Laserfiche WebLink
et al. 2009),no region contained less than 15 percent of the total number of breeding birds. We <br /> did not use the results from the 2011 International Census (Unpublished Data), because bird <br /> detection and therefore numbers were believed low throughout the range due to flooded <br /> conditions. <br /> We did not use breeding pair abundance targets as part of this recovery criterion because <br /> research evaluating the monitoring program on the Missouri River determined that while trend <br /> data was relatively reliable,the population number was missing up to 60 percent of the birds in <br /> some areas (Shaffer et al. 2013). Improving count accuracy across the range to a level where it <br /> could be reliably used as a recovery criterion would be prohibitively expensive. Recovery can be <br /> reliably demonstrated without attempting to get a total bird count. Instead, we focus on trend <br /> data(which can be obtained through subsampling, see Appendix 3B) and ensuring that there is <br /> sufficient habitat(as required in Criterion 2, page 60)to support the population at a population <br /> level that is high enough to be resilient over time. <br /> Banding data suggest that there is minimal interchange between the four regions identified <br /> above, with most plovers returning to the same general area from which they fledged (Gratto- <br /> Trevor et al. 2010; Roche et al. 2012; Catlin et al. In review), albeit a metapopulation study in <br /> Northern Rivers began in 2014 (USGS 2014), no major banding effort was ever undertaken in <br /> the U.S. alkali lakes region, and efforts to resight birds in the alkali lakes did not begin until <br /> 2008. At this time the best available information suggests that if plovers in one region were <br /> extirpated,the area would be unlikely to be recolonized successfully with any great number of <br /> birds. <br /> We anticipate that as updated population parameter estimates become available(e.g., adult or <br /> juvenile survival, survival to fledging,number of individuals etc.)these will be integrated into <br /> the model to update estimates of extinction probability. Extinction probability estimates should <br /> be updated, at a minimum, every five years as part of the five-year review process. We also <br /> anticipate that the model will likely be updated and improved in the future as new information <br /> and modeling techniques become available. Every five years the USFWS, in coordination with <br /> the Piping Plover Recovery Team, will evaluate new information to determine if it is <br /> scientifically credible and whether the model should be updated or replaced. Thus,the best <br /> available science at the time the species is considered for recovery should be used to demonstrate <br /> that Criterion 1 is met. <br /> Canadian Portion of the Range <br /> Piping plover recovery can only be achieved by stable populations in both the U.S. and Canada. <br /> There is a Canadian recovery team for the Northern Great Plains portion of the population and <br /> biologists regularly coordinate across the border. We anticipate that the Canadian and U.S. <br /> biologists will continue to work together towards recovery. If the goals in the current Canadian <br /> 64 <br /> VOLUME!:Draft Revised Recovery Plan for the Breeding Range of the Northern Great Plains Piping Plover(Charadrius <br /> melodus) <br />