Piping Plover - U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Evaluation of the persistence of the population in a unique ecological setting The freshwater dune system of the Great Lakes constitutes a unique ecological setting. Many Great Lakes piping plover breeding sites are found in association with several endemic and rare dune features (USFWS 2003). Wemmer (2000), in her analysis of piping plovers and the implications for coastal biodiversity conservation, found that piping plover habitat in Northern Michigan contained five times as many rare elements as randomly selected shoreline areas. This includes two other federally listed species: Pitcher’s thistle (Cirsium pitcheri) and Houghton’s goldenrod (Solidago houghtonii). The Great Lakes freshwater sand dunes, which are among the most extensive on earth, support more endemic species than any other habitat within the Great Lakes basin. This setting is also unique for C. m. circumcinctus. Piping plovers in the Northern Great Plains population inhabit unvegetated shorelines of alkali lakes, reservoirs, or river sandbars, landscape types not utilized by piping plovers in the Great Lakes. Continued occupation of the unique ecological setting of the Great Lakes may be important to the long-term viability of the subspecies. Conserving populations found within distinct ecological settings increases the probability of preserving adaptive traits that may prove important for the long-term survival of the entire taxon. Further analysis, including the results of ongoing genetic research, may further substantiate the uniqueness of piping plovers found within the Great Lakes basin and their concomitant value to the diversity of the interior subspecies. Piping plovers in the Great Lakes have demonstrated a high degree of fidelity to this ecological setting, with little to no dispersal into breeding ranges of other populations, as discussed in section 2.1.3.1 above. Great Lakes plovers also concentrate in different wintering areas than those from the Northern Great Plains. The underlying basis of the segregation demonstrated by the Great Lakes population is not well understood, but it may be reflective of traits unique to the population and its ecological setting. Continued conservation of Great Lakes piping plovers and their habitat may also be valuable in preserving evolutionary processes beneficial to the subspecies. Summary – The Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains populations are each biologically significant to C. m. circumcinctus, because the loss of either would result in a significant gap (contraction) in the range. The Great Lakes population also persists in an ecological setting that is unique for C. m circumcintus. Each discrete population segment satisfies the significance criterion of the DPS policy. 2.1.4 Conclusions regarding taxonomic classification and DPS analysis The best available scientific information supports recognition of three separate entities consistent with the ESA definition of “species” (Figure 1). Piping plovers that breed on the Atlantic Coast of the U.S. and Canada belong to the subspecies C. m. melodus. The second subspecies, C. m. circumcinctus, comprises two DPSs. One DPS breeds on the Northern Great Plains of the U.S. and Canada, while the other breeds on the Great Lakes. Each of these three entities is demographically independent. Furthermore, the conservation status of each of the three entities reflects factors affecting it throughout its entire life cycle. Although 16
Figure 1. Distribution and range 1 of C. m. melodus, Great Lakes DPS of C. m. circumcinctus, Northern Great Plains DPS of C. m. circumcinctus (base map from Elliott- Smith and Haig 2004 by permission of Birds of North America Online, http://bna.birds.cornell.edu/bna, maintained by the Cornell Lab of Ornithology). 1 Conceptual presentation of subspecies and DPS ranges, not intended to convey precise boundaries. 17 C. m. circumcinctus (Interior subspecies) Northern Great Plains DPS Great Lakes DPS C. m. melodus (Atlantic subspecies)
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 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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?