8 @an= © ) Wildlife @ Parks
MONTANA PIPING PLOVER MANAGEMENT PLAN
With aput from the Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee
Montana Fish, ) Wildlife @ Paris
MONTANA PIPING PLOVER MANAGEMENT PLAN
Prepared by:
Shirley J. Atkinson and Amold R. Dood ‘MontanaDepatment of Fish, Wildlife and Paks 1400 $ 19% Ave, Bozeman, Montana
With input from the Montana Piping Plover Recovery Committee
April 2006
Suggested Citation: Atlinson, S.J. md Dood, A. 2006. Montana Piping Plover Management Plan, ‘MontanaD epartment of Fish, Wildlife and Parks, Bozeman, Montana 78 pp
Front Cover Photograph: MalePiping Plover (breeding plumage in fight. Courtesy: Doug Baskiund, Pere SD.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
‘The piping plover (Curatius nels) is amigratery shorebird endemic to Novth America In 1985 it was federally listed under the Endangered Species Act, Inthe listing, thre distinct populations were identified: tantic coat and Northem Great Plains populations werelicted ar threatened vile the Great Lakes birds were considered edangered. Birds nesting i Montana are pat ofthe Northem Great Paine population.
Plovers breed on alkali late, slong prac rivers and on rerervoir shorelines the Norther Grest Paine Within Montana, a compler of alkaline]ake and welland site in thenortheastem part ofthe state support the greatest numbers of breeding birdein my given yew. Reservoir andniverreacher on the Miccousi [ver rom Fost Peck Recervoirto the Montana North Dakota border ac well a wetland sites at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge and Nelson Reservoir ace alo used when water and habitat conditions xe stable
1m order to support national recovay objectives, Montana established agoal of maintaining 120 adults 60 pairs) over atenyear running average, Whilemonitoring atfrts over the past decade suggest that the Statelhas met ite goal habitat use by ploversis dynamic, Birds tend to be opportunistic md disperse actors thelandscapein respanseto changerin water levels md habitat aralabilty. In ight of auch a dispersal responce the potential recource Montmua's alkali wetlands and reacher ofthe Missouri provide tobresding bards during years characterized by abnormal weather and water conditions deewhereie invaluable This plavrecommends spaciic management and research activities, that we Deieve we snecersay to sustain the population aswell a aid long tam recovery lft,
‘he following recommendations are discussed as amultifaeted approach to managing piping plover breeding habitat md increasing levels of productivity within the State of Montana:
4. continued mual monitoring ofplovers coupled with effort to standardizemonitoring and data collection techniques within and betvrem satesfprovincesin the Norther Great Plains
integrating lmdscapelevel spproacherinto plover mmagenent continued ste speciticuse of predator mmugenent deterant and control meanires
management of water lows thal restorerivarine habitats and their associated ecoaystemn
procerses
Si -mmuagement of vegetation mcroachment and substrate toincreasenest site aalabity
fv. providing azsstanceto private andowmers mtererted in implenventing voluntary Conservation meanures that prove wetland habitat and inst hivertock distaxbmce
1. habitat and site speci investigations of factors indnencing productivity such ae predation and forage avalabiity
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
‘The Montana Piping Plover Management Plan was prepared forthe MontanaD epatmant of Fish, ‘Wilaite mud Parks by Shisley Atkinson and Amold Dood, with input from the Montana Piping Plover Recovery Comittee, Many people asited inthe compilation ofthis plan by providing data reports, smd iavaluable ight, We are grateful for the information and support provided by the fllowang: Bobby Baker LM), LouHanebuy (USFVW),Jakelvan (USFWS), Karen Krell (USFWG), Casey Kruse (USACE), Greg Pavelka (USACE), Fritz Prelit: (BLM), Nell McPhilips (USFWS), Mike Rabent xg (USFWS), Adam yba USFS), Dale Tabby (LM) and Kathy Tabby (USFS). Ourthanks ae aso certended to all who participated in surveys in Montana with the Piping Plover Recovery Comittee ad to John Ensign (MFWP), DaveFuller (MFWP), Bemie Hildebrand (MFWP), Coleen ORowke (MFWP), HagaPac (MFP), Ryan Rauscher (MFWP), Victor Riggs (MEWP) and Brad Sdumite (MFWP). This report drzvs heavily upon work from various authors and completion ofthis projet would not have ‘been porsble without the dedication and research conducted by them. Financial sppor fortis project cane rom the MontmaD epartment ofFich, Wildlife and Paks a the United States Fish and Vide Service, under Section6 of the Endangered Species Act
‘TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF APPENDICES
INTRODUCTION TAXONOMY AND SYSTEMATICS SPECIES DESCRIPTION HISTORICAL AND CURRENTDISTRIEUTION Breeding Range
Winter Range
Distribution m Montana,
HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
Breeding Season
Alt Weld Habit
Riverine Habit
Forging Hobie
Artificial Nesting Hobie
Migratory and Winter Habitats CRITICAL HABITAT
LIFE HISTORY AND ECOLOGY Migration
Reproductive Biology
Population Biology ana Demography Foraging Ecology md Diet Composition POPULATION STATUS
Population Status in the US.
Population Status in Montana Popuition Size
Produtvity ad Reproductive Success FACTORS AFFECTING CURRENT POPULATION LEVELS Habitat Alteration md Lose
Vater Flow vd iver Dyers Unpredetable Wier Levels (foodng)
Food soalabiity
Alkali Velo Loes ud Moston
aaadl
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT.
Predation Livestock
Human Disturbance
Infections Disease
Pollution and Environmental Contaminants
Nesting and ReproductiveSuccese
Factors Atfetng Piping Plover Productivity in Montana CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT
Gamera Management Conceme and Recommended Actions SiteSpectic Recommendations within Montana
Medicine ote Notional Wei Refige
Noyteseter Mona Wetland Menge District
Bow bis Novional Wife Refige. Nelson Reservoir nd Heuit Labe National Vai Refige
_Missourt River ud Fort Pack Resevoir FutureReseach
REFERENCES
Tae
Table?
Tales
Tales
Tables
Tanes
Tae?
Tables
Tables
LIST OF TABLES
Habitat cuaractsstics fr Northem Great Plains piping plovers during the breeding season
Land ovmership vuthin nut boundaries for catia piping plover habitat Montmia. Datain hectares and river slometers or (ares md river mile) ‘Adapted from: USFWS, 2002
Summary of 1991, 1996 and 2001 imtemationa piping plover breeding censuses in the Northam Gres! Plains. Adapted from: Haig etal 2005 Estimated numbers of adult piping plover im Montanabaved on mal survey rerlts, 1988-2005. Data rom unpublished repovts prepared by TheNaure Conservancy, USACE, and USFWS
Estimated numbers of piping plover pairs in Montanabazed on muaal vey rents, 1989-2008. Datarom tmpubliched rep arts prepared by: TheNature Conservancy, USACE, and USFWS
Estimates of piping plover reproduction on Fart Peck Reserves, 2002-2005 Datatrom USACE, G.Pavelka pers. comm.
Estumates of piping plover reproduction on the ont Peck River Reach of the ‘Missouri River, 2002-2005. Data rom USACE, G. Parelka pers. comm. Combined ertanates of piping plover reproduction for Medicine Lake NWR sind Northeast Montma WMD, 1996-2005. Datairom USFWS, A. Fyba
pers comm
(Causes of piping plover nest failures along the Missouri Fiver, Montana, during USACE monitoing period 1993-2005, Includes Fort Peck Reservoir and Fort PeckRiverReach. Datatrom USACE, G.Pavelka pers, comm.
as
4a
Figure Figure? Figures
Figures
Figures Figures
Figure? Figures
Figures
Figure10 Figure Figure12 Figures Figurelt Figures
Figures Figure!”
Appendicl Appendix? Appendix Appendict AppendixS
LIST OF FIGURES
Female piping ploverin breeding plumage Distribution rauge of the piping plover North America
Breeding disnibution and abundance of piping plover: for Novth Amarica ‘m.2001, Adapted srom: Fed and Haig, 2002
‘Winter disiabution and abundance of piping plovarsin 2001, Adapted from: Felmd md Haig, 2002
(Quarter atlong occurrences for piping plovers 1995-present
Distribution of piping plovers in Montana bared on 1985-2004 breeding [Records Adapted srom: MontanaHfentage Program
‘Typical aka wreland habitat
Critical Missouri River habitat below Culbertson, MT
‘Typical dutch of piping plover agg
‘Numbers of breeding pairs and adults recorded in Montana, based on combined uveys conducted betorem 1988 and 2005
Distribution of adult piping plovers im Montana bared on combined survey renilts between 1968 md 2005
Distribution of adult piping plovers im Montana based on combined ten-year ‘end survey reults bevveen 1996 md 2005 Presegulation hy drvgragh for Miscou River, below Fost Peck Da,
Montma
Post. regulation hy drograph of Missouri River, Delow Fort Peck Damn,
Montma
‘Mem daily vrater temp erature (1) for Miezouri River mainstem locations 2004 Datatron MEWP, D.Fulle pers. comm,
Exclosure protecting piping plover net af alkalilake Nrth Dakota.
Fiping plover ana tem agnage
LIST oF APPENDICES
List of acronyane ‘Montmaleaet tem and piping plover work group contacts Datazheet for anual piping plover breeding bird cen in Montma, Intemational piping plover breeding casus guidelines and datasheet Citical habitat for piping ploversin Montma,
INTRODUCTION
‘The piping plover (Charatius melodie a small, sand-colored, migratory shorebird that isisted as ‘threatened or endangered throughout itsramge (USFWS 1985, USFWS 1958). Breeding afults most ‘commonly nest on expansive candy beaches from Newfoundland to South Carolina md along prairie rivers or alkali vellands from central Canada to southem Nebraska (USFWF 1998, Haig 1992). Wintaring grounds indude the Atlantic mid Gulf coats ofthe southem US, noztheaster Menico and several islands in the Caribbem (Haig ad Eliot Smith 004). In Montana ploversnest on sparsdly vegetated smd and gravel bars along the Missouri River as rel ar along the edges of alkali wetlands and loughs fm thenortheactem pat of the state
‘Today, the species simp ented throughout much ofits range (USFWS 1988, Haig 1992, Ferand md Haig 2002, Hag md Eliot Smith 2004) due primualy toinceased predation, habitat alteration md human Aishubance, In theiteior US, housing and recreational development of beach habitat in the Great Lakes region ae wel at alteration of nafural iver low dynamics in the Northem Grest Plane has had a major impact on thereproductive sucezs of piping plovere, Channelization and impoundment of prairie rivers to meet navigation and flood control objectivesae altered nahural ood water regimes, leading to Aooding ofnerts, concentration of predators and asignitcant decnvein habitat aralabity. In ation, veland drainage, habitat alteration and mireased predation pressures, all arenil of naman disturbance, nwrereduced productivity at alkaline wetland ates.
11985, piping plovers were federal listed under the US. Endangered Species Act (USFWS 1985). In ‘helising, three distinct breeding populations were identified: Atlantic coast and Northem Great Plans populations were iste as threatened vhle the Great Lakes birds were considered endangered (Pismer mid Fag 2000) Infact, this species was, and sti, the only extant shorebird listed as an entire species ‘under the US. Endangered Species Act (USFWS 1985, Feand and Haig 2002)
Unuikemany endangered species that have contiguous geographicranger, piping plovarsnestin many Aiterent habitats, each with atmnique st of limiting factors Browm 1986). As piping plover ecology and management requirements differ between locations the USFWS appointed two recovery tems to faghtaterecovary etfrts over this wide geographic area. In 1985, the Great Laker(Northem Great Plains Recovery Team developed arecovery plan that inchided manag ment recommendations specific to inland populations (USFINS 1989) wiule the Atlantic Coast Recovery Team produced aplan for plovers along the East Coast (USFWS 1996). The following year, two regional Cmadim recovery teams (Atlantic and Prairie) were established (Goossen eal 2002). Although the Great Lakes/Nerthem Great Plains Recovery Team was dicbanded 11996, partners, mduding may ofthe states in the Novthem Great Pains, have continued to beinvolved in piping ploverrecovery. Team from both theUS. md Canada hare aco collaborated extensively on overall recovery efor: forthe species during the past 20 years and ‘herecent formation ofthe Intemational Piping Plover Coordination Group waillkely enhance conservation effort.
‘Therecovery plan for the Great Lakes and Northam Grest Paine piping plover populations, hereinafter refered to asthe piping plover recovery plan, (USFWS 1988), deseribes amumber of actions necessary to
achieverecovey of thesnland bird, which fmt, would allow dalisting to be considered, Although the plan call for essential breeding and winter habitat tobe protected, it ures population goals ar the primay aitaion for recovery (USFWS 1988, Aron 2005). Delisting of the Norther Grest Plans population vail be considered wehen 1300 pars (2600 birds) have been maintained ina specitic Aistibution for 1S years, assuming at eat three major censuses have been conducted during this peiod. Montmaha: a speciic recovery goal of 60 pars (120 bird
‘As astateMontanaprovides a diverce aray of habitats for breeding plovers, Wile the proportion of breeding birds recorded in Montanain recent years 7% in 20) has dedined rdativet states such as NorthDakota, Montana has traditionally supported a sizable segment of the US. Norther Great Plains population (15% in 1991). The peripheral nature of Montanarddatveto the overall breeding range of plovers, coupled with tremendous fuctuations in habitat availability betvrem years a thelandecape level most ikely mhtences the numberof bird that arive a breeding grounds my given year. Given such fluctuation, wre believe that Montana's wellands and reaches of the Missouri provide avitalresource topiping plovers during years characterized by abnormal weather and water conditions dleewere,
‘This plan desariber the curent stafus of the population and actions necersay to achieve and maintain the recovay goal for piping plovers breeding in theStateof Montana Expestsin sate and federal rezource agencies were conmulted to determine the status of Montana's curren population and habitats ac well a ‘hei potential forincrease. Although plovers may bexelaively fatalto amosnc of breeding stes,if local conditions decine birds respond by shlting sites. Ifhabitat conditions remain poor, adults that movemay not survivelong enough to disperse ack to their former sites (aig et 2005). Inlight ofthe species dispersal response, we believe that ten-year trend pod will provide fledhiity m planing md smanagement relative to plover biology
‘The goal ofthis plan eto manage for and maintain approximately 60 breeding pais of piping plovers, on arunning ten year average distributed in appropristehabitalsin Montana. TheUSFWS plans, however, to mdetake afivesyear status review begining in September 2006, Should the statusreviewlead to revision ofthe recovery plan, itis ikely that current goals wll be adjusted.in the future, The goal set in this plan wil, Nowever,allovusto mest the stmdards ofthe cuent recovery plan while providing support for national recovery.
‘Moreover, im preparing this plan, MontanaD epartment ofFish, Wildite and Packs (MEWP) recognizes ‘hat an integrated mull agency approach isrequired to managethis population effectively. As such, the plan attenpts to compileinto one document themeanures required fo ehmcerecovery, whether sich ations are mndertaken by the State orin collaboration wath other agencies ndfor tribal athenites. We Delievethat such an approach wall ultimately crengthen the program by building on collaborative management artivties already being undestaken,
TAXONOMY AND SYSTEMATICS
Omithologists have debated the taxonomic davsitiction ofthe piping plover for over acentxy, Originally considered arace ofthe common ringed plover, Curaius Matcula, (Ween and Bonaparte, no dato, the piping plover was first described 25a separate species by Ord in 1824. Revisions tothe forth edition of the American Omithelogical Union (AOU) Checist resulted in the binomial, aegis meloda Deng changed to Comins melodus (Moser1942). In addition to changes in the binomial, the acceptance of tzo subspecies, Cm. malodus (Atlantic birds) and C.meireureinetus Gland birds), has also been questioned, Infact, ance Ord's designation of piping plovers asa species, the AOU ae Suctusted Detvreen accepting and rejecting designation ofiland and Atantic subspecies (AOU 1896, 1957, Haig, amid Oring 19863). While the frst trp editions ofthe AQU Chechist recognized both taxa (AOU 1886, 1895), such designation was omitted from the third and forth editions (Ailcox 1958). In 1842, Moser published data ggesting thatthe ecent mi brightnersofDreact bands distinguished inland and ‘Atlantic breeders. These data coupled with geographic distribution pattems led the AOU to reinstate C nn crneintus as arecognized subspecies (AOU 1945)
‘Wilcox 1858), however, considered the subspecies crionciuet of dubious validity, noting the presence of avarily ofbreact band formas among piping plovers trapped on Long Island, New York. Subsequent amoxphological meanurements also failed to detect my appreciable differance in ving and tal measurements of birds with different plumage types (Wilcox 1953). Moreover, eatly dectrophoretic malyses detected ttle genetic itference betoren local or regional populations in Saskalchewamn, ‘Manitoba, Nvth Dakota Minnesota, and New Brunswick (Haig md Oring 19883). In ight ofthis eneics study, the A OU retumed tothe single species designation in 1998 (AOU 1998)
Morerecantly, however, refined mitochondrial DNA analyses support subspecfic designation Haig and "Elliot Smith 2004). In particular, the Atlantic population appearseproductively isolated from the inteior populations withthe Great Laker individuals aligning more closely with thoze on theNorther. Great Plans and Canadian Prasies (Haig, pers. comm. quoted in Haig and Elliot Smith 2004). Whulethe U.S Endangered Species Actidenttes and protects mdmgered and threatened species, subspecies md populations, designations can “make or break” recovery of spaciic species because resources allocated to ‘heirzecovery re often provtized based on taxonomic status (Ryder 1986). Given recent contibutions to conservation from the emerging field of moleculax bislogy (ag 1996) further research utilizing more seustive genetic and molecilar techniques may ultimately resolve thisiemue
SPECIES DESCRIPTION
‘Weighing between 46-64 grams (15.2 ounces) ndmeasuring 17 can (in) long wath aveingspan of approximately 38 on (15 in), the piping plover is a mnll relatively stocky migratory shorebird <Atthough males ad females are smularin size, WAlcox (1958) found that breeding females were sightly heavier than males (656 gs 549 g) and had slightly shortertal lengths (605 mum vs. §1.3 mm).
Piping plovers are one of si species of belted plover, characterized by the presence of at eat one breast band. The specer’ sand colored upper pate and whiteunder aides we typical ofits genus, butte short stout bil lange dark eyes isolated on apalefae and bight orangelegs makeit easy to distinguish from
other bated plovars (aig and Oring 1967, Sibley 2003). During the breeding season, aback bar Aevelops across the forehead, fom eyeto eye, and the breast mashing formas asngle black band, which ie often incomplete. Piping plovers do, hovrever, edit sight breeding plumage dimorphiam. The back breast band and brow-bar ae typically more pronounced in breeding males (ee front cover than females (Figure), allovang the sexes tobe accuratdly identified in approamataly 95% of cases (WAlcex 1959).
Figure: Female piping ploverin breeding plumage ‘Photo courtesy: Doug Badund, Piare SD.
{In winter, piping plovers lose ther black bands, thelegs fade irom orangete paleyallow, and thebill
Decomer mostly black, Inmature phumageresenbles adult non-breeding phiiage; juveniles acquire adult phumagethe spring ater they Deage
Tiping plovers eamed both their common and scientific names rom theirmelodious call notes. Infact, ‘thecal, a distinctive’ peep. peep peep 1” sound, i often head before the birds seen From a diagnostic perspective therefore, thehigh pitched call ofthe piping plover, coupled vith morphological hararteristics such asa single black neck band (present during the breeding season, short stout bil and ‘ight orange lage maker st readily identitiable and wnlikaly to be confused with other anall plovers sich athe movry plover (Chante dexmcriuts) andthe collared plover (Gunite: colin)
HISTORICAL AND CURRENT DISTRIBUTION
Breeding Range
Endemic to Nosth America the piping ploveris amigratory species that breeds in three disunt geographic regions: the Northam Great Pain, the Great Laker and Atlantic coat of North America (Figure2), Although the curent boundaries ofthe breeding rage are mar to boundaerin the ely 1900s (Haig and Oring 1985, Haig and Oring 1967, Hag and Onng 19880), the dichibution of ploversis nowmuch more fragmented Figure’).
Breeding birds havebeen extirpated from Minos, Indiana Ohio, Pennsylvania and New Hampshire, presumably as arerut of human disturbance and habitat destruction (Russel 1993, Haig and Oring 19556, FPrindiville Gainer and Ryan 1998), In addition, alana populations, occuring a low denatierin patcaly Aistibuted habitats (yan ef 211993), aremoreiselated from one mother (Haig and Oring 1985 Consequently, the speier breeding rangereprerentsrammans of aviderditnbution that edcted prior to anthropogenic alteration of ereetial plover habitat
, % Soa x ‘ * _ SS y aa ¢ cane a, Piping Plover ae Charadrius melodus ft wager. 2
Figure2; Distbution range ofthe piping ploverin Noxth America ‘rom: Mitchell et 3 000,
Historically, the Grest Lakes population nerted throughout miuch of the Great Lakes region in thenerth- central US. adn south-central Canada (USFWS 2002) Although their numbers havemcreased over the past decade these birds areresrcted to several sandy beaches on Lakes Superior, Michigan and Huron, ‘nnortham Michigan and Wisconsin Ferland and Haig 2002, Hag et 2005). Along the Atlantic sesbomd, populations nest on expmave smdy beaches from Nevefoundland, southeastem Quebec, md ‘New Brunswick to North Carolina (ag 1992, USFWS 2002, Haig and Elliot Smith 2004)
a
Figured: Breeding disibution and abundance of pipig plovers fr North Americain 2001 ‘Adapted rom: Periand and Haig, 2002
‘he breeding range ofthe Novtharn Great Plans population traverses Alberta southem Saskatchewan, snd southem Manitoba extaiding southeastorard into easter Montana, North Dakota South Dakota, ‘Minnesota Nebraska and lovra (USFWS 2002). O}lahomarepresents the extreme southem limit ofthe birds bresding dictubution on the Norther Great Plans, wile Lake Athabascain southem Saskatchewan isthenorthemmost (Adam 1964, Goossen et 22002). In ation, asmall population exists in Colorado and Kansas Ferland and Hag 2002)
‘Authough the breeding rangeis extensive, the majuty of breeding pars in the US. portion ofthe population's range arein Nosth Dakota Montana, South Dakota aud Nebraska (National Research (Councl2004). The curent breeding range encompasses akalilakes and wetlandsin south Canada, northeartem Montana and northivestam North Dakota, and extends south along major prairieniver systems, suchas the Missoun, Niobrara and Platte (Haig and Eliot Smith 2004),
Winter Range rom a conservation perspective, winter censuses provide a opportunity toxdocate banded birds and Aocument connectivity of breeding populations in vainter (Haig #312005), Based on sightings of color. ‘banded birds, result from three intemational censuses conducted in 1991, 1996 and 2001) aswell as data from Haig and Oring (19890) suggest that most pranie md Northam Great Plans birds vainterin the Gulf of Medco, wile themajonty of Atlantic birds are sem futher couth on the Atlantic coast or the (Caribbean aig 312005)
‘Asteveer than 65% ofall breeding tirds hare bem accounted for during range-wide winter censuses, the ‘wintering range of piping plovershaz yet tobe clemly deinented Feximd and Haig 2002, Haig etal 2005). Most birds appear, hoveever, to winter along the Atlantic and Gulf coasts from North Carclinato
Mexico ma into the Bahamas and West Indies (Haig and Oring 1997, Hag and Oring 19980, Hooper etal 1999, Hag 312005) Figures)
Figured: Winter dictibution and abundance of piping ploverein 2001 ‘Adapted from: Periand md Haig, 200?
‘Winter surveys conducted by Nicholls and Baldassare 1990a) indicat that along the Gulf coat, Texas smd Louisima mppostthehighest nuunber of piping plovers perialometer. A considerably analler [population winters along the chore ofthe Atlantic Ocean (Haig md Piemer 1999). For the Atlantic coast region, the greatest densities of over-wantering plovers wererecorded in Georgia nd South Carolina ‘More specically, the barrier elands off Georgia and South Carolina ppemrtohoct the ingest mbers of wintering birds for theregion although afew iter in North Carolina md Florida alo haverslaively highnumbers,
Plovers wintering long the Atlantic castine are gmeraly distributed in anall groups averages of sic piping plovers per ate werenoted during Nicholls 1986-57 auvey (Nicholls 1999). Giventhe extensive survey coverage coupled with therelatively small group sizes recorded, Nicholls md Baldassare (19903 speculate that alge proportion ofthe Novth American breeding population probably winters throughout the Caubbean ielands
Distibution:n Mantana,
Historic records of piping ploversin Montana arerare (Carlson and Skaxr 1976). Bent (1928) doesnot specticaly list Montana within the breeding range ofthe piping plover, but doernote “many gaps inthe rage’, Enty accounts recorded piping plovers in South Dakota (Miner County), Nosth Dakota (Kenmarg, nd Big Stick Lakein southern Saskatchewan (Bent 1929): such a distribution pate. sndicates that plovers may wrall have occupied similar habitats waitin novtheastem Montana,
lovers vere fist recarded in Mfontanain 1967 in Philips County (Pretuaits #al 1989) and were observed in Sheridan and Valley Counties during the 1970s (Careon madSkawr 1976). Although they ‘were nown to breed at Bowdoin National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) and at Fort Peck Reserve Skaar etal 1985), lite attention was paid tothe species prior to its sting in 1985. As aresul, fe observations prior 01985 arezecordea (MontmaBird Distbution Database 005). Morexecently, the majority of breeding sites ave Deon reported in three distinct rear in Montmia the ectrmnenortheactem portion ofthe state (Wortheast Montana Welland Management District), Nelson Reservoir and Bowdoin NWR, and along the ‘Missouri River including Foot Ped: Reservoir Figure)
Figure: Quarter lailong occurrences for piping plover, 1995-present. Coustery: MontmaBird Distabution Database, Natural Heritage Program, 2005,
Breeding ates at Fort Peck Reservoir occur above the wes end ofthe dam and along the shoreline of the Big Dry Arm. Along the Missouri River below Fost Pack, themsjoity of smdbare used by plover: sxe situated dovenstream of the Mik River confluence (USACE 1997). Plovershave alse sporaticaly reproduced a Alkali Lakein Pondera County, whichis the etrene wertem edge ofthe US. distribution. A detaled ditibution map compiled from breeding observations, gathered beturem 1968 smd 2004, ie presentedin Figures. Observational records of transient or migrant birds have also been
reported near Helena a Canyon Ferry Reservoir xgeron otal 1992) as well as northwest of Great Falls sf Freezeout Lake (MontanaBird Distribution Database2005) and north of Malta at Whitevrater Lake (Fait Prelit, pers. comm). There arene vinterrecordsin Montana,
‘Figure: Distubution of piping ploversin Montana based on 1985-2004 observational records “Adapted from Montana Haitage Program.
HABITAT REQUIREMENTS
Breeding Season Habitat Innorth- central North America plovers typically nest on barren sand and grard beaches along the Great Lakes, nd on alkali ats, gravel shorelines an rive sandbarsin the Great Plains (USFWW5 2002). While data suggests that habitat use by ploversis dynamic (USFVW5 2002), alkali lakes and wellands associated ‘withthe Missouri Coteau landform, located inside the PrasiePotholeRegion, appear to support a significant portion 4.75%) ofthe Great Plans population in any given year (Haig and Pinar 1993, ‘Moxphy et 12000, Plismer and Hag 2000, Haig et 212005, Skagen and Thompson 2005). Temaining nest sites occur primanly along rivers and reservoirs although fresh water lakes, dry aalilakes, eandpits, indusrialponds and gravel mines may aso be tiized (Hag ea 205).
‘Shudies onthe peciic habitat requirements ofthe piping plover across its breeding rmnge have bem feve (Rational Rerearch Council 2003) and quantitative data on habitat chavacteistice remains scarce (USFWS
2002). Several studies suggest however, that important phy sical attributes at thenest itemdude presence of afablenestng substrate lack of vegetative cover, edstence of favorable water condition? and aysilabilty of suitable forage habitat (Pindivlle- Gaines md Ryan 1988, Sehoralbach 1998, Ziewat et 11992, Com and Ambraster 1993, Licht 2001). While factors that contsibuteto optimal habitat Conditions appear similar across halite type, research suggects that specific requirements may diffe. For example although prefered vegetation coveris ganeraly lovefor all ater, percentage cover varies considerably according to habit! type (Table). Moreover, a apparently utablenestng habitat isnot
alovays wiiized (Haag eal 2005), other factors, such as forage ayalabity or disturbance, may ultimately attest nest ate choice
Alka Welln Habitat ‘inMontana as wall as throughout the Northem Great Plains, pamanent, to seasonally looded, alkaline sloughs (or potholes) enbeaded within the Praie Pothole Region ae uiized by breeding birds (Figure 7). Thase wetland habitats are typically doved basin depressions that receive water through surface ‘precpitation bas minoff, and seepageindlow of ground water (Slom1972). While the aurounding ‘habitat may iudepasture errmgeland composed of short gracs prac nest ates acetypically placed on dry salt ats or gravel beaches (USFWS 1994)
Figure7: Typical alkali wetland habitat. Photo Coustery: Adam Ryba,
‘he Great Plains region has anctoriously extreme and variable climate Johnson ef al2004) and local nd sepional x/allabity of alkalme beach habitats varies betvrem yearsin responseto changing basin level amd vegetation conditions (Licht 200), In fac, dramatic factuations in rater Levele are commonplace, aaking such habitats highly unpredictable in space and time (Skagen and Thompson 2005). During drier climatic periods, substantial quantities of sparcely vegetated lower elevation beach habitat we azalable forbresding plovers, During wet periods, however, Darn eval tend to be relatively high and only the
10
highest devation beach habitat is ayalable (Licht 201, Root and Ryan 2004). Thus, dein argepartto the dynamic nature of these wetlands, birds tend tobe opportunistic md dispersed arose thelandscape
Sites with gravel substrate appear to provide themost mutable sites for nesting, InNovth Dakota gravel wat more evenly disnibuted min grester concentration on piping plover tenitores than at moceupied sites nd eggs wrremore ikely to hatch than those on alkali substrate Prindivile Gaines and Fyan 1988). Similarly, Whyte 1985) demonstrated that breeding birds weremorelikay to establish nests on gravel tha predicted by chance. Research conducted by Espie tal (1996) corroborates this, indicating that birds prefer nesting on gravel beaches than those with lover gravel content
‘uthough data suggests thatthe amount and distbution of vegetation affects piping plover habitat selection and reproductive success (USFWS 1994), research conducted by Prindville Gaines and Ryan (4988) af alka wetlands in North Dakota failed to detect any ditferencein vegetation cover between nesting teiterier and unoccupied site: The mithors did note, however, that vegetation had amore dumped disnibution on tenitores, compared to unoccupied ste, renting in lange areas of unvegetated Dench habitat. Moreover, sccerstal breeding tamitries typically had ether less vegetation or more dumped vegetation than those wath unsuccessful nests. Combining nesting temitory desaptions as well asnest stephotographs from several researth efforts at alkali wetlands, Root and Ryan 2004) have recently determined that unvegetated beaches, or spacey vegetated Beaches dominated by forbs, have agieater numbers of ners than thore dominated by grasses. Armost foe typically only atain height of several centimeters during the nering searon tie posible that there sites ae preferentially celected (Root and Ryan 2004) as they donot limit the plover’s ability to detect nest predators (aig 1992)
1m addition to vegetation cover and substratetype, long the shordines of inland lakes and saline ‘wellands plovers appear to prefer wide beaches for nesting. At Chain-of Lakes in North Dakota Prindivile Gaines and Ryn (198) reported that piping lovers established taritories on beaches>25 m2 ‘wide Mean beach width oar also greater at occupied ster and the authors -pecuate that below a ‘resold beach width 020-my the probability f nest detection by predators may increase abruptly.
Riverine Habitat Characteristic riveinenesting stesimciude reservoir beacher and lage dry, Darran md or gravel bars, within wide unobstructed river chamels (USFWS 1988). Nests areusually located after the spring and emily summer flow recede and dry areas on sandbas ae exposed, Along the Plate River, Nebraska, relatively lage smdbars, averaging 26 mlong and SS m wide appea tobe selected when avaiable (Fanner 1993). In addition, prefered vegetative cover at nest iter ie generally lor (Scheralbach 1969) ‘Although Fame: (1983) reposted vegetative cover of 25% an nesting sanabar habitat along the Platte [iver, other esearch suggests tha the optimum ramgeis much lower estimater rage rom.0-10% (Armbruster 1986). Likewise along the Missoun Fiver inSouth Dakota plover colony stes were chuaracteritically barren ox with short (10cm) sparse (<10%) vegetative caver Schoralbach 1988)
u
Tablel: Habitat characteristics for Norther Great laine piping plovers during the breeding searon,
Habitat Habitat ‘Optimal Habitat Reference Meanmement —__Characteisticr “Alka TakeFetlact Mem beachvaidth 25m, 20m Prindivile Gaines mma Rye (1908) Vegetation ‘spasseor dumped barento sparsely vegetated Prindivile Gaines vegetation forbs orchumped distabution; amd Ryan (1988); prefaredtograss shortervegetaion (forbs) “Root and tym. e001) Substrate ‘mixed gravel md shomogmous substrtest_—'Caimes(1977) smd gard nest ste-primarly grav Prindville Gaines versie aka Tneterogenous atlarger scale and Tyan (1588) “Riverine ‘Mean channel width 295-450 meters wide (300 meters) iets eta 099
‘Mean sandbar en
Elevation (dearance ‘rom water tones)
Vegetation
Substrate
Forage ate
Astficial Seuipit Forage ate
Total autace ea
048-190 hectares
‘asm 034052m
“eno; 25%,
gee
moist sandy ibatrate
<1 3}an (clint
06.796 hectares (mem=205)
‘vatable from 020-408 hectares, preferably lange
lov ephemeral emdbars, high enough to provide ary ‘bare ground during nesting
barrento sparsely vegetated: ‘vegetation hight short
grwal substrate expanse of moist subetrate adequate prey barerdlaively dosetonest ate ‘vatable—nesting depends on
walabilty of natural smdba habitat
Ziewite @ a (1992)
‘Scnveabach (1988) 2 Ziewtz et al (1992)
‘Senveabach (1988) Fames (1983)
iewite eta (99
Com and Amabraster 2383)
Com and Amabraster (0383)
Shale ma Keech (0393)
‘Vaviables auch as channel width and nest devation sboveriverreach also pest to play arolein nest selection (Schuvalbach 1985, Ziewitz eta 1992). Research conducted by Schvralbach (1988) shovwed that on average plover nests werelocated 019 m aboveriverreach range. Along thePFatteTiver, however, ness were stuated a lightly higher dlevatons (Zieuaitz eal 1992). While datagathered in these studies prechide comparisons betoren habitat characteristics and reproductive saccers,thevarabler mggest that piping plovers preferentially select nest ater that provide wide horizontal vsibty, protection rom. ttevestial predators and sulficint protection Som rising veters(Schvralbach 1988, Zievatz et 211992, ‘USFWS 2005
Feraging Habitat ‘Along prairie rivers, piping plovers are often found in cose association with interior leat tems (Storia satilaron). As such they ae often thought tohave similar habitat requirements. Despite smilantiesin nesting habitat along rivers, there closely related specer belong to dlferant feeding guildr piping plovers feed on benthic invertebrates found along themoist sand choreline whileleat tems are primary shullov water pisaivores. So, in additionto dry unconsolidated substrate for nesting and rasing young, piping plovers tend toreguie adjacent moist sandy habitat for foraging (Com and Armbruster 1983)
‘Ashabital that meets both thenesting and foraging requiramantsis essential not all potential sites are stable. Primary foraging habitat inchudes open, mic, sandy sites on river systems ac well 2¢ throughout most of the birds nesting range. Plovers feed by peching af or fut belovethe substrate autace (Cames1977, USEWS 2002, Hing md Eliot Smith 2004) and require fending grounds that wexichin surfaceinvertebrates Shatfer and Laporte 1994). While adults typically concentrate feeding etforts within Sm ofthe water's edge (Whyte1985) chicks tend to feed on firmer ground a grater distances from the shoreline (Caines 1977),
‘Authough plovers commonly foragenear the waters edge, in North Dakota birds spent 2% of thar time foraging along the shoreline md45% foraging upland gravel iter Beckerman 1986, Hing md Eliot- Smith 2004). Whilemoist substratehabitats are edremaly valuableto piping plovers,thesehabitats must Dejustaposed with other key cements. Far example Elias etal 2000) showed that on beach segments along the Atlantic coat lacking ephemeral pools and bay tidal Lats, wrack ad open vegetation can be sanportant, not only as aforage habit! but because thay provide escape cover md roosting habitat. Likewise, adults and chicksin New Jersey exhibited fecbility in ther choice of foraging habitat but generally selected areas wath few people Buuger 1994). Thus, theneed forhabitat heterogeneity surrounding thenest ste particulary in more disturbed areas, may be an important fartorin habitat selection (Nicholls and Baldassarre 19900, Elias eal 2000)
Artificial Nesting Hoitat Piping plovers dearly havelitiefetility when choosing nes ites (Goossen el 2002). Prefered smudbar habitat har disappeared along many river segments in the interior US. and as arerultplovers hare been forced to exploit nev arene for nesting Sle and Kirsch 1993). Breeding birds nownest on auttcialy crested habitat nich as sand and gravel pits md isle created by dredging operations (USFWS 2002). Evidence suggests that ploversutlize atifical habitats when natural habitats limiting, however, se unclear to wehat extent they have replaced natural habitats or whether reproductive mccese
4s simular betorem habitats (Sdle and Kirsch 1993). While afial sandbar creation has provided nesting Dabita, rom a cost beusit perspective, such menrures ae expensive and tend tobe temporary innature, cerentualy eroding dueto in-off, Further, there ene are only suitableforalimited period of time after ‘hei initial creation ae vegetation eucoachmnent generally reduces habitat quality after afew years
‘More amp vtantly, however, research has chow that many of there ster fllto provide an adequate forage base (Com md Armbruster 1983). Compared to river channel ste, soilmoisture and consequently nwrartebrate dest, is lover a sandpit ater. Infact in some rene, plovers fly more than a Jalometerbetvrem smapit net site ndsiver channel foraging location. In addition, because sandpit sites arenot isolated on islands, nests aremore vulnerable to predation (National Research Council 2004), Thus, there atically created ates may providemaginal nesting and forage habitat to breeding birde (Com and Armbruster 1983)
‘Migratory nd Winter Habitats Piping plover winter habitat incudes beaches, mudlats, nd sandilats, 2: well ar barr island beacher amid spoilisimde (nig and Oring 1995, Hig 1992). Birds have also been seen on ocem beaches md sand or algal ats in protected bays (Mibinson md Spinks 1994, Drake e 12001). Drake eal (2001) Aetermined that habitat use vaied seasonally along the Tecas coastline plovers used algal ats more using fll and spring than during winter vehereas eqpored muudilate wre selected more frequently ding winter,
Betoresn 1996 and 1988, both the distribution and habitat characteristics of plovers during the winter ‘were studied along the Gulf and Atlantic coastlines (Nicholls and Baldassare 1990, 19900). Analysis of Aabitat variables along the Gulf Coast showed that plover sites were characterized by greater beach width and greater percentagemmdlats than non plover sites (Nicholls and Baldassare 19900). Along the Atlantic however, piping plovers weremost often found foraging in area adjacent to ageinlets and pastes Infac, thevazation between stes led Nicholls ad Baldassare (19900) to surmise that piping plover vainter distibution may be correlated more with environmantal heterogeneity than speitic habitat festures. Devpte the dticultes encountered im developing predictive models based exciusivaly on Iabitat variable, the mthors speculate that smite and sandy mmadilate may attract thelargect concentrations of piping plovers because of prey abundance mdlor because the substrate coloration provides protection Srom aatal predators dueto chromatic matching (Grant 1973, Nicholl and Baldarsare 19900)
CRITICAL HABITAT
1.2002, the USFWS offically designated citical habitat forthe Northem Great Pains breading population (USFINS 2002). Under the Endangered Species Act, cial habital refers to speatic geographic locations that contain festures erential for concerving apecies and may require <pecal management considerations. While ctcal habitat cm be, ands, designated on privatelands, it only relates to thoce activites on privatelands that require federal perats or funding that werequired tobe reviewed under the Act.
u
mn deternining which area to propoce ar ctical habitat for piping plovers, the USFWS (2002) considered both the physical and biclogical features (primary constituent cements) that were essential to conservation of the species. For piping plovers there inchuded comp nants ezeential for courtship, breeding, zhelteing, brood-renting, foraging, roosting, mirarpeciic communication and migration. Forthemore it tated that the me ovemiding primany biological dament that mast beprecent a al ster fs themaintenance ofthe dynamic ecological processes that create and maintain piping plover habit
on pratie alka lakes and wetlands the physical primary constituent lanantsinchude callow, seasonally to permanently flooded, wetlands vith emdy to gravelly, sparsely vegetated benches af wll ae springs nd fens along the edger of alkali laker and wetlands. Along sivers, pareely vegetated duaunel smdbars, cad and gravel beaches onidande mud tempormy pools on sandbars ae considered primay. Atreravoirs and inland lakes auch elements inchide sparsely vegetated choreine beaches, Peninralay, lands composed of smd and gravel or chale and ther intetace withthe vrater bodies
Inte inal ruling, the USFWS identited atotal of19 habitat unit inthe states of Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska North Dakota, and South Dakota as citcal to aiding piping plover recovery (USFWS 2002) ‘Within Montana, 40,423 1 hectares (99,887 5 acres) including four separate units comprised of vaious cowmership pattems are designated a: aitical habitat (Table?)
Table2: Land ormership within unit boundaries for critical piping plover habitat in Montma Datain hectares and river olometers or (ares md river mile). Adapted from: USFWS, 2002.
(aitcal Habitat Unit | Feder ‘State 54084 TID
LS ey 33868) 0952)
A = 218 MET? Micsouni River ar MTS Fort Peck Reservoir, iat aan
zara) 7370) MT-4 Bowdoin NWR Lae ase.
62945) 2945) Tota (ares Over male) | s082 1a ‘arg 40,081
aoa) 0952) 22515) 698875) Toad Eat) seam 03% 56%
SOwneshy ofits almny Se Misra liva vie bySate nMinioa Gaal nl aatbae aereeped snened bythe State enceytaleng te reservation beundase the Asin eine and Sinn Tiber of Fest Peck be: then and to he mid- channel of he Misra Raves sdipemnt te the Reventon boundary
‘Sheridan County (Unit MT-), i the exremenortheastem comer ofthe sate, incudes 20 alkali lakes and vielande, Essential nesting habitat i digperved throughout his unit, The Miceouri Fiver wits (M72 md MT) consist of both reservoir and river reaches: Fort Peck Reservoiris located entirely within the CChazlesM. Russel NWR, whileunit MT-2 encompasses approximately 2019 kan of the Missouri River just ‘west of Wolf Poin to the Montana North Dakota border Figures)
as
Figures: Critical Missoun River habit, bdow Culbertson, Montana, Photo Courtesy: USCS
‘Theriver reach below Fort Peck Reserves to the confumce ofthe Milk River ie not included asitie highly degraded and contains few sandbas, Bovrdoin NWR ie the site ofthe forth ctical habia unit (ATH). Despite sporadic breeding records t AlkaliLakein Pondera County, Boredoin NWR, located in cast central Philip County, represents the typical wertem edge ofthe Northern Great Plaine breeding population of piping plovers. Maps for allfour ute re prevented in Appendix
In Plullips County, three historic lake eds at Nelson Reservoir most likely provided ezeential abit to ‘breeding piping plovers hoveever hic arenas looded whan the reservoir was ested forimigation, puupores. Whileelzon Recervoir wat erginaly propored for cntical habitat incisions war exchaded from the final irtng as aMemorandum of Understanding (MOU) betvreen the Burems of Recaunation (BOR), the USFWS, and local Inigation Districts was in place that would minimize the test of foodang to aivepiping plovernes ater, Addstionally, a pat of the tens and conditions of 21990 biological opinion on the operation of Nelsen Resarvoir by the BOR, conservation meacure: had bem employed to ainimizetake, md would contnwe
Occupied nesting habitat on North Alkali Lakein Pondera County occurs on Blackfeet tibal land and ‘war not designate critical habitat at therequest ofthe tribal government, Habitat on tibal lands Aetermined exeential to conserve the pecier may be designated. This vas the casefor cand bars along ‘he Missouri River along the Fort Peck Reservation, The USFWS believes this designation is consistent ‘withthe pacil trust rep onsbity the Federal goverment has to indian peoplete presave and protect ‘theirlands and resources
16
LIFE HISTORY AND ECOLOGY
Migntion, Tiping plovers aremigratory shorebirds that spend approximately 3-4 monthe per year on northern US. amid southem Canadian breeding sites, Spring atival ner vary considerably beeen geographic locations with coastal birds amiving af nest ster emlierthaninland birds, Along the Atlmtc coat, piping plovers have been observed as early as February 24 in Viginia (Cross 1991) and by lateMarchin New England Bent 1928, Haig and Eliot Smuith 2004). In theintarior US, rival times also progress northard with the first birds arriving af breeding grounds along the Platte Tavern mid to late April (ational Research Counc 2008). Along the Missouri River and a kali lakes in thenorthem US. surival ines generally begin in the third wesk of Apr and by mid-May most piping plover have retumed to North Dakota Minnesota Manitoba and other inland stes (Haig 1985, Prindiville Gaines and yan 1988, Haig and Eliot Smith 2004),
Observations at inland stes during themigration period are insted and tie porable that birdetrava nonstop betwee breeding and wintering areas (ig 1992). Accordingly, hitleisInovm about the aigratory pattems of piping ploverrin Manta Most observations have been recorded for breeding pairs, with fewreported aightngs of tment individuals, Lanited reports of plover: dung migration, do, hovrever, exis just eat ofthe Rocky Mountains (MentamaBird Distribution Database2005). In ‘Montana spring ariva of the species most often occurs from late April through early May vath departure occurring by late August (MontmaPiping Plover Recovary Committee 1997, Lenard et 12003, MikeRabenbag, pers. comm)
Recent alysis of migration datafrom banded Gres! Laker birds suggests that aitcal habitat units ae used heavily during migration (Stacker and Cuthbert 2006). Futher, whule stopover length could not be qumitifed in this study the authore speculate that may be vasiblein length forthe GrestLakes population ranging from several days to one month bared on anecdotal reports Ghucker and Cuthbet 2006),
Departure from the breeding colony for southem wintering grounds varies by geographic location ad time of nesting autiation. In NorthDakota birds vil depart a ealy az late june or exly July, hoveeve, others with late hatching nests may remain until September (Hig and Eli Smith 2004). Since peak zetum along the Tecasshorsline and other Gul coast beaches occurs in August and September Haig md Elliot Smith 2004) itis key that themajonty of breeding stes have ben vacated by mid-August.
Reproductive Biology Soon after anival tthe breeding ground, male piping plovers begin establishing and defending teiteries that encompass both a section of shoreline and an area of open ground (Whyte 1885). Typical aggressive displays between competing malerinchude horizontal threst, parale-run ad aal splays (Caims 1982), Parla rans may cover distances up to 100 m while ail displays may be pafommed from just above ground level up to approximately 35 m and ace gaerally accompanied by contawwous vocalization (Cairns 982). At the beginning of courtship, males peform dlaborate Sights over breeding tenitores to signal tenitory boundaries md advertise their avallaiity to females, Pre copulatory ations incude cling, tt displays mdnest scrape displays, during which shall fragments or pebbles awe
toseed and sand ichicked backward. This creates a hallow depression that may eventually be used asa nest (Caims 1982, Haig 1992, Haig and Eliot Smith 004),
Piping plovers edbit apredominantly monogamous mating system although mate-svatehing may occur during the breeding season (aig and Oring 1988¢) and betiveen years (WUlcox 1959, Haig and Oring
1983¢, USFWS 1966). The ephemeral nature of most nest sites renders birds susceptibito frequent nest destruction and renesting appears to be arelatively common event (USFWS 1988). In most cases, ‘nowrever, individuals reman with the samemate during the breeding season (aig ad Oring 19880) Between years, regardless of reproductive success, piping plovers usually sift mates (WAlcax 1959, Haig anid Oring 1988¢, Fiaig 1992),
Peak nesting in the Norther Great Plains extend: from late Apr through August, with themsjerity of ‘nests being initiated in May and Jame Aron 2005). Both seces patipateim nest digging and the finished nest cup i frequently lied vith smal pebbles or sll fragments forming a shallow depression approvamataly ? on deep and 6 cm diameter (USFWS 1894). Common nest substrates indude sand, gravel nd shells. Maler may contanse to construct additional nest in thai teitories that might beused to deceive predators or may simply reflect over zealousness(WBIC0x 1953)
Egg-laying commences soon after mating wath a single egg being Ini every other day until the dutch is complete Wilcox 1959, Haig 1992). Eggs arepale buf in coloration FigureS) and are speckled with tne ‘lad, brownish purple or purplish black matings (Caims 1982). Four @g-cltches arenormally produced although replacement dutchertend to be analle, averaging 23 eggs (Haig and Eliot Sith 2004). Variations in dutch size do exist however, and range from 33 in Saskatchewan (Whyte1985) to 35.37 in North Dakota Prindivile Gaines and Fy 1988). On the Missouri River, average dutch size, ‘based on 6,376 piping plovernes records guthered from 1968-2005 is 3.66. Montana's sererages ace simular mem dutch ize ranges from 346 at Fort eck Reservoir to 77 along the Fort Peck iver each (. Parka pers. comm}
Incubation usally begins with completion ofthe duteh, averages 7-30 days, ndis
Shared equally by both sacs (MAlcox 1953, CCxims 1977, Madiver 1990). Eggs begin to atch from late May tomid June stmany
inland sites (USFWS 1886) but in Montana thisrarely occursbeforemid-june (akelvan Figured: Typical cuteh ofpsping plover egge pers. comm) Photo Coutesy: Environment Canada~G.K Peck
(Chicks ae precocial and often leave thenest within two to three hours of hatching (aig 1992). ‘Although they peck at the ground almost immediately, Caims (1977) suggests that they probably obtain Litlenowrichment for several days, Brood: generally remain on necting tenitorier but may expand their
8
movements as they mature or are disturbed (USFWS 1998). After hatching, parental care spears to vary: some broods are cared for by both parts whilein others females desert the brood vaithin -10 days leasing themaeto complete the process Haig and Oring 19830),
(Chickexequiremore than 21 days of growth and development before they ae sbleto Hy (ational Research Council 2004). They typically 1edge2035 days ater hatching (Caims 1982, Haig 1987, Prindiville Gainer and Ryan 1998, Wilcox 1959) and ace capable of sustained fight soon thereatte. After edging, young birds contanueto mature md feed slongade adults on undefended staging grounds prior to autumn depasturein mid tolate August (Caims 1977, Pundivile Gainer and Ryan 1988, National Research Council 2008)
Population Biology and Demopsaphy ‘Whileplovers are nova to begin breeding at meyen of age Maclvor 1990, Strmiss1990, Haig 1992, ‘Amrault et 2 2006), pretiminary information from banding studies in Pranie Canada sugges that this aay not be the casein allzegions (Cheri Gratto- Trevor, pas. comm). In this recent tudy, half of all temalernested as yestlings, mi additional 30% nested in their second year, andthe remaining birde ‘nitisting nesting in Inter yeas. In spite of this, oncenerting i tiated, ploverstypicaly attempt to ‘reed every yer, producing onebrood par searon (Hig 192). Plover: wil etum to former breeding site, but the ephemeral nature oftheir nesting habitat often forces then to disperselage distances Detvveen years Haig and Oring 1988b, Haig 1992, Haig and Eliot Smith 2004). Consequently, estimates of stefidelity aehighty variable, md rangetrom 25% to4% (Haig md Eliot Smith 200)
Fiping plover reproductive sucess i generally low and highly vaciable among ates md yeus aig and (ning 1987). For ecample reproductive success a alkaline wetlandsin the Great Plainsis estimated at 089 fledgling per par (Larson e a 2002). Atriver sites nd reservoirs, success is lower, areraging 073 (Larson et al 2002). As natal site deity is also ove (20%), rst year survivais dificult o estimate Larson et 2000), hovrever, estimate survival from fledging to frst year 20318 whilePrindivile Ganes and Ryan (1998) suggest rates of juvenile survival ranging from 0 507-0634
‘Based on banding studies piping plovers cm live up to years (Wilcox 1962, Clapp etal 1982) but vay sewindividuals survive beyond the ge of nine (WAlcox 1959, 1962). In fart longerity records from New ‘York Stateincicate that only 15% of females and 20% of maleriveto be fave years of age or older (Wlcox 1959), Dataon manual adult survival rate for the Great Plain has been revised over ime from0.66 oct 211995) t00.737 (Larson et al2000). Survival rates from band re-sightings studies are, however, ikely minimum estimates as matk-recapture analyser teat permanent migration as mortality Lebreton et al 1992, Larson ef 212002). Thus, such estimates most kay represent worst-case survival (Larson etal 2002),
Fenaging Ecology and Diet Composition A dash of information edt regarding diet compotion in piping plovers, The precaious status ofthe species precudessacificng dividuals for stomach content malyais and ae a consequence pat studiee hnarettended to berestricted to observations of feeding individuals andor analysis of fecal samples (Shatfer and Laporte1994), While such tecnigues allow a qualitative assesment to bematle these
~
methods may beunseliableindicators ofthe diversity of species consumed, For example, soft-bodied invartebrates may bepoonly represented or dificult to identity (Shatfer and Laporte 1994),
Despite such dftcalties studies suggest that on breeding grounds, plovarsfeed on availy of snvartebratesincuding marine worms, fly Iavag bells, spiders, grasshoppers, custacemns and mollusks (Bent 1928, Caims 1977, USFWS 1988, Nicholls 1985, Shafer and Laporte 1994). Along the ‘Atlantic coasting fecal alysis also identified the presence of various animal dassesnamaly Gastropoda Amphipoda Coleoptera Diptera and Hymenoptera Shafer aud Laporte 1994). Moreover, ‘he authors speculate that because organisms found inthe dropping: wereprinaplly adult exganism living tthe beach surface, plovers may locate prey primazily by sight (Shafer and Laporte 199)
POPULATION STATUS
Population Status inthe U.S. “Historical piping plover population trend data are generally nonedstent (USFWS 1988), but eatly 20: century accounts indicate that uncontrolled hunting forthe plumeinauctry played a significant roles ‘hefirst major dedlin ofthe species Bent 1929). Passage of the Migratory Bird Treaty Actin 1918, which prohibited the sale, purchase taking or possession of any wald migratory bird, allowed the species to recoverin the1920s (USFWS 1988). This recovery was shor lived, hveevar. Beginning in the 19405, dumm development prermures andthe use of plover nesting beaches for recreation and housing Contributed tothe subsequent dedine (Tate 1961, Haig and Oring 1985). In addition, in theinterior US, river channelization and lve construction led tothe destruction mud alteration of natural nesting sandbar habitat (USFWS 1988),
Prior to 198, themuajoty of infomation pertaining to the status of piping plovers was provided in breading studies conducted by Willcox (1959) md Caims (1977). These studies are hovverer, regional im nature and offre information onthe condition of either the breeding or winter populations
Breeding surveys conducted m the ealy 960s reported 2137 to2.64 adult ploversin the Northem Great PlainsPrairieregion 28 adultsin the Great Lakes region, and 1370-1435 adults along the Atlantic coast (Hag and Oring 1985, USFWS 1988). although such efforts provided much needed data breeding stes onthe paiphery (eg. Montana Colorado and Saskatchewan) of the species range wereincompletaly censused (Haig and Pismer 1993). In addition, lack of historical population estimates madeit itfiult to put these datainto perspective (aig and Oring 1957)
‘Attempts af annual region-wide counts began in 1986 (USFWS 1988). In some areas, counts were probably reasonably complete but elsewhere they ware sporadic Ryan et a11993). Survey effort smcrenced dramatically 1991 and since that tmerage wide cenaises of piping plover: havebeen conducted evay five years at both breeding (Atlantic coast, Great Lakes region, Canadian praiiesUS. [Norther Great Plans) and wintering grounds (Atlantic and Gulf coasts). During ths time period the ‘Atlantic md Great Laker populations of piping plovers hare chow consistent population sncrences, vith 476% incceacein the Atlantic coat population from 1991 to2001 and an 90% increase the Great Laker population (Haig et 212005). Conversely, atotal of 1981 piping plovers wererecorded in theUS, ‘Northem Great Plains in 7001, indicating that the population has decined 25% betoremn 1991 (x= 2,032) smd 2001 but increased 23.4% between 1996 (x= 1599) and 200] (Table). Inclusion of results from
Prairie Cmadareveas astazker tend however, The orthem Great Plains population declined 10.1% Defvreen the 1996 and 2001 intemational cmaises. Over aS year pariod, the rendis even more ‘wornsome; between 1991 and 200] themumber of breeding birds in the Northam Great Plans decined appresimately 15%, $0m3469 102953,
ot pastcular imp ortmceto conservation planing and arsessment is sub-regional vation etvreen ster and years, Numbers have decined throughout much ofthe US. Norther Great Plans since 1996, but overall thetrend is postive Pismer and Hg 1997, Farland and Haig 001). As asigniicantincreasein adult birds (460%) was detected on the Missoun River between 1996 and 2001, theincreasein theUS. [Norther Great Plains population during this time period cam most Bkely be atibuted to substantial imcrences along thisriversysten, For ecauple, when datafor the Missoun River ware excuded, birdsin [North Dakota dacined on alka lakes by 315% (Haig eta 2005). Regardless of temp oral and spatial, ‘vacation birds at most land sites have fall to reach specitied recovery lerele aud the Norther Grest ‘Plaine population af hole continues to decine
‘A seations regarding population izes necersay for recovery can be tested wath visbity modeling (National Research Counci 2004) and as aresult, population viaiity analysis (PVA) has become an important tool in themanagement of threatened and endangered species. Inits broadest sense, PVA isa collection of methods for evaluating the threat faced by populations or pecier, ther rick of extaiction oF decline, ad ther chances of recovery (Keedvell 2004). ThreePVAshave bem published forthe [Norther Great Plains population of piping plovers (Ryan et 311998, Pliemer and Hoig 2000, Lacon et a 2000, 2002). Whilererult from the1991 and 1996 intemational censuses identified a1-3% ama dedine in piping plover abundance, PVAS indicate that the deiineis potentially morerapid Ryan et 21993, Plismer and Haig 2000, Larson et 12002). For ecample, in apoptlation grovith model developed by ‘yan et al (1993, the Great Plans plover population was showm to dedine7% auwally. In addition the suthors sumised that even under themozt favorable demographic conditions, themost realistic projections indicated ectispation in approximately 90 years
‘A reoccursing problem in malyzing piping plover population viability i that there models aremost senstiveto adult survival estimates (Ryan etal 1993, Pismer and Haig 2000) yet survival is dificult to estimate accurately (Haig and Elliot Smith 004). Thismay bepaticalaly truein the Great Plans where ephaneral breeding habitats may reduce ste fidelity and therefore lower resghting probability aig ‘mid Eliot Smith 2004). Models based on revised adult suvival estimates of 75% suggest hovrever, that ‘with increased levels of management, the Great Plans population could also persist (Larson etal, 2000; 2002). Based on preliminary reults from Gratto-Trevors workin Prairie Canada (see Population Biology and Demography section), thereis, however, aneed to revisit tis model asLarson etal 2000) sesame that al female intiated breeding ae yeming
Table3, Summary of1991, 1996 and 2001 Intemational Piping Plover Breeding Censuses in the Norther, (Great Plane. adapted trom: Hag ot 12005,
“Aas ‘eehange “hange rhe: cor DM ROG t994-2ee1 19962001 rae Gna Albata 10 mm 10 467 487 Sackatchewmn, aan 13s 805 313 403 Manitoba 90 o 1% 800 733 Ontario 5 3 1 $00 $67 U5 Northen Gres Flas Minnesota » 7 462 300 Montma wow 555 405 ‘Missouri River 2 7 ne ne NorthDaketa oa wa 108 ‘Missouri iver Bs ass ne ne South Dakota Pe) m2 12s ‘Missouri iver 230 aie aie Nebracka se 26 a3 ‘Missouri iver ° 8 ale ne Missouri Fiver (combined) wer apse or 4604 Towa 1“ u a4 a4 Kana 1 3 3009 2009 Colorado B B 00 00 Ontahoma ast mst ae ae Tete Praie Canada aero a4 424 ‘US. Northern Great Plains 15991981 25 239 Praise Canada/Norther 322g 9 103
Great Plains
Tas caeteavgel “nn = xatapphaie Vr ir efeence ely. Miz us River ele by sae ase ince in ce tale
From aglobal perspective, each year the World Conservation Union (UCN) evatuatesthe extinction sk of thousands of species and subspecies worldveide and reports such ndings ints Red Lit.
Interestingly, 12005, IUCN dovmgraded the piping plover from vulnerable to new threatened (UCN, 2005). Evtrapolting the 1991 and 1996 breeding census datato aten year period (Hherdlevant trand Period under the UCN Rea List criteria for 1995.2005, theTUCN determined that therates of change for piping plovers equated to atetal population increase af 95% (using the1996 data to32.6% fusing the 1991 data, evan though the 1996-2001 dstaindicatea sight dedine ofthe Gres! Plains population. While
strecognized that sich increacer vere the rerult of sustained management initiatives, upon which populations remain dependent, bared on ts own criteria the piping plover vras downgraded, Inlight of ‘hepepulation dedinein Pratie Canada (324% from 1991-200) itis probable that TUCN val reconsider this listing attr the 2006 Intemational Piping Plover Census
Population Status in Mantana, Peprdation Sve
‘ince 1998, piping plover surveys havebeen conducted on an munual bassin portions ofthe state believed to correspond to potential breeding habitat, In addition, Montanalae partiipated mn all three intemational censuses, conducted in 1991, 1996 and 2001, Theinterational emus represents arapid snapshot during atwo week tine interval whereas muial srveysmay be conducted over amore protracted period during the breeding seaton, Devptetis total numbers of birds recorded are simular and trends consistent Detorem year,
‘Thelangest population of piping plovers recorded in Montana occurred during the 1991 breeding season, (Figure 10) and was primanly aresult ofthe substantial increasein birds recorded af aka veland stes sn the Northeast Monta WMD (Tabled). Surveys conducted in this region have consistently recorded higher mumbers of nesting birds, compared to other aeasin Montana and this rearepresents approsimately 69% ofthe statewide population Figure). Fusthenore, combined suvey datatrom, 1988 t0 205 (Tables) also reveal that approximately 81% of the otal numberof plovers recorded over this 18 year peiod occured within Sheridan County (2 Northeast MontmaWMD and Medicine ake NWR)
Figure10: Numbers of breeding pairs and adults recorded in Montana, ‘bared on combined surveys conducted betvreen 1988 and 2005
Combined survey datagathered overthepact te year trend period do, however, ovr changerin the relative proportion of birds nesting at regional sites (Figure12). While the Northeast Montana WMD continaes to support thelagest prop tion of breeding birds, ater such ae Medicine Lake have failed to
attract lngenumbers of breeding plovers since the drought paiods ofthe exy 19902. Consistently high ‘eater levels overthepast tn years havemundated thelakeshoraine reducing or eliminating witable ‘habitat. Such renal mages that givn additional management actions the state can support alarger population of breading birds than ie currently preret, bat muunbers have failed to retum to levels sttamed inthe ely 1990s
Figure 12: Dishibution of adult piping ploversin Montma, bared on combined survey results betvreen 1988 and 2005,
Figure 12: Dishibation of adult piping ploversin Montana bared on cousbined tn-year survey rents between 1996 and 2005
Plovernsubers emly lucuate vadely a thelocal scale, most ikely a avenil of changing water levels within the state adjoining states, and Canada Available habitat may increase or decine md consequently birds may not return to exarlly the same locations betvrem breeding seasons (Haig and (Oring 19980). Montana azo reprerents the westemmozt edge ofthe breeding rangein the US. ana this ‘may affect he mumnbers of birds that ultiately reach the Missoni River, Fost Pack Resevoir or alkali Iskestegionin my given yer
‘Within the US, Alkali Lakes region, vhich extands from North Daketainto northeactem Montma and smududes the Northeast MontanaWMD and Medicine LakeNWR, numbershave decied over the past tuo years (Tabled). Waterlevels af Lake Sakakaweahaveremained wal belownormal, eposing lage stretches of gravel beach sitablefornesting plover. Moreover, thenumber of breeding pairs recorded on Lake Sakakaweahas dramatically increased during tis time 752 adults wererecorded in 2005 (USACE, G.Pavelka pers. comm) ana 220 adults were sem on the Garrison Fiver (Ryba2008). Itis possible that many plovers have sifted breeding sites to take advantage of present beach conditions at LakeSakakarvea Ryba2004),
Siniar population sufts werenoted during the 1996 and 1997 breeding seacons. New record runoff and associated USACE flood control activities along the Missoun, resulted in substantial habitat mundation on Lake Sakakawea and the Missouri River below Garrison Dam (USACE 1997). Sizeable deceasesin piping plover numbers were recorded in this rion. In comparison, thelangest numberof breeding pairs recorded in the Northeast Montana WMD, and along the Fort Peck Fiverreach, occurred during the 1997 breeding season (Table). At the sametime reduced lovrreleses from Fort Peck resulted in record high water levels behind the dam. Beaches typicaly used by piping plovers wereinundated (USACE 1997) ando birds wererecorded in ether 1996 or 1997 (Tables4 mS). Given the ephemeralnature of breading ste, the anallernumbers of plovererecorded mn Montmain recent yews, may bein pat, a reflection of river conditions within the Microw Tver dramage Without banding, hovrever, itis sanpossbleto accurately determine survivorship or depersal pattems
Owing tothe prolonged drought pecod that affected theregion betwee 2000 and 2004, water level Fort Peck Reservoir hve experienced a dramatic decrease (MFWP 2005) and essential breeding habitat along the shorelinehas bem exposed. Plover niunbars haveincreased for the iret timein more than a decade, nd in 200, the second highest mumber of birds (x26), since monitoring etforts began in 198, war recorded along therereroix. Conversely, poornunbers wrerecorded along theF ort Peck iver reach ofthe Micsous. Acvath the alkali laker region thismay belinked to exceptionally igh habitat suraabity onthe shorelines of Lake Sakakavvea
A small numberof ploversublize welland sites inthe Milk River Basin, Philips County, but nesting is sporadic and numbers oscillate between years, most Miely dueto ucuating water levels and habitt wralabity. Surveys conducted over the past five years (2001-2005) indicate that birds passthrough this region but apparaly shift sites in search of suitablenesting habitat For example although atotal of 6 birdshave bem observed m this rea during axal surveys, only fourrecorde of breeding pairs hare ‘bee noted a Nelson Reservoir. No breeding records eit for Bowdoin NWR ox Hens LakeNIWR,
Tabled: Estimated numbers of adult piping ploverin Montmabazed on annual survey results, 198. 2005, Datafrom unpublished reports prepared by: The Nafure Conservancy, USACE, and USFWS,
‘Medicine Montana Bowdoin) AlaliLake Tent Feck-Misrouni Yew lakeNWR WMD Hewitt Ponder Co, Reravoir River Total co ry S 20 5 20 5 1s? re) 1 95 or 1 2 now 1950 1% 3 ‘ 3 2 vous 1991 95 1m » ° oy 832 1992 rey vs v : % oom 1953 93 n 8 0 4 06 1994 4“ 33 3 - 4 81st 1995 3 ™ » = 5 2 150 1996 1 2m ° ° 156 1997 ° 11 5 : ° Pr) 1998 ° aw 1 . 4 2 1999 ° et 2 2 2 4009 2000 ° on 2 - 2 +19 2001 ° 2 4 ° 4 318 2002 B 95 8 7 2 2 0 2003 ° vs 4 g v 6 20 2008 ° B90 2 3 ° 0 150 200s 1 0s 8 : 2% 2 Ww Teta cy Tue 1s cy oss S60 Mem us 193 85 3 n3 79° 156 sD 3976 3496 508 368 102 78 sa
‘Montmaha elected to ure aten yen running averagefortend analysis and management planning. The population over the past ten-year period (1996-2005) has averaged 186 adult birds (ranging from 120-200) mid 63 breeding pais (ranging from 5282). These dataindicate that Montanahasmet md/or exceeded therecovery goal of 60 breeding pars ar cet forthin the 1968 USFWS document. Themost recent runing fiveyear averages ae, however dightly lower. Means of H9 adults and 674 breeding pairs ‘worerecorded, While surveys in some wens represent b-samples, mid the numberof ploversin ‘Montanais doseto that oulined in therecovery plan (USFWS 1986), thelat five years haverecorded relatively tevrer breeding pairs than im previous years (Table)
Tables: Estimated numbers of piping plover pars in Montana based on azul survey rents, 1988 2005, Datafrom unpublished reports prepared by: The Nafure Conservancy, USACE, and USFWS,
Neon’ Medicine Bowdoin) Ala Lake Font Peck Misrouni
Yeu lake NWR Hewitt Fondem Co, Rerawveir ‘River Total co 7 3 ° 5 a7 1969 5 1 ° ‘ 5 8 1950 2 2 ° 0 ‘son 1991 a 3 ° 8 2 108 1992 a 6 : 1 o 100 1953, 2 3 : 4 1067 1994 » 1 ° a 1 6 1995 1 4 - » 3 8 1996 ° ° - ° Sy fas 1997 ° ° : ° 6% 1998 ° 4 z 1 18 1959 ° 5 ¥ 1 2 8 2000 ° 1 - 1 2 x
2001 ° 1 ° 2 2 8 2002 ‘ 2 i 1 1 8 2003 ° ° f 7 3 6 2008 ° 1 : 4 o 8 2005 ° 1 : 1 ais Total Ts z ° 0s ws am Mem 96 26 ° 57 25 678 sD 1323 a6 o 47 2162
Predhutivity mud Reprodbutive Success ‘Along the Missoun River, blow Fost Peck Dam, and along the zhores of Fort Peck Reservoi, the USACE har undertaken piping plover productivity monitoring ince 1968. Fledgerstios are detemained ae the umber of edged chicks per pair of adult birds counted during the mal census that year. Az data, ‘guthered Detvoeen 1999 and 2001 represents areach aub-sample (G. Pavelka pers comm), productivity Aatafr the 2007-2005 breeding seasons may provide amore thorough assessment of reproductive siccestin there two ctical habitat unite, Dining there yeas, ladgerios uchiated betorem 036 and 222 Medghing per par of adult birds at reservoir es ites (Table6). On theDMissouri River, ratios varied ‘etiveen 0.00 and 4.00 (Table7). Themem fledgeratio at Fort Peck Reservoir dropped below that se {orth (136 ledghng pain) inthe USFVWS Biological Opinion 2003), but yearly ratios did not fluctuate as dramatically a: Dedgeratios along the Missouri River. Although the average edgeratio along the ‘Missouri River was high 2 40), reproductive success varie greally between years. Moreover, the number of adult plovers was small ad whileratios ook promising, the numberof chicks fledged (2-12) fn thisregion over thelas four yeasis anall
Table: Estimates of piping plover reproduction on Fort Peck Reservoir, 2002-2005, Datafrom USACE, G-Pawaka pars comm.
“Adult Tegr Chides Hledge®™ Yew Cennus_Newts Kegs Hatching Tledge Ratio 2002 z 7 3 7 2 200 2003 v 7 » 9 303s 2008 ° 4 u “ 10
200s 2% n 36 20 u
Total ry 3 7% ra 2
Mm 135578 ws os 728
edged che per pas fade bats doe note cllected edged)
‘Table: Estimates of piping plover reproduction on the Fort Pack River Reach of the Micsous Rive, 2002-2005. Datafrom USACE, G.Pavelka pars. comm,
“Aa Nestor Tege Chidee Hledge™ Yew Conny Nets Success Ege Matching Hedge Ratio 2002 z 1 00 4 0 0 00 2003 ‘ a “oR 8 8 26 2008 ° ° 00 ° 0 0 om 2005 2 1 too 4 4 4 400 Total 0 5 030 2 22a Mm 25128 5 a 3
fed ged she per pas fda bads does note cllected edged)
‘Such dataprovider agood arsessment of productivity during alinited tine period, but plovers demly respond to changes in habitat avalailty af the andscapelevel:both spatial aud temporal dstibution, pattems sift in reponse to water levels and habitat ayaabiity Skagen and Thompson 2005). In ight of such variation, survey data gathered prior to 2002, combined with census datafrom 2002 through 205, amy provide amore accurate reflection of ong tern variation and trends. Ten-year fedgeratiosDetoren 1996 and 2005 vavied from 0 00 to222 along recervoi beaches and from 0.00 to4.00 on the Missourt iver. Along the Missouri Fiver, the mean fledgeratio 3.27) during this time was higher than that required by the USFWS (003). Thefledgeratio at Fort Peck Reservoir (5) was also high, but ratios cerhibited tremendous variation betvrem years, There data suggest that piping lovers ab riveinestesin ‘Montana can attain high lets of product.
‘Within thenortheastem part of the state, constent productivity data, combined srom both caged and ‘unprotected nes sites, have bem collected since1996 (A. Ryba pers. comm). Overthis ten year time Period, edgeratios uctuated between 0.67 and 162 a alkali wetlands and sloughs, averaging 128
chicks per pair of breeding adults (Table8). Although thetn-year mean fedgexatio a alkali sites wae lower than that reported forsiver and resercir sites in Montana fledgeratios ected less vation Detvreen years. Moreover, the total numberof chick edged vrae considerably higher (n-S45) than the umber fledged along the Missouri River (n+?) ora Fert Peck Reservoir (2°28)
Table®: Combined estimates of piping plover reproduction for Medicine Lake NWR and Nostheastern ‘Montma WMD, 1996-2005. Datafrom USFWS, A. Tyba pers. comun
“Aa Pais . Chick Hedge x Census Monitmea Nett Hredged Ratio B96 23 1s co 10 067 p97 as 45 6 3 162 1998 wr s 3 3 aa 1999 161 3 85 139 2000 ua " 6 133 2001 a a 5 132 2002 108 6 30 on 2003 v3 st 7 1s 2008 139 8 a 136 200s 106 a 5 124 Total 1358 9 ss 128
Mest 1354 439 5
crfeadnunter ae highe: Ban Walmunber aus fuelo reacting abi aleunted wong combo dat fem Dot agedienced and uaprotected net see
FACTORS AFFECTING CURRENT POPULATION LEVELS
Habitat degradation and loss, human-rdlated disturbance and mcreaced predation pressurerhavebem identified as primary agents of edie for piping plovers throughout thai breeding range (USFWS 1988) Piping ploversrely on a diverse ray of habitats during the breeding season (aig 1992) and as such, many ofthe athrop ogenic factors that Knut survivorship or decrearenesting success arezegional in nature Inthe Norther Great Plains, habitat loss and alteration pore the greatest rick to plovers nesting along msjorsivers md reservoirs. At alkaline wetlands predation of chicks and eggsicthe primary ‘reat facing breeding birds (Larson e 1 2003). In addition, recent research indicates that localized food shortages near breeding sites, particularly along major rivers, may impact chick survival, thereby limiting productivity, euvivership and reproductive success (USFWS 203)
Habitat Alteration and Lor Channalzation, bank stabilration, and construction of reservoirs to mee flood control hydroelectric nd snarigation objectives have all contributed tothe degradation orloze of mach of the piping plove’s sandbar nesting habitat (USFWS 1990). In the Missous Fiver valley hundreds of llometers of historic smdbar habitat hare been destroyed (USFWS 1985, Sidleet 211992) andthe construction of reservoirs has dmpounded almost athird of theriver (USFWS 2003). Similaly, sandbar habitat along the upper Platte
Riverhaslagely disappeared duete changerin low regimes caused by dams and diversions upstremn (Giewsite et al1992, Side md Kirsch 1993). Wellands throughout the Great Plains have alse undergone considerable changes primarily duet basin drainage or agriclture (Skagen and Thompson 2005)
Meany of the factors atfecting piping plover reproductive success canbe traced to degradation of habitat az arerlt of altered water Doveregimer. Theze are discussed belowin more detal, slong wath other threats to recovey
Water Flew ad River Dynmcies ‘Water lowregimer throughout much ofthe interior US, ditergresly from historic regimes, Prior to anthropogenic alteration, the Misrouri River wae a dynani, constantly changing ecosystem haracteized by braided channels, sandbars and natural Noodplain communities (USFWS 203) ‘Typically, thenatural hy drologic yd followed a double peaking regime corresponding with mowmlt and spring rains on the plainsin Mar and April and novel from the Rockies in June (USACE 1997, [USFYAS 2003) July was characterized by receding water levels.
Following this bimodal flood pulse, mn extended period of low Hove from August through Febramy occurred (Galat and Liplin 000). Under sach natural river conditions, islands and sandbarswrere continually reshaped, rested and destroyed by thesivers erosion and depoation processes (USFWS 1985). Periodicimundation dueto natural water regimes also scoured sandbars and maintained plover nesting habitats that warerslatively tree of vegetation.
Beginning in the 1930s, impoundment of the Missouri River gresly atfected natural hydrologic md _geamnonplic processes, renulting in altered vrater quality charactenstice dowmstremn, Tae Mizzou [Rivers lors below Fort Peck Reservoir arenoorhighly regulated, with grefly reduced peak flood pulses and generally higher than preimp oundment base flows Power and Fychman 2000). In fart, themedian high lowe was cutin half folowing the dam's closure Shidds et 212000). Thererult of these changes an aaual hy €rograph that edubits far less variability (National Research Council 2002)
Heese and Mest (1993) reported that ealy operations of Fort Ped: dam Aid not appearto alte the Ihyrograph and define the preegulation period for the whole rive 51929-1948. Utzing there caiteia pre md post regulation hydrographs for the Missouri Fiver, dovmstream of Fort Peck Dam, ustrale such changesin water low (Figures 13 and 1s)
30
Figure 13: Preregulaton hy drograph for Missouri River, blow Fart Peck Dam, Montana (From USCS)
tM
Figure lt: Post regulation hy drograph of Missouri ivr, below Fost Peck Dam, Montana from: USGS)
1m addition to alteration of the hy Arlogic cycle, dischargeregulation and storage of lows along the ‘Missouri haveinterupted sediment and organic material transport (USFWS 2003), thereby altering many ofthe dynamic phy ical procerses that maintain tis agesiver ecosystem. Inpoundnimnt has contributed to dagradation of theremaining sandbat habitat az sediment-poor water erodes islands ‘without comerponding accretion elsewhere (National Research Counc 200), For example from 190. 1952 (theperiod from losure of Fort Peck Dam until dosure of Gavins Pint Dam), the werage mul sediment load transported pact Omiahavrar 148,950,000 meric tons. After 1954, the average sediment load was reduced to 29487 600 metric tons (Skzeshi etal 1962, National Research Council 2002)
Suppression of high spring lows, due to reservoir storage, a also led to vegetation encroachment and az arerlt mach ofthe essential sandbar habitat ienow mnsuitablefornestng plovers. Below Garcon, Dam, Novth Dakota alack of new alluvial depositsis reportedly leading to afloodplain forest of advanced successional stage Johnson tal 1976). Consequently, piping plovers are often faced with finding anes ste outside themid bar channel or not nesting a al (USFWS 1985).
Ungre dictable Water Level flooding) Fhuchtating water levee have been postulated to bean important source of nest falureim the mid continental plover population (Espie ea 1998). Whilenafural Dooding of nests and chickshas been reported on someriver systems in the US. Schwralbach 1988), lsunan-induced vrater eval tucaations ca also cause egg and chick mortality (North 1986, Schwralbach et 211993)
rior fo dam construction, water flow pattems along main stam rivers weremore predictable Afterthe pring peaks river lors normally decined afording piping plovers the opportunity to nest a water levels receded and sandbars became available (USFS 1988). Today rivers remanaged for ood control, navigation ad hydroelectric poveer, Ac aremalt, inappropriately timed water relearer may cance periodic inundation of sandbars, which can prove lethal to piping ploversit water discharge taker place during nesting or prior to edging. For example plover egg tuet inundation) and chick (stranding) losses Delovr dams may occur after water held back to minimize flooding dovmatream is subsequently released (USFWS 2003). In fat, sustained reservoir rleases during thenaturalylovr-water season cause protracted dooding of about two-thirds of the Missouri River nd may be as damaging a distubanceto ‘herive biota asreduction of the anual June flood pulse (Galat and Lipkin 2000)
[Rapidly tang water eves at reservoir sites hare alco played arolein initing reproductive ccers, At LakeDietenbaker, Saskatchewan, researchers determined that the major reduction in edging success Detvceen years was argely dueto flooding of nests before eggshatched (Esp el 1998). InMontana, ‘he Missour Riveris subject to USACE water evel regulation polices. Accordingly, lowering nest sites along the Missouri River, below Fort Peck Reservoir, nd along the sores of Fart Peck Reservoi, uy be abject to rapid looding and inundation, Ths, while flooding is potentially problematic a both river mudrerervoir ster it doesnot appear to bea significant problem at alkali lake stern Northeast Montma QM, Rabenbag, pes. comm),
Feod Availatity Limited information on piping plover foraging ecology and diet compostion eds, but researchers are Deginning to cine theralationsup: betwee rv erhy ology, sav etebrate abundance and piping plover productivity (C. Kruse, pers. comm). Along the Missoun Fiver biologists suspect that ‘unfavorable water temp erature Delowrmain stan dams muy afect productivity by lowering invertebrate production. Pretininary renultsindicatethat invertebrate mumabere downriver frm cold water release dams are ower than those found in other habitats in theregion (DanidleLeFer, pes. comm) and diterencesin prey avalability wereflected in chick growth rates and probabiity of srvival Furthermore, mualysihas chovm that chick growth rater downstream of wann water releases are higher than at ter characterized by hypolinnetic relents.
For many shorebird species, chick groveth rates and mass gains are afected by food supplies (Loegaring and Fraser 1995). A ack of food resources may slow orimit development (O'Connor 1977) to thepoint ‘hat chicks that fail to gain mass above crtan thresholds do not survive Loegering and Fraser 1995) ‘Although mecdotal biologists working vath piping plovers along the MisrouriTuverhavencted Aispaitir m both thetiming md rate of fledging, Priore the loode of 1995-1997, entation of chicks ‘wat seen and they commonly required 2032 day to attain fledgling satus (C. Kise pers. comm.) compared to 18-20 days at alkalilake sites (MRabenbarg, pars. comm). Following there high water years, hatch rates and fledging rates increased sgniicanly (USFWS 2003) while chick edge times decreased to approximately 2225 days (C.Kruse pars. comm). Moreover comesponding changesin the occurance ad nature of sandbar complecesrenlted in a significant increacein the amount of forage ch, edgehabitat (USFWS 2003)
InMontana,athough plovers arerecorded along the Missouri River, vary few have bem recorded west of Wol Point (approximately 112 kny70 miles east of Fort Peck Damy, While plover nesting habitat saralabity is poor along this stretch (USFINS 2002, itis possible that invartebrate production is being, attested by hyp olamnetic releases beloveFort Peck Damn. Research conducted by MFWAP bislogste Detveeen Apral nd November 2004, revealed that average daly water temperature below Fort Peck rae signifcanly lover (123°C) than that recorded upstream of the dam (176 °C) Figurel5)
‘More amp ovtantly, marinwum water temperature (attained during the summer months) wae suppressed 104 C, Mem dally water temperature dd wear longitudinally from below Fart Peck Dam tothe lowemnost Nohly site (158°), but mem dally water temperature a Noy was significantly lze than above the dam (D. Full, pers comm). As aconsequence,thetharmal impacts of cold hyp imnetic releases from Font Peck am remained evident 280 Jam (174 an) downstream from Fort Peck Dam. In fact, natural water temperatures were only rertored where the Mizzou River met the Yellovestone River at the Montana North Dakotaborder
‘Authough speculative at this tine, thereis growing evidencete support theypothess that alteration of
thenafural Doveregime may aigficantly impact piping plover productivity. Moreover, the ensuing cold ‘ater releases from mainstem dams, sch asFort Peck, during summer months, may impart food suralably, productivity and reproductive access
3
igure 15: Mean daily water temp erature (') for Missour Fiver mainstem locations in 2004 ‘Datatrom MFP, D. Fuller pes. comm,
Alkali Wetland Less mul Me ification, Habitat ozs and degradation ae often cited as contnibuting factors i piping plover denver but unt recently they had not bem quanited at alkaline wellands (Root and Ryan 2004). Whulethese habitats say not have experianced thelevels of degradation observed atriverine tes, smaller wetlands ‘hroughout the Great Plains hare mndegone considerable changesin thelast 60 years (Dahl 1992) primanly dueto basin drainage for agriculture Skagen and Thompson2005). Furthermore, many ofthe biotic dangegraeing ungulates) and abiotic fre disturbances that shaped thenatural andscapehare been eliminated Moot and Ryan 200%). Whule cattle affect vegetation structure and composition and are present in mimy areas lmdscapeuceic undoubtedly different to historic tines: many areas wenove ciated for crops
‘Many vrelande within the Pratie Pothole Region ae embeded within a sgucultural landscape ma the landscape surounding these aquatic hahitats can ecartaprofound effect on ther functioning (USDA 2002). Whule habitat loss obviously occurs through direct conversions, such 25 draining and filing, sgreultural practices may indirectly degraderemaining wellands (National Research Counc 2001), Moreover, eavated sedmentaion rates (Martin ad Hartman 1986 Gleason and Fuliss 1996), drift of zgricultural chemicalsinto wetlands (Grue et 211989), excessiveinpuls of mutrients (Neely ad Baker 1988), maura vaiancein water-level fuctuation Fuss and Mushet 1996), and altered vegetative communities Kantrad ad Nevelon 1996) have all bem linked to cultivation practices Eulss etal 1999)
(Grassland habitats historically proteced prairie soils from erosion and moderated surfarerunoif (Glessen smd Fuliss 1998). Cultivation of upland sites has, however, greatly affected natural hy arologic processes, resuling in arcelerated erosion and sediment deposition inte bas wellands (Martin and Hartman, 1986 CGeason and Euliss 1996). For example, Gleacon (1996) and Gleason and Euliss (1996) determined that sedimentation rates andthe inorganic fraction of sediment entering veld were aigficantly higher in
s
‘wetland with cultivated catchments than in wean with graselad catchments, Infact, cedimentation rates are often orders of magnitde higher than in nafural landscaper (Gleaton and Euliss 1998, Gleacon 212003). Sedimentation from anthrop ogenic sources not only reduces water storage volume and the topographic life of prairie wetlands (Gleason and Eulize 1958), but changer vegetation structure and diversity surrounding the welland (Gleason 212003). Furthermore, sediment derived from uplmd sites may cover up comser gravel subetrats located on historic nesting beaches, Thus, excessive sediment snput fom agricultural sll has the potential to alter alkali wetland ster used by plovers during the breeding season.
‘Agricultural activites on uplands that surround prainie wetlands have also anparted and altered aquatic invatebrate communuties Eulss et al1999) that plovers depend on. Dnft of agrichamicals causes diret invatebrate mortaty Eulss and Mushet 1998, Gleason et 212003), whileincreasesin sedimentation and station obstruct invertebrate iter feeding apparatus and buy invertebrate eggs (Glesson and Fuss 1996). Furthermore, investigations show that invertebrate dbundancehas bee afected. For example, Euliss and Mushet (1999) found that Cacbeerepappia wereless abundant in the tilled basins of
temporary oelandein agricultural fields compared to vend in graveland Landscapes with no prior tilagenistny
1m addition tothe effects of sediment load on plant and invertebrate assemblages research also mgt that hydrologic uctaatons are more variable in altered landecapes, Bull and Mucha 1996) mearured ‘water-level fluctuation in temporary, seasonal and semi-permanent wellands distabuted among lmdecapes dominated by tilled agricultural lands and thore dominated by grasdand, Fluctuations wee gitater at wellandeim areas ofmtensive agricultural activity relative to thosein morenafural grazsand fetings, Temporary and seasonal wetland sites alco edibited substantial hy drelogic hacations compared to semi: pemiment wetlands. While sich sites arenot usually used ar nesting habit, they anu provide foraging ster iflocated in dove procmty to larger mare permanant wetlands (ML Rabexbag, pers comm) Itispossible therefore that paticularly during drier dimatic periods seasonal ‘wetlands embedded vain agricultural flds may not provide adequate habita for breeding plovers.
Forthamore, drainage of upland wellands may wal alec seepage ows to remaining lover lying ‘wetland str, renuling in altered historic water depths md hy drop erode.
Studies of piping plover habitat avalaility alco suggest that changer in vegetation structure have occured a alkali wetland ster not subject tointense guicultare, Working vith historical aad photographs, Root and Ryan 2004) meanured vegetation changer a tuo North Dakota alkaline wetland coupleces betvreen 1938 md 1957. although comparisons of overall bench habitat xvalabiity were confounded by variationsin vate levels caused by seasonal nd mwlt:yexe water level cuanges the authors documented persistent losses of important upper-beach nesting habitat duete vegetation cexcroachment, Theviral elimination of iein this ecosystem as wll ar reduced livestock gracing intensity has quite possibly reduced vegetation disturbance and allowed increased growth Root and Ryan 2004). Likewise, in Alberta during the 2001 Intemational Piping Plover Census, vegetation encroachment vrasidenttied ae a potential threat on over41% ofall lakes surveyed and on 52% of lakes ‘with plovers Prescott 200)
38
‘As alkali wetland habitate have traditionally supported 60-78% of plover breading pairein the Great Plains (Pismer and Haig 000), such trends could be detrimental to ov eral plover productivity, ‘Although nest predation is asramed tobe the primary linuting factor to ploversin thie region (USFWS. 1988, Goossen et 212002, Larson eta 2003), changesin welland hydrology (Euliss et 2198), sedimentation rates (Gleason ad Fuss 1998, Gleason e 2003), invertebrate abundance (Fuss nd ‘Mushet 1999) and vegetation structre Root and Ryan 2004), may be citical to long-term population recovay.
Predation ‘Whileplovers have evolved with predation presnires and someloss ueto predation is expected even in sunalered systems, human ecoadhmant md managenent operationsmay exacerbatethe atuation. Ia addition to direct dooding of nests, river level fuctstions alco infiuence the degree of predation a colony site eqperiences (USFWS 2008). Whilenest sites on channel sandbars that remain isolated from themain shoreline aeles susceptible to mammalian predators, studies magges that dooding of river smndbars during the nesting ceacon increases theincdance of predation (Schnlenburg and Schulenburg 1982, [USFWS 2005). Rising water levels shrink thelimited available habitat leaving chicks and eggs mere vvalnarableto predators
‘Along the Missouri River im South Dakota predation was reported az the leading cause of nest md chick lose (ruse #312001), Pray nest predators identified inchded American cov (Carus con), accom Procyt lotr) and mink (Mustlavison), whale American kestrd (Feo spaverus) and great homed ovals Bulo vryinians) wereresponsiblefor themajeity of chick losses. The authors suggest that thehigh predation rater observed were adizeterlt of sandbar habitat deteoration and therening sncreavein predator foraging ettciency (Kruse etal 2001). Furthemore, as high spring lows hare the potential to flood predator den sites along the Missouri, areduction inthe frequency, aration and sagnitude of high spring loves could lead te arifialy elevated predator numbers,
‘At alkaline wetland sites, predation of chicks md eggs the primary threat facing breading birds (Larson 212005). Changes in Ind use prartices haveredisributed predator communities and inflated loc predator populations (Sageant et 2.1993). Consequently, species, such asplovers, that nest along, shorelines may be exposed to avaciely of predators whore populations are affected by humane. While the probabiity of edging chicks spp armlly increases whan conspecifics nestin dose proxinity (Haig, 1987, Knetter ef 212002), Mayer (1991) determined that reproductive success was negatively corrlated ‘with piping plover nesting density. Predation rater of egge and chicks increased sgniticantly a beaches ‘with higher plover denaties. Presumably, insted nest ste walabity concentrates breeding birds snaking then more vulnerableto predation.
Predation cn dramatically suppress productivity: in North Dakota predation was responsible for 89 95% of egg fahurein tuo consecutive y eas Prindiville 1986), while$8% 070% of gg falures and 69% of chick mortalities wererecordead in Minnesota (Wiens 1996). As areslt, substantial effort hasbeen invested in controlling predation Figure’s). Nes protection studies conducted on Missouri Cotean alkal lakes in northorestem North Dakota and northeastern Montanazeparted mem fledgeratioe sncreasing trom 105 chicks per pair to 120 chicks per pair Knettere 2002). Likevasewilizing
36
‘published and unpublished datafor the Great Plains region, Lacon et l 2002) estimated that fledging ‘iccess increased from 089 to 115-25 with predator exdusion. Taishas not bem the casein all areas, ‘hovrerer. While cages appear to increace plover reproductive acess on pratie alkali laker, regional Aiterencesin predator community compositions indhuence ther efectiveness (Murphy et 12003). In addition, adult birds may bemorevulnerableto predation within exclorures (Murphy #312003) and ‘may sudies strongly ugemanagers to evaluate thenisks, expecially im arene where there ie ahistory of adult plover depredation (Knetter et 312002, Murphy et 2200)
Figure16: Exclosureprotesting piping plover nes at alkailake North Dakota Photo Courtesy: Adama Ryba
Livertods Livestock disturbances pose atest and harethe potential to lit reproductive success through ‘trampling of eggs mdlor direct chick movtaity (USFWS 1988). At alkali wetlands, however, disturbances menare ily to renutin indirect affects, Breeding birde may abandon nests or simply avoid areas dding years when cattle are present (Smith et 211995). I the rubsteaets oft livestock disturb nesting substrates by leaving deep tracks in the shorelines that can potentially trap plover chicks, Shorelines ibject to such disturbance are also moreprone to vegetation establishment and such herbaceous growth ‘a become m effective coridar for predators (USFWS 1988). On gravelly beaches, however, Smith et aL (0993) reported ne auch hoof prints ma prop se that livestock graving could be cautiously employed after the plover nesting season ae ameans of reducing vegetation encroachunent. Infact the Dena of greing upland sites surounding alkali lakes may well onreigh many ofthenagative eects and some amuanagars now enploy judicious ee of grazing to manage vagetation growth (M. Rabenber, pes
comm)
Human Distance Human disturbance both direct nd inadvertent, continues to pose aproblem on the Atlantic coat (Stranss1990) and may be acontibuting factor im other areas ofthe piping plovers breeding range. The presence of people pets or vehicles in the vicinity of net sites may result in the unintended crushing of nests (Stranss1990) or simply mht taitonal establishment and courtship. In addition, breeding birds may bereuctant toretum tothenest leaving eggs mdlor chicks
Siteeaeniin RESTRICTED AREA
Vehicular an other recretional activites are widespread along ate of the Plate mid Miceouri Rivers md such activities occur predominantly on barren islands (USFWS 1985 that arefavored
Typing plover. Ltewise alters vehide(ATV) disturrmces | a poveathveat md harethe potato impart piping plore THESE RARE BIRDS,
Teproduction, Atala welind stesinNonthDaketa for THEIR NESTS AND EGGS coample:neis ontenitoes thal showed evidence of ATV ARE PROTECTED
disturbance edibited lower success rates than nests on UNDER FEDERAL AND STATE LAWS. ‘undisturbed teitores Paindivlle Gaines and Ryan 1988
‘As birds nesting in areas frequented by humans often suffer from ishabance, management activities alo pore apotantal threat Conservation efforts, including activities such ae protection of | Figurel/: Plover and Tem Signage nets from predators ar paople, cenmuses of breeding pa,
amonitorng of nest success md banding studies all havethe potential to disrupt breeding. Along the ‘Atlantic seaboard, Maclvor el (1990) found that research atnities did not icreasemest predation by red foxes (Vidpes vulpes). In Atlantic Canada, however, there arereports of raccoons and crows follovang researcher's tracks to plover sites that wereundar observation (Goossen etal 2002). In addition weed ‘control activities on sandbans or along stretcher of shorelines could rerltin disturbance undertaken using catica nesting period:
Infections Disesse Population impacts as arent of disease ae mos likely to have deleterious eects on anall populations ‘with limited distabutions. Diseases, sch as West Nile Virus (WNY), Avian Influenza and Avian Cholera have the potential to impact piping plover populations. While ite information exits forthe species, adead piping plover located on Lewis and Clark Lake, South Dakota tested positivefor WNV in 2003 (USCS 208, Aron 2005). Furthermore, in 2005, the USCS National Widlife Heath Centeristed piping plovers a a WNV susceptible species (USGS 205)
Pollution and Environmental Contaminants Piping plovers feed at relatively high trophic levels and as aconsequencemay be ssceptibleto the ‘étects of bioaccumulation from contaminants such ac organochlorine pesticides, hewvy metals md polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBS). Thishas the potential to negatively afect egg production, chick survival md overall reproductive success (Oblendort et 1986, Hothem and Powell 2000) but itis Jaovm about the impacts in this species (Mierykowshi and Carr 2004)
Mercury residues have been recorded m piping plover eggs gathered along the Atlantic coat, but concentrations werenct devated rdaiveto embryotoxic thresholds (Mieraykowski and Carr 2004) Elevated levels of selenium have also been detected in piping plover eggs along the Platte River, ‘Nebraska Fannin and Esmoil 1993). While the precise tolerance of plover eggs to selenium toxic is ‘undova, all samples revealed leva higher than the upper normal boundary threshold 6 ugig ary ‘weight) reported for other species. Moreover, devated levels may be causing embryo death without gross embryological defects. This stady coupled wth results from other tenacology work (Ruelle1993, ‘Walsh and Mayer 1993) indicates that contaminants could be accelerating population dedines fr piping plover.
‘Along the Missoun Riverin Montana plover nest sites are found below the conduence with the Mik iver (USFWS 2002). They are also located at weland sites within the Mik River Basin. Sampling condiucted by the USGS has identified the Mlk River Basn ae aregion susceptible te iigation-mduced selenium contamination, While ssleniam concentrations in eggé fom various avian pecies wexenct found tobe aay otic sample sizes vere anall mud not enough birds of appropriate feeding gla ‘wereincluded Seller et 311999). As selenium doesnot break dovm chemically enceit enters an aquatic cxvironment Fannin and Esmoil 1993), plovers nesting dovmstream could potentialy be impacted
Industrial distazbance construction installation and maintenance, af arerut of fora fuel extraction, around plover breeding ster has the potential to pollute water and shorelines, deplete waterlevels, and minate eurounding vegetation (Wersher 1992, Prescott 1997). The diect imparts of il and gar evelopment on plover habitat wenot well documented, but changerin water chanictry and beach substrates atibuted to potazsuun sulfate development hare bean observed at several breeding locations sn Saskatcheeran (Wershler and Wallis 1987, Precott 1997)
‘Within Sheridan County, lnge concentrations of oil and gar wells, together with ther associated tank batteries ad produced water pipelines ace common. Adverse effects fom environmental contaminants generated im conjunction with mich esploration and production mciude dling muds, produced water smd production activity wastes (EPA 2000, Nelson 2006). Produced waters ae characteisically high in salts and amino of sats to wellands has the potential to impact invertebrateproduction. In adition, pipeineleaks and qpille often rerlt in wetland ster characterized by denuded vegetation and actedle aquatic environment (Nelson 2006),
‘Asmany piping plover ater located m northeast Montana curently have oll and gac installations within dose proximity, such developments are apotetil threat to breading Rabita, In fac, fourtem Watefovd Production Areas (WPAG) in Sheridan County have gas well installations on site and afuther 16 are located within onemile of sch operations. In addition, on ste disturbance a aresut of elevated human acivitier may exacerbate the atuation.
[Nesting and Reproductive Success ‘Many factors highlighted inthe preceding sections, uch as habitat loss and degradation, altered water ove regimes, predation, and human disturbance affect piping plover nesting and reproductive success (USFWS 1988, USFWS 2003). More specifically, data suggests that reproductive access of ploversis
2
bighly variable among ster and years and appens to Deinfluenced primanly by aul hydrologic pattems (oater-slovrzegimes in combination wth predation pressures (National Research Council 2004),
Several PVA. asalyses of piping plovers hare been undertaken to extimatemem reproductive success nd survival rater required to sabiize the population ar increased tolevdle identified inthe Recovery Flan (USFWS 1988). Using an adult suvivalrate of 6%, and ajuveulerate of 60%, Ryan e al (1993) Aetermined that amem fecundity rate of 113 Hedgling per pat of adults war required to maintain a stable population szeforthe Grest Plains. Anmual population increases of 1% and 2% required 116 md 4129 chicks per pair respectively (Ryan etal 1993). Using ametapopulation approach, in which both the Great Laker md Grest Plans birds ere considered spatially distinc, but mterconmected, ismer and Haig (2000) estimated that amem reproductiverate of 125 edged pe pair per year was necessary for ‘he population to persist in the short tem. Even zo, numbers of maividuale would ultimately decease substantially without higher fecundity levels,
Both models were however, sensitivete adult survivorship and in 2000 revised estimates of adult survivorship ('3.7%) werepublished based on banding studies (Larson et a12000). Using these estimates, recent PVA models predict that ap opulaion-wide fledging rate of 10s needed to stabiizethemem of simulated populations in the Great Pains (Larson #212002). Under this scenario, theprobabiity of contined population decineis however much greater than 50%, To stabilize the median size of mulated populations (2 to reduce the probability of continued dedineto S0%) required afledgerstio of 128 pars across the whole population. In ight of auch studies, the USFWS revised elie estimates, established a systemwide ledgeratio goal of1 36, and directed the USACE to maintain specific edge ratios for all areas on the Missouri River, namely Fort Peck River 133, Garison 128, Fort Randal 0 92 (USFWS 2003
‘Authough not refed to as frequently inthe published bterahure, dutch azeie also an important component of reproductive ners becanseit directly affects reproductive muccessin my breeding seazon ‘The wallabilty and quay offo0d has bem chown to affect dutch aizein closely related species Buger 211994) an differences in both, preceding the gg laying pariod, may be aproximate ceby which birds reduce thar dutch size (Murray 1985). Thus, regional differences in dutch szemay reflect Aiterencesin food availability Burger etal 1994). Given that invertebrate abundance dovmsiver from, cold water releace ms on the Missouri River ie poorer than in other arene (USFWS 2008, C Kruse, USACE, pers. comm, D.LeFer, pers. comm) itispossblethat dutch size nd hencereproductive succes, for piping plovers could be alfected by foraging success and prey mralabity.
Factors Atfecing Piping Plover Productivity n Mentana, Piping ploverswliize several habit! types in Montana each vith aunque set of initing factors Identifying such factors and directing appropriate management actions is cticalto aiding recovery tions, Along the Miscou River, productivity monitoring ofboth riverine and reservoir habit, conducted betvrem 1953 md 2005, sdentitied 90 piping plover nest tes, of which SI hatched Of the remaining nests (49) the outcome of 33% could not be determined (TableS). From aconservation perspective thsi potentially problematic: tie category accounts for the second largest une of potential nest fares.
40
Excluding nests that were abandoned (ne5) or whose fate was unclear n=16), looding accounted forthe bighert umber ofknowm nes falures, Rising lake level, ae areslt of USACE operations led tothe destruction of 63% (n=14) ofall destroyed nests al Fort Peck Reservoir. While flooding resulted in theless of only three neste along the Fort Peck river reach, Sactustions in water releares may be aitiveto extreme weather (rain, wind storms, ware action) problems. Of thosenests destroyed by rising water along theriverreach however, only one could be dizectlyattabuted to USACE operation (G.Pavelka ers. comm). Predation cused 6% of nes failures. Unlikemany areasin theMissour River drainage, Livestock and human distuzbance doesnot appear tobe amor threat along the Missourt River, below Fort Peck Revervoir, or along thereservoirzhareine
Tabled: Causes of piping plover nest fares along the Missouri Rive, Montma, during USACE monitoring period 1993-2005. Inciudes Fort eck Reservoir md Fort Pack Fiver Reach, Datafroma USACE, G Pareka pars comm.
Ga Bom
Cause Hood Weather Predation, Disturbance Uninewn'” Abandoned Brosion g Livertods
‘Number
aaNet oS a i 6 fi
Dertoyed
Asa of
ert that
pee a a“ 33% 10%
hatch
‘As achat
anes 199% 56% 33% 11% 20% w9% 56%
idewitied
Number sine repeated nudes thse sianwn and unknown sve “Nert deiguted uinewn indade 6) decayed net (ate uadeteoined) and 6 nest cites prevnnely seceded une vebleciga epg sapment, predate ade ee) peretateubeeguent weitien
Anuiual piping plover suveys have een conducted in Sheridan County a the Novtheastem Montana WMD and Medicine LakeNWR since thelate 1960; but productivity datahavenot been gathered consistantly. Betvremn 1994 md 1997, anual nest success of unmanaged (Le no cages) plovernest sites at ‘hese ste, coupled with datafrom ness af alkali welland sites in norfiorestem North Dakota averaged 38% (Murphy etal. 2000). Vue causes of nest loss were poorly understood, the authors speculate that amost ware probably dueto depredation,
Consistent ual productivity monitoring began in 1996 (A. yba pers. comm) and management ettrts nave focused on recording numbers of breeding birds idanttying nest ate, erecting predator exclonurer amid detemnining fledging rate, Information from anna reports aaggests that predation md livestock Aisturbanceppose the greatest threat to reproductive success in thisregion, although the spec cmse of nest losses are generally unlnovim (Ryba200s, 2005). Despite such uncertainty, nest successis higher today: in2005, apparent nest micersin the Northeast Montana WMD was75 6%
a
‘uthough spectic cases of egg and chicklocs at alkaline wetlands in northeastem Montana poorly documented, predator exdusion has dramatically increased reproductive access. Data collectedin the 1990s, and compiled by Larson (2002), show that fledgeratesin the Montana Novth Dakota alkali lakes complecincrensed from 09 Hedging: per par of breeding adults, without predator exclusion 191.46 when nest cages wereutiized. Reproductive mtccers mcreaced to 2.09 whe piping plover nests veere protected with both nest cages and temporary electric fencing. In addition tarestial predators account for themajoity of egg mor predation episodes while avian predators areprimazly reponsiblefor (hick and adult Losses (van and Murphy 2005)
Detaled productivity datafor breeding ster in Philips County is lacking, Annual reports indicate however thatnes inundation, ae arerlt of Bureaa of Reclamation (BOR) water manag niet polices, and predation pressures may impart plover suvival (MontanaPiping Plover Recovery Committe 1997) In prior years rising waterlevels throughout thenesting cencon a Nelson Reservoir necertated nest relocations (Prelit: et 1995) and both avian and mammalian predators wereimplicaed in several nestlosses
Fledgeratiosvathin the State of Montana fluctuate substantially beturem years and ater. Productivity data gathered during thepast ten consecutive breeding seasons for northeastem Montana (alkaline ‘wellands) show amem fledgeratio (128 edglingfpair of adults) that exceeds that required to stabilize ‘he population inthe Great Plains baced on rent population viability analyzer Larson et al 2002) SSunanly, along the Fort Peck Raver reach ofthe Missouri md at Fort Peck Reservoir, ten-year average edge ratios, we relatively high. Both indices aupacs that required for population maintenance the (Great Plans Larson et a 2002) and arehigher than the ati called form the USFWS Biclogicl Opinion {or the Missouri Fiver (USFWS 2003). Population numbers a vane sites arehowever relat dy small, aticulaly at Fort Peck Reservoir, md ae a consequence have the potential to skev fedgeratios
CONSERVATION AND MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS [As astate Montanaprovides a diverse array of habitats for breeding plovers. Although thepropetion of breeding birds recorded in recent years 7% in 2001) has dedined rlaiveto states such as Nevth Dakota, Montmahae traditionally sported a zable segment ofthe US. Norther Great Plans population (15% 41991). Theparphera nature of Montanardative to the overall breeding range of plovers, coupled ‘with tremendous fctuations in habitat aralabity between years atthe landscapelevel most ikely inuencesthenumber of birds that anive a breeding grounds in my given yea. Despite such variation, sonitorng forts conducted overthepast dacadeindicatethat the sates met ite recovery goal of120 birds (60 breeding pairs)
Inlight ofthe species dizpersl responceto spatial and temporal vaiationsin habitat avaabity, what appears more noteworthy, i the potential resource Montana(s wetlands and reaches ofthe Missouri may provideto breading birds during yeas characterized by abnormal weather and water conditions ‘lsevehere. In order to support national recovery objectives, ctical habitat has to bemaintained and restored throughout the birds breeding range, While population levele went directly rlatedto the ammount of suitablehabitat present (Hag and Plismer 1993) the value of maintaining such habitatin Montmavras highlighted durmg the 1997 breeding season. Inundation of breeding rene further south
reniled mn increazerin thentumber of breeding birds recorded on theFort Peck River reach and at ‘Missouri Coteau wellandsin thenostheastem patt ofthe sate, Without such habia, plovers migrating northvrard in search of nitablenesting sites may harefailed to cecarenet ater. Many ofthe management recommendations focus, therefore, on thenecessary ations needed to maintain and/or restore aitcal breeding habitat a thelandscapelevel In addition, habitat peciic enhancement Arategies, med at increasing reproductive mccers, we proposed
General Management Concems and Recommended Actions
1 Standardization of monitoving techniques and data collection Piping plover monitoring and breeding survey: within ny given state orriverreach may be conducted by NGOs, numerous sate md federal recource agencies, ar well he USACE, and each uiize different monitoring protocols lack of standardized monitoring techniquer, coupled with varying amounts of coordination bevreen agencies makeritdficlt to mterprettherange-wide population status of the piping plover during years when anintemational emus isnot being conducted
Authough ical retraite often detemnine thetype and frequency of survey conducted, standardized procedures for data collection may ultimately increase the accuracy and eftciency wath which data are gathered and alloorfor comparisons between sites ma regions, Where posable datagathered using standardized datatomas md survey methods zhould be sed eg. howrbirds should be quantified (anumber of pate, nests,or individual birds), howr predation indices ae calculated, Comparative standardized data on nest sucess, inchading net fate and cases of nest faure would help evaluate population health and reproductive success, In addition, accumulated observational ata of piping ploversneeds to be entered into a centralized regional databace a the end of each field seacon. Such a databace oul ensure that citcal datais manfained and accerablete managers while mplanenting recovay eforts
‘Montma zhould continueto patpateintheintemationalrangevwide auvey erey fiveyeasby conducting censuses ofall nov and potential piping plover breeding sites (Appendic). In addition, cstabliched monitoring programs within the state should continue on an mal Dai.
2. Integrating plover management vith local, regional audnational initiatives Fiping plover management should contante to be integrated inte publicprivate partnership efforts, or joint ventures, ac this may well provide a efficient mechani for achieving regional conservation goals. Examplerimdude the Prazie Pothole Joint Venture, Ducks Unlimited and the North American Wterfovd lan, In addition federal and district programs, suchas Partners for Fish and Wilife,theNrth ‘American Welland Conservation Act mu therecently remhoried Environmental Quality Incentives Program (EQIP), administered by the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Savice (NRCS), should be sncorporated ito plover habitat restoration and management whenever posable.
Continued enphasis chould beplaced on improving collaborative working relationship with private
Jandowmars, wetland restoration projets, procurement of grassland easements, md implementation of grecng schedules. Landovmersintereted im protecting welland habitat or surrounding uplands may be
48
able to enter into cooperative agreements and cost chaning programe that allow them to restore native grasdands nd imaprovetheintegnty of wetland ste:
3, Landscapelevel habitat management ‘Whileland:capelevel habitat management i curently being initiated at prazie Cotem stern North
Dakota and nertheastem Montana (Adam Ryba pers. comm), local management initiatives in some regions focas specifically on individual wetlands. Research suggests, however, that breeding birds ure a complec of sites, shiting betwrem them ae conditions change within or btureen years (Oring et 22000 Skagen ana Thompson.2005) Itis recommended, therefore that management etfrtsacossthe state focas a abroaderlandscapelevel
‘Authough efortssimed at ehancng specitic nesting iter ae waranted, apparently suitable ates within wetland complecmay De overlooked. Managing a mutable mora of ate, incuding tanporary to permanent veellands and iver sites, vl provide avatiely of options for migrating birde that val key assure wallabity of habitat under ay dimatic condition (Skagen nd¥noxf 1994). GIS would providea ‘useful tool in sits efforts aimed a identying and acrersng the :taus of potential breeding habitats vathin alandscapelerel context Philips et al2005)
4. Assezsment of wetland breeding habitat condition ‘As a sgniicant proportion of breeding plovers uize alkaline sites (aig eal 2005), managing cite ‘welland habitat to macimizeproductivity and survival isetical to long term recovery (Root and Ryan 2004). Since weland conditions often determined by surrounding land use iisrecommended that the (quay of allpotential and existing sites be azcersed af alandscape scale. Asreranent using ranote sexsng, coupled wath ground truth data ie needed to build a davsification model that vail a. fdentfication of potential iter and alteration in beach quality atIniowm site. Bared on this information, piping ploverhabitat could berated and recommendations for site protection or management actions pHlortized. Data could alee beutlized to azvere the potential for population mcreace a oth occupied amd imoccupied nest ater, With this information, Montana wil bein a stronger postion to evatuate ‘whether cuant management options are adequate to meet long tern objectives.
5 Restoration of wetland hydrologic md ecological processes ‘Wetlands that aeindsrdualy restored within acatchunen that is still primarily in agzicaltural production may continue to experience degradation (USDA 2002). Thus itisecommended that eforts timed a rertoning and protecting wetland function beuundartaken, Restoration of upland wetland sites ‘would act as amstrent and sediment trap aswel ae potentially creasing the hy drop riod for lower lying wetlands. Seeding oftled sites would alco enhance functioning of lowe ying vetiand: by reducing themdirectetfectsacoated with increased sedament loads, In addition, monitoring of ‘temporary and ceaconal vellands, for potential changer in basin organic sediment levels md asftsin ‘vegetation zonal pattems could be undertaken as amemns of assessing degradation (USDA 2002)
6 Predator management Therange of species that prey on piping plover eggs and chicks varies spatially and temporally on alkali Jakes in thenorther Great Plains (ivan and Muuphy 2005). Investigations that focus on dentiying site
4“
speciic predators werequred arimplementation of sppropriste predator control measures wil bemore ost effective md beneficial with such Inowdedge
‘house of predator exclonurer placed over neste a breeding aterin the alkali Laker region have Deen successful at increasing reproductive success, nd managers should continueto wiilzethem. Cages can, however, expose nesting adult plovers to predation Murphy et a12003). Accordingly, the extent and cause of adult predation needs tobe determined, particularly with regard to thewuse of exclosurer. In addition, communication with bslogists from other Great Plains regions regarding cage design may be ‘warranted. Biologists working in Albertahavereported success with newly developed small, portable cager:thay appear bet les attractive as perches for raptors or rubbing post for cate AlbataPiping Plover Recovary Test 2005)
(Given that populations of several important avian predators hareincreaced in Montanain recent yeas (Sauer eal 2001), reducing local abundance of predators such as large gulls (Las spp) and American cows (Corzus iretgeTyetes) may also be warranted at some stes (van and Murphy 2006). Furthemnore, predator (avian and mammalian) habitat nea wellands occupied by plovers should bereduced: abandoned farm buildings, debris piles and shite belts chould beremoved
‘At this tanepredation doesnot appearto significantly impact ploversnesing aivaine stern ‘Montma Predation mmaganent should therefore be undestaken on asiteby site bass when sppropsiate. Suggested methods for controling ground predators indude elimination orrdocation using live aps. If predation presnureintensites at apmticulr site predator exdonure cages should be considered Strobelights have also bem used in other rea for nocturnal predators such ae great homed owls (Bubovirgivians) and area option if warranted (6. Pavelka pers. comm).
7 Managing watesfoveregimerin nverine habitats to simulate anatural hydrogragh Ecologically bared rater flow management regimes often confict with USACE management objectives (ie navigation flood control, hydrop ower et), hovrever, managed flooding along major rivers and their ‘nibutaries to mimic amorenafural hy drograph should be considered. Naturaized flows, mauding snurenced spring floves and warm water selene, wrould lemy help restore aquatic habitats and thes: aesocated ecosystem processes, thereby lesening thenegative effects azcocated wath reduced anna ‘ood pulses, poor forage avalabihty, and increared vrater discharges during theplover nesting seazon,
‘Moreover, supporting data shoves that high flows associated with naturally ocouing high orater years (2g. 1995 tasough 1997) crested gnificant amounts of sanabarcomplecer and shallow vratr habitats necessay for plover nesting and foraging (USFWS 2003). For example, in the Gwvin's Point reach ofthe ‘Missouri suitable plover nesting habitat increased 150d between 1996 and. 1998 (USFWS 2003 [Restoring amorenatural water regime that imcuded a substantial pring pulsemay reduce contavaal Inabitat ozs eto erosion and vegetation growth
8. Preventing or reducing inundation of nests at riverine and rerervoir ater Eiforts should contaweto bemadeto reduce untimely discharges of accumulated spring water from. reservoirs during critical nesting periods, Moreover, as discharge volumes from maictem dame we
45
often calculated with tleroom for err, ether conditions should be monitored dovmetream and appropriate lod control actions taken to prevent theinmndation of nets due te mcreared wave and ‘wind action. Sinulaly, torn drainage discharges from tributaries feeding into mainstem river reaches shoul alo bemonitored to reduce the cunlaive effects ofhigh water levels, tubutay inflow and wave ation
Asreservois, such as Fort Peck play avitalrolein USACE flood management operations, plover breeding ates should continne to Deidentised and appropriate management action taken toprevent the inundation of este it vrater levels behind dam increase, The sameis recommended for stesin Philp? County (ie Nelson Reservoir)
9, Vegetation encroachment ‘Vegetation cover at potential rivernenest sites should ideally beno greater than 10% (Scheralbach 1958) ani initisives to reduce vegetation excoachmnent should berundetaken prior tothe wrival of plover. Waterflow regimer that cour sandbare md ilands may not berequired on an musnal badis but paodic ‘flood pulse” discharges should be undertaken to reduce vegetation encroachment. In ation, amanally cleaing ster should be evaluated as aporablemmaganent tool. If effective, breeding ater lized in recent yemrs could bemaintained by cleming excessive vegetation prorto plover srivalin the ‘pring. This could beundertakn ether by physically removing vegetation or spraying with herbicides However, based on USACE expesienceim 2005, renaining dead vegetation provider ecensive predator perch stes nd if vegetation is sprayed the capacity needs to exist to adequately removeit (Karen Kral, pers. comm).
‘Vegetation encroachment has also been documented 2 alkaline wellads in North Dakota Root and Ryan 2004) and Alberta (Prescott 2001). Consequently, research aimed at documenting vegetation sccession at alkali ster needs to beundetaken, If widerpread, management intervention may be required to provide adequate habitat availability to nesting plovers Root ad Ryan 2004). & combination of prescabed bums, salt pplication and Rexbicider could beweed to achieve chort-temn vegetation reduction. In addition after the plover nesting season, judicious use of livestock grazing, in reas vith firm substrate (Smuth ef a 1993), should be considered, particularly in areas where presaibed burns are not permitted
10, Preserving suitable habitat im areas not curently utilized Cleaty, sutablenestng habitat needs to be preserved throughout the ping plovers breeding rmge, not nly to maintain the currant range, but alco to providehabita whan other rene areunaralable dueto Aooding (Kirsch ana Sidle1999) or dxought. Such atrategy may ultimately reducetherisk of nest flurein any given breeding season, Directing habitat funding to maintain or secure eacements along sections of river or t alkali wetland sites, imduding surrounding uplands, with consistent plover arity isrecommended. Riverreaches md akalinewelland aternot mended in mutal surveysmay also provide additonalp otential plover nesting habitat. While managing welland complecesis desrble, short tama stop-gap measures aimed a preserving sitableabitat should be undertaken, [funding ie ralable, surveys should be undertaken to identity and assess potential breeding sites.
46
11 Enhancing nesting habitat to increase aalablenest site “Habitat ozs has been chovm to cause a decreaseim the mumber of nesting sites but an mirearesn nesting Aenaity long rivers. Aslarge colonies may be more vulnersblete predation, forts to increase the number of potential nest sites at river reaches may reduce vulnerability to predation, Dung muna surveys, identification of emdbars vith key nerting habitat along reaches chould berecorded. If table foraging habitat edstsvathin the ammediatevicaity, habitat euhancemant may bear simple a initiating vegetation renoval to create potential nesting habit
Likewise enhancing nesting habitat a alkaline welland sites should be undertaken warranted. Sites ‘hat hare been utilized in thepast could berestored through vegetation removal andor addition of {gravel miberate Application of gravel to alka beaches iter may provide zhart-temn improvement, but itis etic that undertaken gravel be handed and spread during winter months when the ground is frozen. Falureto do so wail ikely rerun deep vehicerats that may degrade potential habitat further. ‘Thismumnagement option zhould, hover, be avoided a Deach ster with soft substrate ae vehicle tracke sppeatto develop evenif application is undertaken during winter months (Smith 211993), Consequently, managers ate ged to erauate mistratetypeprir to hauling gravel.
12, Livestock disturbance Disturbance of wetland beacherby livestock, which use them for loating, to escape biting incects or ar ‘ater sources (Goossen et 212002), disrupts shorelines, chuming up formerly packed gravel and alkali surfaces, The presence of cattle on alkali beacher with piping plover ecdosueris alco potentially problematic a they apparently utlize the structures a sratching posts, Efforts to mneliorate sich situations chould bewndertaken
Friosty sould be given to identifying gracing echedules, a this wll atford managers the opportunity to remove cages on grazed nd and/or detennine whether erection of electrical facing around predator ceclosure cages is warranted. In addition the establishment ofaltemativerematelivestock vatersourcer sea from plover nesting habitat, coupled with defered gracing programs, would reduce theimpacts on, breeding birds while maintaining the integrity of thewelland site. Wherethisis not feasible easements or other agreements with private emdholders coud be established to allow fencing of plover nesting
sites
13, Huma disturbance ‘At thas time, lnm disturbance doesnot appear to dramatically anpact plover reproductive success along ether the Missousi River, or at Microw Cotean wetland sites, im Montana. Systematic muveys of tum activity chould, Nowever, be conduced to azcerstheleval of activity that is occuring ae well 2: the certent to which identtied disturbances could potentially impact nest te, If dishurbancelevele increase, tothepoint that they ampact productivity, appropriate action zhould be taken,
‘Authough the posting of signe at river acces points and on nertng sandbarsis m accepted technique, thie nar the potatiato exacerbate problamein areas where people arehorileto audangered -pecer protection, Likewise strict enforcement may beimpractical dueto fiscal onstramts. Consultation vith regional biologists and lave enforcement officals vail most key prove mare vatuablein determining the
appropriate action at a site should disturbance become aproblam. For example, one-on-one contact wath sport fisherman or recreational boaters aver access sites may bemoreetfecive. In addition, omsnunication vith rlevant state and federal genes should betndertaken to ensure that weed Control nd vegetation removal exercises are undertaken prior to thenestng seacon
14, Od mdgas activities (id and gas operations pose apotatial threat to piping plover habitats through disturbance a point sourceppolstion, Most piping plover nesting habitat im novtheast Montana located waitin close proximity to auch activities an efforts chould bemadeto sitenevr developments outside theimmediate visnity of essential welland habitat, Moreover, produced water managenent, chould beundertaken in sich aveay as to woid contamination of both surface md groundveater
15, Contaminants ‘Unhatched eggs need to collected and tested for contansnumts, Thisis paticalay important at ster ‘within the Milk River Basin: the USGS has identified this basin ae aregion succeptibletosngation- induced selenium contamination Galler e 311999)
16, Forage mrallabity Preiminay datalinking variables such at river hydrology, prey araabikty and plover reproduction suggest that alteration ofthe historic Noveregimer along mamctem rivers may sgniticanly impact plover reproductive success (C. Kruse pers. comm, D.LeFer, pes. comm). The USFWS (2003) also recognizes that unnutable water temperatures, belowhypolimnetic dams, may negativ aly impact food supplier for piping plovers. Smce the thermal impacts of cold hypokinnetic releacer from Fort Peck Dama remain evident 280 km 174 rn) downstream from Fort Peck, investigations aimed at determining the imp act of river hydrology, prey abundance ana plover productivity blove Font Peck are warranted. Potential prey abundancensedsto be documented at breeding site and compared to ter further dovnctream. If snwatebrateabundanceis being impacted, water flowrregimes along affected stretcher ofthe Missoni Riverneed to bemanaged to hance forage xvalability
17, Updating the Piping Plover Recovery Plan Finally, the Norther Great Plain piping plover recovery plan, produced in 1988, isin need of revision.
‘When uindertaken itis strongly recommended that tate agencies currently volved in piping plover conservation be active patiipants in the dedsion making process. & wozking group manaing representatives from, but not limited to, the USFWS, USACE, USGS, state wildlife agencies and ‘universities would provide amore ndusiveforum for discussing and evaluating piping plover management md requirements at avariety of scaler. Such awolrenent would Ukely strengthen theplm, amid provide avrorkang document specific to local and regional programs that ieincorporated into a Inger scalenstionalrecovay effort
8
Site Specific Recommendations within Mantana Factors atfecting piping plover habitat mutability, reproductive sccers md productivity vy considerably Detveen areas, md recommendations fr each are discussed in more detal below.
‘Medicine Lake Notional Wildlife Refuge [Nesting Dencher on Medicine Lake and otherrefugesmpoundments are gmerally only exposed and suralableto nesting plovars during peiods of severe drought, auch az occured inthe ently 190 Betoean 29 md 34 pair nested on therefuge betvreen 1990 ad 1995, thelast sustained drought pexioa, Conversely, no plovers havenested on therstuge during nine of thelast 10 years
‘During those years when nesting plovers are present, tothe extent posable, water levels chould be amuanaged to maintain wide Deacher and avoid looding ners, Supplemental protection from predators induding theuse of nest cages andJor electric fences should beincorporated to maximize ledghing production. Gracslade adjoining nesting beaches should also bemanaged using periodic graing md presaibed burning. Cale nd otherivetock chould be exchided from occupied nesting beaches unt site July 158 md bums chould not be conducted adjacent to nesting plovers unt attr plover chicks hwredledged,
[Nertle astom Ment mux Welland Management District ‘TheNortheact Montana WMD consistantly supp rts the highest nuunber of breeding ploversvathin the state and azcessing the potential for population mareace should be aprionty. Although this regions already tacking piping plover recovery st abroad landscape scale habitat arsesamant using remote sexsng, coupled wath ground ruth data eneaded to develop predicivemodels that vail adn Sdentfication of potential nering habitat ac vel ae alteration i beach quality at own ates, WAth such ‘information Montana vail be better able to deternine the actions neceseay to maintain active sits, if opportunities fr population incense eae, mud perhaps moresmnportantly, conduct cost beneit malyses aesocated with any propored action,
‘Approsimatdy 29% (2.2545 ha of the ctical habia in Sheridan County is under private oomership, ‘More mp ovtantly, in ay given year about 75% ofall now breeding pairei the county occur on privatelands (Mf Rabenbarg, pers. comm). Consequently, privatelandovmersmust, and should, be viewed as essential patnarsto achieving piping plover management gale, Site qacticmanagenant plane for agricultural upland areas adjacent to nesting beacher need to focus on mnproving nering Dabitat quabty through cloce communication vith local mdovmers, Moreover, colicin input from, localladovmers and integrating aDottom-up" approach to habitat conservation muy proveinvaluable
In Sheridan County, USFWS biologists, together vath USDA NRCS staf, have already established ‘cooperative agreements with ome local landowners and assed then, by providing tednical advice smd financial acsistance aimed at improving piping plover habitat. More recently, the NRCS hae established a special atiative for poping plover recovery through the EQIP and this provides additional seas of promatig coop ration Detoven federal agencies and privatelandowmers. Funding i wvalable to azset andovmersmtererted in implementing conservation mencures that prove habit
4”
Projectsincude:
+ Presaibed grazing that emphasizes piping plover habitat requirements © Wetland restoration,
+ Range seeding ofnative spaces
+ Pasture and hayland seeding
Water fants for livestock, incuding piplines pumps, and wells (of-site)
Toro new plover EQIP projects wereinitiated in 2006, Thereiduded implementing mmagenent meaner on atotl of 440 aces ofLands on Fathead Fans md Solberg Livestock. Projectinchude: Aeveloping gracing rotation aysten, removal of cattle from plover habitat and maintaining aeasin gracdnd
Predator exchusion has dramatically crenced reproductive success vaithin theregion, Thus, increasing plover productivity through predator management :hould continete begiven high prionty. Ldentiying predator communities presenta pectic veld ster vould be useful: uch knowledge would allow amuanagars to implement appropriate predator control meanures. Likewise, studies amed at evaluating ‘he effectiveness of various predator contol meamures should be conducted. Such novaledge vail iksly provemore cost efective and beneficial to long tenn conservation objectives. Ste specie recommendations are presented below.
satLake SaltLakeis alagevrelland characterized by good water quatity but imited nesting substrate. Enhancing nesting substrate vould Likely increase wee by breeding plover, and efors to hanl gravel to this ite ‘were completed dung winter 2005.2006. As adjacent land useis dominated by agricltural coplands, cestabliching cooperative agreements with local lndovmers to reduce erosion and sedimentation zhould continaeto be abigh prionty. Furthermore, nesting and forage ate qualty would Wily be enhanced i ccopland bordering the wetland, orvathin the watershed basin, were seeded waithgrass. In addition, evelopment of hivestock of-ate water cources aay from plover nesting steric wraranted
LakeSE ofSatLake Thuslakeis atuated within lose proximity to Salt Lake and shares the samemmagement concems
Galloway Lake Galoveay Lakeis a cenconal wetland that is masceptiblete frequent desiccation, It does, hovrever, provide nesting habitat for plovers andicregulaly utlized, Presavation of native pranie surounding the ‘wetland is aprimay concen. Additionally, efforts zhould betmdertaken to restore anearby drained ‘wetland ae thie may increace w/alablenestng and foraging habitat
LakeN of Epen Site specific factors to consider incude establishing cooperative sgreements aimed at preserving native prairie restoring a drained wetland up slope from thelake, monitoring impacts of oil nd gas evelopment and reducing predator habitat,
0
Dog Leg WPA Dog Leg WPA is deep, fresh wrater lake that only provider suitable breeding habitatim periods of relative drought, Although t isnot ahigh prioty for piping plover welland management, restoration of grasdand habitat wound the border, to a distance of approximately 80 meters, vould improvenesting Iabitat stability, pasticulaly in years whan other ster arenat avalable
AndersonLake ‘Since permission to survey Anderson Lake has been hard to gain itis dificult to ascertain how many piping ploversutlize his te Only about 10% ofthe basin ich i bordered by statelmais camently surveyed. Priority should, therefore be given to gaining thelandevmer’s permission to survey the ste Protection of native prainie nd retuming mginal coplmdsto grassland on the east nd couth sides ‘would increase the mitabilty of Anderson Lake for breeding birds.
TwonwetLake Thislakeis beng actively managed for piping plovers. Themjoity of suitable plover nesting habitat ie located on the east end of Thronveit Lake. Theland orm, working with NRCS satf and federal md state biologists, entered into acooperativeland wee resent that reulted in development of ares rotation gracing system. As axerlt, 266 acres of old Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) land that had been seeded vas maintaned and incorporated ito acurrent gracing sy-tem. In addition, aveelland in the drainage basin above Taronv et Lakes been restored
FitLae Fat Lakehas been descabed athe bes piping plover wellmd in the state md may ploversublize this ‘wetland during the breeding season. Primary objectives for thie siteinchude the precervation of adjacent native prairie and maintenance of CRP land as grasdande, Incorporating old CRP land into graing systems and ertalishing cooperative agreements provide ameme of achieving objectives
LakeN ofStateine ThisIake, situated tothe east of Flt Lake shares ilar management concems
‘NorthLake O47) and Round/Westby Lake (MT & ND) lovers donot uti the wetlands of North Lake extensively: beach substrates are composed primarily of cobble, while waters atypically lee alkaline renting in more enexgent vegetation, Thereis also an active gull colony on Westby Lake. Despite such atbuter, eshancenent of nesting sbstratem auitable sens, preservation of native adjacent prairies and active predator management would prove sutabity to breeding birds,
Upper GooseL.ake Comples(Inchdes Upper Goose Lake, Smith, Murphy and Rabenberg Welland) ‘Maintaining good wovking relationship; with thelocal andowmercicnecesrary at there sites, Predator amuanagementis probably the most catia sue limiting plover productivity in this welland complex segrersive predator management could improve the suitability of there ates to breeding birds. In addition preservation of native prairie and the retention of grasslands established through the CRP
s
shoul bepursued. Methods to prevent satvater contamination from neatby oll md gas development should beinvertigated,
West GooseLake ‘West Goose Lake shares many of the management concer asthe Upper Goose Lake Complex. Most notably, theimpactofsaltoater contamination from nearby oil and gaz development and protection of native prairie warant attention. Moreover, permission to accers the south portion of the ake hat recently bem danied, Thislakeis curently being tageted with the NRSC special EQIP program: goals dude dereloping altemativelivetock watering sources to protec nemby springs and limiting ivestock accers to West Goore Lakein order to preserveimportant foraging ster, In addition, removal of predator Iabitat such a junk piles and treerowrs needs tobe considered
GooseLake WPA, ‘4 small prop orton of the Northeast Montana WMD piping plover population uses this vrtland, primanly during drought periods. Goose Lake WPA has m ative gull nesting colony that would need to Demanaged to mcreaceuse by plover. Otherfacters te consider mdudetheimpactof contamination from aneavby saltvrater injection ste and vegetation euoachunent along the shoreline In orderto exhance plover nesting sits, preseribed burning and livestock grazing outside thenesting season, should De evaluated as amems of reducing vegetation
Big Slough WPA, ‘Thus wetland cused by breeding birds Dut iless alkali than most other occupied lakes. As arenil, ‘vegetation is encroaching on the shordine, Prescribed buming and grazing could bewsed to reduce ‘vegetation especially nesting and foraging areas, Etort zhould alco be daected at preserving CTP grasdand surrounding this wetland. Moreover the effects of nearby ground water vathdravel, for snnigation use on welland function should be closely monitored
CleLake ‘Scant formation is avalablefor this wetland. While breeding birds have been novm towuee Clew Lake sm thepast ite typically lees alkatinethan other occupied wetland ates. Despitelow alkality, it does contain sutablenestng habitat onthe south end. As theimnpact of vegetation encroachment is aconcam, prescribed buming amd mechanical/chemical control should be evaluated as amems of habitat eahancenant.
Pany Lake ‘Most of Pany Lakeis actively managed as aWPA. Vegetation surrounding the wetland is managed ‘through graving and prescribed bums md predator habitat Russian olive trees and a eld farmstead) has bee removed. In addition, a cooperative reanent resulted in development of agrazing system ‘hat preserved some ofthe suxounding grardands. Prerenation of native praieranaine ahigh
pont
Lasse ofPany Thislakeis atuated within cose proninity to Pany Lake and shares the samemanagenant concerns,
Erickson Lake Erickson Lakeis atively managed ae part of theEikson WPA, Management coicems induderemoval of predator habitat, vegetation mamuagement to reduce encroachment, nd posable beach enhancement.
Prescbed buming ad livestock grazing outside thenesting season is used ae ameans of habitat exhancement, In addition, mn old famstead and several junk piles whereremoved.
Bow din, National Wildlife Refuge, Nelson Reserveir aud Hewitt Lake National Wildife Refuge Both Bovedoin NWR and Nelron Reservoir have provided nesting habitat for piping ploversin the past Water level management appears tobe the greatest obstace to managing plover habitat and doce ‘coordination and communication with the BOR and Mtaliigation District should continuete be ahigh priority future yea,
‘Since few plover pairs establish neste elaiveto the numberof breeding birds that are cmsuce, itis [possible that suitable habitat sacking. Consideration should be givento conducting alarger scale Iabitatacseronent his would provide amem of identifying potatial nesting ster and factors muting ‘beach quality at a.owm sites
‘Nest protection has been am sfective predator management toolin many areas, mdnesting cages ae suralabletoreduce predator anpacts. These ofnestcagerin thisregion zhould, hovrever,bebased on, ‘he anount of securenesting habitat available, the hres! of potential predators wing the rea md the proxy of areas to high recestional wre, Consultation with regional biologists muggests that net ager, coupled wath rerictive aignage, may mcreareluman related disturbance, negating the postive étects of predator exdomures, Nest cages may enhance productivity on isolated islands subject to ile umm disturbance, batmay not be appropriate along shorelines frequented by recreational user,
Estos to gather productivity data should bemadein years when plovers welnowm to benerting. This aight incude data amilato that gathered by the USACE. Identification of nest, umber of egg, fate of dutch and number edged would al provide vatuable productivity datafor the welland complex and increnceunderstanding of factors Imiting reproduction
‘Thisregion is susceptibletoiigation induced selenium contamination (Seiler ¢ 311999) and a5 consequence theimpact of contaminants on plover egge md productivity needs further study. Itis recommended that hatched eggs be collected and teste.
Nelson Recervair ‘Nelson Reservoir isan imigation reservoir managed by the BOR (USFWS 2002) Inthe past ising water levels havenccesitated nest relocation, however, itis curently operated under aBiclogical Opinion that directs the BOR to fil thererervoir prior to plover muivalin the spring thus reducing nest prevention mdjor flooding of nest ites. Itisrecommended that water management continuete bethe primary method for protecting piping plover nests on Nelson Reservoir, however, it proverimpossbleto physically manage water, neste should berelocated to prevent inundation
‘Authough predator monitoring wound known nest sites should be conducted, predator contol, wang nest eclorures, mast be carefully considered: along beach shorelines, the use of signage ma nest structures has the potential to draw attention and lead to futher distusbance by recreational users (K Tubby, pars. comm). During low water years habitat enhancement through mechanical ranoval of encroaching vegetation should be aicouragad to enhance md presavenerting habitat. Manipulation of Deaches, through substrate enhancement (using dean grava), to promote nesting during high water years should als be continned,
Close coordination beturemn BOR, the Buren of Land Management, and Bovedoin NWR has proven that aaural gas wll diling activity can be accommodated nex piping plover nesting beaches on Nelson [Rerarvour. Continued coordination and monitoring vould allow ding activity in years when plovers senot preset vale protecting Deaches in years wath nesting activity.
Bowdon NWR Bovedoin is m otf stream facility that receives water from the Mik River (USFWS 2002). Water
sanagement at Bovrdoin NWWR and Nelson Reservoir howl be coordinated wherever posable dug vyemrs vith high water leveleto prevent rapid elevations in water level during the plover nesting season.
‘Within theretuge, breeding birds traditionally uiize ping Plover Pond formally Dry Lake) however ‘water evel management hac proved problematic. During many yeas, water levels this wetland are low mat additional water available from the BOR or Maltalinigaton Distc, thas to berm through, a arcuitous netvark of cals that fill up other veland ster first. Moreover, ar waterlevel management forploversneedsto occur during emily spring or atefall, pproprite ting is ential. Improved commmonicston vith the BOR and lmigation District ie needed md tisrecommended that discussione regarding water level and timing requirements be entered into, An option worth exploring i that of ag ation through water donation by the BOR. Managing nest ster at Nelson Reservoir haveproved problematicm the past dueto elevated vrater levels while Bowdoin NWR ie frequently faced with water shortages at ctical nest ater. lover productivity could potentially bemnproved at aregional ale by providing Bowdoin NWR wth water on an annual bai as compensation for sites lot at Nelson Resevoir
Substrate enhancement has been undetaken in prior years a Piping Plover Pond and efforts render ‘ay tol gravdlto this sitein winter 2005. As the substrate around thelakeis relatively sot K. Tubby, pers. comm), this should be approached wath cantion, and undertaken only ifthe grounds stably frozen, Moreimportaily, efforts should bemadeto ensure that washed gravelisutlizedto reduce the possiblity of degrading habitat through the unintentional introduction of sil and seeds. In addition predator monitoring and management should be considered when appropriate within the NWR,
Hewitt Lake WR Hert Lakeis abacn lake that receives water from seepage lo, surface predpitation ad qpring
runoff, Piping plover urehar not been documented becatse of dry conditionsin most years Montma, Piping Plover Recovery Committee 1997). In years when waters present, the shoreine provides semi
s
akaline gravel beach habit, but vegetation encroachment has reduced any potentially useful nesting Iabita, Initiating vegetation removal, nd substrate exhancement, to reste potential nerting habitat ea possibilty, ais working wath theB OR t facitate water donation and delivay to this ate
Missoni River aud Fat Peck Reserveir Water level management, coupled withthe ensuing vacation in suitable habitat avalability, se the key determinant of piping plover presence and productivity, and the USACE i atrongly urged to restore the river to amorenstural dow regime, Criteria for improved spring flows and warm water rlences from, Fort Peck have been jointly developed by numerous federal and state agencies, incuding the USACE, and aelaid out in the USFWS Bislogical Opinion (2003). Regional drought conditions delayed Amplemantaton, however itis oped that the USACE wall cany out theserecommendations a soon as reservoir dlevation and runoff criteria can Demet
‘Aitcal looding viahigh dam releaces from Fort Peck Dam vil ikely scour vegetation srom existing emudbars, but may not bring suspended and bed-load sediment srom upstream. In order to arses habitat seralabity under different op erational cenavis monitoring reproductive mccere ma mapping ceetil piping plover breeding habitat chould continue. Such evaluations wall hopfully provide cstiatesof current levels of productivity az well asthe potential for population change under ditering rater management regimes,
Fort Peck Reservoir ‘Authough Fort Peck Reservoir represents the westem edge of piping plover habitat and traditionally ‘contains few piping plovererelaiveto other arene within the Missouri River drainage stem (USFWS 2003), birds do frequent the eastem Big Dry Creek Arm The amount of ayailable habitat varies, ower, {depending on orate evel management: in yen when adequate nesting and foraging habitat is available, proportionately more birds utlize shoreline beaches, Estimating the amount of potential piping plover Iabitat avalable ar wal ar specific enhancement actions would provide valuable information to managers, Habitatimprovement (ie. vegetation removal should be considered as amanagementgoalto incrence walable habitat ana productivity
‘Asrapidly lang water eves at Fort Peck have played arvlein limiting reproductive muccessin the pat, ‘rater evel manipulation shouldbe considered to prevant futurenestinundations. Discharge of waterto aime amorenatural high spring flow would not only mcreacehabitt availabilty dovmctrean, by scouring vegetation from smbars, but also lover water levels a the reservoir prior to thenesting sencon. Such a strategy should be considered asit would exporenertng habitat along thereservoit Shoraine nd reducetthe trea of inundation dueto storm spikes. In addition, considerably less etfort ‘ould be expended in nest relocation, Regularmeeting: betwee plover monitoring crews and water control personnel may also help reducenes flooding and/or provide increased windows of timeto initistemanagenent action, dould st becomencceseay. In yea whennests welost, dueto USACE ‘ater management operations, off-site mitigation to supp ort habitat restoration projets andor the purchace of excements af alkaline wetland ates, may be worth exploring
ss
‘Authough documented nesters duete human disturbance doer not sppeato be significant a this time, dumm distusbacehar reportedly consed problansin the past. Monitoring ould beundartaken and ation taken when necessary toreduceimpacts. Intepretive signage and eduction of the general public say provemore efecivethan rective guage md enforcement, Regional biologists md law cexforcement officals, faniiar wath plover biology, could detemnine the appropriate action show Aisharbmce become aproblan.
‘Missouri Rives, belowrFort Peck Dan Managing flooding along the Fort Peck river reach ofthe Missouri to mimic amorenatural hy drograph should bethepsimary mmaganent objective. Incorporating anaturaized dove regime would dexly bhelp estore ercential Rabitat ar wall ae he dynamic hy drologic and ecological processes that maintain them. Short tem habitat eshancenant through vegetation removal, should azo be considered at ater Jaovm to support plovers. In addition, etforts should continueto reduce untimely discharges of accumulated spring water from Foot Pack Reservoir during caticalnestng paiods.
‘The etfecs of cold hypolinneticrleaces on forage avalability fr piping plovers haveyet to be Aetermined fr the Missouri iver, Isexecommended that a study be undertaken to evaluate piping ploverproductvity md chick growth rates relative invertebrate abundance on theriverteach Below Fort Peck Reservoir Iresultsindicate that productivity is bang negatively imparted, warm water releases walneed tobe considered. As sustained drought periods, sich ar charactaized theregion in 2000 through 200, remult in lower water levels at Fort Peck Reservoir pilray releases awenotaorays option. Likewise, wramnervraters doomstream of the dam would ideally berequired throughout the ssumermonths whan water flows need to bereduced, Researching thefeabity of arming vate for the povreshouce from the upper layers of thelake ould beinvertig ate,
Predation rates donot appearto behigh along thisziver reach but monitoring should continue As predator pressure wil ikely be site specific, management techniques should be determined based on the ‘pectic atuation, Predatorremoval or elimmation may be weful aa host tam meanire whereas cerclosurer could be enployed st predation persists
Human and livetock dishurbance doesnot pea to benegatv ey anpacting reproductive sucess along the Missour River in Montana a this time but human use monitoring should be conducted. If dishubmcepattems change interpretive signage and education ofthe general public may provemare sétecive than restrictive signage and enforcement, Regional biologists ma law eorcement officals, ‘alia with plover biology, could determine ste spproprite ation,
Future Research 4 Biological studies simed at determining invertebrate abundance, and piping plover chick growth rates along the Missousi River in Montanaie warranted
2, Population viability models for piping plovers repaticalaly smativeto adult survival estimates
‘A diitional banding studies would mcease our knowledge of adult mortality rates and prove predicivemodals
56
5 Although fledgling succersis widely used ae mn indec of reproductive success in avian shies, survival of the young ater fledging israraly ertiated (Keedvvell 2008). As mortality may be sgnitcant during this paiod talemetry mor banding studies imed at determining mortality ratesin the post- ‘edging period woul provide more precre information on productivity of ploversin the Norther Great Plans, This would also provide more accurate data on juvenile survival that could bewsed for
population modeing,
4 Populations of several important avian predators haveincreased in Montanain recent years Saiz etal 2001), and research aimed at determining both the abundance and impacts of predators such aslage {alls (Laws spp.) and American crows (Cos IreTgpTyehos) may be warranted a some sts.
5, Landscapeleve habitat evaluation within the state would provide use dstafor azessng the potential for population increase a both occupied and unoccupied nest sites. With this information, Montmavall bein astronger postion to evaluate whether curent managennt options ace adequate to red long team objectives, Moreover, coment manageanent practices chould be ecanined to determine ‘whether opportunities for population mcreave are beng missed
REFERENCES
‘Adam C.1.G.1984. Thepiping plover, Quwatrius melas, at Lake Athabasca Saskatchewan: a significant northorard rmge extension, Crustiat Fld aoa 98:59.60
AlbartaPiping Plover Recovery Team, 2005, Implementation of the Alberta piping plover recovery plan 202-2004, Final Program Report. Alberta Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and VALdife Division, AlbertaSpecies at Risk Rep ort No, 99, Edmonton, Albata 19 pp.
‘AQU. 1086. Checklist of North American birds. 1*E dition. American Ornithological Union,
‘QU. 1095. Checklist of North American birds 2 Eaton, American Omithological Union.
‘AQU. 1945. Tvrentieth supplement to the checklist of Nosth American birds, Au 62: 436-49,
‘AQU. 1957. Checklist of North American Birds, De.
Edition. America Ornithological Union, Washington,
‘AQU. 1998. Checklist of North American Bids. De.
Edition. America Ornithological Union, Washington,
‘Anmbruster, M J. 1986. A review of habitat citariafor least tems and piping plovers using thePlatte [aver, ational Ecology Research Canter, US. Fish and Wildiie Service Fort Coins, Colorado ‘Unpublished Report
‘Aron, C.2008, South Dakotaintarior least tam (Sto auillzron aelssos) and piping plover (Chradius needs) management plm. South DakotaD epartment of Game Fish and Patks, Pare, Wildlife Division Report No. 2005.02.59 pp
Beckerman, S.J. 1968. mebudget of piping ploversin central North Dakota Honors Thesis, University of Missoun, Columbia, MO,
Bent, A 1929. Life Histories of Novth American Shore Birde P42, U.S. Netwoel Museon Bley 146: 236 2s.
Bageron,D, Jones, C, Ganter, D.L. and Sullivan D.1992.PD.Skaa’'s Montana bird distribution, Fourth Edition. Montana Natural Hentage Prog. Spec. Publ. No.2 116p.
Brown, S.1986. Managing different populations ofa species: the cas of the piping plover University of Michigan. Eusagered Species Teco Blt Report. 2p.
Burger J 1994. The efec of human dishrbance on foraging behavior and habitat ucein piping plover (Chwaabins nelods). Estuies 17:695-701
Burger J, Parsons, K, Wattenberg, D, Safina C, O'Connor, J. and Godhjeld, M1994, Biomonitorng
‘sing leat toms and black shimuners in thenortheastem United States Jaana of Coal Rese 10:3947
8
Cais, WE. 1977. Breeding biology and behaviour ofthe piping plover Quraiusnelodus in southern NovaScotia MS, Thess Dalhousie University, Halifax, NovaScotia 115 pp
Cais, WE. 1982. Biology and breeding behavior of breeding piping plovers. Wis Bullet 94: 581-545, Cason, C. and Skazr,P.D.1976. Piping plover in Montana Westen Bin 769-70,
Clapp RB, Kimbiewic, MK and Kemnard J 1.1982. Longevity records of North American birds: Gaviidae through Alcidae, non of Feld Onaiislogy $3: 81-124, 15-208.
(Comm, J.G. and Armbruster, M J.1993. Pray avalabilty for foraging piping plovers along thePFatte River, Nebraska, i Higgins K.F. and Brachier, MR, (eds) Proceeding: Missouri River mdits tnibutaries piping plover and leat tem symposium, South Dakota tate University, Brookings, sD.
(Cross,RR. 1991. Monitoring, management, and research of the piping plover af Chincoteague National ‘Wildlste Refuge Unpublished report. Vaginia Department of Game and Inland Fishes, Richmond, Vinginia 76 pp.
Dah, TE 1992. Wetlands losses in the United States: 1780's to 1980s. Report to Congress. U.S. Fish and Valdiife Service, Washington, D.C
Drake KR, Thompson .E, Drake K.1 md Zonick,C. 2001, Movements, habitat use and survival it non breeding piping plovers, Condor 103-259-267.
lias 6.P, Fraser J.D. and Bucley, PA. 2000. Piping plover brood foraging ecology on New York Dbasierislands. Journ of Ueife Manugonant 6: 346-354
EPA. 2000, Profil of the ol and gas ecraction industry. EPA/SI0-R-99.006. Environmental Protection ‘Agency Ottice of Compliance Sector Notebook Project, Oifice of Compliance, Washington D.C 165 pp.
Euliss, NH. and Mushet,D.M_ 1996, Water-level ductuation in wetlands as afunction of lmascape condition in the pratie potholeregion. Welaude 16587-593.
Euliss, NH, Jr and Mushet D. M1999. Inuence of agriculture on aquatic invertebrate communities of temporary oelande in thepranie pothole region of North Dakota, USA. Wetlaue 19:579-593.
Euliss, NH, Jr, Mushet, D.Df and Wrubleds,D.A. 1999. Wellands ofthe PraiePothale region: invertebrate species composition, ecology, md management b1Batzer,D-P, Rade, RB. and Wissinges, S.A, (eds). Drertbmees bx Pesaveter Warlau of North Amerie: Eelogy oid Maugarast. John Wiley & Sons, Neve York
Eqpie,R.H.M, Brigham, R.M, and Jame, P. C1996, Habitat selection and chutch fate of piping plover
(Chwaabins elodss) breeding 2 LakeDietenbaker, Saskatchewan, Cound Jounal of Zoology 74 1069-1075.
9
Eqpie FHM. James, P.C. and Brigham, RM. 1998. The effects of Dooding on piping plover reproductive success at Lake iefenbaker, Saskatchewan, Canada Bolgiad Coser 96-215.
Fames, C.A.1983. Aspects of thenesting ecology of east tems and piping ploversin central Nebraska Prarie Manoa 15: 148-154
Fannin, T-E. md Esmnoll BJ. 1993. Metal and organicresiduesin addled eggs of leat tems and piping ploversin thePlatte Valley of Nebraska Ix Higgins, KF md MR. Brashier (eds) Proceedings, ‘The Missouri River and its tributaries piping plover and leat tem symp osium/veorkshop. South DakotaState University, Brookings SD.
Feland, C.L. and Haig, S.M.2002, 2001 Intemational piping plover census. US. Geological Suvey, Forest and Ecosystem Center, Corvalis, OR. 253 pp.
Gala D.L and Liphin,R.2000, Restoring ecological integrity of great rivers: historical hydrographs aid sn defining reference conditions ofthe Missoun River. Hyvbiclopia 422123: 29-48.
Gleason R.A. 1996 Influence of agricultural prartices on sedimentation rates, aquatic invertebrates, and ‘brd-useim pranie wetlands. MS. These, Humboldt State Univeraty, Arcata CA.
Gleason R.A. and Euliss,N-HEJr-1996, Sedimentation of prairie pothole wetlands: theneed for integrated research by agricultural and wilde inter. Proceedings of the 1996 veellands seminar, Water for agriculture and wildlife md the ewonment—vn-van opp vtunities US. Committee on inigation ana Dramage, Denver, CO.
Gleason R.A. and Euliss, NH. Jr. 1998, Sedimentation of prairie wetlands. Gre Pins Reseah 857-112
Gleason R.A. Euliss NH. Jr, Hubbard D.E. and Dufly, W.G.2003. Effects of sediment loa on ‘emergence of aquatic invertebrates and plants from wend coil egg. md seed banke. Wetlnut 23: 26.24
Goossen J.P, Amirault,D.L., Amat, J, Bjorge,R, Boates,S, Brai, J, Brechtel S, Chiasson, R, Corbett, N.G, Curley, R, Elderkin, M, Flemming, SP, Hanis, W, Heyens,L., Hjataas,D, Huot, M Johnson, B, Jones, R, Koonz, W, Laporte P, McAshillD, Momison RIG. Richard, Shafer, F, Stewart C, Swanson, L. and Wite E2002 National recovery plan for the piping plover (Chitius melodic) National Recovary Plan No. 72 Recovary for Nationally Endangered Wildite Ottaera, Ontario, Canada
(Grau, WD. 1973 Possible functions in head and breast mavkingsin Charadvini, Wise Bullet 85:60: 70.
Crue CE, Tome MW, Mesaner, TA, Hany, D.B, Swanson, G.A. md DeWeese LR. 1959 ‘agricultural chemicals mad pranie pothole wellanas: meeting theneeds of therecource and the
farmer US. perspective Tmeations ofthe North dmnercat Wileife mid Moral Resouces Congerence every
o
Haig, S.M_1992. Piping Plover. In- Poole, A, Stettenheim, P. and Gils F. (eds) Te Bink of North Arica 1o.2. American Omuthelogical Union, Washington, D. C-USA, and the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia PA, USA.
Haig, SM. 1999, Molecular Contbutions to Conservation. Eeology79:413-425.
Hig, $.M_and Eliot Smuth E. 2004. Piping plover In- Poole A. ed) The Bird of North America Onlin ‘Whaca: Comell Laboratory of Ornithology; renieved from the Birds of North America Online
databace: hip fonabisds comell edu/BNA /accountPaping Plover
Haig, SM. and Oring, LW. 1985, Distibution and status ofthepiping plover throughout the mmaal (ya. Jorn of Fuld Onto 56:334-345.
Haig, §.M. and Oring L. W.1987. The piping plover Inc Audubon Wilde Report 2997, National Audubon Society, Academic Press, New York. p.509-S18.
Haig, S.M. and Oring, L W.1998a. Genetic differentiation of piping plovers across North America sit 105: 260-267
Haig, S.M. and Oring, L, W.19980. Distbution and dispersal in the piping plover dik 105-630-638, Haig, SM. and Oring, LW. 19986. Mate, ste nd tanitony fidety im piping plovers, ik 108:268-277,
Haig, SM and Plissnr, JH. 1993. Distabution and abundance of piping plovers results and ‘aupliations ofthe 1991 intemational census, Condo 95:145-156
Haig, SM, Feimd, C.L., Cuthbart F.J, Dingledine J, Goossen J.P, Hecht, A and McPhllips, N. 2005. ‘A complete species cenmas and evidencetor regional declines in piping plovers, Joona of Wife Mager 69:160-173,
Hesse, LW and Mest, G.E 1993. An altemativehy drological cycle for the Missouni River based on pre Control conditions. North Aaverieat Jul of Fishers Mavuganen 13: 360-366
Hoopes EM, Grin, C-Band Melvin 5.241969 Atlantic Coast Piping Pover enter dstbution ‘Surrey. Unpublished report to the US. Fish and Wlldife Service Neorton Comer Massachusetts opp
Hothen, RL. and Powel A N-2000, Contaminants in eggs of westem movy ploves and Cafonsaleast ‘ane is there alk to population dedine Bulletin of toro Crtmanation ud Feclegy 6534250,
TUCN. 2005. The UCN Red List of threatened species Retrieved from the IUCN Red List online Aatabace: hitp//urnr inca orgithemesescred-Hste tn
vm J.S. and Muuphy, RK 2005. What preys on piping plover eggs and chicks? Wilf Scity Buletot, s3:113-19
a
Johnson, WC, Buagess, RL. and Keanmerer, WR. 1976. Forest averstory vegetation and environment ‘on the Miccoun Raver Poodplams in North Dakota Eeologieal Monogripi 6: 59-64,
Johnson, W. C, Boettcher S.E, Poiani, K.A. and Guntenspergen, G. 2004, Infuence of weather extranes tn the water levels of glaciated prac wetlande, Wetlnud 24: 585-398
Kantrud, HA. and Newton WE. 1996. A test of vegetation related indicators of welland quality inthe Prairie Pothole Region sputie Eoryton Heath Mangerant §:177-191,
‘Keedorell RJ. 2003. Does fledging equal success? Post fledging mortality in the blac fronted tern Joana of Fi Onithology 74: 217-2
‘Keedorell RJ. 2004. Use of population viability malyssin conservation management in New Zealand ‘Seine fr Conservation 243.60 pp.
Kinsch, EM and ile J.G.1999_ Status of theinteror population of least tems, Juri of Wile Mauger 65:470-485,
Knees ].M, Lutz RS, Cay, J.B. and Murphy, RX. 2002, A mult-scaleinvestigation of piping plover ‘productty on Great Pains alka Les 1994-200, Une Soir Ble 3063-654
Kruse. C.D, Higgins, KF. and Vander Lee, B.A. 2001 Influence o predation on piping plover, (Curadius melodis, and least ten, Stevan tiller, productivity along the Missouri River in South Dakota Cosas Feld Meroalit 115:480-496.
Larson, MA. Ryan, M.R. and Root, B. C2000, Piping plover survival in the Great Plains: am updated amily Journal of Feld Onathalagy 71:721-729.
Larson, M.A, Ryan, M.R. md Murphy, R.K 2002. Population viability of sping plovers:atfects of predator exdusion Jana of Wile Maurgonant §6:361-571
Larson, MA. yan M.R. and Murphy, RK. 2003. Assessing recov ry feasibility fr piping plovers using optimization and smwation, Wilife Soret Bile 31: 1105-1116.
Letzeton J.D.Bumham K.P, Clebay, J and Anderson, D. T1992. Modeling survival and testing ‘iological hypotheses using marked mumale aunitied approach wath cave adler Beaoyial Monogriphs 6267-118
Lenard, Calson J, Ellis, Jones, Cand Tilly, C.2003. PD. Star's Monta Bird Distribution, 6 Eaition Montana Audubon, Helena MT.
Light, D.S. 2001. Relationship of hydrological conditions and populations of breeding piping plovers ‘Prarie Manoel. 33:208-219,
Loggenng.J-P. and Fraser, J.D. 1996. Factors afecting piping plover chick survivalin different brood easing habitas furl of Wildlife Meugeneat 59: 646-655.
Macivor, LH 1990. Population dynamics, breeding ecology and mamaganant of piping plovars on outer Cape Cod, Massachuetts, MS. Thesis Univernty of Massachusetts, Amherst Mlacsahasets, 100
PP.
Macivor, LH, Maivin,S.M. and Gnitfin C. 1990_Eifects of esearch artivity on piping plover nest predation Jaana of Wilde Maurgemaut 54:483-447
‘Matin, D.B. ad Hartman, W.A. 1986. The effect of cultivation on sediment ad deposition in praiie pothole wetlands. Water ad Sit Pollution 3445-53.
‘Mayer, P.M, 1991, Conservation biology of piping ploversin the Noxther Great Plaine. MS. Thesis. ‘University of Massachusetts, MA,
MieykowrhiSE, and Caz, K.C.2004, Environmental contaminants in piping plover leasttem md common tam egg from coastal Maine 2003 nesting season, US. Fish and Wildlife Savice. Spec. Proj Rep. FYOPMEFO-LEC. Old Tove, ME
Mitchel, W.A., Gulforyle M.P. and Walters, M.S. 2000. Riparian shorebirds potentially impacted by ‘USACE reservoir eperaions. EMRRP Tesla Nees Colleton (ERDC TN-EMERP-SL-7), U.S. ‘Amy Corp of Engusee: Revearch and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. weunesees amy mile,
‘MontmaBird Distubution Database. 2005. Retieved from the MontamaBid Distribution Online Dafabare Online Helea Montana. hip/inhp aris tstemtaeimbd)
[MFWIP, 2005.2004 Annual Fish, Wildlife and Parks Drought Summary. Prepared for: Govemer's Drought ‘Advisory Committee MontmaFich, Wildie and Parks, Unpublidied Report. 20 pp.
MontanaPiping Plover Recovery Commuttee 197.1995 Surveys fo piping plovers(hrahius melts) and leat tems (Steniaatilaron) im Montana Unpublished Repert 114 pp.
Moser R.A. 1942. Should the belted piping plover berecognized as avalid race? Nebraska ind Review 10: 3187,
Murphy EK, Rabaibeg, MJ, Sondeeal ML, Cale B.R. aud Guenther D. A. 2000 Reproductive success of piping plover on alka lakerin Novth Dakota and Montana Pri atone 32-753 2
Murphy, RK, Michand, 1M. G, Prescott,D.R.C, Ivan J.S, Anderson BJ. nd French Pombier, M.L. 2003, Predation on adult piping plovere a predator closure cages. Wato birds 26:180-155,
‘Musray,B.G J1.1985. Evolution of dutch azein tropical specie of birds. Omitholagiel Monogrepi 36: ‘05-519
[National Rerearch Councl 2001, Conpensatng for wet loces nner the Cet Wer At. Comittee on Mitigating Welland Losses, Board on Environmental Stadier ana Toicology, Water Science and Technology Board, Division on Eath and LifeStudies and National Revearch Councl, National Academy Press, Washington D C322 pp.
National Recearch Cowncl 2002, Te Missouri River Exoyetane explora the prospect for recovery. Committee on Missouri River Ecosystem Science, Water Sdnce and Technalogy Board, Division on Eath and Life Studies, National Research Cound, National Academy Press, Washington D.C. wep.
National Research Cowal 2004, Budaigered ud Treated Speses of te Pate River. Committee on Endangered and Threstened Species in the Patt River Bain National Research Counc, National Academy Press, Washington D.C.336 pp.
Neoly,R.K. and Baker J. L. 1969. Nitrogen md phosphorus dynamics and thetateof agricultural mneft ‘ivan der Valk, A. (ed), Norther Pravie Weilaut. Towra tate University Press, Ames, 1A
‘Nelson, K.2006. Montana-Impact of ol eploration and production to thenovtheast Montana Welland ‘Managenvent District. Project Proposal ID-6NS1, US. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 6
33 9p
[Nicholls JL. 1989.Dishbution and other ecological appect of piping plovers (Chratus melas) ‘entering along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts MIS. Thess. Aubum University, Auburm, Alabama 150 pp.
Nicholls J.L. and Baldassare G.A.1990a Winter distribution of piping plovers along the Atlantic nd (Gulf coasts ofthe United States, Wile Buleroy 102:400-412
Nicholls J.L. and Baldassare G.A.1990b. Habitat associations of piping plovers wintering in the ‘United tater. Wiz Buller 102: 581-590,
North, M.R. 1986. Piping plover nest success on Mallard Island in North Dakota and implications for ‘rater management. Prarie Naturist 18: 117-122
(O'Conner, F..1977-Ditferences in growth and body composition in alicia passerines. Bis 119: 147-166,
Oblendoxf HM, Hothem RL, Bunck CM, Aldsich 7. W. ad Moore}. F.1986. Relationships between selenium concentrations and avian reproduction. Dont North dirrican Wieife Narra Resowee Congerence $1: 330-82
ning, L, Hamington, B, Broum, Sand Hickey, C.2000, National shorebirdrerearchneeds: aproposal of ‘anational research program and example high priority recewch topics. Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences http /rorermanomeorg/USSCPyiles him. Technical Repert of the Rerearch and Monitoring Work Group of the US. Shorebird Conservation Fla.
Philips, FL, Bee, 0. nd Dekeyer,E.S.2005. Remote welland assessment for Missouri Cotem pratie glacial basins. Weta 25:385-49,
Flismer J. H. and Haig, S.M. 1997. 1996 intemational piping plover census Report to US. Geological
‘Survey, Biological Resources Division, Foret and Rangeland Ecosystem Saence Cente, Corvallis, OR, USA.
“
Flismer J.H_ and Haig, S.M.2000, Status of abroadly distbuted endangered species results ad ‘anphications ofthe second intemational piping plover cenmis. Cound Jounal of Zolagy 78:128- 189.
Power, C., Rydkman F, Hendrickson J, Lee J, Grondahl C, and Bruning, D. 2000. (Cross thewwide ‘Missouri: Signitcant Missouri Fiver system biological sites. North Datta Onsebors 638):6-0.
Prellitz,D.M, Prelit, 7A, Stutzman KK. and Stutsman, J-W.1969. Piping plovers nesting at ‘Nelson Rerervos, Montana Pre lanomiist 21:04-96,
Prescott, D. R. C1997. Statue of the piping plover (Charadrius melodu) in Alberta Alberta Wildlife Status Repost SaiesNo1. Albata Environmental Protection Edmonton, Alberta, AB.19 pp.
Prescott,D.R.C.2001. The2001 intemational piping plover census in Alberta AlbartaSustainable Rerource Development, Fish md Wildlife Divison, Alberta pecies at Fisk Report No.2, Edmonton Alberta 15 pp.
Prindivile E.M. 1996. Habitat selection and productivity ofthe piping plover in canral North Dakota M.S. Thess. Universty of Missouri, Columbia, MO.
Prindivile Gainer, E. and Ryan, M.1998, Piping plover habitat use and reproductive access in Noxth Dakota fouoed of Wile Management §2:266.273.
[Ruclle R193, Contansnant evaluation of interior least tam and piping plover eggé from the Missouri Tavern South Dakota Pages 159-171 bi Higgins K.F and Brachia, MR, (eds). Proceadings, The ‘Miscou River md ts tabitaies piping plover and leat tem symposwan, South DakotaState
University, Brookings SD.
[Russa] FP. 1963. Theppiping plover in the Great Lakes region. America Bird 37-951.55.
Root B.G. and Ryan, M-R. 2004. Changesin piping plover nesting habitat avalabilityat Great Plains akaline wetlands, 1938-1997. Walaa 24:766-776,
ym, M.R, Root, G. and Mayer, P.M, 1998 Status of piping ploversin the Great Plaine of Noxth ‘America adanographic mulation model Coercion Biology 561-585
[Ryba A. 2008. Conservation of piping ploversin the US. Alkali Core Area:2004 field effort summary report. US Fish and Wildite Savice, Unpublished report. 7 pp
[yb A. 2005. Conservation of piping ploversin the US. Alkali Core Area:200S field effort summary report. US Fish and Wildite Savice, Unpublished report. 7 pp
Ryder, 0, A. 1996, Species conservation and systematics: the Glenna of subspecies. Trend or Eeolayy ud Evolution 19-20
Sagem, A.B. Gremwood, RJ, Sovada M.A. and Shaffer, T-L. 1993 Distubution ad abundance of
predators that affect duck production: prairie potholeregion U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [Resource Publication 194. Washington D.C.
“6s
Smo, J R, Hines J E_ and Fallon, J.2001. TheNorth American breeding bird survey, results and smvalya 1966-2000, Version 20012, United States Geological Survey, Pahcent MHldise Research Center, Laurel MD.
Schulenberg, JH, ad MB. Schulenberg 1952, Status of theinterior least tem in Kansas- 1982. Kansas Fish and Game Commission, Nongame WAldife Project. 5 pp.
‘Schwralbach, M.J.1988. Conservation of least tems and piping plovers along the Missouri River and its sajor vertem tributaries in South Dakota MS. Thesis, South DakotaState University, Brookangs, SD.
Schwelbach, M.J, Higgins, KF, Dinan] Disks B J, nd ¥iuse, C.D. 1993 Eifects of waterlevals on anterior leat tem and piping plover nesting along the Miccouri River in South Daketala: Higgins KF Brashia; MLR. eds) Proceedings, the Missoun Fiver and its ibutares piping plover and least tam symposium, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD, pp. 75-3.
Sele, RL, Skorupa .P.ma Patz, L.A. 1999, Areas susceptileto imigation induced selenium Contamination of water and biotain the westem United States, US. Geological Survey Circular 1180, Denver, CO.
Shatter, F. and Laporte, P.1994, Dit of piping plovers on the Magdelen lands, Quebec. Viton Bletit 106: 551-536
Shields, FD, Jr, Simon, A. and Stetfen, LJ.2000. Reserver etfects on dovmstream river channel amigration Boiroumerzal Comervaton 2754-66
Sibley, D.A, 2009. Fila Guide to Wester Marth America Bad, Knopf Publishers, New Vouk. 471 pp
Sidle J. G, and Kitsch E.O4, 1999. Least tems and piping ploversnerting f smdpitein Nebraska Cola Wier 16:199-148,
Sidle JG, Carson, D.E, Kirsch E.M. and Dinan, J] 1992. Flooding: mortality and habitat rmewal for least tems md piping plovers. Colon Weterbodé 15-132-136.
‘kaw, D, D.Flath, md. Thompson. 1985.Montanabird distabution Monograph #3, supplement val. 4A, Proceedings Moreaia Aeadny of Seine. 71 pp.
Skagen S.K. mid Knoff,F.L.1994. Towards concervation ofmaid-contnental shorebird migrations (Conservation Bilogy 7533-541.
‘Skagen, $.K and Thompson, . 2005. US, Shorebird Conservation Plan: novthem plains) prairie ppotholer regional zhorebird conservation plan’ version 1.33 pp
Slom, CE. 1972. Ground-water hydrology of pranie potholerin North Dakota. Geological Survey Profesional Paper S85-C
«6
Sled J.J, Anderson, J-L. ma Durough, W. G.1952. Hydrologic sting, system operation present and future stresees Pages 15-37 In: Hezee otal, Eds. The Mide Micsow' River Nortel, NE: Missouri, aver Study Group
Smith, K. A. Muxphy, RK Michaalson D.L. and Viehl, W.C. 1993. Habitat and predation management ‘or nesting piping plovers at Lostoood National Wildlife efage, North Dakota Pravie Nanoalst 25:189-187
Strauss, E. 1990. Reproductive succes lfebistory pattems, and behavioral vaiaion in apepulation of piping plovers subjected to human disturbance (1982-1989). PAD. Dissertation, Tuts Univers, ‘Meaford, Massachusetts 143 pp
‘Stucke. and Cuthbert FJ.2006. Distribution ot non breeding Grea! Lakes piping plovers along the ‘Attantic md Gulf of Meco coastiner 10 year of bmdre-ightings. Report toUS. Fish and ‘Wiaite Savice, East Lansing and Panama Field Ottices.20 pp
Tale J 1981 Bluelist for 1961. aveica Bird 353-10.
USACE. 1957. Missouri River interior leat tem and piping plover status and productivity summary, mauding permit activity report. December 1997. US. Army Corp of Engineers, OmahaDictrict
40pp.
[USDA 2002. Assessing welland functional condition change in agricultural Lmdscaper. U.S. Depatinent of Agriculture, National Resources Conservation Service Wellands Technical NoteNo1. 34 pp
USFWS. 1965. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of maangered and ‘threatened status for the piping plover fina ule Fadia Reiser 50: 50720-50734
‘USFAS. 1988. Recovery Plan for piping plovers (Chentits melo) of the Great Lakes and Norther, (Great Plans. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MN,
‘USFWS. 1950, Biological opinion ofthe op erations ofthe Missouri River Main Stema System, Letter from U.S Fish and Wildfe Service, Denver Colorado, to. S. Army Corp of Enginears, Omaha, Nebraska, dated November 14 1990.72 pp.
USFWS. 1994. Draft revised recovery plan for piping plovers (Charadrius melodu) breeding on the (Great Lakes and Northam Great Plans. US. Fish and Wildlife Service, Twin Cities, MIN.
[USFHAS. 1996. Piping Plover (Chvacbins nalodss), Atlantic Coast Population, Revised Recovery Plan. US, Fish and WildifeService, Hadley, Massachusetts. 25 pp.
USFWS. 2002. Endangered and threstened vnldlfe nd plants; designation of ctical habitat for the [Norther Great Plans breeding population of piping plover tinal rule Federal Register 6757638 7.
‘USFWS. 2003. Biological opinion onthe operation of the Missouri River main sem reservoir systan, operation and mantenance ofthe Miccours Fiver bank taiiration and navigation project and operation of heKaneae Paver reservoir system US. Fish ana WildieService 296pp + appendices
[USGS 2003. Species found postive for West Nile Virus during surveillance fort. US. Geological fmewrsoric usps govfseseardwest nile) uwvatfected hon) Lact modited sopis700s,
"USGS. 2005. National Wildlife Health Center West Nile Virus Project. US, Geological Survey itp fun mvehc usgs goufresearchywest nulefvest nile). Last modified 372372005,
‘Walsh D. and Mayer, P.M, 198, Concentrations of elements in eggs ofleact tems and piping plovers ‘rom the Missouri River, North Dakota Iu Higgins KF. andBrashier, M-R, (eds) Proceedings, ‘The Missouri River nditstibutwier piping plover and leat tem symposium, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD.
‘Wershler, C.F. 1992, An analysis of piping plover management concemsin Alberta AlbetaNAWMP Centre Edmonton, Alberta Unpublished report 56 pp.
‘Wershler, Cand Wallis, C.1967.Status ofthe piping ploverin Albata 1986. World WlditeFund (Canada and Canadian Wildlife Service, Calgary, Alberta, Unpublished Report. 54 pp.
‘Whyte A.J.1985. Breeding ecology ofthe piping plover (Curabius melodss) in contra Saskatchewan, ‘MS. Thess, University of Saskatchewan, Saskatoon Saskatchewan
‘Wiens, TP. 1986, Nest ite tenacity and mate retention i the piping plover. MS. Theis, University of ‘Minnesota Duluth 34 pp
‘Wilcox, 1.1959. A twenty year banding study ofthe piping plover. Auk76: 129-152
‘Wilcox, 1.1962. Oldest mnowm shorebird im North America Easton Bird Bauabyg Aseria Hens 25:45- 46
‘Wilkinson, P.M. and Spinks, M.1994. Winter distribution and habitat uiization of piping ploversin South Carolina Che $9:33-97
‘Wilson, A. md Bonaparte C.L. (no date Piping Plover (Charabius melo) In: American Ornithology ‘Volume II Cazsell Petter ma Galpin, New Yook,
‘ieuitz, J. W, Side J.. and Dinan J J 1992. Habitat conservation for nesting tems and piping plovers on thePlatte iver, Nebraska Pravie Nanoalst 24120
on
APPENDIX
LIST OF ACRONYMS
‘American Ornithological Union, Burem of Reclamation
Environmental Quality Incentives Program Geographic Information Syste
‘MontmiaD epartmvent ofFish, Willte and Parke National Resources Concervation Service National Wildlife Refuge
Population Viability Analysis
United Stater Army Comp of Engineers United Sater Depatmnent of Agriculture
United tater Fish and Wildlife Service
United tater Geological Survey
Welland Management Ditic
Waterfowl Production Area
°
APPENDIX?
MONTANA LEAST TERN AND PIPING PLOVER WORK GROUP CONTACTS
‘Name ‘Aefntion Dancap ‘Amedem Bird Consevancy GayleSkunkeap, Director Blackfeet Tube
Bobby Baker ALM
David Waller aM
Fite Prellite aM
John Cason BLM Glargow Fila Station Justin Kucera BOR
Sue Camp BOR
PaulBackiond BOR-CayonFeny
‘Stere Morehouse BOR-Dillen
Blaskovich Rick BOR-Montana Area Otfice
Stan Huhtala BOR Tbe: Dan
Danspencer Burem ofIndim Attsre
Robbie Magnun, Director Fort Peck Assiniboine Siowx Tiber Debbie Madicon Fost Peck Taber
Jim Thompson ak Fiver Allimace
Monty Sune MontmaDept of Agriculture ‘Amald Dood ‘Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks ‘Shaley Atkinson ‘MontamaFish Wildife and Parks Bim Matin Nature Conservancy
Jacob S.Ivan Nature Conservancy
Wayne Hanis Sackatchevrm Environment Carey Kruse [US Amy Corps of Engineers Dain Meany [US Amy Corps of Engineers Greg Pareka ‘US Amy Cops of Engineers vanessaFiels USFWS Benton LakeNWR LouHmeuy [USFIAS (work group coordinatr) JmeRoybal USFWS
Karenkeel [USFWE-Bianarck
Kathy Tabby USFWS Bovrdoin NWR
Glenn Guenther USEHE-CMR
Everst Russel USFWE-CR
Loui Nordstrom, USFWSES
Bob Murphy, T&ESpedaist | USFWS-Lost Wood NWR
Beth Madden USFWS MedicneLakeN OR DakeRabenberg USFWE MedianeLakeNOR Tan Connolly USFWS MedicneLakeNIOR
CChud: Carison ala
APPENDIX?
DATASHEET FOR ANNUAL PIPING PLOVER BREEDING BIRD SURVEY IN MONTANA.
PIPING PLOVER
‘MONTANA ANNUAL BREEDING BIRD SURVEY DATASHEET
Date: Observers: Location
SiteDescuption:
GPSLocation: N E
Number of plovers observed:
Number of plover pais observed:
Actrity Habitat Deception. Vegetation Substrate Coutahp Smibar None Gravel Nesting Graver >10% smd Defensive Riverbank 1w.n% ‘Alkatt Forsgang Rerevair other Flying ‘Alkativeetland >20%
omer otner
Plant species present
(Other animal spaces prevent
Evidence of predators
Renae
APPENDIX
INTERNATIONAL PIPING PLOVER BREEDING CENSUS GUIDELINES AND DATASHEET
INTERNATIONAL PIPING PLOVER COORD!
{ATION GROUP
2001 INTERNATIONAL PIPING PLOVER BREEDING CENSUS SSS usta
(Gen Pupose ad Hise: The esr Ps Paves Cents 5 dsgaed y the inetowal as over Coors Grup ts Hen esa tae 8 up cet al yas Poer opus os ‘ok cen aad beg proands every ve year The 00] canter came oo ores pat 10 ‘ea The pany Bc fhe ean sane ds se mdr Ea fer fp els. Saale edn anew scces of ecvery efor aad recover eras Cs dss pote ae pecs ange ade of aca lt ad an ep duce mre pues Te st temas Cents coed 991 pra » popaie ema fon th spe ssl dent or Arenck “The eng cei ll he tir of of dan 17 Sees ne Caan pwc ste Fender ofS. Pee aut Mipdoe Duna i eas ped, 82 ait Pp Povey 41 pa) Snere dace Subse te 96ers tended 913 sas (2.08 reais pss amo Unease 7 fo 191" The 1996 cena ace stg teal eae cat Sl eas eh lhe Ase Cont 320s ese sl Great als plan ds cn the US, Geet lam nde Canaan Pre The 201 iterate Ce il onplemet prs sae. Botaing an even me reine pita of te esting dsuten of pang Poses I wal al rome he ‘ype to ns les we for he pecs,
Le woul he heal cess cond dna he ane owes eos Nok
‘Renal wth fe efits carom eens congeners acre Wher fps ete ea athe eas be aan eres Je 8 and June 16%, 201 (eset forthe
Sian 3, which wl ens om Mav 30" thru tune 3") Has wogoue accent vee Tae we Shosceqabie We soul perce dics at ps een casted ee te yond
‘Coston The 2001 ens willbe ded Sen USGS Fost and Rangeland Ecos Seece Cee {Cals Grease on Sn He (S750. 7482. enal san. gis poe She wl en ea cextact ‘tate sober of the tame Papa Piste Coote Tea Chesen Fea (4.07390 ead buss r= alte pay courdanee fr enn See roca Coat al ori “Sma sensu eth st povoce a at rng lena prc oor al rey ‘Gray The ngenstalnes af each pg! ae one bel
ced sles te 3 plete ofan an ope cnr fer xh te ‘red, Ssan ad Chern wl sarc ens fot dpb lof both he wie Sinbrerag cases ty Stam 2002 As pos eas, fs lb sete 20008 ‘mas
{areca pper sbi 2 ei june
{Mendel eyo coveng ech steps ney dea fee as,
‘uc ovata ordinal er tel soource pacer + GiSbaed mags a dates ped on pyepinewebates {apolar amar toa te mae
2 StateProvincinl Coordinators: wll desi censvsrs and areas to be surveyed. They wil disibe ‘census asenals to andtadual ceases duel or trough local contact persons. Fellowang the cen ‘hey voll yuan rests and ence tat ech sites mapped by ante and lend and rome a tune assessmeat ofthe casts sn th soe reson
Following completion ofthe censis, Coors shoud end to Chern Ferland +All nid Census Reports aps + Stare Stuamary Steet + State Assesisent Fora
‘We ak tha thi infusion be forwarded te Cheroa Feriand by August 184, 2001. and that we be informed of any delays 2s soon 3s possible. Maps of census ss shold be raed sn wth the census sonuamay. Each site should contain reference latiude and longitude coordinates owas ad ‘ge inforanton aot neces).
3, Individual Censusers:silbe gen census gedelines an a census reper fem fr each ite they are survey. “Mluple signals ae encouraged to comctcensses together Atleast one dca enstsng exch ste shouldbe expenence in enficanon of shorebirds. Whenever posible cesses ofeach sie should be completed dang ove day. Mhple censuses ofa site ae nt encouraged unless ‘he ongaal ure i consulted fo be insecurate because of sdkerse Weather condions, ma dusurance ete Cen report sould be Bled ou 2s completely a pouble for ll ensues teach, ‘ese enuaed ro the site provincial ceordantoe by the spciied date Mops shuld ako be seruned ‘o the coordnator withthe ceass aes cleariy ake and beled, including latitude aud longitude of approsimate site center. Spectclocauous where Pipa Ploves ae cbserved a also be nica ca. naps. Census reports and maps should be returned even if no Piping Plovers were observed
Cems meee: The gol ofthe census ito count both resinz pir and uapazed adits Pir sould ely laclode buds seen together. Saale Luc in the presence of ness or Young shold be lied sparsely fom otter Tapa lads hawever, ie dcounge censuses Sou seatclaus ness or voane i der stance ro breeding sites. We ae specifically not addeseing sues of reproductive succes dung tis census. We are not rovdg specific insists for coedueig nvidia eens bur cide the follows deitins and
Sigpestons Sites ay encude wach wetland, ake. or tee of ver or coase aay porno of the
above. Sites shouldbe ceasused by the most effecuve means posable. Care shouldbe take 1 ote whece buds have flow to ad rom inorder vod double cousiag. Ths especially nportat because paz Plover (the ort Gest Plans ad Prone) ofen foc when wtniders exter ames ea. vow! coedicong sve dunag ‘meme Weather conditions wach sot onl sess in ences cents data, bot also sneseases ke of dense 2 the bus. Surveys ae best conducted dung eaiy momng tes. although we wodersnd that config cesses to ‘hus ime pened ss ofen asealsts) Censtets sould avoid encroach on nesting tertones wher possible ae 2 all eases shou lu tne peut any size femory fo mo more than 3 mies. Please Ws Yo muusaze disturbance toe ar
Census ponies: Leal, all haba scent and oe curety able fer Piping Plover should be surveyed in 2001 Die fo ick of information abo sites ce oer consti eer the gel may not be achiesable some
states promnces. To mee census olectes, ve therefore siggest the fllowing pies 1) Sites that had Peng Ploers present a 1951, 1996 or ler 2) Ses that kad surmble Pipa Plover haba sn 1991 and 1996. 3) Ses dat ‘vere uanable wen censused un 1996 bt tat have been sable mocereceay. 4) Sites not ceased i 1996 but ‘atte iely to conta stable Ppaig Plover lt. 5) Sites not ceased a 1996 but wos histone records of we by Piping overs. To most accurately analyze population tends over the past en Yeas, least the fist thee ‘paonnes seed ro be me.
‘We thank you for your involvement with the 2001 International Piping Plover Census! Each cous is extremely important in alla i
n
INTERNATION
NAL PIPING PLOVER COORDINATION GROUP. Xs
2001 INTERNATIONAL PIPING PLOVER BREEDING CENSUS Individual Census Report
Pee compl this em oughly pe foc caca reed een Png Mes eal es. tach ‘up ete dest tes cessing ae a longo se ops scene) ‘ila eto ata ada exmmets These forced eet oye See roaal Conary Jas 18 301 Fer ce asin tut os Sam Pica Coouat os Che Feaed @USC SRD Fos ad FAESLSET ‘ =
1. To tpn Pipi Pe Pues aed (aa oe py omaha Puestmit__—Bedeloctedogetis_ Tardeeusce cena Purest been) ——=
Toole ofaapauedsdus sthanyoug:__ soit yous sem 5 Couns again
Tealanmest te
Tah oy. __ sit Linge ___dog__ sn,
Bie nan,
ie Les Md High nag ‘eens cmon ~~ aio Peat icon) ‘nd cpend Taste me celecn) ink ict © saat cennnt tacks a 2) Body afer 1 eas 1 Pretty hax cove gs MLR Ro AbsiTabepina_"V. wal elinaeste Vinee
YL Iedetial Fond — VIL Os Grebe
some)
"
6
Ht) Pp Pwr od ae abe destin C8 TRS}
a int er) eve: ane ce ca
Wye bow doersornge ton en sae”
‘eed sey ccumtaces tar te faced cris es reer condoms a dace)
Boal amino: of yma bad ne Ie Se op oho aca Oa ta ee)
esto apa iis oe rode Wh
Siaabefpecleceaunieg Cemaves cs lanene FE mers el Saddeces (etch adn! ef ercesn)
Pan a ps, Chonan teustenise
Coals, OR
‘THANKS FOR YOUR HELP WITH THE 2001 INTERNATIONAL PIPING PLOVER CENSUS!
7"
APPENDIXS
CRITICAL HABITATFOR PIPING PLOVERS IN MONTANA.
Piping Plover Critical Habitat
Unit 1 (Momtana)
Crit Habitat
Section ‘Toweabip Beudaries
‘hitical habitat MTA Sheridan County, Montana, CCourtey: USFWS, Ecological Services.
76
Piping Plover Critical Habitat
mane Mie ow
ao @ he
(Cuitcal Mabitat MT-2 Miceouri Fiver, Montana CCourtery: USFWS, Ecelogical Services
Piping Plover Critical Habitat
a Pena ceatabi
(Chitical Habitat MT- Bovrdoin National Wildite Refuge, Montana CCourtery USFWS, Ecological Servicer
emesatoms Ml Piping Pte = County Boun
‘Cutical Nabitat MT-3 Foot Peck Reservoir, Montana, Courtery: USFWS, Ecological Services.
n
{Oo epic of pul foeameat wae abled an wtnaled oot oh L437 pes copy fora ttl crt of $1437 DD which nce SLA 00 for punting and $000 fer Sth