THE PROMOTING COEXISTENCE BETWEEN RECREATIONISTS AND BEACH-NESTING BIRDS PROJECT HOODED PLOVER BREEDING SEASON REPORT

Transcription

1 THE PROMOTING COEXISTENCE BETWEEN RECREATIONISTS AND BEACH-NESTING BIRDS PROJECT HOODED PLOVER BREEDING SEASON REPORT 4-week old chicks at Portsea sitting in shelter; 3-day old chicks at Koonya amongst heavy footprints; Adult Hooded Plover at Port Fairy The beach-nesting birds project has had an amazing team of volunteers, rangers, committees of management and local councils involved in monitoring and implementing management for the protection of Victoria s most threatened resident shorebird, the Hooded Plover. For the first time ever, we have a detailed data set on the threats that these beach-nesters experience across the Victorian coast and on their breeding success in relation to management. We have learnt to adapt our managements to the variability of beaches and beach user groups across the coast, and from each pair we have gained great insight into how to improve their breeding success. The lessons we have learned have taught us what to do, and what not to do, and this will make for a comprehensive management toolkit that will be produced at the end of June To recap, the beach-nesting birds project spanned from January 2006 to end of June 2008, incorporating two entire breeding seasons (August-March). The main aim of the project was to produce a set of guidelines for effective management of beach-nesting birds that would involve both local communities and land managers. The project used the Hooded Plover in Victoria as a case study, from which the results can then be applied in a broader sense to other beach-nesting birds around Australia. The outline of the project was as follows: 1. Establish the distribution of breeding pairs of Hooded Plovers along the Victorian Coast (Statewide surveys Jan/Feb 2006, Nov 2006 and Nov 2007). 2. Simultaneously assess the threats to each pair and any management in place to alleviate these threats (as part of statewide survey forms). 3. Assess gravity of threats at breeding sites, rank and select the most threatened territories for management. Also select a range of territories for monitoring only. 4. Carry out on-ground management at sites during the 2006/07 and 2007/08 breeding seasons. 5. Monitor threats and breeding success at managed and unmanaged sites. 6. Coordinate student projects investigating the effectiveness of new management techniques. 7. Assess success of managements. 8. Produce a user-friendly management toolkit/manual that will empower land managers and local communities to take charge of conservation efforts for beach-nesting birds in their area. The following report summarises how the breeding season unfolded, and makes comparisons across regional zones and with the previous season. While breeding success is very low for the Hooded Plover, we can see definite improvements related to management. We also have to realise that public education will be a gradual and cumulative process. The continuity of all the work that we have seeded will be essential to the recovery of these highly threatened birds discovered sadly the chicks disappeared one A1

2 by one largely due to interference from intruding Hooded Plovers that tried to attack the chicks and parents. Breeding Season results In the breeding season, 86 Hooded Plover pairs were monitored regularly along the Victorian coast by a team of 78 volunteers. For ten of these pairs, no nests were located despite regular visits to their territories - fresh scrapes were found for several, but eggs never eventuated. For the 76 pairs that nested, a total of 157 nests were found; ranging from 1-6 nest attempts per pair (an average of 2.1 attempts). On average, pairs were visited 23 times, with a total of 1991 visits made by volunteers and the project officer (378 visits). This was an incredible effort and meant that for the majority of nests, we could pinpoint laying, hatching and failure dates. Most (43%) nests were located on the beach with an additional 7.5% located very near the high-tide mark. Nests on dunes (26.5%) or foredune ledges (7%) were also common but dependent on location, as in many parts of the coast, the dunes are either too vegetated, have been lain with brush or have been transformed into sheer eroded cliffs due to a combination of high tides and Marram grass. Nests on rock, either cliffs or platforms were rare (2.5%), while nests at estuaries accounted for 13.5%. Of nests found, 64% (100 nests) failed during the egg stage (a loss of 221 eggs), while 36% survived the 28 days of incubation and hatched successfully. Of the 57 nests that hatched (140 eggs), 42% survived the five weeks to fledging (a loss of 108 chicks), and this makes up 15% (24 nests) of the total nests monitored. In total, 32 chicks fledged successfully (although this includes 2 that reached 4 weeks of age but were not subsequently visited). An additional 4 juveniles were sighted at the end of the breeding season in areas that were not monitored (Rutledges Cutting=2, Rye=1, Pt Nepean Sierra Nevada=1). Below is a table which compares the breeding success of pairs monitored across the two successive breeding seasons. You can see that overall, the numbers are remarkably similar. BREEDING SEASON VOLS VISITS PAIRS (NON BREED) NESTS EGGS CHICKS FLDGS (8) (10) Total 100* ** * count of unique volunteers [as many volunteers participated in both seasons] ** count of unique pairs [as many pairs were monitored over both seasons] A2

3 Comparison across regions Each zone is defined as the coast between: Western Victoria: Warrnambool and Narrawong Shipwreck Coast: Princetown and the Bay of Islands, past Peterborough Bellarine/Surf Coast: Point Lonsdale and Apollo Bay Mornington Peninsula: Fingal/Gunnamatta and Point Nepean West Gippsland: Kilcunda and Cape Liptrap East Gippsland: Loch Sport and Marlo Nesting adult attacking gull at Kilcunda; Very round adult with 3 day old chicks at Koonya The table below summarises the number of volunteers, pairs, nests monitored and managed and eggs, chicks and fledglings produced. For comparative purposes, the number of fledglings produced per breeding pair monitored was calculated. This reveals the Shipwreck coast to be the most productive area, although few pairs were monitored in this region. East Gippsland and the Bellarine/Surf Coast were productive areas, while West Gippsland experienced a very poor breeding season. For such a high number of nests and eggs, the Mornington Peninsula had poor productivity. The differences in the regions can be related to the intensity of threats they experience, the proximity to major population centres and accessibility of sites, and the level of management implemented. ZONE VOLS PAIRS (NON BREED) NESTS MNGD EGGS CHICKS FLDGS FLDGS /PAIRS Western Victoria (FWV) (6) Shipwreck coast (SC) 5 3 (1) Bellarine/Surf coast (BELL) Mornington peninsula (MP) West Gippsland (WG) (1) East Gippsland (EG) 4 11 (2) Total 82* 86 (10) *4 volunteers monitored pairs in more than one zone The table below gives a comparison across zones for the two successive breeding seasons monitored. Some areas had similar success (Shipwreck coast and East Gippsland), while far west Victoria and the Bellarine/Surf Coast improved greatly, but the Mornington Peninsula and West Gippsland had poorer success in the second season. We have all the data you laboriously collected about threats at each site and will explore how success relates to this and to management. A3

4 Breeding success figures for two successive seasons SEASON FWV SC BELL MP WG EG AVRG % fail egg % hatching % fledging % managed # fledgings/pair Major threats to eggs and chicks The most likely cause of nest failure at the egg phase was able to be determined in 68 cases (based on evidence surrounding the nest site on a visit that was made within 3 days of the last nest check). Partial nest failures (11 nests), where 1 or 2 eggs were lost but the rest of the clutch remained were attributed to the tide (55%), roll out (36%) and predation on the day of hatching of an unhatched egg by a dog (9%). On several occasions, we discovered the nest site with heavy dog tracks through and around the nest scrape and thought the nest had failed, only to discover that the nest had recently hatched. We suspect that dogs, as well as foxes, might be attracted to the nest on the day of hatching due to the heavy scent around the nest, and that unhatched or late hatching eggs may be predated by dogs and foxes more frequently than we think as often the number of chicks sighted in the day after hatching is less than the original clutch size. In cases where part of the clutch was lost to the tide (7 nests), the adults often made a fresh scrape around the dispersed, remaining eggs and in two cases, fledglings resulted from inundated nests. It was much harder to attribute the disappearance of chicks to a likely cause, although in 13 cases we attributed the most likely cause based on observations made on the day of disappearance. This does not include all the siblings of chicks that fledged that disappeared, of which we have no evidence of the likely cause. The table below summarises the evidence found at failed nests: Cause of egg failure # Nests Cause of chick failure # Broods abandon fox 2 fox predation 6 abandon person & dog 2 dog predation (still in nest) 1 abandon tide 2 disturbance person/dog 2 abandon weather 1 disturbance person/horse 1 avian predator 4 disturbance by intruding Hooded Plovers 2 fox predation 11 injured then disappeared 1 dog predation 2 Unknown 5 crushed by dog & person 2 TOTAL 18 crushed by person 4 disturbance person 2 management error 1 tide 33 severe cold weather 2 unknown 27 TOTAL 95 A4

5 Dogs off the leash were recorded at nearly every site with the exception of: the majority of sites in East Gippsland (many of which are accessible by boat only; Marlo Snowy River estuary to Mots beach, Point Ricardo, Bunga Arm sites, Barrier Landing), all sites on the Shipwreck coast, the two far ends of Harmers Haven (Cutlers beach and Wilsons Rd), the more isolated parts of the Mornington Peninsula (far East Gunnamatta sites, Alison Ave, Boags Rocks and Point Nepean where dogs aren t allowed) and 3 sites in South West Victoria (Surry River estuary East, Warrnambool Levys East middle, Yambuk far west behind Dean Marr). Foxes were recorded at 66 sites: all sites on the Mornington Peninsula except Alison Ave West (18 sites), 16 in South West Victoria (none recorded at Surry River estuary and some sites on Levys beach West), 12 sites in West Gippsland (none recorded at Waratah Bay, Inverloch Flat Rocks and Harmers Haven Cutlers and Wilsons Rd), all but 13 th beach on the Bellarine and surf coasts (10 sites), all but 3 sites in East Gippsland (8 sites), and 2 of 3 sites on the Shipwreck coast (Cliftons beach and Crofts Bay) due to the inaccessibility of London Bridge beach. Horses were recorded at 29 sites; largely in South West Victoria (13 sites: coast between Warrnambool Levys beach to Mills Reef Port Fairy, Time and Tide Port Fairy and Surry River estuary ridden above high-tide mark), on the Mornington Peninsula (5 sites: between Boags Rocks and Rye main beach horses are only permitted to St Andrews Paradise drive boundary), Apollo Bay (1 site: Barham River estuary), Bellarine Peninsula (3 sites: 13 th beach 40W in non-permitted area, Point Impossible, Point Lonsdale 4W), East Gippsland (2 sites: Lake Tyers, Lake Bunga beach) and West Gippsland (4 sites: Venus Bay South beach, Harmers Haven and Inverloch Flat Rocks). Vehicles were recorded at 30 sites, but on 14 of these beaches, the vehicles were management or surf life saving vehicles. This left 16 sites where illegal vehicle activity was present: 3 on the Bellarine (Black Rock, 13 th beach 40W and Point Impossible), 1 in East Gippsland (Lake Tyers) and the majority, 12, in South-west Victoria (coast between Warrnambool Levys beach to Mills Reef Port Fairy and Surry River estuary). Additional data analysis of the intensity of threats that will pinpoint the most threatened sites across the state will follow in another report. A drowned chick at Anglesea Jan 2007; Vehicle tracks at Rutledges Cutting, SW Vic; Trail bike on beach in SW Vic; Horse tracks above the high-tide mark SW Vic; A fence line of dead foxes on the Shipwreck coast; Dog prints around abandoned nest A5

6 The table below presents more detailed information on the nesting history of each Hooded Plover pair that was monitored throughout the breeding season (from East to West coast): Zone Site Pair Total nests EG WG MP A6 Fail egg Hatch Fledge Eggs laid Chicks Fledglg Marlo Point Ricardo Marlo Mots beach Marlo Between Mots and Entrance Marlo Entrance E spit Lakes Entrance Lake Tyers Lakes Entrance Red Bluff/Bunga Lakes Entrance Barrier Landing Bunga Arm Cormorant Bunga Arm Dotterel Bunga Arm Egret Bunga Arm Second Blowhole Waratah Bay The Gap Venus Bay South Venus Bay South Venus Bay South Inverloch Point Norman Inverloch Flat Rocks Bunurong Coast The Oaks Cape Paterson Undertow Bay Harmers Haven Wilsons Rd Harmers Haven Coal Creek Harmers Haven Access Harmers Haven Cutlers Kilcunda Powlett River mth Kilcunda Powlett River Wst Kilcunda Far East Kilcunda East Kilcunda West Kilcunda Far West Fingal Fingal Fingal Fingal Gunnamatta Gunna Gunnamatta Gunna Gunnamatta Gunna St Andrews Boags St Andrews Main Carpark St Andrews Moanna Drive St Andrews S9 East Miami St Andrews S9 West Miami Rye East Rye West big rock Rye Alison Ave East Rye Alison Ave West Rye Number Koonya Monforts Koonya East

7 Zone Site Pair Total nests MP BELL SC FWV Fail egg Hatch Fledge Eggs laid Chicks Fledglg Koonya West Portsea Franklin Rd East/Sphinx Rock Portsea London Bridge Pt Nepean Observatory Pt Pt Lonsdale 3-4W Pt Lonsdale Collendina th Beach 29W th Beach 40W Breamlea Black Rock Breamlea 44-46W Breamlea 50W to Pt Impossible Anglesea Pt Roadknight tip Anglesea Pt Roadknight West Apollo Bay Wild Dog Creek Apollo Bay Barham River East Apollo Bay Barham River mid Port Campbell NP Cliftons beach Port Campbell NP London Bridge Bay of Islands CP Crofts Bay Warrnambool Quinn s property / Logans Gaul s cave end Warrnamb Logans Chow s property Warrnamb Logans Whale platform Warrnamb Levys East Warrnamb Levys East Warrnamb Levys East Warrnamb Levys West Warrnamb Levys West Warrnamb Levys West Warrnamb Levys West Killarney Basin East Killarney Basin West Killarney Sisters point Port Fairy Mills Reef East Port Fairy Mills Reef West Port Fairy Time and Tide Yambuk Estuary East Yambuk Estuary West Yambuk Dean Marr Surry River Estuary East Surry River Estuary West A7

8 Kelly from Wales helping erect a fence at Apollo Bay; Guidelines sign on beach at Breamlea; Ken Sherring at Lake Tyers last season in front of fence and signs that he and Ian Faulkner erected; Grainne with the Teenie Weenie Greenies; Andrew Fawcett and Pam Brebner at Yambuk estuary Conservation Management We have trialled a variety of managements in our efforts to protect nesting Hooded Plovers. These have included: Fencing the nesting site: either ringlock or rope, or an inner ringlock fence with outer roped area Permanently fencing vulnerable dunes to avoid traditional erosion control measures that reduce nesting availability Signage on beaches: either side of the nesting site, or as you first step onto the beach Chick shelters and driftwood placed within the territory post-hatching Noticeboards at access points updating the progress of nesting pairs Permanent interpretive signs at access points Temporary closure of beach access tracks School visits including students making chick shelters and signs Dogs breakfast events to educate dog owners to their extra responsibilities Educational CD for horse riders Media releases in local newspapers and The Age newspaper, local radio and television, magazines including Coastline, Landcare farm journal and Waves Mail outs to major coastal towns of educational material and maps of Hooded Plover locations Wardens monitoring public responses to signage/fences and providing advice to beach visitors Patrols (including out of hours visits) by rangers and education or enforcement of dog regulations during the nesting period A8 Dogs Breakfast event Inverloch; Darren Mitchell, ranger with Parks Victoria, at Rye Primary School; Grainne holding adult

9 Adult mortalities and injuries In January 2008, a volunteer discovered an injured adult Hooded Plover at The Oaks, which is on the Bunurong Coast between Cape Paterson and Inverloch. This flagged adult (flagged as a chick in 2004 at Phillip Island) had fibres entangling and shackling its two feet together, so that it could only hobble a few steps and fly, but could not walk or run. It constantly pecked at the fibres trying to free its feet. At the time observed, it and its partner were raising a chick. A team of rescuers attempted to catch the adult and were unsuccessful in several early attempts. Foxes with cubs were sighted on the beach and then the adult disappeared - the worst was presumed. The remaining adult stayed with the chick that fledged successfully, and then one day, roughly a month later, the injured adult was resighted back at The Oaks! Its feet were no longer shackled together, but the fibres were still wrapped around its feet, which were now missing some digits and were incredibly swollen. An attempt was made to catch the bird and this time success! It was taken to Phillip Island Nature Park Hospital where Jenny Hibble worked on freeing the bird of the black synthetic fibre for 45min with head scope and fine tweezers while Marg held the bird. The left foot had some necrotic tissue (what was left of the base of two toes) that came away with the fibre leaving the outside toe. The right foot had already lost the inside toe but was in better shape than the left foot. The fibre was removed, and the middle and outside toe remained. The flags were not considered to be a problem, so were left in place. The bird fed on meal worms and healed quickly, and was released 3 days later! On release the bird flew straight out to sea and its partner (a flagged adult that fledged in 2006 from Phillip Island) flew out to join it! They flew around for a while before landing on the dry sand. It could walk quite well with no discernable limp. It pecked at its leg, did some head bobs, preened and sat close to its partner. A very happy ending! Photos by Jon Fallaw, Phillip Island Nature Park: 1) Just after capture - the injured bird s feet with fibres wrapped around feet; 2) Marg holding the Hooded Plover post surgery at the Phillip Island Nature Park Hospital and; 3) Volunteer Steve Johnson releases the injured bird after its hospital stay. This was a story of true survival against the odds, and one that really highlights how loyal the pair bond is not to mention the sheer dedication of volunteers and managers to protecting these amazing little birds. A9

10 A volunteer also observed an injured chick at Port Fairy Time and Tide beach, ten days after hatching. The chick appeared to have one of its legs hanging out of its socket. We speculate that a number of things could have happened for this to occur, such as the chick got its leg entangled and wrenched it out severely, the chick was captured by a predator but escaped, or the chick was partially crushed. Both the injured chick and its sibling failed to fledge, disappearing ~11 days after the chick was first sighted injured. Injured chick at Port Fairy Time and Tide beach, its right leg is hanging from its socket (Photos by Chris Tzaros) During the breeding season, we located a number of dead adult Hooded Plovers. Perhaps we were more likely to detect these deaths because of the increased awareness of the public and the regular presence of volunteers. 1) Kilcunda Powlett River West, 1 adult banded (White/metal, Yellow/Green): vet reported fibres caught around the foot that had caused considerable damage to the digits which would have contributed to its death. [The bands themselves had not caused any harm] This individual hatched at Cape Paterson in February 1997, made some excursions to Phillip Island, Venus Bay and Wilson's Prom before settling in Kilcunda. The bird was 10 years old when it died. 2) London Bridge Portsea, 1 adult unbanded: had a soft tissue injury near the left proximal tibia which would have contributed to its death. Two weeks later, a nest was found on its territory, so either its partner found a new mate almost immediately or another pair moved in. 3) Inverloch Pt Norman, 1 adult unbanded: feathers found near nest site plus fox scat, disappeared just after chicks hatched, presumably more vulnerable to fox attack as it would be likely to do broken wing and distraction displays to a predator trying to take its chicks the remaining adult attempted to raise the three chicks, but they all perished a few days later. 4) 13th beach 40W, near Barwon Heads, 1 adult unbanded: found injured on the beach, unable to walk properly, falling over, disoriented and unbalanced was captured and taken to a wildlife centre but died 1 hour later. Autopsy results have not yet come through. In the breeding season, we did not locate any dead adult Hooded Plovers, however a 3-4 day old chick was found at Point Roadknight, Anglesea. This chick had drowned and while drownings of chicks are likely to occur, it is thought that disturbance increases the likelihood of this for example, at Point Roadknight, the adults frequently take their chicks onto the rock platforms to feed and will leave them hidden there while they distract people and dogs walking past. This makes them more vulnerable to freak waves and incoming tides. A volunteer has also reported sighting chicks at the water s edge that ran into the sea away from a disturbance, rather than in the usual direction, up the beach toward the dune. The volunteer had to rescue the drenched chicks from the waves! This project was funded by the Australian Government s Natural Heritage Trust through a Regional Competitive grant, hosted by Port Phillip and Westernport Catchment Management Authority A10

11 Beach-nesting birds overseas Beach-nesting birds are threatened not only in Australia, but worldwide. Below are some examples of threatened shorebirds that nest overseas that are counterparts to our own beach-nesting birds. Many of these species have been extensively researched, contributing useful lessons about threats and their management, which have been included throughout this manual. New Zealand Dotterel The New Zealand Dotterel (Charadrius obscures) has a total population estimated at 1950 birds and its distribution is split into two distinct populations, separated by 1000 km and recognised as separate subspecies. The species is listed internationally as Endangered (IUCN Red List 2007). It was once widespread on the South Island and in the southern half of the North Island, but a combination of degradation of breeding habitat (largely by infestations of Marram grass), introduced predators (particularly cats, dogs, mustelids and European rats), disturbance by people, their vehicles and dogs, and possibly hunting led to their decline. The northern population (listed nationally as Vulnerable) numbers about 1700 and breeds on the coast of the North Island. This subspecies breeds exclusively on the coast (mainly sandy beaches and spits), where it is threatened by predation (mammalian and avian), destruction of habitat due to development and dune stabilisation, and by disturbance during the breeding season from recreational use. Protective measures are implemented to increase fledging success, including wardening, fencing off nesting sites, signage, predator control, advocacy, reducing disturbance and loss to flooding. Generally managed sites have fledged higher numbers of New Zealand Dotterels than unprotected sites (Cumming 1991; Wills et al. 2003). Without management, the species would decline by 1-2% per year (Dowding and Davis 2007). The recovery plan seeks to protect all key breeding sites (10 or more pairs) through changes to local by-laws, reserve status and legislation to protect sites from development. The southern population (listed nationally as Critical) numbers about 250 individuals and breeds on the open mountain tops of Stewart Island in sub-alpine herb fields and on rocky hilltops. The highest priority is to reverse population decline through predator control (cats and rats), monitoring and exploration of threats to birds. Research, monitoring and management has largely been undertaken by two NGOs (Ornithological Society New Zealand and Royal Forest and Bird Protection Society), with heavy involvement from volunteers and local communities. In more recent years, the Department of Conservation (DOC) and local councils have become increasingly responsible for management. For more details download the New Zealand Dotterel recovery plan at: Dowding (2006) attempts to review the effectiveness of management of New Zealand Dotterels, noting the difficulties in doing so: A11

12 Kentish or Snowy Plover The Kentish Plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) breeds in most subtropical and tropical parts of the world, from southern Europe to Japan and in Peru, Chile, the southern USA and the Caribbean. This species breeds on sandy coasts and brackish inland lakes, and is uncommon on fresh water. The two races which breed in the Americas are collectively called Snowy Plovers. Here, the Snowy Plover is separated into two subspecies: the Cuban Snowy Plover (C. a. tenuirostris) and the Pacific coast or Western Snowy Plover (C. a. nivosus). Genetic studies using mitochondrial DNA and microsatellite DNA markers (Gorman 2000, Funk et al. 2006) have found no significant genetic differentiation between the Pacific coast and interior populations of the western snowy plover. However, these populations function independently of one another, and there is only extremely low population interchange. The Western Snowy Plover was federally listed as threatened in the USA in 1993 with a population estimated at fewer than 1500 birds; the species is also listed as Endangered in Washington, Threatened in Oregon and Of Special Concern in California. Western Snowy Plovers are very similar in appearance to red-capped plovers when in breeding plumage. They breed primarily above the high tide line on coastal beaches, sand spits, dune-backed beaches, sparselyvegetated dunes, beaches at creek and river mouths, and salt pans at lagoons and estuaries. Western Snowy Plovers nest in areas where vegetation and driftwood are usually sparse or absent. In southern California, western snowy plovers nest in areas with 6 to 18 percent vegetative cover and 1 to 14 percent inorganic cover; vegetation height is usually less than 6 cm (Powell et al. 1995, 1996). Page and Stenzel (1981) found that nests were usually within 100 meters (328 feet) of water, but could be several hundred meters away when there was no vegetative barrier between the nest and water. They believed the absence of such a barrier is probably important for newly-hatched chicks to have access to the shore, which is likely to be true for most plover species. The breeding season is seven months long (March-September), where egg laying (clutch of 1-6, mean 3) occurs over 4 to 5 days, incubation, 26 to 31 days (mean 27 days) and fledging after 28 to 33 days (Warriner et al. 1986). Both adults share incubation, but after hatching the female commonly deserts after 6 days to breed with another male, while the original male raises the young. One of the most significant causes of habitat loss for coastal breeding western snowy plovers has been the encroachment of introduced European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria) and American beachgrass (Ammophila breviligulata). Further habitat degradation has been caused by urban development through construction of seawalls, breakwaters, jetties, piers, homes, hotels, parking lots, access roads, trails, bike paths, day-use parks, marinas, ferry terminals and recreational facilities. Human disturbance and expanding predator populations have resulted in a decline in active nesting areas and in the size of the breeding and wintering populations. The recovery team use a range of managements for improving breeding success and restoring habitat, including predator exclosures, symbolic fencing, wardens, public education, seasonal site closures (wildlife refuges), implementing and enforcing restrictions on dog walking, horse riding and off-road vehicles, and removal of Marram from dunes (US Fish and Wildlife Service 2007). The Western Snowy Plover recovery plan is downloadable from: A12

13 Piping Plover Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus) nest above the high-tide line on exposed sandy or gravelly ocean beaches, sand spits, barrier beaches or on the edges of lakes. They occur in three distinct populations on the Atlantic Coast (C. m. melodus), Great Lakes and Great Plains (C. m. circumcinctus). The population is estimated at 5900, of which 2100 breed in Canada (Goossen et al. 2002). The population has declined in numbers and range over time and was listed as endangered in Canada (Boyne 2001), threatened in the U.S. Northern Great Plains, and endangered in the Great Lakes region of the United States (Sidle 1985). The species also has endangered status in the province/states of Alberta and Maine. While Piping Plovers are migratory to southern USA and Mexico during winter, they have similar breeding biology to our resident shorebirds, with pairs remaining sedentary and defending territories during the breeding season. Birds have a preference for nesting in areas with little to no vegetation. They share incubation duties over 28 days and the precocial chicks fledge after days (Wilcox 1959; Prindiville Gaines and Ryan 1988); the females may desert broods after 5-10 days leaving parental responsibility to males (Haig and Oring 1988a). Adults live to about 14 years. Boyne (2001) identified human disturbance as the primary threat to Piping Plovers in Canada; although this may be true for Atlantic Canada, predation appears to be the primary factor limiting Piping Plover productivity on the Northern Great Plains (see Whyte 1985; Haig and Oring 1987, 1988b; Prindiville Gaines and Ryan 1988; Richardson 1999; Westworth et al. 2004). Furthermore, loss and degradation of habitat due to development and shoreline stabilisation have been major contributors to the species decline on the Atlantic coast. Marram grass invasions continue to threaten remaining habitat. Disturbance by humans, offleash dogs and off-road vehicles often reduces the functional suitability of habitat and causes direct and indirect mortality of eggs and chicks. Human activities have also been shown to exacerbate natural predation rates. On the Great Plains, crushing by grazing cattle (as well as stock creating deep depressions that chicks fall and get trapped in), vegetation encroachment reducing available habitat and watermanagement activities, also contribute to breeding failure. Recovery teams for each of the three major populations, as well as individual province and state teams have been established to protect the species. An incredible amount of research and monitoring has been carried out on Piping Plovers, with much of the research focusing on new techniques for improving breeding success of the birds, e.g. trialling predator exclosures, exploring tolerance to human activity (minimum approach distances), and documenting impacts of humans and vehicles on breeding success. For example, recovery actions for the Great Plains Piping Plover have focused on monitoring (annual lake censuses, four international censuses) (Haig and Plissner 1993; Plissner and Haig 2000; Schmelzeisen and Engley 2003; Haig et al. 2005), productivity enhancement (predator exclosures, clutch translocation, nest enclosures, water management) (Richardson 1997; Engley et al. 2004; Harris et al. 2005), habitat management (Saskatchewan Watershed Authority 2004), research (habitat, population dynamics, and dispersal) (Espie 1994; Dundas 1995; White 2005), and communication (guardian programs, brochures, presentations, science workshop) (Dufour 2003; Westworth et al. 2004; Jacobson 2005). Throughout this manual, much of the research of the recovery teams is drawn upon. Recovery plans are downloadable from: Atlantic Coast Recovery Plan 1996: Alberta Recovery Plan 2002: Canada National Recovery Plan 2002: Great Lakes Recovery Plan 2004: A13

14 Alberta Recovery Plan 2005: New Zealand Shore Plover The New Zealand Shore Plover (Thinornis novaeseelandiae) was once widespread throughout New Zealand, but from the 1880s, became restricted to the Chatham Islands. Unlike other shorebirds, this starling-sized shore plover nests under thick vegetation or in crevices under piles of boulders, and even in mutton bird burrows, which makes them more vulnerable to mammalian predators that can easily approach unseen. Their disappearance from the mainland is thought to be due to introduced predators, such as cats, rats and mustelids. After the introduction of predators to several of the Chatham Islands, only two populations remain: 130 birds confined to the predator-free, Rangatira Island and 21 birds on the Western Reef of the Chatham island chain. The species is consequently listed internationally as Endangered and is one of the rarest birds in the world. Historically, NZ shore plovers occupied a wide range of coastal habitats including sandy beaches, rocky coast, river mouths, and sand and mud flats of estuaries, but on Rangatira and the Western Reef there are only rocky shores available for nesting, with salt meadow and tussockland also occupied on Rangatira. Present day threats include introduced predators, fires, disease and human disturbance (and even egg crushing by seals). Part of the recovery program involves hatching birds from eggs taken from wild pairs and then translocating these juveniles to other suitable offshore islands. When the first clutch is taken from a pair, they re-lay, so that double the number of chicks are produced this way. Another protective measure for reducing disturbance and potential introductions of pests and diseases is the restriction of human entry to remaining habitat, which is strictly enforced. For more details download the New Zealand Shore Plover recovery plan at: Chatham Island Oystercatcher The Chatham Island Oystercatcher (Haematopus chathamensis) is the world s rarest oystercatcher species. This black and white wader is found only in the Chatham Islands, New Zealand and the total population size is estimated at birds. The species is listed internationally as Endangered (IUCN Red List 2007). It builds nests in scrapes on sandy and rocky shores, away from the waterline. Occasionally, it breeds amongst low vegetation or constructs nests out of vegetation. CI oystercatchers breed from three years old, have a mean life expectancy of 7.7 years and the oldest recorded bird lived for a minimum of 28 years. The species is under threat from introduced predators (mainly cats and weka) present on two of the four islands inhabited; avian predators (gulls and skuas); nest and chick trampling by cattle and sheep; disturbance from dogs and humans; vehicles crushing nests and chicks; and on Chatham, some pairs are forced to nest close to the tideline because introduced marram grass has spread and reduced the open areas it prefers - these nests are more vulnerable to high tides and storms. Conservation efforts have included nest translocation to reduce the number of nests lost to flooding; artificial incubation was trialled but did not increase overall productivity; fencing to keep stock off beaches; erecting signs to reduce human and dog disturbance, and; Marram control in some areas. In 1998, the Department of Conservation (DOC) began an intensive Chatham Island oystercatcher management programme involving intensive predator control combined with nest translocation, which has resulted in a high number of fledglings. Video cameras have been installed at nest sites to assess the effects of predators, flooding and management on breeding success. The long-term vision of the Chatham Island Oystercatcher Recovery Plan ( ) is to: Restore the natural ecology of the coast so that the oystercatcher population is maintained at or above 250 birds with minimal management. A14

15 For more details download the Chatham Island Oystercatcher recovery plan at: African Oystercatcher The African Oystercatcher (Haematopus moquini) has a coastal breeding range which stretches from Namibia to South Africa. The total population is estimated to number individuals, with about half occurring along the Western Cape (South Africa) coastline, half of these on its near-shore islands. This all black oystercatcher occupies rocky shoreline, shingle or pebble shorelines and beaches. The peak of the breeding season, when pairs rear 1 or 2 chicks, occurs in midsummer and coincides with peak coastal recreational activities, resulting in heavy disturbance that reduces breeding success. Off-road vehicles are a particular problem as they churn up beaches, crush nests and young hiding in vehicle ruts. In addition, people on beaches can keep adults off nests for extended periods, overheating eggs and killing embryos. Disturbance also leads to predation of eggs and chicks by Kelp Gull Larus dominicanus. On sections of the coastline undisturbed by humans, natural predators (e.g. mongoose) take many nests. On most near-shore islands, population sizes have been stable or increased recently due to either improved management, e.g. the cessation of guano-scraping during the 1980s, and/or a change in diet from indigenous limpets and mussels to invasive mussels. The mainland is likely to prove a population sink for surplus birds from near-shore islands, with breeding productivity too low to sustain coastal populations. Listed as Near Threatened (IUCN Red List 2007). Killdeer The Killdeer (Charadrius vociferous) is a shorebird found in America, which can be likened to the Masked Lapwing in its occupation of highly modified human landscapes. It is the most widespread and familiar of the American plovers and its breeding range covers from east-central Alaska to northwestern Chile. Killdeer nest in open areas, especially sandbars, mudflats, pastures, cultivated fields, athletic fields, airports, golf courses, gravel parking lots, and graveled rooftops. They forage in fields, mudflats and shores, in a typical plover fashion, and make a shallow scrape in gravel as a nest, perform broken-wing distraction displays and have precocial chicks that feed themselves post-hatching A15

16 A16

17 A17

18 THREATENED HOODED PLOVERS NESTING AT A18 WHY ARE THEY THREATENED? * Hooded plovers lay their eggs on the sand and these are easily stepped on. * If you get too close to the nest, the worried parents will not sit on their eggs. * The chicks can t fly for 5 weeks after hatching and need to feed on the beach, which places them in harm s way. Why does one nest matter? There are only 200 breeding pairs left in Victoria and this will continue to decline if nests like this one fail to produce young. HOW CAN YOU HELP? Respect the signed or fenced areas you see: - Do not enter or sit in front of the area - Walk past along the water s edge - Keep your dog on a leash MORE INFO, PHONE

19 CHICKS ON THE BEACH ENDANGERED HOODED PLOVER CHICKS HAVE RECENTLY HATCHED! THE CHICKS ARE SO TINY THAT WE (& OUR DOGS) CAN STEP ON THEM. THEY NEED SPACE TO FEED ON THE BEACH OR ELSE THEY WILL STARVE. LAST YEAR ONLY 35 OF 350 SURVIVED - IT IS SO IMPORTANT THAT THESE CHICKS SURVIVE. FROM NOW TO PLEASE: - LEASH YOUR DOG - WALK BY THE WATER S EDGE - DO NOT LINGER IN SIGNED AREA. A19

20 A20

21 A21

22 A22

23 A23

24 A24

25 A25

26 A26

27 A27

28 A28

29 APPENDIX 6 A29

30 A30

31 A31

32 A32

33 A33

34 A34

35 A35

36 A36

37 A37

38 A38

39 A39

40 A40

41 A41

42 A42

43 A43

44 A44

45 A45

46 A46

47 A47

48 A48

49 A49

50 A50

51 A51

52 A52

53 A53

54 A54

55 A55

56 A56

57 A57

58 A58

59 A59

60 A60

61 A61

62 A62

63 A63

64 A64

65 A65

66 A66

67 A67

68 A68

69 HOODED PLOVER SURVEY INSTRUCTIONS TO COUNTERS Thank you for volunteering to be involved in the Victorian Hooded Plover survey. The success of our conservation efforts for these threatened beach-nesting birds will rely heavily on the information that you collect in your surveys. Hooded Plovers (HP) are the primary focus of this survey, but you may also want to record Pied Oystercatcher (PO) sightings, as this species is also a beach-nesting bird with similar management needs. If you are searching for both, please note this in the box provided. Please take the time to read these instructions carefully before commencing your count. Remember to take these instructions and the data sheets with you on your count. If you have any questions, please contact the count organisers. WHAT TO TAKE: Binoculars. Map of your designated section of coastline. DATA SHEETS (3 different types of data sheet: count data sheet, threat assessment data sheet and existing site management data sheet ) plus spares. PLEASE DO NOT FORGET TO TAKE THE DATA SHEETS WITH YOU. They are there to make it easy for you to record your observations and for us to interpret your information. Without these sheets, you may not remember all that you need to keep an eye out for. Pens/pencils plus spares. Small clipboard and spare paper. Sunscreen, hat, warm clothes, raincoat. Water and food. A small first aid kit. Optional equipment (if you have or need them): GPS plus spare batteries (use of a GPS is strongly encouraged). Please set your GPS Datum to AustGeo Datum 84. If your GPS doesn t have this option, please record the type of datum it is set on in the box provided. Telescope and tripod. Mobile phone. EPIRB. Field guide. Take a friend! Having another person with you increases your personal safety, and provides another set of eyes (particularly important if you are counting by vehicle). You can even train a friend to count Hooded Plovers! A69

70 PLEASE DO NOT: Search for nests or chicks you will disturb the birds. Search the upper beach or dune areas you might crush eggs or chicks. Touch eggs or chicks if you happen across them Hooded Plovers do not abandon their eggs or chicks but the adults will hide from you when you are near them and this disturbance can lead to nest failure. Take your dog with you your dog may disturb nesting birds and compromise your count. Forget the tide keep an eye on it at all times and watch for large waves. Take risks either with waves or climbing on rocks be careful. BEFORE STARTING: 1) Check the tide and weather charts. 2) Ensure that you are in the correct start position (as advised by your Regional Organiser). Record the GPS reading (AGD 84) or Australian Grid Map reference (and Zone 54, West of Colac, or 55, East of Colac). 3) Check you have all the relevant and current data sheets (the month and year is on the top). 4) Read these instructions and your data sheets to familiarize yourself with what you need to be keeping an eye out for. 5) Fill in the details at the top of the COUNT DATA SHEET. These are very important, especially the starting and finishing points remember to take a GPS reading of these or mark your location on the attached map. NOW YOU ARE READY TO BEGIN - HOW TO COUNT: On Foot - walk slowly along the firm sand as close to the mid-beach as possible. By Vehicle - drive slowly along the firm sand as close to the mid-beach as possible avoid kelp or other cover where chicks may be hiding (Please note: only authorised vehicles can be driven on beaches in Victoria). 1) Keep an eye out above and below you for birds. It is best to take it slowly and scan the whole 180 degrees ahead of you as you go. Do not be fooled Hooded Plovers may be boldly marked but they can be very difficult to find. 2) Check every bird through binoculars to confirm your identification. 3) To avoid double-counting, when passing birds note whether the bird moves behind or ahead of you if it moves ahead be careful not to re-count it. 4) When you observe a hooded plover or a pied oystercatcher, fill in the COUNT DATA SHEET. 5) Do not forget to fill in the corresponding THREAT ASSESSMENT DATA SHEET each time you locate a hooded plover/s or pied oystercatcher/s. This is critical information that will help us to identify those birds most in need of on-ground management. 6) Finally, fill in the corresponding EXISTING SITE MANAGEMENT DATA SHEET each time you find a bird or group of birds. This will allow us to determine what additional, if any, management actions need to be implemented for this site. A70

71 INTERPRETING THE COUNT DATA SHEET Circle HP for a Hooded Plover sighting (or PO for a Pied Oystercatcher sighting). Record the total number of birds - differentiate between adults and juveniles. See below What bird am I looking at? and consult Fig. 1. Is there any evidence of nesting? Yes or No. This might include an active nest, eggs or chicks, or even a broken wing display by adults? Remember to keep your distance to minimise disturbance to breeding birds. Take a GPS reading of where you first sighted the bird, or mark the location (use the observation number) on a map. Also give a name or description of this location (e.g. 200m East of Powlett River mouth). Habitat were the birds observed in the dune (D) or on the beach (B)? Notes: is there any additional information that you might want to include (e.g. were the birds banded? Where is the nest located, what stage is at, if applicable?) What bird am I looking at? If you are unsure of a bird identification, note this on the data sheet. One helpful clue to identifying Hooded Plovers is the white band at the back of the neck this is evident in all age classes and is shown by lines below: Fig. 1. Hooded plover age classes INTERPRETING THE THREAT ASSESSMENT DATA SHEET For each hooded plover/s (or pied oystercatcher/s) sighting, you should carry out an assessment of the potential threats occurring within a 100 m radius of this sighting (with the exception of the first two questions which refer to the NEAREST access point). Visitors How far is it to the NEAREST access point? This is not limited by the 100 m sighting radius, instead should be your closest estimate in metres to the NEAREST access point. It does not have to be exact, but can be rounded to the nearest 10 or 50 metres. Is the NEAREST beach access point Formal (fenced or sign-posted track) or Informal (manmade track across the dune)? Place an F or I in the box. How many visitors (excluding yourself and accompanying counters) are located within a 100 m radius of the sighting? A71

72 Are there human footprints in the sand above the high-tide mark, within a 100 m radius of the sighting? Yes or No Are the dunes in this territory, i.e. in a 100 m radius of the sighting, being used by visitors, this can include the presence of footprints? Yes or No Vehicles Are there any vehicles being driven on the beach or dunes within 100 m of this territory? Distinguish between 4WDs (V), trail bikes (B) and bicycles (C). Alternatively, are there any tyre tracks in the sand (T)? Place the relevant letter/s in the box (e.g. BT means bicycle tracks). Dogs Are there dogs being walked on the lead? Yes or No. Please include how many. Are there dogs being walked off the lead? Yes or No. Please include how many. If no dogs are present, are there any dog paw prints in the sand (See Fig. 2)? Yes or No. Predators Are there any ravens (R), pacific gulls (P) or silver gulls (S)? Yes or No. You may like to include how many. Are there any foxes (F), cats (C) or rats (R) present, or tracks indicating their presence? Place the relevant letter/s in the box. Refer to Fig. 2 for diagrams of the different animal tracks. Other animals Are there stock (S) or horses (H) on the beach or in the dunes? Place the relevant letter/s in the box. You can also include the number observed. Fig. 2. Dog, cat and fox prints. Please note differences between cat and dog prints (A-D). Dog print Cat print Fox print [Sketches courtesy of Mark Seaver ( Habitat modification Is there litter (L) or discarded fishing line (F) on the beach? Place the relevant letter/s in the box. Is Marram grass (M) or Sea Spurge (S) present? Place the relevant letter/s in the box. A72