- Page 1: Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus)
- Page 4 and 5: NGP 2.4.4 Synthesis ……………
- 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 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 (