Recovery Plan: Appendix H

Guidelines for the Preparation and Evaluation of Conservation Plans for Atlantic Coast Piping Plovers Pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) and 10(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act

Section 10(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) requires Fish and Wildlife Service evaluation of conservation plans accompanying applications for incidental take⁽⁴⁾ of threatened and endangered species that occurs in the course of otherwise lawful activities. The ESA requires applicants to prepare conservation plans that specify "... the impact which will likely result in such taking; [and] what steps the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate [such] impacts..." (Section 10(a)(2)(A)(ii) and (iii)). Approval of permit applications is contingent on a finding by the Service that, "the applicant will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of such taking; ... [and] the taking will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild" (Section 10(a)(2)(B)(ii) and (iv). In amending the ESA to provide for incidental take permits, Congress directed the Service to "consider the extent to which the conservation plan is likely to enhance the habitat of the listed species or increase the long-term survivability of the species or its ecosystem" (H.R. Report No. 97-835, 97th Congress, 2nd Session).

Detailed information about Section 10 permits may be found in the Draft Interim Handbook of Habitat Conservation Planning and Incidental Take Permit Processing (USFWS 1994b). A seven-page brochure, entitled "What's all this stuff about 'Habitat Conservation Planning' and 'Incidental Take Permits?'" (USFWS 1994c) provides an introduction to the general Section 10 process. To date, one Section 10 permit for piping plovers has been issued by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; dated April 1996, this permit was issued to the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife.

The guidelines in this document are specific to the Atlantic Coast piping plover and are intended to:

1. guide potential applicants in developing conservation plans for piping plovers on the Atlantic Coast that minimize, mitigate, and monitor the impacts of take, and allow continued steady progress towards recovery, and

2. assist the Service in evaluating the impacts of any proposed conservation plans on the survival and recovery of the Atlantic Coast piping plover population.

These guidelines are based on (1) the population viability model for the Atlantic Coast piping plover population (Appendix E), (2) information on piping plover ecology, and (3) general principles of conservation biology. However, it should be noted that they are guidelines, not strict requirements. Applications for incidental take permits and conservation plans that do not stringently adhere to these guidelines will be evaluated for their merit. Carefully crafted Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits have the potential to contribute to long-term protection of this species (see recovery task 1.64), if they recognize the species' biological requirements and the dynamic nature of its habitat; adopt a cautious approach that does not unduly reduce plover productivity, abundance, distribution, and density; and provide for adjustments based on new information, especially information about impacts of the conservation plan on plovers within the affected area.

It is not possible to foresee all types of incidental take of piping plovers and/or conservation plans that may be proposed in applications for Section 10(a)(1)(B) permits. These guidelines anticipate conservation plans addressing two types of take: (1) mortality or harassment of breeding plovers, their eggs, and chicks due to inadequate protection from motorized and non-motorized recreational activities or from other (non-recreational) types of off-road vehicle use and (2) harm due to significant habitat modification or degradation that results in death or injury to piping plovers by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding, or sheltering (see 50 CFR 17.3). Some of these guidelines are germane to both of these types of take, while others are relevant to one or the other. If conservation plans for other types of take are proposed, development of additional guidelines may be appropriate.

Guidelines for Minimizing, Mitigating, and Evaluating Harassment or Mortality of Breeding Plovers, their Eggs, and Chicks

Guidelines 1 through 7 address situations where take will occur because less protection is afforded than that recommended in Appendix G (Guidelines for Managing Recreational Activities in Piping Plover Breeding Habitat on the U.S. Atlantic Coast to Avoid Take under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act). These guidelines (1 through 7) assume that allowable take under Section 10 will cause limited reductions in productivity of breeding plovers, but will not cause take of breeding adults or permanently degrade habitat suitability.

1. Permits for incidental take that will reduce productivity of breeding plovers should only be allowed within recovery units⁽⁵⁾ where the subpopulation has already achieved at least 70% of its portion of the recovery goal as specified on page 57 of the recovery plan. Take under Section 10 should not be permitted until plover numbers reach 440 pairs in the New England recovery unit, 400 pairs in New York-New Jersey recovery unit, and 280 pairs in the Southern recovery unit. The recovery team believes that 70% of a recovery unit's population goal should be the minimum threshold for allowing reductions in plover productivity. However, even after the 70% threshold is attained, conservation plans should maintain a cautious approach to take, especially if other recovery units lag substantially in their progress towards recovery.

   Attainment of 70% of the recovery goal will provide a minimal buffer against any unforeseen events that might send the plover subpopulation in a recovery unit into a steep decline. Spreading these increases across the four recovery units will reduce vulnerability to catastrophes that would exist if gains were limited to one or two geographic regions. Furthermore, experience in many areas where population increases have occurred has shown that key information on how to best protect piping plovers in an area and the experience needed to implement this protection is gained during the process of increasing productivity and effecting regional population growth. The recovery team believes that a solid population increase is a vital pre-condition to implementing a conservation plan that allows take without appreciably reducing the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the Atlantic Coast piping plover population.

2. Piping plovers within the conservation plan area should attain average productivity of at least 1.5 chicks per pair for three years prior to authorization of take, and the conservation plan should assure that average productivity within the conservation plan area remains at or above this level. Current information (see Appendix E) shows that this is the productivity rate needed to assure continued progress towards recovery. This minimum productivity level may be adjusted for specific recovery units if new data on survival or other demographic variables shows that different productivity levels will assure continued progress towards full recovery.

   Negative impacts on species' security can be further reduced by plans that seek to minimize the variance in productivity by maintaining productivity of 1.5 chicks per pair at each site within the conservation plan area.

3. Conservation plans should assure that the plover population within the plan area continues to increase, unless the area has attained its estimated carrying capacity. The plan should provide an estimate of future population growth rates within the area to be covered under the permit. If the area is believed to be saturated, then the plan must assure that the population does not decline.

4. Whenever possible, conservation plans should encompass plovers and habitat within an entire State or other large region. Piping plover habitat is subject to frequent and unpredictable natural changes due to coastal formation processes, including both occurrence of and lack of major storm events, that may change its suitability. Variable predation pressure, flood-tides during the nesting season, recreation pressure, and intensity of management furnish other examples of factors that may affect productivity of plovers at given sites. Relatively large planning units will increase opportunities for averaging effects of these types of events on plover distribution and productivity, and will facilitate meaningful evaluation of the impacts of the conservation plan on species' recovery. Smaller planning areas will be highly vulnerable to factors that confound evaluation of the plan's impacts. While larger conservation planning areas are preferable to smaller ones, the recovery team recognizes that multi-state plans may be administratively infeasible.

5. Whenever possible, permits should be issued for an initial period of 2 to 6 years. In cases where take is due to recreational or other activities that can be adjusted in response to observed impacts on piping plovers, permits should be subject to review after 2 to 6 years. This will allow a reasonable period for gauging the effects of the permit and will also provide opportunities to reevaluate permits in light of changes in the overall status of the population. Shorter permit periods (1 to 3 years) may be particularly desirable in the early stages of Section 10 permitting for piping plovers.

6. Whenever possible, conservation plans should allow plovers to select their nesting sites/feeding areas and then allocate allowable take to areas where the smallest number of birds will be affected, rather than establishing fixed areas where take will occur. While factors affecting plover productivity are becoming better understood, there are still many gaps in biologists' ability to predict where on a given beach plovers will breed most successfully. Furthermore, plover habitat is subject to coastal formation processes that may modify habitat quality over time. Under conditions of low human disturbance, plovers' nesting and feeding preferences remain the best indicators of which habitat should be protected in a given year. Conservation plans that maintain maximum opportunities for plovers to select their nesting and feeding areas are likely to have lower long-term impacts on plover recovery than those that designate fixed beach areas where take may occur each year. If a conservation plan establishes a fixed area where take will occur regardless of changes in habitat quality, allowable levels of take should be lower than when a more flexible plan allows areas where take may occur to be moved in response to the birds' preferences.

7. Conservation plans should equitably distribute responsibilities to avoid take among non-Federal landowners. Much physically suitable piping plover habitat remains unoccupied or under-occupied because recreational use precludes successful plover breeding or because regional populations have declined well below carrying capacity. However, piping plovers have demonstrated an ability to recolonize and substantially increase their numbers at sites where vigorous protection measures have been implemented (recovery plan, pages 6-7 and 31), often at significant expense to the landowner or another organization. The continued cooperation of these entities in recovery efforts for this and other threatened and endangered species may be compromised if they perceive that others who have taken less vigorous steps to protect birds and/or habitat will be allowed to take eggs or chicks of the few plovers that occur on their beaches. Indeed, the entire recovery effort may founder if cooperators believe that their efforts to increase productivity are creating opportunities for permitted take by other parties. For this reason, conservation plans that create incentives for contributing to the recovery effort are preferable. Such plans might allocate take temporally (allowing take on all beaches in an area after a certain level of chick production has been achieved each year) or in proportion to number of chicks fledged on each beach in recent seasons.

Guidelines for Minimizing, Mitigating, and Evaluating Harm Due to Significant Habitat Modification

The following guidelines pertain to situations where significant habitat modification or degradation will result in death or injury to piping plovers by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

8. Take that reduces the carrying capacity of piping plover habitat should be authorized only if there is sufficient protected habitat elsewhere in the recovery unit to support the minimum subpopulation specified in delisting criterion 1, page 57 of the recovery plan. In cases where habitat will be degraded by construction of structures, roads, parking-lots, or other medium- or long-term habitat modifications, plover recovery must not be precluded by reductions in the overall carrying capacity. Allowances should also be made for natural changes in habitat suitability due to coastal formation processes, including both occurrence and lack of major storm events. Allowable take should be allocated very cautiously in portions of the plover's range where carrying capacity is less well understood. The recovery team anticipates that confidence in estimates of carrying capacity will increase in these areas as productivity increases and effects of population growth on distribution and density of nesting pairs are determined.

9. Any reduction in habitat suitability must be mitigated by increased productivity and abundance of plovers nesting elsewhere within the recovery unit; increases to off-set take should occur as close geographically as possible to the site where the habitat degradation occurs. Piping plovers that have nested on a given site display a high degree of fidelity to that site (see page 28 of the recovery plan), and some pairs may continue to nest on a site even if habitat has been degraded in ways likely to reduce their productivity. Therefore, availability of alternative suitable habitat is not sufficient to mitigate impacts of habitat degradation. To compensate for decreases in productivity of plovers that may continue to nest on degraded sites or that may not breed at all, mitigation must also include measures to enhance productivity of plovers on other sites where they are already established. Sites where plovers are currently under-managed and productivity is low are likely to yield greater marginal increases in productivity than sites where substantial efforts are already in place.

General Guidelines

The following guidelines may be pertinent to Section 10 permits for either (1) harassment or mortality of breeding plovers, their eggs, and/or chicks or (2) significant habitat modification.

10. A given amount of take will cause less reduction in overall security of the population if it is distributed over multiple sites than if it is concentrated at one or a few sites. A species' overall security is enhanced by distributing breeding individuals among multiple sites. This reduces the population's vulnerability to environmentally-driven variance due to events such as predation, oil-spills, or flood-tides (Goodman 1987). In addition, a species' security is eroded by formation or enlargement of gaps in its range that decrease inter-site immigration and colonization rates (Gilpin 1987). As stated under guideline #2, conservation plans should strive to maintain productivity of 1.5 chicks per pair at each site within the conservation plan area. Take should also be avoided at the edges of any existing gaps in the species' breeding range.

11. Conservation plans should contribute to the health of the beach ecosystem. Provision of "a means whereby the ecosystems upon which endangered species and threatened species depend may be conserved" (Section 2(b)) is a stated purpose of the ESA; Congressional direction to the Service with regard to Section 10 permits further directs consideration of impacts on a species' ecosystem (H.R. Report No. 97-835, 97th Congress, 2nd Session). Preparation and evaluation of conservation plans, therefore, should consider impacts on natural beach formation processes, vegetation, and other wildlife. On any site where the Federally listed northeastern beach tiger beetle (Cicindela dorsalis dorsalis), seabeach amaranth (Amaranthus pumilus), or roseate tern (Sterna dougallii) may be affected, conservation plans must consider impacts on those species. Impacts on any species that are candidates for Federal listing or Federal species of concern should also be considered; for example, dune blue curls (Trichostema sp.), is a plant that occurs on vegetated secondary dunes in North Carolina and is a Federal species of concern. See page 45 of the recovery plan for a discussion of other rare species (including State listed species) that may occur in piping plover habitat.

12. Conservation plans should provide for monitoring of piping plovers on all affected sites, including any sites where protection is to be increased to mitigate reductions in habitat suitability. Monitoring is essential to assuring that components of the conservation plan that address guidelines 2, 3, 6, and 9 are working effectively. Data collection should include information listed in task 1.12 of the recovery plan, as well as other information that may be pertinent to implementation and evaluation of a particular conservation plan. The plan should also specify minimum skills, knowledge, and experience of the monitors.

^4. "Take," as defined under the ESA is discussed on page 46 of this recovery plan.
^5. Recovery units, their role in the recovery effort for the Atlantic Coast Piping Plover, and recovery unit subpopulation targets are discussed on pages 54-55 and 57 of this plan.

Department of the Interior | U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Privacy, Disclaimer, and Copyright Information Photo and Drawing Credits e-mail us at pipingplover@fws.gov

URL address http://pipingplover.fws.gov/
Last updated March 15, 2000