Regulatory Protection
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act prohibits any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from taking (i.e., harassing, harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or collecting) listed wildlife species. It is also unlawful to attempt such acts, solicit another to commit such acts, or cause such acts to be committed. Regulations implementing the ESA (50 CFR 17.3) further define "harm" to include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in the killing or injury of wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns including breeding, feeding, or sheltering. "Harass" means an intentional or negligent act or omission which creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Appendix G, Guidelines for Managing Recreational Activities in Piping Plover Habitat on the U.S. Atlantic Coast to Avoid Take Under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act, contains recommendations to beach managers and property owners.
Section 10 of the ESA and related regulations provide for permits that may be granted to authorize activities prohibited under Section 9, for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of a listed species. States that have Cooperative Agreements under Section 6 of the ESA, may provide written authorization for take that occurs in the course of implementing conservation programs. For example, State agencies have authorized certain biologists to construct predator exclosures for piping plovers. It is also legal for employees or designated agents of certain Federal or State agencies to take listed species without a permit, if the action is necessary to aid sick, injured, or orphaned animals or to salvage or dispose of a dead specimen.
Section 10 also allows permits to be issued for take that is "incidental to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity" if the Service determines that certain conditions have been met. An applicant for an incidental take permit must prepare a conservation plan that specifies the impacts of the take, steps the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate the impacts, funding that will be available to implement these steps, alternative actions to the take that the applicant considered, and the reasons why such alternatives are not being utilized. Appendix H contains 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 ESA.
Section 7 of the ESA requires Federal agencies to consult with the Service prior to authorizing, funding, or carrying out activities that may affect listed species. Section 7 also requires that these agencies use their authorities to further the conservation of listed species. Section 7 obligations have caused Federal land management agencies to implement piping plover protection measures that go beyond those required to avoid take, for example, by conducting research on threats to piping plovers. Other examples of Federal activities that may affect piping plovers along the Atlantic Coast, thereby triggering Section 7(b) consultation, include permits for beach nourishment or disposal of dredged material (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers) and funding of beach restoration projects (Federal Emergency Management Authority).
In September 1994, fourteen Federal agencies, including the Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers, and Department of Defense signed a Memorandum of Understanding affirming their commitments to carry out programs for the conservation of species listed under the ESA and the ecosystems upon which they depend, including implementing appropriate recovery actions that are identified in recovery plans.
Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on the Public Lands and Executive Order 11989, Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands pertain to lands under custody of the Secretaries of Agriculture, Defense, and Interior (except for Native American Tribal lands). Executive Order 11644 requires administrative designation of areas and trails where off-road vehicles may be permitted. Executive Order 11989 states that "... the respective agency head shall, whenever he determines that the use of off-road vehicles will cause or is causing considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat ... immediately close such areas or trails to the type of off-road vehicles causing such effects, until such time as he determines that such effects have been eliminated and that measures have been implemented to prevent future recurrence" (emphasis added).
Piping plovers are also protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-712). Prohibited acts include pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, collecting, or attempting such conduct.
The Coastal Barriers Resource Protection Act of 1982 (CBRA), as amended by the Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990 (P.L. 101-591), provides certain protections to designated units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System (System), including many sites where piping plovers breed or winter on the Atlantic Coast. Except for a few specified exemptions, Section 6 of CBRA bans all Federal expenditures within units of the System. Section 6 also requires that Federal agencies consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to committing funds for any exempted activities.
Almost all states within the breeding range of the Atlantic Coast piping plover list the species as State threatened or endangered (Northeast Nongame Technical Committee 1993), and many state endangered species laws and regulations prohibit take of State-listed species. As a further protection, the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Game (1995) has designated nine sites as Essential Habitat for piping plovers and least terns; this designation prohibits significant alteration or unreasonable harm to the Essential Habitat from projects requiring a permit or license from, or to be funded or carried out by, a State agency or municipal government.
Other state regulations also protect piping plovers and/or their habitat. For example, the Massachusetts Wetlands Protection Act (Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 131, Section 140) requires that proposed projects that occur in wetlands (including beaches) be designed to avoid short-term or long-term adverse effects on the habitat of any rare species of wildlife (Melvin and Roble 1990). Opinions, based on this law, provided by the Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife on the impacts of proposed dredging have recommended restrictions on the timing or location of beach nourishment in order to prevent adverse effects on piping plover habitat (S.M. Melvin pers. comm. 1990). In New York, compliance with the New York Tidal Wetlands Act and the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act usually results in conditions on dredging permits that restrict the season or location of operation; these restrictions are designed to protect piping plovers and other State-listed wildlife (S. Sanford, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, pers. comm. 1990). It should be noted, however, that revisions in the New York Tidal Wetlands Act are currently under discussion, and that potential changes lessening or eliminating jurisdiction over shoals, mudflats areas and areas adjacent to tidal wetlands could result in decreased protection of these habitats in the future (USFWS 1995b).
In some cases, piping plovers benefit from state regulations intended to protect other natural resources. For instance, the Connecticut Coastal Resources Management Division prohibits most dredging projects in that state between May 30 and September 30 to avoid impacts to shellfish beds (R. Rozsa, Connecticut Coastal Resources Management Division, pers. comm. 1989).
Protection and Managementon Breeding Sites
Current breeding site protection efforts are documented in Appendix C (Summary of Current and Needed Breeding Site Management Activities). Most common management strategies include protection of nests with predator exclosures (see Appendix F); signing and symbolic fencing of nesting areas; restrictions on motorized vehicles in the vicinity of flightless chicks; wardening of nesting areas, especially in areas where public use is heavy; and public information and education.
The magnitude of the piping plover protection effort on the breeding grounds may be gauged from information in Appendix J (Estimated Cost of U.S. Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Protection Activities during the 1993 Breeding Season). Estimates compiled by the state wildlife agencies show that approximately $1.8 million were spent to protect 875 pairs of plovers that nested on the U.S. portion of the range in 1993. This figure includes more than 85,000 person-hours by paid staff, but does not reflect approximately 32,750 hours of volunteer labor. Comprehensive estimates of protection costs in Atlantic Canada are unavailable, but a substantial effort is also being exerted to protect piping plovers there. Report #3 prepared by Recovery of Nationally Endangered Wildlife (RENEW 1993) reported expenditures of more than $154,000 (Canadian) and 6.5 person-years of effort (cost not included in the expenditures figure) to protect Atlantic plovers in the year ending March 31, 1993. The 1992 efforts reported by RENEW were supplemented by 84 volunteers who provided wardening through the Piping Plover Guardian Program on 20 beaches in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island (Atlantic Canada Piping Plover Recovery Team 1992); in 1993, the Guardian Program expanded to include beaches in Newfoundland and New Brunswick and a full-time paid coordinator (Atlantic Canada Piping Plover Recovery Team 1993). RENEW (1994) reported increases in expenditures for protection of Atlantic Coast piping plovers to $205,000 (Canadian) during the 1993 breeding season, not including unquantified paid and volunteer time.
Although a few piping plover recovery expenditures represent investments in basic research with broad applicability to piping plover management, the vast majority of the piping plover protection effort involves labor-intensive, on-site efforts such as the posting and fencing of nesting areas, wardening, and construction of predator exclosures. Such efforts can effectively reduce impacts to piping plovers, but they do not remove the root causes of threats such as intensive recreational use and elevated predation pressure. These protection efforts will have to be continued each season in perpetuity if the piping plover population is to be recovered and maintained.
Most Federally administered breeding sites are very intensively managed. Consistent with National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act and Refuge Recreation Act requirements regarding compatibility of refuge activities, plover habitat within most national wildlife refuges is closed to public use during the breeding season. Cape Cod, Fire Island, and Assateague National Seashores and the Gateway National Recreation Area have written plans detailing how piping plovers will be protected. Nesting areas on NASA's Wallops Island are also closed to public entry during the breeding season.
Protection of piping plovers and their habitat on Federal lands is important not only because of its direct benefits to plovers that use these areas, but because plover protection programs on Federal lands serve as examples to non-Federal landowners.
Participation of affected agencies, organizations, and user groups in planning and implementation of U.S. recovery efforts has been fostered primarily at the state level. Various working groups provide continuing forums for discussion and adjustment of recovery efforts. Examples include the Massachusetts Barrier Beach Task Force, formed in 1992 under the auspices of Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management Office and including membership from four state agencies, as well as user groups, municipal governments, conservation groups, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Massachusetts Barrier Beach Task Force 1994). Coordination of plover survey efforts and threat assessment in New York has been facilitated by the Long Island Colonial Waterbird Association since before the listing of the plover under the ESA; in March 1995, the New York Department of Environmental Conservation, Division of Fish and Wildlife formed a Regional Piping Plover Management Coordination Group comprised of State, Federal, and local government agencies and private organizations to intensify piping plover recovery efforts on Long Island (K.J. Meskill and C.T. Hamilton, New York Department of Environmental Conservation, in litt. 1995). In Delaware, multi-agency participation in piping plover protection has been implemented through the Delaware Beach Issues Group, an ongoing working group of state agencies; participating agencies also maintain communication with interested and affected private organizations and groups and with Federal agencies (L. Gelvin-Innvaer pers. com.).
Protection and Management on Wintering Sites
Efforts to protect piping plover wintering habitat on the Atlantic Coast have focused primarily on:
Role of Federal Lands in Recovery Efforts
Federal lands administered by the National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), Coast Guard, Army Corps of Engineers and Air Force supported approximately 370 nesting pairs of piping plovers in 1995. These 370 pairs constituted 32% of the U.S. Atlantic Coast population, and 27% of the entire breeding population, including Atlantic Canada. The carrying capacity of Federal lands as estimated in 1993 was 635 pairs, approximately 33% of the estimated capacity of all U.S. breeding sites.
Coordination and Participation
Recovery efforts at the state level are coordinated by the State wildlife agencies; population-wide coordination is supplied by the recovery team with oversight by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Since 1988, the Service has prepared and distributed annual status updates on the Atlantic Coast piping plover population. These are widely requested and provide biologists, beach managers, user groups, and other interested parties with timely information about progress towards recovery. Periodic rangewide wintering censuses (e.g., the 1991 and 1996 International Censuses) provide important information on the plover's status and stimulate awareness of important wintering sites. Bi-annual meetings of biologists involved in plover conservation within the Atlantic Coast breeding range afford opportunities for exchange of important information about plover ecology and management techniques. Similar but less frequent meetings have focused on protection of wintering plovers and their habitat. The U.S. Atlantic Coast, Atlantic Canada, and Great Lakes/Northern Great Plains Recovery Teams maintain communication and frequently exchange observers at team meetings. These meetings and other communications among the recovery team and state plover coordinators assure prompt evaluation and distribution of new information. For example, dissemination of information about design and use of predator exclosures has required a significant effort over the last eight years; experts have traveled to other states and to Canada to help resolve difficulties with exclosures.
|
URL address http://pipingplover.fws.gov/
Last updated March 15, 2000