Final Report to Edna Bailey Sussman Foundation

Final Report to Edna Bailey Sussman Foundation

Maureen M. Durkin

Informing Restoration of the Endangered Piping Plover to Lake Ontario, New York

Background

The Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus) is a small, ground-nesting shorebird found in populations on the Atlantic Coast, Great Plains, and Great Lakes of the United States. Piping Plovers once nested throughout the Great Lakes region, but by the 1980s they had been extirpated from Lake Ontario and Lake Erie, and the population on the remainder of the Great Lakes had been reduced to a handful of pairs. Intensive conservation and recovery efforts over the last several decades have resulted in a rebound of Piping Plovers on Lake Michigan, and on parts of Lakes Huron and Superior. However, until 2015, Piping Plovers had not recolonized nesting areas on Lake Ontario.In 2015, a single nesting pair reappeared on Lake Ontario in New York State, with an increase to two nesting pairs in 2016.

Due to the long absence of the species from upstate New York’s lakeshores, virtually no data exist on habitat selection, threats, behavior for Piping Plovers on Lake Ontario or Lake Erie, and is desperately needed. It was my goal in 2017 to assist state and NGO partners in developing monitoring protocols, to participate in monitoring activities, conduct focal behavioral observations, and examine habitat selection of adults and juveniles on Lake Ontario. The hope was thatinformation about the behavior of Piping Plovers, their habitat use, and productivity gained from intensive monitoring and focal observations would aid managers in prioritizing areas for protection, identify threats to productivity, and yield information that could be used to inform restoration.

Unfortunately, 2017 turned out to be an anomalous year on Lake Ontario, with extremely high water levels that inundated many lakeshore areas, eroded beach and dune areas, and resulted in little to no suitable nesting and foraging areas for Piping Plovers. The areas where birds nested in previous years experienced drastic reduction in beach width, if not total elimination. While a small area of Sandy Island Beach State Park remained as technically suitable habitat, no nesting occurred in 2017. After it became clear that nesting would not take place in 2017, and thus many of my proposed activities could not take place, I shifted my focus to using data from other parts of the Great Lakes, where Piping Plovers nest in greater numbers, to identify large-scale features of nesting sites that could then be compared to potential sites in New York State.

Field Activities

Before the breeding season, I devised a data collection protocol and data sheet for focal behavioral observations on Piping Plover adults (Appendix I). I also helped to revise a productivity monitoring data sheet and protocol. During the pre-breeding season, I accompanied colleagues from ESF and NYDEC for site visits and participated in conference and planning calls. I assisted partners from NYDEC, NY State Parks, and Audubon New York in planning and leading a training session for volunteers who planned to help with Piping Plover monitoring. Early in the breeding season, alone and with colleagues, I helped conduct surveys for Piping Plovers. While no birds ultimately nested, we did located several transient birds that passed through the study area. I helped identify color-banded birds, and conducted a small number of behavioral observations on pre-breeding birds, with the hope that they would stay at the site and we could continue to collect observations. Though we were not able to collect enough behavioral data to be useful this year, the method was field-tested and could be used in future years by partners if they wish to study behavior.

Nesting Site Analysis

Methods

To compare characteristics of nest sites of Piping Plovers elsewhere in the Great Lakes to potential sites in NY, I obtained nest location data of all Piping Plovers nesting on the U.S. side of the Great Lakes from 2014-2017 from colleagues at the University of Minnesota, who are part of a large monitoring and research effort for Piping Plover monitoring in the western Great Lakes. The vast majority of Great Lakes Piping Plovers nest in Michigan, with smaller numbers in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and Ontario. For this analysis, I restricted the data to only Michigan nests. For New York State, I used Arc Map 10.2 to examine imagery of the coastlines of both Lake Ontario and Erie, and created polygons encompassing areas that appeared to have any substantial amount of beach or potential nesting area. To create a direct analogue for the Michigan nest point locations, I generated random points within the polygons.

To best make comparisons between Michigan and New York sites, I sought out datasets that covered both states, to ensure that data were collected using the same methods. I used data from the Great Lakes Coastal Flood Study to obtain data on substrate, vegetation, land use type, and coastal features near each nest or potential site. I measured the distance of each nest or potential site to the nearest urban boundary using data from the 2010 United States Census. For land ownership data, I used the US Geological Survey National Gap Analysis Program Protected Areas Database. Finally, I used the National Wetland Inventory to identify the proximity and type of wetlands (excluding lakes) near each point.

Results and Conclusions

I used 225 Piping Plover nest locations in Michigan from 2014-2017 (Map 1) and 236 random points generated at potential nesting sites in New York State (Map 2) to draw comparisons. Using the aforementioned datasets, I selected 13 variables that I felt were most relevant to understanding site characteristics. For the 10 categorical variables, I calculated the percentage of points that fell within each level of each variable (Table 1). For the three continuous variables, I calculated summary statistics for each (Table 2).

In general, the potential NY sites tended to have less sandy, narrower, and more developed beaches when compared to Michigan. Approximately 95% of Michigan’s nesting sites were on sand beaches (95%), whereas only 63% of NY potential site points were located on sandy beaches. Although Piping Plovers can nest on other substrate types, it appears that they vastly prefer sandy areas. Only 13% of Michigan’s plover nests were on beaches that were narrower than 30 feet, whereas 31% of potential areas in NY were this width. Most of MI’s nesting sites were surrounded by park land areas, and while some nested near low-density residential areas, they showed little tolerance for high or moderate density residential areas. Only 28% of NY’s potential sites were primarily surrounded by park land, with 41% classified as in moderate residential areas, which plovers may not tolerate based on MI nest characteristics. Compared to MI sites, NY is characterized by a lack of coastal dunes. Approximately 47% of Michigan’s nests were in 2 to 10foot dune areas, and 34% were in high dune areas. Only 15% of the potential site points in NY were near 2 to 10-foot dunes, and <1% were near high dunes. MI nesting locations were also characterized by lower density tree and shrub vegetation, whereas potential NY areas were more likely to be in moderate-high density trees and shrubs. Only 5% of MI PIPL nests were near manicured lawn areas, compared to 25% of potential NY points. Both MI and NY had the greatest percentage of points falling closest to a forested/shrub wetland, but NY points also had 37% of points falling near riverine areas, whereas no nests in MI were nearest to riverine areas compared to other wetlands. Michigan and New York sites were starkly different in terms of land ownership and management. MI sites were primarily federally owned and managed areas (66%), mostly in the form of National Lakeshores and Forests, while most of the remainder of sites were state managed (33%). In NY, none of the potential nesting areas were federally managed, and the majority were state-managed in some form (67%), with the remainder a mix of local and private ownership/management. In general, NY sites were closer to urban boundaries compared to MI sites, and closer to wetland areas. NY sites were also closer to protected areas on average, but this appears to be due to a few outlier sites in MI. Far more MI sites were contained within protected areas compared to NY.

Based on the characteristics of Michigan nest sites, the sites in New York that are most attractive to Piping Plovers are likely to have wide beaches (<30’), low-moderate density vegetation, sandy substrate and dune systems. While wetland areas may potentially provide good foraging areas, a close proximity to wetlands could be related to higher density vegetation or increased predator presence, explaining why MI nests were generally further from these areas. Areas that are surrounded by park land are likely to be most desirable, followed by low-density residential. Moderate and high density residential areas may not be desirable due to anthropogenic disturbance and presence of human-commensal predators, or may simply be negatively associated with desirable beach features like dunes. While federal lands are the most desirable option for Piping Plover nesting areas, as they are less likely to be managed for multiple uses when compared to state lands, and managers often have a higher level of flexibility in regards to conservation when compared to other ownership types. However, a there are no potential nesting sites that fall within federal lands on the NY lakeshore, state managed areas that are the most conservation-focused are likely to be most highly selected for, especially if protective measures are put in place similar to elsewhere in the Great Lakes.

Based on the features that are characteristic of nest sites of MI Piping Plovers, NY unfortunately appears to have few areas that match these criteria, likely in large part due to coastal development and alteration that has taken place since Piping Plovers were abundant in the area. Thus, managers may wish to put efforts towards restoring certain sites or creating suitable habitat. In that case, it appears that widening beaches should be a priority, along with creating or promoting dune formation. Reducing the density of vegetation, especially if it is non-native, in areas that have other suitable characteristics may also be useful.

Acknowledgments

Thank you to the Edna Bailey Sussman Foundation for providing me the opportunity to undertake this project. Thanks to Jillian Liner and Audubon NY for sponsoring this internship, and partners at NYDEC and NY Parks for providing assistance. Special thank you to Alison Kocek for training, assistance, feedback and collaboration. Thank you to Sarah Saunders and Great Lakes Piping Plover collaborators for providing nest data.

Map 1. Locations of Michigan 2014-2017 Piping Plover nests used for nest site analysis

Map 2. Locations of random points generated inside polygons of potential Piping Plover nesting sites in New York.

Table 1. Categorical variable features of Piping Plover nest sites in Michigan from 2014-2017 (n=225), and randomly generated points within potential nesting areas along Lake Ontario and Lake Erie in New York State (n=236).

Michigan / New York
Primary Shoreline Substrate Type
Artificial / 1.8% / 21.7%
Boulders, Bedrock / 1.3% / 3.0%
Sand / 96.0% / 63.4%
Shingles, Pebbles, Cobbles / 0.9% / 11.9%
Beach Width
5' - 30 ' / 12.9% / 31.9%
30' - 60' / 24.1% / 5.5%
60' - 90' / 3.1% / 2.1%
90'+ / 45.1% / 34.5%
None/No Data / 14.7% / 26.0%
Primary Landscape Type
Commercial/Industrial / 2.2% / 4.3%
Forested / 5.4% / 6.8%
High Density Residential / 1.3% / 9.4%
Low Density Residential / 13.4% / 8.5%
Moderate Density Residential / 1.8% / 41.7%
Park Land / 75.9% / 28.9%
Farm Land / 0.0% / 0.4%
Primary Coast Type
Bluff (2'-10') / 0.4% / 5.5%
Coastal Wetland / 0.4% / 1.3%
Dune (2'-10') / 47.3% / 14.5%
Flat Coast / 17.9% / 63.8%
High Dune (10'+) / 33.9% / 0.9%
High Bluff (10'+) / 0.0% / 14.0%
Primary Vegetation Type
High Density Shrubs/Trees / 9.8% / 25.1%
Low Density Shrubs/Trees / 64.3% / 5.5%
Manicured Lawn / 4.9% / 26.8%
Moderate Density Shrubs/Trees / 2.7% / 40.0%
None/No Data / 3.6% / 0.9%
Unmaintained Non-Woody Vegetation / 14.7% / 1.7%
Type of Nearest Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland / 13.4% / 22.1%
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland / 74.6% / 34.0%
Freshwater Pond / 12.1% / 6.8%
Riverine / 0.0% / 37.0%
Ownership
Federal / 56.3% / 0.0%
Non-Governmental Organization / 0.9% / 0.9%
Private / 3.1% / 5.5%
State / 33.0% / 67.7%
American Indian Lands / 0.0% / 8.9%
Local Government / 0.0% / 17.0%
Unknown/ No Data / 6.7% / 0.0%
Management Agency
Forest Service / 1.3% / 0.0%
National Park Service / 53.1% / 0.0%
Non-Governmental Organization / 0.9% / 0.9%
Private / 3.1% / 5.5%
State Department of Natural Resources or Conservation / 33.0% / 35.3%
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service / 1.8% / 0.0%
State Park and Recreation / 0.0% / 32.3%
American Indian Lands / 0.0% / 8.9%
City Land / 0.0% / 8.5%
County Land / 0.0% / 8.5%
Unknown/ No Data / 6.7% / 0.0%
Area Type
Conservation Easement / 3.6% / 5.5%
National Forest / 1.3% / 0.0%
National Lakeshore or Seashore / 60.3% / 0.0%
National Wildlife Refuge / 1.8% / 0.0%
Research or Educational Area / 0.4% / 0.0%
State Conservation Area / 23.7% / 28.9%
State Park / 4.5% / 28.1%
State Resource Management Area / 4.5% / 2.1%
Local Park / 0.0% / 17.0%
Native American Land / 0.0% / 8.9%
Private Conservation / 0.0% / 6.0%
State Other or Unknown / 0.0% / 3.4%
Public Access Type
Closed / 2.7% / 20.4%
Open Access / 71.4% / 47.2%
Restricted Access / 25.9% / 28.9%
Unknown/No Data / 0.0% / 3.4%

Table 2. Continuous variable features of Piping Plover nest sites in Michigan from 2014-2017 (n=225), and randomly generated points within potential nesting areas along Lake Ontario and Lake Erie in New York State (n=236).

Michigan / New York
Distance to Nearest Urban Boundary (m)
Min. / 0 / 0
1st Quantile / 29261 / 22
Median / 30606 / 14167
Mean / 36588 / 13927
3rd Quantile / 36851 / 25237
Max. / 106797 / 30618
Distance to Nearest Wetland (m)
Min. / 0.0 / 0.0
1st Quantile / 163 / 88
Median / 881 / 154
Mean / 2474 / 229
3rd Quantile / 6001 / 313
Max. / 14213 / 1311
Distance to Nearest Protected Area (m)
Min. / 0.0 / 0.0
1st Quantile / 0.0 / 0.0
Median / 0.0 / 93.0
Mean / 27402.2 / 759.6
3rd Quantile / 66501.2 / 589.2
Max. / 159438.1 / 10819.3

Appendix I. Data collection sheet created for behavioral observations of adult Piping Plovers on Lake Ontario