery Criterion 1. Increase and
Page 150 and 151:
Recovery Criterion 4. Institute lon
Page 152 and 153:
Productivity Annual productivity es
Page 154 and 155:
anded as adults exhibited fidelity
Page 156 and 157:
half of the Southern recovery unit
Page 158 and 159:
a third of the approximately 2.5-mi
Page 160 and 161:
adverse effects (including indirect
Page 162 and 163:
(2002; 2003). Permit conditions res
Page 164 and 165:
Table AC1. Tier 2 (project-specific
Page 166 and 167:
Habitat restoration efforts Efforts
Page 168 and 169:
each-nesting birds. Examples of sit
Page 170 and 171:
New Jersey state regulations protec
Page 172 and 173:
often place their nests near cobble
Page 174 and 175:
approximately five miles off the co
Page 176 and 177:
increased coastal storm activity an
Page 178 and 179:
However, all of the major threats (
Page 180 and 181:
Calvert, A.M., D.L. Amirault, F. Sh
Page 182 and 183:
Jones, K. 1997. Piping plover habit
Page 184 and 185:
National Park Service. 2008b. Pipin
Page 186 and 187:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 200
Page 188 and 189:
Hoeh, J. 2009. February 13, 2009 em
Page 190 and 191:
182
Page 192 and 193:
3.2 Recommended Recovery Priority N
Page 194 and 195:
186
Page 196 and 197:
processes are impeded. Compare with
Page 198 and 199:
a. Continue to encourage and improv
Page 200 and 201:
Recommended research and data needs
Page 202 and 203:
increases flow velocity and thus sa
Page 204 and 205:
5. Conduct studies to understand po
Page 206:
198
Page 209 and 210:
Appendix A The outside experts and
Page 211 and 212:
Appendix B Estimated abundance of b
Page 213 and 214:
Appendix C Wind turbine generator (
show all

Piping Plover - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?