piping plover

To the User:

Element Stewardship Abstracts (ESAs) are prepared to provide The Nature Conservancy's Stewardship staff and other land managers with current management related information on those species and communities that are most important to protect, or most important to control. The abstracts organize and summarize data from numerous sources including literature and researchers and managers actively working with the species or community.

We hope, by providing this abstract free of charge, to encourage users to contribute their information to the abstract. This sharing of information will benefit all land managers by ensuring the availability of an abstract that contains up-to-date information on management techniques and knowledgeable contacts. Contributors of information will be acknowledged within the abstract and receive updated editions.

For ease of update and reirievability, the abstracts are stored on computer at the national office of The Nature Conservancy. Each abstract has a Nature Conservancy office or program responsible for its updating and maintenance. The address and telephone number of the office is recorded on the first page of the abstract. Anyone with comments, questions, or information on current or past monitoring, research, or management programs for the species or community described in an abstract should contact the Land Steward in the office responsible for that abstract.

The sources from which the information in the abstract comes are dependant upon the research and observations of many scientists and individuals. In most cases, this information is not the result of comprehensive site-specific field surveys, and may not be confirmed by Nature Conservancy staff. Many areas of the United States have never been thoroughly surveyed, and new plants and animals are still being discovered. Information in this abstract should never be regarded as a final statement or substituted for on-site surveys required for environmental assessments. Views expressed in the abstract are those of the author and not of The Nature Conservancy. They represent the best assessment of the author in light of the information available.

This abstract is a compilation of available information and is not an endorsement of particular practices or products.

Please do not remove this cover statement from the attached abstract.

(01995

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

1815 North Lynn Street, Arlington, Virginia 22209 (703) 841-5300

>== 0010 EL-CODE

ABNNB03070

>== 0012 STEW-ABS-RESP

MRO

THE NATURE CONSERVANCY

MIDWEST REGIONAL OFFICE

1313 FIFTH ST. SE

MINNEAPOLIS, MN 55414

(612) 379-2207

>== 0016 PREPARER

J.E. EVANS

>== 0020 NAME CHARADRIUS MELOD

>== 0050 COMMON-NAME

PIPING PLOVER

>== 0100 DESCRIPTION A small plover; wings ca. 117 mm; tail 51 mm; weight average 55 g. Adult male: forehead, sides of head (including lores, underparts and collar around hindneck) plain white with a dark band across the front of the crown from eye-to-eye and black shoulder patches that often extend across the breast; rest of the upper parts pale gray-brown, lightest on the rump and upper tail-coverts; primaries dusky-black at tips, the inner webs largely white, and all but the outer two or three more or less white on outer webs; secondaries largely white; greater wing-coverts tipped with white; axillaries and lining of wing white; tail white at base with the features darkening towards the end and tipped with white; outer retrices mostly white; bill dull orange tipped with black; legs and feet orange-yellow; iris dark brown; eyelids pale yellow (Bent 1928, Roberts 1955, Wilcox 1959, Dinsmore 198 1). The call is a two-noted "peep-lo" with an organ-like sound (Robins et al. 1976).

>== 1000 HABITAT The Atlantic Coast and Great Lakes populations almost exclusively use sandy beaches for nesting. Piping plovers on the Atlantic coast nest on gently sloping foredunes, blow-out areas behind primary dunes, and suitable dredge oil deposits (USFWS 1988). Hall (1981) notes that piping plovers are extremely choosy about the location of their nests, picking sandy beaches that are sprinkled with small stones usually on level open ground between the water's edge and nearest low dune. In Maine, piping plovers nest only on sandy beaches notably lacking in small or large stones (Vickery 1984). Nests, especially second nests, may also be built on sandy open flats among shells or cobble behind foredunes (e.g., in Michigan and New Jersey; Master 1983). Lambert and Ratcliff (1979), in a Michigan study, found that the average beach used for nest habitat was 37 m wide and that the nests were located an average of 13 m from the water's edge (14 m from the first dune and 109 m from the nearest tree line). They also found a preference for nesting near other water bodies (beach pools, lagoons, or cuts) that may provide additional food sources. In an area used by piping plovers at Minnesota Point (Duluth, MN), the average ground cover was less than 5%, and plants were an average of 13 cm tall (Niemi and Davis 1979). Niemi and Davis (1979) found that less than 8% of the available beach habitat was suitable for piping plover nesting. At Pine and Curry Islands (Lake of the Woods, MN), piping plovers nest on a sandy island where vegetation rarely exceeds 1 m in height (Cuthbert and Wiens 1982). Here vegetation included Salix interior, Artemisi campestris, Lathyrus japonicus, Xanthium sp., Populus balsamifer , Polygonum sp., Oenother sp., grasses, and sedges. Nest habitat, always with some gravel, varies along alkali lakes from clay to boulders. Width of beach along alkali lakes varies from 15 to 100 feet (Soine 1983).

In the northern Great Plains, piping plovers nest on alluvial islands (Hay and Lingle 1981), on exposed shorelines of saline wetlands, along semi-permanent ponds and lakes (Soine 1982), and on sandy beaches of larger lakes (Renaud 1979). Suitable habitat for breeding piping plovers are wide beaches (>20 m) with highly clumped vegetation, having less than 5% overall vegetation cover and/or with extensive gravel (USFWS 1988). Woody species encroachment is a problem at many alluvial island sites due to reduced flows (Hay and Lingle 198 1, Lingle 1983). This is also a problem on saline wetland shorelines due to drawdown and irrigation pumping (Soine 1983).

Piping plovers nesting on the Missouri, Platte, Niobrara, and other rivers use beaches and midstream barren sandbars in wide channel beds. Vegetation cover on nesting islands is generally less than 25% (USFWS 1988).

Wilcox (1959) noted the natural progression of beach vegetation and the effect on plover nesting habitat. The 1938 hurricane leveled sand dunes, created new inlets and beach pools, and "unstabilized" dunes on Long Island beaches. This produced more piping plover habitat, and numbers increased, but as dunes became recolonized by beach grass (Ammol2hil breviligulata), piping plovers declined (Wilcox 1959).

Human activity can create or destroy piping plover habitat. In Duluth Harbor, sand harbor dredge spoils created nesting habitat until invading plant communities reduced their desirability (Lakela 1940, Niemi and Davis 1979). Two of these islands are now managed specifically for piping plovers and least terns (Pfanmueller 1983). Minnesota sites where dredge spoils are still being deposited remain very attractive to plovers. At one such site, Erie Pier, one pair nested successfully in 1984 (Pfamnueller 1984). In Iowa, piping plovers have successfully nested at flyash slurry beaches bordering power plant cooling ponds (Ewert 1984).

The complete winter distribution of the Piping Plover is not known. Birds have been reported wintering from North Carolina south to Florida, the Gulf coast states, Mexico, and the Caribbean. About 5% of the total North American breeding population and 14% of the entire Atlantic coast breeding population winters from North Carolina through Florida. Plovers wintering on the Atlantic coast occurred most frequently in Georgia and least frequently in Florida. Approximately 35% of the total breeding population winters along the gulf coast from Florida to Texas and represents 56% of the Great Lakes/Great Plains population. Substantial mortality may occur during winter distribution of shore birds. Information concerning winter distribution and habitat needs are important, and should be a factor in management strategies (Nicholls and Baldassare 1990).

>== 2000 BIOLOGY-ECOLOGY The breeding season for piping plovers begins when the adults reach the breeding grounds in mid- to late April or in mid-May in northern parts of the range. The adult males arrive earliest, select beach habitats, and defend established territories against other males (Hall 198 1). When adult females arrive at the breeding grounds several weeks later, the males conduct elaborate courtship rituals including aerial displays of circles and figure eights, a twittering, whistling song, and posturing with spread tail and wings and rapid drumming of feet (Bent 1928, Hall 1981). Wilcox (1959) has shown that adult males tend to returnto the same beach site, with only 20% settling on a new nest site farther than 1,000 feet from the previous year's locality. Adult females tend to choose new nest sites within the same geographic area with over 50% chosing a new nest site over 1,000 feet from the previous year. Adults tend to pick new mates each year (Wilcox 1959).

Nest sites are simple depressions or scrapes in the sand (Bent 1928, Wilcox 1959). The average nest is about 6 to 8 cm in diameter, and is often lined with pebbles, shells, or drift wood to enhance the camouflage effect. Males make the scrapes and may construct additional (unused) nests in their territories, which may be used to deceive predators or may simply reflect over-zealousness (Wilcox 1959, Hall 1981). Occupied nests are generally 50 to 100 m apart (Wilcox 1959, Cairns 1977, Neimi and Davis 1979, Cuthbert and Wiens 1982).

Egg-laying commences soon after mating (Cuthbert and Wien, 1982, Hall 1981). Eggs are laid every second day. The average clutch size is four eggs (Wilcox 1959). Renesting is fairly common among pairs that lose their eggs in the first half of the breeding season (Wilcox 1959, Cuthbert and Wiens 1982). Nest success depends heavily upon camouflage (Hull 1981). The adults exhibit counter-shading (with white below and dark on top), thus, the shadow cast by their underparts matches their backs, making the birds very difficult to see while on nests (Peterson 1948). The eggs are creamy white and spotted, 2502 mm, and blend into the simple nest structure (Wilcox 1959). In comparison to tern's eggs, which are more oblong, piping plover eggs are more markedly pyriform in shape (Zickefoose 1984). The young hatch about 27 to 31 days after egg laying, and incubation is shared by both adults (Wilcox 1959, Hull 1981). Hatching success ranges widely: 91% for undisturbed beaches on Long Island (Wilcox 1959), 76% for undisturbed beaches in Nova Scotia (Cairns 1977), 44% on relatively undisturbed beaches at Lake of the Woods (Cuthbert and Wiens 1982), and 30% maximum at disturbed Michigan beaches (Lambert and Ratcliff 1979). The chicks are downy replicas of the adults, sand-colored above, white below. About two hours after hatching the young can leave the nest, capable of running and swimming. The young remain within about 200 in of the nest, although they do not return after hatching (Wilcox 1959, Hull 1981, Johnsgard 1979). When disturbed or threatened, the young either freeze or combine short runs with freezing and blend very effectively into their surroundings (Wilcox 1959, Hull 198 1). The adults will feign injury to draw intruders away from the nest or young (Wilcox 1959, Bent 1928). Adults also defend the nest territory against other adult piping plovers, gulls, and song birds (Wilcox 1959, Matteson 1980). The chicks fledge at about four weeks of age (Hull 198 1). First (unsustained) flight has been observed at around 18 days, with chicks molting into first juvenile plumage by day 22 (Zickafoose 1984).

Cuthbert and Wiens (1982) have provided data aioout reproductive success of 15 pairs of piping plover at Lake of the Woods, Minnesota in 1982. There were 15 original nesting attempts and nine renesting attempts following destruction of the original nests. The average clutch size was 3.9 eggs. Of the 86 eggs laid, 38 hatched (44%) and 25 fledged, for a mean of 1.7 chicks fledged per reproductive pair. In the following years, hatching success has varied widely at this site: 29% (1982), 59% (1983),13% (1984, Phamuell 1984). Similarly, Caim (1977) found fledging success 1.3 to 2.1 per pair on undisturbed Nova Scotia beaches, and 0.7 to 1. 1 per pair on disturbed beaches. In 1987, The Piping Plover Recovery Team (USFWS 1988) found plovers on the U.S. coast fledged 0. 19-1.75 chicks per pair. A pair of plovers in Connecticut displayed double-clutching after a successful brood. Two chicks were fledged from a three-egg clutch, followed by a second three-egg clutch that was eaten by an opossum in the third week of incubation (Zickafoose 1984).

Cuthbert and Wiens (1982) found the major cause of egg mortality was predation (about 67%). Potential predators at Lake of the Woods included herring gulls, ring-billed gulls, common ravens, American crows, great homed owls, and weasels. Other studies have also found gulls as a major cause of nest mortality (Hassell and Woodford 1965, Lakela 1940, Niemi and Davis, 1979). House mice, rats, striped skunks, red fox, raccoons, and coyotes sometimes raided nests (Wilcox 1959, Cuthbert and Wiens 1982). Predation, primarily by red fox and raccoons, was the leading cause of nest failure on Assategue Island, Massachusetts (Patterson et al. 1990). Along the Platte River, the red-sided and plains garter snakes are potential predators (Lingle 1984). Cuthbert and Wiens (1982) sound that chick mortality was largely due to predators (69%) but some chicks were found dead with no apparent cause. Other causes of egg loss include storm damage (eggs washed away by storm waves) and direct human disturbance (i.e., stepping on nests, Cuthbert and Wiens 1982). Indirect human disturbance by preventing adults from incubating eggs can be another cause of egg loss (Haig 1983).

Food consists of worms, fly larvae, beetles, crustaceans, mollusks, and other invertebrates (Bent 1928). The chicks learn to feed themselves and eat smaller versions adult food items (Hull 198 1). Piping plovers feed more leisurely than other sandpipers, alternately running and pausing to search for prey (Bent 1928). Open shoreline areas are preferred, and vegetated beaches are avoided (Cuthbert and Wiens 1982).

Piping plovers begin migration in mid- to late summer. The juveniles may remain later but are generally gone by mid- to late August (Cuthbert and Wiens 1982).

Longevity records indicate that only 13% of females and 28% of the males lived to five years. Eleven years of age is probably the maximum age for this species (Wilcox 1959).

Piping plovers may be commensal with tems in some instances. In Duluth Harbor, piping plovers nest within a common tem colony, are accepted by the tems, and benefit from the active defense of the colony by terns against ring-billed and herring gulls (Niemi and Davis 1979). Preliminary data suggests that plovers may relocate within a least tern colony late in the nesting season, possibly after failed nesting attempts. This provides better protection from gulls and crows, but may subject plovers to increased mammalian predation, against which the least terns are defenseless. Great Plains populations are sometimes associated with least tern colonies (Hay and Lingle 198 1, Dinan 1983, Faanes 1983). Most eastern sites also have least terns (Master 1983): e.g., Maine (Vickery 1984) and Connecticut.

Preliminary results of a 1984-85 study of productivity at sites in North Dakota indicates that piping plovers may be benefiting from a commensal relationship with American avocets (Prindiville and Ryan 1984). Like terns, avocets actively defend their territories against predators. Plovers nesting in areas also used by avocets had a 62% nesting success, compared to a success of only 29% when not in such an association. Once hatched, chick survival rates were similar, regardless of avocet presence.

Quinn and Walden (1966) have studied captive raising of piping plovers. A number of eggs were taken from active nests in mid-June in Maryland and placed in a still-air incubator at 99.4 degrees F with 78% humidity. The eggs were turned twice a day. After hatching, the chicks were kept in a brooder at 93 degrees F for one week and 85-89 degrees F the following weeks. Chicks were fed a variety of food and were most attracted to moving (live) prey. Chicks were active in captivity and required large amounts of space, especially for flight development.

>== 2500 EO-QUAL-DET

The goal of the Piping Plover Recovery Team is as follows:

United States Northern Great Plains populations will increase to 1300 pairs and remain stable for 15 years, distributed as follows:

Montana --- 60 pairs

North Dakota--650 pairs

South Dakota--350 pairs

Nebraska-465 pairs

Minnesota--25 pairs

Great Lakes piping plovers populations will increase to 150 pairs and remain stable for 15 years distributed as follows:

Michigan --- 100 pairs

Wisconsin-- 1 5pairs

Other Great Lakes states --- 35 pairs

Atlantic coast populations (U.S. and Canada) will increase to 1200 pairs and remain stable, while maintaining current distribution patterns.

>== 3000 THREATS

In the mid- 18 00's piping plovers were harvested for food and brought to the verge of extinction (Bent 1928, Hull 1981). Piping plovers were protected from hunting by legislation in 1913, but unfortunately populations have not increased to former levels (Hull 198 1).

Human disturbance during nesting is the major factor in many areas. Cairns (1977) found that reproductive success was 1.3 to 2.1 fledged young per pair on remote beaches, but only 0.7 to 1. 1 fledged young per pair on beaches used for recreation in Nova Scotia. Lambert and Ratcliff (1979) found very low reproductive success (3 0% hatching rate, 0.6 young fledged per pair) at a Michigan state park with heavily used beaches. Cartar (1976) found that reproductive success at Long Point, Ontario nearly doubled following attempts to restrict access to the nesting areas. There are several ways human disturbance lowers piping plover reproductive success. People and vehicles can trample and destroy nests of young (Lambert and Ratcliff 1979, Haig 1983, Cuthbert and Wiens 1982). Human presence may inhibit courtship, incubation, and brooding (Haig 1983).

Free-running dogs are a major concern (Cairns and McLaren 1980, Quinn and Walden 1966, Lambert and Ratcliff 1979, Master 198 1, USFWS 1988). Halbeisen (1977) found that dogs frighten snowy plovers (Charadrius alexandrinus) off their nests an average of twice as long (5.8 versus 2.8 minutes) compared to people. This increases the chance of egg failure or egg predation and chick mortality from overexposure, starvation, and predation.

Habitat alteration and destruction is an additional concern. Piping plovers are very choosy about nesting habitat, picking wide beaches that are essentially free of vegetation (see Habitat section). Bradstreet et al. (1977) found that rising lake levels in the Great Lakes narrowed beaches and may have caused habitat loss. Stream channelization may be responsible for increased flood frequency and magnitude. Hay and Lingle (198 1) discuss destruction of nests due to flooding. Woody species encroachment on alluvial islands in the Great Plains is a concern (Hay and Lingle 198 1, Dinsmore 198 1, Lingle 1983, USFWS 1988). Reduced flows may be responsible for this encroachment (Lingle 1983). In the Great Plains, lowering of the water table due to irrigation projects and strip mines is a growing concern (Kantrud 1979, Dinsmore 1981, USFWS 1988). Woody species encroachment of lake shorelines in Manitoba may be responsible for habitat loss (Haig 1983). Invasion of sites by Ammophil breviligulat is a problem on the east coast; areas may need to be weeded (Master 1983).

Predation by gulls is potentially disastrous to plovers. Cartar (1976) reported that nest sites at Long Point, Ontario were invaded by large flocks of herring gulls that destroyed nests. Nol (1980) documented adverse effects of non-breeding gull flocks on piping plover and killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), and some minor effects have also been noted (Lambert and Ratcliff 1979, Master 198 1). Other important predators are the red fox (Vull2es vull2es), raccoons (Procyo Lotor), opossums (Didelphis virginian ), skunks (Mephitis mgphitis), grackles (Quiscalus), fish crows (Corvus ossifragus), and domestic cats and dogs (Patterson et al. 1990). Cattle trampling along alkali lakes may also be a problem. Wilcox (1959) observed adult mortality following oiling from highway tars. The effect of aquatic pollution on piping plovers is not generally known. Dinsmore (1981) speculates that pesticides may be a major concern.

>== 3500 LAND-PROT-SPECS Access to beaches should be restricted for nesting during late May to late July. If total restriction is not possible, vehicles should be prohibited for this time interval. Dogs should be leashed, and people requested to avoid the upper beach area. In the Great Plains, preserve design considerations should include control or restrictions over water flow, as reduced flows permit woody species invasion of nest habitat (Lingle 1983). Untimely flooding also can eliminate potential feeding or nesting habitat (Howe 1983). The shorelines of alkali lakes should be fenced to restrict cattle use.

>== 4000 RECOVERY-POT To acquire essential habitat, a coordinated effort between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Canadian Wildlife Service is needed. Coordinated efforts between the USFWS, state wildlife agencies, Army Corps of Engineers, National Parks Service, and state conservation groups are needed to acquire essential habitat and manage those areas. The Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains Piping Plover Recovery Plan (1988) and the Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Recovery Plan (1988) should be consulted. Captive breeding and restocking may be necessary (Quinn and Walden 1966). Future research will determine the recovery potential.

>== 5000 BIOL-MONIT-NEEDS The Piping Plover can still be found, although in greatly reduced numbers, across most of the historical range except in the Great Lakes. Only one viable breeding population remained in the Great Lakes by 1986. The Northern Great Plains (U.S. & Canada) population was about 13761444 pairs in 1988. The Atlantic coast population was estimated at 910 pairs in 1979. A survey in 1987 (USWFS 1988) estimated the Atlantic population at about 790 pairs: 550 pairs in the U.S. & 240 pairs in Canada. To assess conservation efforts on population trends, monitoring should continue.

>== 5200 BIOL-MONIT-PROCS During the two-week period, from the middle to the end of incubation, observers should visit sites early in the morning, when plovers are least susceptible to intrusion. Generally a pair of binoculars (7X+) or a spotting scope (of 20X+) is sufficient for proper identification. Two observers is ideal. One person may monitor from a distance, while the other may approach more closely. In typical beach situations, walking a route parallel to the shoreline is recommended, using caution so as to not disturb potential nests (USFWS 1988). Refer to the Great Lakes and Great Plains Piping Plover Recovery Plan (1988) and the Atlantic Coast Recovery Plan (1988) for complete details.

>== 5400 BIOL-MONIT-PROGS

>== 6000 RSRCH-NEEDS Y

>== 6010 RSRCH-NEEDS-COMM

(1) Continue to monitor populations.

(2) Research diet and feeding habits, and the effects of pesticides and pollutants.

(3) Monitor responses to habitat management. Habitat restoration should be attempted (Linglel983, Haig 1983).

(4) Locate reliable wintering sites and migration routes. Investigate wintering ground ecology.

>== 6400 RSRCH-PROGS

Y

>== 6410 RSRCH-PROGS-COMM Over the last decade, federal, state, and private conservation groups have shown an increased interest in the piping plover. The Great Lakes and Northern Great Plains Piping Plover Recovery Plan (1988) and the Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Recovery Plan (1988) contain detailed, state by state, descriptions of current research and management activities.

>== 7000 MGMT-NEEDS

Y

>== 7010 MGMT-NEEDS-COMM On the Atlantic Coast, piping plovers no longer nest on the margins of their range. This former range includes the north shore of the Gulf of St. Lawrence Sable Island, and the Gaspe Peninsula (Cairns and McLaren 1980). In 1980 the Atlantic coast population was estimated at 910 pairs (Cairns and McLaren 1980). In 1986 estimates were about 790 pairs; 550 pairs in the U.S. and 240 pairs in Canada (USFWS 1988). The Long Island, NY population declined from over 500 pairs (Wilcox 1939) to about 100 pairs in 1988 (Cairns and McLaren 1980, USFWS 1988).

The decline of the Great Lakes populations is dramatic. Viable populations have diminished from eight states (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York). In 1978, the population at Duluth Harbor, Minnesota was I I pairs (Niemi and Davis 1979), and three to five pairs by 1981 (Niemi 198 1). In Wisconsin there were three pairs (Matteson 1979), all on the Lake Superior shoreline. They are now extirpated in Minnesota and Wisconsin (USFWS 1988). In Michigan, piping plovers have been reduced in range and essentially eliminated from the southern portion of the state (Cottrille 1957, Lambert and Ratcliff 1979). Lambert and Ratcliff (1979) estimated 77 birds; Masters (1981) later estimated 36 birds and a continued decline to 28 birds (Master 1983). There were 17 pairs reported from Michigan in 1987 (representing the total Great Lakes population, USFWS 1988).

The Great Plains populations are in decline (USFWS 1988). Populations at Lake of the Woods, Minnesota were estimated at 20 to 30 pairs (Anderson 1979), then 15 to 14 non-breeding adults (Cuthbert and Wiens 1982), 22 pairs (Pfanmueller 1984), and finally seven pairs (USFWS 1988). At Long Point, Ontario there were over 100 pairs in 1928 (Snyder 193 1). Populations in Ontario dropped to an estimated 50 birds in the early 1930's (Sheppard 1935). Seven pairs were reported from Ontario in 1961-1965 (Hussel and Montgomerie 1968), and two pairs in 1976-1977 (Bradstreet et al. 1977). One pair of piping plovers nested along Lake Ontario in 1984 (Zickafoose 1984). Four pairs were recorded at Lake of the Woods, Ontario in 1986 (USFWS 1988). In Saskatchewan, Renaud (1979) estimated between 1,000 and 1,500 adults. Estimates from 1986, placed Saskatchewan populations at 356-400 pairs (USFWS 1988). In Manitoba, Haig (1983 pers. comm.) estimated 120 adults and 50 nesting pairs. Estimates of pair number from 1986 in Manitoba are 66 to 90 (USFWS 1988). In 1976, the Canadian Wildlife Service estimated 100 adults and 40 nesting pairs in Alberta (Hoose 1984); in 1986 the number dropped to 150 pairs (USFWS 1988). Dinan (1983) reported 74 pairs from Nebraska along the Missouri, Platte, and Niobrara rivers. Nebraska had a total estimated 167 pairs in 1987 (USFWS 1988). The USFWS (1983) estimated 50 birds and 20 nesting pairs in South Dakota in 1983. The USFWS (1988) estimated a total of 97 pairs for South Dakota in 1987. Missouri river estimates for 1987 are included in this South Dakota count.

>== 7400 MGMT-PROCS

(1) It is critically important that all efforts be made to eliminate or reduce human disturbance.

(2) Prohibiting free-running dogs.

(3) Restricting vehicles during late May to late July.

(4) Request people use the lower beach and avoid the upper beach area where piping plovers

nest.

(5) Post signs and mount public relations campaign to ask people to avoid nesting areas and to

not molest birds.

(6) Predation protection through fencing and other barriers is a possible management tool. Work

by the Maine Audubon Society suggests this has protected plovers from predators (Vickery

1984).

>== 7700 MGMT-PROGS

Y

>=-- 7710 MGMT-PROGS-COMM Extensive recovery efforts are being made. The Great Lakes and Great Northern Plains Piping Plover Recovery Plan (1988) and the Atlantic Coast Piping Plover recovery Plan (1988) contain a detailed, state by state, list of areas.

>== 8000 SUM-STEW-NEEDS

(1) Protect known element occurrences by reducing disturbance during breeding.

(2) Monitor populations.

(3) Research on pesticide threats.

(4) Captive breeding and reintroduction programs.

>== 9000 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, B. 1979. Observations from Pine/Curry Islands - Lake of the Woods. Loon 5 1:

144-145.

Arbib, R. 1973. The blue list of 1973. Amer. Birds 26: 932-933.

Arbuckle, J. 1983. Maine Audubon least tern and piping plover project report. Unpubl. report.

10

and I.A. McLaren. 1980. Status of the piping plover (Charadrius melodus) on the East Coast of North America. Amer. Birds 34: 206-208.

Carlson, C.M. and P.D. Skaar. 1976. Piping plover in Montana. Western Birds 7: 60-70.

Dinsmore, J.J. 198 1. Piping plovers - a synthesis of the literature and an annotated bibliography. Unpublished report, 28 pp.

1983. Aspects of the nesting ecology of least terns and piping plovers in centra Nebraska. Prairie Nat. 15: 145-154.

1984. A conservation plan for the piping plover, draft copy. The Nature Conservancy, Midwest Regional Office, Minneapolis, MN.

11

Baldasarre, Guy. 1984. September. Biologist. GAB: Environmental and Forest Biology.

SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry. Syracuse, New York 13210.

Dinan, J.J. 1983. January. Personal communication to J. Evans, The Nature Conservancy.

Ewert, D. 1984. August. Personal communication to P. Hoose, The Nature Conservancy,

Midwest Regional Office.

Haig, S. 1983. February. Biologist (Recovery Team Leader) Department of Zoological

Research, National Zoological Park, Washington D.C. 20008.

Houtcooper, W.C. 1983. January. Personal communication to J. Evans, The Nature Conservancy.

Howe, R.W. 1983. January. Personal communication to M. Heitlinger, The Nature Conservancy, Midwest Regional Office.

Lambert, A. 1983. January. Personal communication to J. Evans, The Nature Conservancy.

Lingle, G.R. 1983. Personal communication to J. Evans, The Nature Conservancy.

Master, L.L. 1983. December. Personal communication to M. Heitlinger, The Nature Conservancy, Midwest Regional Office.

McCance, R.M., Jr., 1983. January. Personal communication to J. Evans, The Nature Conservancy.

Pfaninuller, L.A. 1983. December. Non Game Wildlife Research Supervisor. Minnesota Dept. of Natural Resources, Box 7 500 LaFayette Rd. St. Paul, NIN 551550.

Resetarits, W.J., Jr. 1983. January. Personal communication to J. Evans, The Nature Conservancy.

Soine, P.J. 1983. January. Personal communication to J. Evans, The Nature Conservancy.

Soine, P.J. 1983. December. Personal communication to M. Heitlinger, The Nature Conservancy, Midwest Regional Office.

Vickery, B. 1984. October. Personal communication to L. Master, The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Heritage Task Force.

Zickefoose, J. 1984. October. Personal communication to The Nature Conservancy, Eastern Regional Office.

>== 9900 UPDATE

85-01-11

92-15-04 R.L. Henson

>== 9999 END

15