Piping Plover - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

More documents

Recommendations

Info

2.1 TAXONOMIC CLASSIFICATION AND APPLICATION OF THE 1996 DISTINCT POPULATION SEGMENT (DPS) POLICY 2.1.1 Background and history of taxonomic and DPS treatment under the ESA The final listing rule (50 FR 50726), effective January 10, 1986, did not utilize subspecies. The rule’s preamble acknowledged the continuing recognition of two subspecies, Charadrius melodus melodus (Atlantic Coast of North America) and Charadrius melodus circumcinctus (Northern Great Plains of North America) in the American Ornithologists’ Union’s most recent treatment of subspecies (AOU 1957). However, the rule also noted that allozyme studies with implications for the validity of the subspecies were in progress. The final rule determined the species as endangered in the Great Lakes watershed of both the U.S. and Canada and as threatened in the remainder of its range in the U.S. (Northern Great Plains, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands), Canada, Mexico, Bahamas, and the West Indies (USFWS 1985). Subsequent Endangered Species Act (ESA) actions have consistently recognized three separate breeding populations of piping plovers, on the Atlantic Coast (threatened), Great Lakes (endangered), and Northern Great Plains (threatened). Two successive recovery plans established delisting criteria for the threatened Atlantic Coast breeding population (USFWS 1988a, 1996). A joint recovery plan specified separate criteria for the endangered Great Lakes and threatened Northern Great Plains populations (USFWS 1988b), and the USFWS later approved a recovery plan exclusive to the Great Lakes population (USFWS 2003). Critical habitat was designated for the Great Lakes population in 2001 (USFWS 2001a), while a different rule-making determined critical habitat for the Northern Great Plains population in 2002 (USFWS 2002). No critical habitat has been proposed or designated for the Atlantic Coast breeding population, but the needs of all three breeding populations were considered in the 2001 critical habitat designation for wintering piping plovers (USFWS 2001b) and subsequent re-designations (USFWS 2008, 2009). Although all piping plovers are classified as threatened on their shared migration and wintering range outside the watershed of the Great Lakes, USFWS biological opinions prepared under section 7 of the ESA recognize that activities affecting wintering and migrating plovers differentially influence the survival and recovery of the three breeding populations. Piping plover recovery plans (USFWS 1988a, 1988b, 1996, 2003) allude to the continuing recognition of two subspecies by the American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU 1957, 1983), which was originally based on arguments by Moser (1942) that the extent and brightness of breast bands distinguished inland and Atlantic breeders. The recovery plans also cite Wilcox’s (1959) report of variable breast bands on Long Island piping plovers as well as Haig and Oring’s (1988a) allozyme data from birds breeding in Saskatchewan, Manitoba, North Dakota, Minnesota, and New Brunswick that failed to support subspecific differentiation. However, the 1996 revised Atlantic Coast plan recognized that banding and intensive surveys had not identified any interchange between Atlantic and inland breeding populations despite mingling in their wintering range, and the 2003 Great Lakes plan noted preliminary results of ongoing analyses suggesting genetic differences between populations that were not revealed by earlier studies. 6
A recently completed study (Miller et al. 2009, discussed below) provides new insight into piping plover taxonomy. Furthermore, notwithstanding a 22-year history of recovery programs predicated on three populations, no formal analysis of these populations has been conducted pursuant to the 1996 DPS policy. We therefore review these interrelated issues in light of currently available scientific information. 2.1.2 Taxonomic classification or changes in nomenclature A molecular genetic-based investigation of piping plovers, including mitochondrial DNA sequences (580 bp, n = 245 individuals) and eight nuclear microsatellite loci (n = 229 individuals) from 15 U.S. states and eight Canadian provinces, was completed in 2009 (Miller et al. 2009). Only four of 70 unique mitochondrial haplotypes were shared between interior (i.e., Northern Great Plains and Great Lakes) and Atlantic groups, and four phylogenetic reconstruction procedures revealed strong differentiation between interior and Atlantic populations. Consistent with these analyses, a Bayesian clustering procedure implemented using STRUCTURE (version 2.2.3) found that the most likely partitioning of the data supported two groups, Atlantic and interior. Differential genetic structure patterns were also observed within the two groups, with stronger spatial genetic structure in both mitochondrial and microsatellite data sets for Atlantic birds. Miller et al. (2009) confirmed separate Atlantic and interior piping plover subspecies (C. m. melodus and C. m. circumcinctus, respectively). This study found that birds from the Great Lakes region were allied with the interior subspecies group and should be taxonomically referred to as C. m. circumcinctus. Genetic evidence for the two subspecies described above is consistent with data from resightings of banded piping plovers (Table 1). Despite intensive surveys of breeding sites and marking of at least 7,374 birds (1,424 Atlantic Coast; 5,950 Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains combined) between 1982 and 2007, no interchange between subspecies has been reported. Although the subspecies mix to varying extents on their wintering grounds (Gratto- Trevor et al. 2009) and interior birds have been observed at migration stopovers in the Atlantic breeding range as far north as New Jersey (Stucker and Cuthbert 2006), they form pairs on the breeding grounds (Elliott-Smith and Haig 2004). We do not completely discount the possibility that a very few undetected birds could occasionally move between the breeding ranges of the two subspecies, but complete lack of observed exchanges of banded birds, coupled with genetic differences, provide further evidence of existence of separate subspecies. Ecological exchangeability (e.g., life history traits, morphology, habitat) of coastal and interior breeders has received little explicit attention in recent scientific literature. Moser (1942) found no differences in measurements of birds with different plumage types. As noted in section 2.1.1 of this review, Wilcox (1959) rejected assertions by Moser (1942) regarding differences in extent of breast bands. However, the differences in genetic structure between C. m. melodus and circumcinctus observed by Miller et al. (2009) may be evolutionarily important. Atlantic birds demonstrated the signature of a genetic isolation-bydistance pattern that was not apparent among interior birds. Miller et al. (2009) suggested that these genetic structure differences may reflect relatively higher breeding and natal site 7
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 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 60 and 61: accelerated habitat changes, there
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?