Managed Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Nesting Habitat at Kejimkujik National Park Seaside

Managed Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) Nesting Habitat at Kejimkujik National Park Seaside by Douglas Smith Submitted for Special Topics in Biology (BIOL 4806.03) at Dalhousie University Halifax, Nova Scotia April 2013 Supervised by Chris McCarthy, Parks Canada Douglas Smith, 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS... 2 ABSTRACT... 3 ABBREVIATIONS... 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS... 5 INTRODUCTION... 6 METHODS... 7 VEGETATION REMOVAL... 7 CRITICAL HABITAT SURVEY... 8 PIPING PLOVER SURVEY... 9 DATA ANALYSIS... 9 RESULTS... 10 OVERALL TRENDS... 10 PRODUCTIVITY, NEST SUCCESS, PAIR SUCCESS... 12 PER HECTARE... 13 DISCUSSION... 14 OVERALL TRENDS... 15 PRODUCTIVITY IN THE MANAGEMENT AREA... 15 NEST SITE SELECTION... 16 FUTURE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS... 17 OPTION ONE... 17 OPTION TWO... 17 OPTION THREE... 18 APPENDIX A1... 19 APPENDIX A2... 20 APPENDIX B... 21 APPENDIX C... 22 APPENDIX D... 23 APPENDIX E... 24 REFERENCES... 25 2

ABSTRACT Piping Plovers (Charadrius melodus) are a species of endangered shorebirds, which nest on North American beaches. Their critical nesting habitat is popular for beach goers, off-highway vehicle use, kite flying, and dog walking. All of these activities disturb Piping Plover nests. Natural disturbances such as flooding and predation also negatively impact nesting success. At St Catherine s River Beach in Kejimkujik National Park Seaside, critical habitat has been shrinking since the area became a national park in 1988. It was decided to use drastic management methods to help attract more breeding pairs in the beach. In 2003 a 1-hectare managed nesting habitat was created. Between 2004 and 2012, fourteen nests have been laid within the management area. Higher site selection by nesting pairs was seen in one end of the management zone where the substrate has considerably more cobble and gravel. Future management options must look carefully into the substrate and to design the management areas in order to help answer the question of whether or not the current strategy is attracting more pairs, or spreading pairs around that would otherwise be on the beach. 3

ABBREVIATIONS SCRB PIPL Keji KS MA COB SEM SWM FSW FSE BSL St Catherines River Beach Piping Plover Kejimkujik National Park and National Historic Site of Canada Kejimkujik National Park Seaside Management Area Cobble section of management area Sandy east end of the management area Sandy west end of the management area Front side west Front side east Backside adjacent to lagoon 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I wish to acknowledge several individuals for their support during this project. My family Paul Smith, Caroline Smith, and Nina John for their mental and financial support throughout the semester. For editing patience at the very last minute, Alison Conley and Kelly Boutilier. For ideas, editing, and other comments to keep me on track, Chris McCarthy, Duncan Smith, Sally O'Grady, and Sue Abbott. 5

INTRODUCTION Charadrius melodus, or the Piping Plover (PIPL), is an endangered North American shore bird with a nesting distribution from the state of Virginia to the island of Newfoundland, Canada and are also found in the prairies and great lakes. This species' critical nesting habitats are wide, gently sloping beaches with sparse vegetation and an abundance of broken shells, rocks, and pebbles (Environment Canada, 2012). PIPLs typically build their nests in the dry sand between the water and the Marram grasscovered dunes (Burger, 1987; Flemming et al., 1988). When desirable conditions exist PIPLs can nest further from the water in sparsely vegetated sections of the beach. Human beach activities such as the use of off-highway vehicles, dog walking and flying kites have a negative impact on the success of breeding PIPL pairs (Flemming et al., 1988). Natural predators and flooding also have a negative impact on the species (Flemming, 1992). St Catherines River Beach (SCRB) is closed to the public during the nesting season, which significantly reduces threats by human activities. A remote video surveillance project in Prince Edward Island, Kouchibouguac and Kejimkujik National Parks showed that crows, gulls, foxes, and raccoons are serious natural threats to the success of breeding PIPL pairs (Beaulieu, 2012). SCRB and the surrounding area were used as a farm from the late 19 th century until 1978 (R. Burgess, personal communication, April 4, 2013; Farrier et al., 1991). Cattle grazed the barrier beach for most of the 20 th century (Farrier et al., 1991). The grazing on the beach kept the Marram grass density low, which is one of the factors that positively contribute to PIPL nesting habitat. Historic data from Keji shows that 22 pairs of nesting PIPL were on SCRB in 1976. Numbers of PIPL pairs have slowly declined since the cattle were removed from this area in 1978, which transformed into Kejimkujik National Park Seaside (KS), allowing the marram grass to gradually become denser (Wentzell & Kenny, 1998). With declining numbers of PIPL pairs and declining habitat, drastic management measures were necessary to prevent further decline in the population (Flemming et al., 1988; Wentzell & Kenny, 1998). In 2003 an area measuring 1-hectare was cleared of vegetation in the sand dunes leaving a few islands of vegetation that were allowed to grow back with minimal disturbance. Data on all nests on SCRB has been collected since 1986 including all nests 6

in the MA. This report will analyze the data on pair success and the geomorphologic features of the substrate to determine habitat use on SCRB and will present options for the future management of the MA. METHODS The study site for the habitat restoration project is on St Catherines River Beach (SCRB)(UTM NAD83 20T 353400m E 4856500m N) in KS. This is a disjunctive area of the park approximately 45kms from the inland portion of Kejimkujik National Park and National Historic Site of Canada (Keji). KS is located on the south shore of Nova Scotia about 175km southwest of Halifax. SCRB is a barrier beach approximately 1600m long and 300m wide from the ocean to the lagoon. The lagoon in the back is an important stop for many species of migrating shore birds as it is a prime feeding location. VEGETATION REMOVAL Marram grass (Ammophila breviligulata) is the dominating plant in the sand dunes of Atlantic Canada. This grass stabilizes the dunes with its deep and connected root system, and it has the ability to resist drought, salt spray, and burial by sand (Woodhorse, 1976 as referenced by Krajnyk & Maun, 1982). PIPL habitat requires an area with bare to very sparsely vegetated sand (Environment Canada, 2012). To create nesting habitat vegetation must be removed. In areas on the west coast of North America and in New Zealand, the European Marram grass (Ammophila arenaria) is an invasive species (Moore & Davis, 2004) and removal has been attempted by using chemical applications, heavy machinery, and manual removal (human power) (Pickart, 1997). Chemical treatments using herbicides in a national park are a treatment of last resort and are considered on a case by case basis due to the potential for larger ecological effects. t. The national park system aims to be as ecologically friendly as possible. Even if chemical treatments were used, some vegetation needs to remain to ensure usable PIPL nesting habitat (Burger, 1987; Flemming et al., 1988). Chemical treatments involving salt-water irrigation have been shown to be ineffective since they do not penetrate deep enough through the sand (Pickart, 1997). Neither chemical treatment (herbicide or saline 7

solution) leaves sparse vegetation unaffected; it is therefore not an ideal method for managing PIPL habitat (Pickart, 1997). Using large machinery, such as a D8 bulldozer, has been used in Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area to control the invasive Ammophila arenaria with good success (Pickart, 1997). Not all plant material is removed, which is acceptable for nesting habitat. The issue with the use of bulldozers for this study area is that they are too big to get to SCRB. A barge could be used, but it would be extremely expensive and even a smaller bulldozer could cause significant damage to the dunes between the water's edge and the MA. The use of an ATV (pulling a spring harrow) and a tractor were used in the original creation of the MA and the smaller secondary MA, which has since grown in. Manually removing Marram grass with hand tools is an effective method for maintaining the MA in remote sites such as SCRB. The tools can be easily transported to the beach with no damage to the trail or sand dunes. The hand tools allow for selective removal facilitating the creation of vegetation islands, or areas with less dense vegetation. Results were tested using hayforks, spade shovels, pitchforks, hoes, potato hooks, and other smaller hand held fork and shovel type tools. The park employees and volunteers found that the potato hook worked best for breaking the grass rhizomes and digging them up. The hayfork and other rakes were effective at gathering medium to large sized loose grass pieces that were torn up. Without this yearly disturbance to the MA the Marram grass grows back in and decreases the quality of the critical habitat. Using these tools is intensive work and requires many volunteer hours. Involving the public in citizen science, such as this project, allows people to feel connected to the park and gives them the opportunity to learn about species at risk in a way they would not be able to do otherwise. Citizen science or "Voluntourism" is a new way for the public to become engaged with and learn from management projects. Both the park and the integrity of the ecosystem benefit from this activity by acquiring more hands to help with various projects. CRITICAL HABITAT SURVEY Every fall after the breeding season, employees of the park walk the edge of the critical habitat, as interpreted by the biologists, with a GPS receiver. This process collects 8

polygon data to spatially analyze changes in habitat; both naturally and from what Keji s employees and volunteers disturb to maintain the MA. From this data we can calculate the area of the critical habitat at SCRB. The polygon is divided into six sections based on substrate and natural breaks in critical habitat. PIPING PLOVER SURVEY SCRB has been monitored for PIPLs since the land was acquired by Parks Canada in 1985. The most accurate data keeping on PIPL numbers started in 1988 when the lands were officially designated as a national park. During the nesting season, surveys are done by groups of two to four people three times a week. The entire front side of the beach, lagoon (areas not under water), and the MA are walked to seek out PIPLs. An attempt is made to do these surveys during the high tide so as to decrease the amount of area that needs to be searched. Monitors carry powerful binoculars to scan the area ahead before walking through. If a PIPL or a pair of PIPLs are observed, the monitors take time to observe their behavior to try to determine if a nest is nearby or if the pair are exhibiting coitus. The MA is scanned for PIPLs with binoculars before entering. If no nest or individuals are detected the group walks very slowly along the edge of the MA to the opposite end. If a nest is detected, one person checks to count the eggs and records the GPS coordinates, while the other person observes the adult(s). Once a total of four eggs have been detected in a nest, it is not approached again unless it is suspected that the nest has been flooded, predated, or hatched. The same procedure is used for nests outside the MA. The date of when the first and last egg is laid, hatching, and fledging is recorded for every nest found. Chicks are considered fledged after 20 days. Data on predation (date and predator) are also recorded if known. The specific days are often estimates since the beach is not monitored every day. DATA ANALYSIS The overall trend of 186 breeding pairs and productivity per pair from 1986 to 2012 were graphed on a scatter plot using Microsoft Excel 2010. Nest data from inside (n 9

= 14) and outside (n = 28) the MA from the years 2004 to 2012 was compared to determine if there was a difference in productivity. The number of chicks fledged at 20 days per breeding pair, proportion of successful nests, and the proportion of successful pairs were compared using Microsoft Excel 2010. Critical habitat was then divided based on substrate and distinct nesting areas with ESRI s ArcMap software. The number of pairs choosing to nest in each section was divided by the size (hectares) to give us pairs/hectare. This put numerical value on the habitat to show how nest site selection plays a role with the various habitats. Table 1. Six critical habitat sections were defined based on features that stand out in a particular habitat (Map Appendix E). This allowed us to compare productivity based on hectare of a similar habitat to assess nest site selection. Cobble section of management area (COB) Sandy east end of the management area (SEM) Sandy west end of the management area (SWM) Front side west (FSW) Front side east (FSE) East tip of beach (TIP) Backside adjacent to Lagoon (BSL) Description Distinct substrate with considerably.171 more cobble than other areas of the management area. Compact sand in original rectangle.621 from 2003. Loose sand, newer add-on habitat..211 Front side habitat, with relatively low dunes, wide gently sloping beach. Steep dune edges resembling cliffs and narrow beach with a steep grade. Wide open with clumps of vegetation, access to lagoon, rocks, shells, cobbles, and driftwood. Narrow, gravel, and cobbles. Thick marram grass density. Size (hectares) 3.344.784.889.390 RESULTS OVERALL TRENDS From 1986 to 2012 there were 191 nests laid from 186 breeding pairs. Microsoft Excel was used to model the number of pairs on SCRB from 1986 to 2012. The software Microsoft Excel 2011 gives us the model: y = 629 -.311x with an r-value of.53. This 10

model sees a relatively consistent downward trend of PIPL pairs from 1986 to 2012. If this trend continues PIPLs will be extirpated from SCRB by 2023. Pair productivity (fledglings per pair) has risen from 1986 to 2012. From 2008 to 2012 productivity was at a stable high, equal to or greater than 2 fledglings per pair at SCRB. The r-value for productivity is weak at.29 as there is considerable variation between the years. Breeding Pairs on SCRB from 1986 to 2012 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 y = - 0.3114x + 629.29 R² = 0.53167 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 Breeding Pairs 2010 2012 Year Figure 1. 186 Confirmed breeding pairs at year-end on St Catherines River beach from 1986 to 2012 which have laid at least one egg. Annual Productivity Fledgelings per pair 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 y = 0.0653x - 128.99 R² = 0.28657 0.00 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Year Figure 2. Productivity measured by number of fledglings per breeding pair on St Catherines River Beach from 1986 to 2012. 11

PRODUCTIVITY, NEST SUCCESS, PAIR SUCCESS Three measures were used to compare the success of the MA and the front side (ocean exposed, including the tip, and small backside adjacent to the lagoon) of the beach between 2004 and 2012. Fledglings per pair (pair productivity), along with pair and nest success as a proportion of successful to failed pairs and nests were compared. All three indices showed no significant difference between the MA and the rest of SCRB. 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0.0 Outside Management Area Inside Management Area Productivity Nest Success Pair Success Figure 3. Comparing productivity and success between the MA and the front (ocean) side of the beach. When looking at the same criteria across our six critical habitat sections there were higher productivity in SEM (2.00) and TIP (2.15) than COB (1.50), FSW (1.55). The BSL section had no productivity since all three nests in that section had failed. SWM had no nests to give us any data to compare. Nest and pair success was slightly higher at TIP with.714, and.769 respectively. COB had the lowest nest and pair success at.5 each. 12

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 0.0 COB SEM FSW TIP BSL Productivity Nest Success Pair Success Figure 4. Comparing the productivity and success between the various habitat types. PER HECTARE The size of each habitat type varied considerably, therefore we compared similar indices by hectare of habitat. In this case we are comparing actual numbers of fledglings, nests and pairs per hectare as opposed to success per critical habitat section. In the MA there were 23.00 fledglings per hectare whereas outside the MA there were 7.65 fledglings per hectare. Nest and pair numbers were also higher from within the MA at 14.00 and 13.00 inside compared to 4.76 and 4.42 outside. 25 20 15 10 5 0 Outside Management Area Inside Management Area Fledglings per Ha Nests per Ha Pairs per Ha Figure 5. Productivity and success per hectare inside and outside the MA. 13

When comparing the same indices with the critical habitat sections, COB comes out as the most productive habitat with 52.63 fledglings per hectare, followed by TIP and SEM at 31.50 and 22.54 respectively. Of the areas that have successful nests, FSW had the lowest numbers of fledglings per hectare at 5.08. Of the five critical habitat sections, COB had a considerably higher number of nests and pairs at 35.09 per hectare each, whereas the rest were between 0 and 15.75 nests and pairs per hectare. The SWM area was omitted from this analysis because it had no nests or pairs. 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 COB SEM FSW TIP BSL Fledge per Ha Nests per Ha Pairs per Ha Figure 6. Productivity and nest success per hectare in each of the five critical habitat sections which had at least one nest. DISCUSSION Due to severe threats to the success of PIPLs it is necessary to explore and learn more about potential conservation methods. PIPL habitat restoration has been performed in many places with great success (Maslo et al., 2011; Maslo et al., 2012; Catlin et al., 2011; Catlin et al., 2012), and has been repeated at SCRB. Since its creation in 2003, there have been 14 nests laid within the MA. Only in 2011 did no pairs lay a nest, however there was scraping in that year prior to an adult mortality caused by exposure. If it was not for the poor weather in the spring of 2011, the scraping could have led to a nest 14

being laid. One of the nests was in a second, much smaller MA on the backside area adjacent to the lagoon that has since grown in and is no longer being managed. OVERALL TRENDS Since data collection began at SCRB in 1986 the presence of breeding pairs has slowly declined, although the last four years have been consistent at 3 pairs. The model of this decline shows extirpation by 2023, but this is an overly simplistic model that does not take into account anything other than numbers throughout the years. Habitat change, climate, human use, and territory density change were not included. The habitat has changed considerably since SCRB and the surrounding area was designated as a national park. The last cattle were removed from SCRB in 1978 (R. Burgess, personal communication, April 4, 2013). The decline in breeding pairs is likely due to the decline in critical habitat caused by the removal of grazing cattle which kept the Marram grass density in low. Coordinate data shows many nests were laid in areas that today are covered by very dense Marram grass (sand barely visible), where nesting activity is no longer observed. Barrier beaches such as SCRB are very dynamic environments that change considerably over time. Since the Marram grass has increased in density, the existing critical habitat is likely more stable leading to a more consistent number of PIPL pairs, although a lower number. The end of the beach is still very dynamic, and during the latest cycle, appears to be making the beach longer with each passing year. The edge of the Marram grass has moved east by about 34 meters between 2000 and 2009. It is unlikely that PIPL will become extirpated from SCRB since the existing size of critical habitat appears to be stable. Numbers of pairs are not likely to increase without an increase in the amount of critical habitat. PRODUCTIVITY IN THE MANAGEMENT AREA The data from 2004 to 2012 shows no better success rate of fledglings, nests or pairs in the MA compared to the natural sections of beach. In many national parks, threats from human beach use are minimized by restricting access to critical habitat during nesting season. This leaves only natural threats to nests such as predation and 15

floods. It was believed that the MA would be more protected from floods and predation; floods because the MA is set back from the water, and predation because the MA is not near the wrack line or the water's edge where more prolific prey for crows and gulls, such as crabs and worms, often reside. The MA does provide a fifth of the critical habitat on SCRB. It's removal would be a loss to critical habitat that has been successfully used. NEST SITE SELECTION To design nesting habitat it is important to consider nest site selection and the aspects that contribute to PIPL nesting site preference. The critical habitat on SCRB was divided into six sections using ESRI ArcMap. Each section has unique aspects from adjacent dune slope and size, substrate, access to the lagoon, and visual vantage. When the success of the pairs was calculated per hectare of each habitat area, a pattern emerged that showed strong site selection for COB in the MA. Per hectare the COB was selected by PIPLs twice that of the next most selected area, which is the TIP. COB habitat is unique from any other area on the beach because of the considerably higher amount of cobble and gravel in the sand. No other section of the beach has cobble that is stable, meaning that it does not change based on extreme high tide events or storms. The rock composition in the COB section is possibly providing a more camouflaged nesting site (Anteau et al., 2012; Burger 1987). The MA in general also has lower dune height than the front side of the beach. The cobble was not originally present when the MA was created in 2003. It has been suggested that wind events blew the sand from around the rocks. The remaining sand appears to be protected from the wind by the rocks themselves, as this section has not changed in many years. The COB section only covers about one quarter of the original 1-hectare rectangle of the MA. The dunes on the front side of the beach adjacent to the COB section have a much lower grade slope than the dunes adjacent to the rest of the MA, which have a very high sleep sided dune, in some years resembling a cliff. Prevailing wind data does not suggest that the predominant direction of wind would cause the COB section of the MA to be wind blown, due to the gently sloping dunes adjacent to the COB section on the front side of the beach (Risien, 2011). The 16

prevailing wind data however does not take into account single wind events such as hurricanes, which are known to cause severe overnight changes to the beach morphology. The next most selected critical habitat after COB and TIP, is SEM. All three of these sections share a common feature of having very low, gently sloped dunes adjacent to the site. This is consistent with a study by Maslo et al. (2012) that suggests the dune slope should be less than 13%, with a threshold at 20%. The dunes on the front side of SCRB far exceed 20%. One nest existed in the area of critical habitat at FSE. This habitat has extremely steep sides, and is often a cliff 2 to 4 meters high. The nest that was there was adjacent to a blow out that had a gentler slope consistent with the west end of the beach, and therefore that nest was categorized with the FSW section. FUTURE MANAGEMENT OPTIONS The MA on SCRB has been successful at creating habitat and attracting successful PIPL pairs. It is still difficult to tell whether or not the MA has been able to attract more pairs to SCRB or if it has only shifted pairs that would have already nested on the beach. Based on this information I would suggest two options for future management of the MA at SCRB. OPTION ONE Extend the COB habitat features to the west into the newer SWM that has not yet been nested. This would involve hauling rounded rocks of various sizes from gravel to cobble into the site by ATV and mixing them with the sand. The sections should have good connectivity that makes it appear as one large habitat. This would involve disturbing and smoothing out the grass that exists between the COB and SWM. Ideally a location would be found within KS, which would not cause significant damage to the ecological, geologic or cultural value of KS. An area on the front side of the beach, to the west end of the critical habitat has considerable cobble and gravel sized rocks. Removal of a small portion of this material would not be heavily noticed. Cobble and gravel would only need to be spread along the surface, so not a considerable amount would be needed. OPTION TWO Create a second management area to the east of the existing one. It should be at least 1-hectare, in the rough shape of a rectangle or oval with a corridor to the backside of 17

the beach near the tip. This option could tell us if the management area is attracting more pairs if both MAs had pairs and we got our regular sites selected on the TIP and the FSW sections. It would be important to ensure that this area was not too close to the TIP area so that PIPL territories do not overlap. OPTION THREE Continue to maintain the current MA by using park employees and volunteers to disturb marram grass and gradually change the shape of the edges. We know the MA as it is now does contribute to the overall critical habitat on SCRB, and has been used successfully. More data can be collected in the future that would greatly increase our knowledge on how the MA is used by PIPLs. All options together would give us the most data for future analysis. Information on the selection of the cobble substrate along with other data could help to determine whether or not the MAs are attracting more pairs or just attracting pairs that would otherwise be on SCRB. Concentrating efforts on maintaining the corridors, which the broods use to leave the MA for better quality foraging territory, is important. The existing corridors have been poorly managed over the 8 years of the MA existence due to their wet nature and deep rooting depths of the saltmarsh vegetation (mostly Spartina sp.). It is possible that if a brood has no way to access the water s edge in the lagoon or the front side of the beach, a breeding pair of Piping Plovers will not choose to nest in the MA. More effort is needed in the future to track or observe how the brood reaches the front side of the beach; through the corridors or through the more dense Marram grass on the front side of the beach. It is important in future monitoring that more details are recorded on the substrate at the nests, and how much the substrate changes seasonally. The sample size of this study is small; 14 nests total were in the MA, and 6 of those were on the cobble substrate. The longer that these sites are maintained and monitored, the more information we can extract from the data to better plan Piping Plover management in Kejimkujik National Park Seaside and in Southwestern Nova Scotia. 18

APPENDIX A1 Table 2. Calculated data comparing inside, outside the MA, COB and SEM sections. Cobble Not Cobble Outside Management Area Inside Manageme nt Area Nests 6 8 28 14 Pairs 6 7 26 13 Successful Nests 3 5 16 8 Hectares 0.171 0.832 5.886 1 Fledglings 9 14 45 23 Productivity 1.50 2.00 1.73 1.77 Nest Success 0.5 0.676 0.571 0.571 Pair Success 0.5 0.714 0.615 0.615 Fledglings per Ha 52.63 16.83 7.65 23.00 Nests per Ha 35.09 9.62 4.76 14.00 Pairs per Ha 35.09 8.41 4.42 13.00 Table 3. Calculated data from each of the six critical habitat sections. COB SEM FSW TIP BSL SWM FSE Nests 6 8 11 14 3 0 0 Pairs 6 7 11 13 3 0 0 Successful Nests 3 5 6 10 0 0 0 Hectares 0.171 0.621 3.344 0.889 0.39 0.211 0.784 Fledgelings 9 14 17 28 0 0 0 Productivity 1.50 2.00 1.55 2.15 0.00 Nest Success 0.5 0.625 0.6 0.714 0 0 0 Pair Success 0.5 0.714 0.6 0.769 0 0 0 Fledge per Ha 52.63 22.54 5.08 31.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 Nests per Ha 35.09 12.88 3.29 15.75 7.69 0.00 0.00 Pairs per Ha 35.09 11.27 3.29 14.62 7.69 0.00 0.00 19

APPENDIX A2 20

APPENDIX B 21

APPENDIX C Comparison of habitat change in the TIP section. 22

APPENDIX D Critical habitat in the management area from 2010 and 2012. 23

APPENDIX E Critical habitat sections 24

REFERENCES Anteau, M. J., Sherfy, M. H., & Wiltermuth, M. T. (2012). Selection indicates preference in diverse habitats: A ground-nesting bird (charadrius melodus) using reservoir shoreline. Plos One,7(1), e30347. Beaulieu, G. (2012). The implications of predator management for an endangered shorebird; do nest exclosures affect the behaviour of piping plovers and their predators? (Masters of Science, Dalhousie University). Burger, J. (1987). Physical and social determinants of nest-site selection in piping plover in New Jersey. Condor, 89(4), 811-818. Catlin, D. H., Felio, J. H., & Fraser, J. D. (2012). Comparison of piping plover foraging habitat on artificial and natural sandbars on the Missouri River. Prairie Naturalist, 44(1), 3-9. Catlin, D. H., Fraser, J. D., Felio, J. H., & Cohen, J. B. (2011). Piping plover habitat selection and nest success on natural, managed, and engineered sandbars. J. of Wildlife Management,75(2), 305-310. Environment Canada. 2012. Recovery Strategy for the Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus melodus) in Canada. Species at Risk Act Recovery Strategy Series. Environment Canada, Ottawa. v + 29 pp. Farrier, R., Drysdale, C., & Kenney, G. (1991). Kejimkujik National Park Seaside Adjunct resource description and analysis. Halifax: Canadian Parks Service. Flemming, S., Chiasson, R., & Austinsmith, P. (1992). Piping plover nest site selection in New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. J. of Wildlife Management, 56(3), 578-583. Flemming, S., Chiasson, R., Smith, P., Austinsmith, P., & Bancroft, R. (1988). Piping plover status in Nova Scotia related to its reproductive and behavioral-responses to human disturbance. Journal of Field Ornithology, 59(4), 321-330. Haig, S., Ferland, C., Cuthbert, F., Dingledine, J., Goossen, J., Hecht, A., et al. (2005). A complete species census and evidence for regional declines in piping plovers. Journal of Wildlife Management, 69(1), 160-173. Maslo, B., Burger, J., & Handel, S. N. (2012). Modeling foraging behavior of piping plovers to evaluate habitat restoration success. Journal of Wildlife Management, 76(1), 181-188. 25

Maslo, B., Handel, S. N., & Pover, T. (2011). Restoring beaches for Atlantic Coast piping plovers (Charadrius melodus): A classification and regression tree analysis of nestsite selection.restoration Ecology, 19, 194-203. Pickart, A.J. (1997). Control of European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria) on the West Coast of the United States. California Exotic Pest Plant Council, The Nature Conservancy Lanphere-Christensen Dunes Preserve Arcata, CA 95521. Risien, C. (2011). Climatology of global ocean winds. Retrieved 03/25, 2013, from http://cioss.coas.oregonstate.edu/cogow/ Wentzell, N., & Kenny, G. (1998). Conservation of the endangered piping plover (Charadrius melodus) in Kejimkujik National Park's Aeaside Adjunct. Halifax: Parks Canada. 26