Revised March 20, 2000

![](media/image1.png){width="1.6875in" height="1.4930555555555556in"}

######## 

######## U.S. Shorebird 

######## Conservation Plan

# Northern Pacific Coast

**Regional Shorebird Management Plan**

by

Martin S. Drut

Regional Working Group Coordinator

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Office of Migratory Bird Management

911 NE 11^th^ Avenue, Room 125

Portland, OR 97232-4181

and

Joseph B. Buchanan

Cascadia Research Collective

Waterstreet Building, Suite 201

218½ West Fourth Avenue

Olympia, Washington 98501

MARCH 2000

**EXECUTIVE SUMMARY**

Shorebirds (Order Charadriiformes; plovers, oystercatchers, stilts and
avocets, sandpipers and allies) represent a group of species which has
long been of interest to scientists and the general public. These birds
use a variety of habitats during annual spring and fall migrations to
and from breeding grounds. Many of the most critical habitats used by
shorebirds are associated with wetlands or other limited habitats. Thus,
shorebirds may be important indicators of ecosystem status. Because
shorebirds aggregate in limited areas in large numbers during critical
periods of their life cycles, habitat loss and degradation is a major
threat. Addressing these threats and other issues in a coordinated
fashion is key to effectively conserving shorebird populations at the
national and international scale. To meet this challenge, Manomet Center
for Conservation Sciences, under contract with the U. S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, is developing the United States Shorebird Conservation
Plan. This national Plan includes 11 regional plans reflecting major
shorebird flyways and habitats within the United States. The Northern
Pacific Regional Working Group was formed under the auspices of the
National Plan to formulate shorebird management goals for the Northern
Pacific Region (NPR), which represents western Washington and Oregon.
The purpose of this management plan is to address shorebird management
needs on a regional basis while considering Pacific Flyway and National
levels of need.

Within the NPR, the important shorebird habitats are coastal estuaries,
beaches, rocky shorelines, pelagic, and freshwater systems (natural and
managed wetlands, flooded agricultural areas, and riverine systems). We
identified numerous sites across these habitat types within the region
that supported at least 1,000 birds in one or more season. Many of the
coastal estuaries within the region, such as Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay,
and the Columbia River estuary, support large numbers (i.e. \>f
shorebirds . Other locations, such as the Willamette Valley, contain
both wetlands and agricultural lands which overall support a wide
diversity of species and large numbers of individuals.

Of the 50 shorebird species recognized by the National Plan as occurring
within the United States, 40 occur regularly within the NPR, although
several species occur in very low abundance (e.g., rare migrants). All
species were given National and Regional prioritization scores based on
abundance (i.e., regional importance) and potential threats. Only one
species, the Snowy Plover, was considered to be highly imperiled at the
national and regional scales. Nineteen species (including species such
as Black Oystercatcher, Common Snipe, Dunlin, Greater Yellowlegs, and
Sanderling) were identified regionally as species of high concern due to
their regional importance, and the remaining species were considered to
be of less concern.

Regional goals were established during the development of this plan. The
primary goals are to: 1) measurably increase populations, over the next
10 years, of species impacted by current or recent declines at
population or flyway levels, and 2) stabilize and maintain current
levels of breeding, wintering, and migrating populations of other
shorebird species within the region/flyway. In support of these broad
population goals, specific goals were also developed for research and
monitoring, management, habitat protection, and outreach. Specific
strategies to meet each of these goals were developed.

Key features of the monitoring strategy include development and
implementation of a Flyway-wide survey to monitor shorebird species
across five primary habitat strata (estuarine, beach, rocky shoreline,
pelagic, and freshwater). Research and monitoring recommendations cover
a broad spectrum and include 1) examination of shorebird response to
introduced species (e.g., cordgrass and exotic invertebrates in
estuaries, European beachgrass in coastal low dunes, reed canary grass
in freshwater areas) and their control, 2) effects on shorebirds of
various contaminants, 3) assessment of spatial and temporal aspects of
shorebird habitat use, 4) in-depth studies of the life history of
species of concern, and 5) evaluation of shorebird response to
integrated waterbird management efforts and other enhancement or
restoration efforts. Outreach strategies were identified to improve
communication among public and private land managers regarding shorebird
needs, to facilitate effective plan implementation at the regional
scale, and to support public enjoyment of shorebirds.

Of primary concern for shorebird conservation is the loss of wetland
habitat. To meet critical habitat goals, we focused on protection,
restoration, and enhancement, recognizing the importance of the Pacific
Coast Joint Venture (PCJV). The PCJV has identified and facilitated
acquisition of many sites known to be important for shorebirds. The
Regional Working Group will continue to work with the PCJV to implement
our habitat strategies, including identification and protection of
additional important sites and implementation of restoration/enhancement
activities. Restoration and protection will focus on four of the broad
habitat types: estuarine, beach, rocky shoreline, and freshwater.
Restoration and protection activities include the protection of nesting
areas for Black Oystercatchers on rocky shorelines, restoration of tidal
regimes to diked wetlands in estuaries, water level and moist soil
management in freshwater environments lost to or degraded by agriculture
and development, and removing exotic species and planting native
vegetation in both estuarine and freshwater areas. Numerous sites from
throughout the region were identified for implementation of these
protection and restoration activities.

Finally, a number of sites are recommended for inclusion in the Western
Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network. Willapa Bay and the Columbia River
estuary are recommended as sites of international significance
(\>100,000 birds or 15% of Flyway total). Port Susan, Skagit Bay,
Padilla Bay, North Beach, and Copalis/Ocean Shores Beach are recommended
as sites of regional importance (\>20,o Additionally, portions of the
Willamette Valley support large numbers of shorebirds, and as a complex
of seasonally ephemeral sites, this area is of regional importance. New
criteria should be developed that recognize the regional or
international importance of this and other complexes of sites.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

Page

**I. INTRODUCTION** 1

**II. DESCRIPTION OF THE REGION** 1

**III. SHOREBIRD SPECIES OCCURRENCE AND REGIONAL**

**SPECIES PRIORITIES** 3

**IV. OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL GOALS** 3

**V. POPULATION GOALS** 5

**VI. MONITORING AND RESEARCH GOALS** 5

**VII. HABITAT OBJECTIVES AND MANAGEMENT NEEDS** 7

**VIII. MANAGEMENT EFFECTIVENESS AND COORDINATION** 9

**IX. OUTREACH AND EDUCATION** 10

**X. FUNDING** 11

**XI. NOMINATION OF SITES FOR INCLUSION IN THE WESTERN**

**HEMISPHERE SHOREBIRD RESERVE NETWORK** 11

**XII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS** 12

**XIII. LITERATURE CITED** 13

**TABLES**

Page

**Table 1. Issues of management concern for shorebirds in western
Washington**

**and western Oregon, according to major habitat type 20**

**Table 2. Ownership and/or protection status of important shorebird
sites in**

**western Washington and western Oregon 21**

**Table 3. Conservation priority of regularly-occurring shorebird
species**

**in the North Pacific Coast Region 26**

**Table 4. Summary of \"natural\" and human-created habitat types in
the**

**North Pacific Coast Region, and some of the shorebird species**

**known to use them 29**

**APPENDIX**

**Appendix 1. Common and standard names of species mentioned in the
document 25**

**I. INTRODUCTION**

As a group, the shorebirds (Order Charadriiformes; plovers,
oystercatchers, stilts and avocets, sandpipers and allies; American
Ornithologists\' Union 1998) have long been of great interest to
biologists, bird-watchers, and the general public. Their long-distance
migrations to and from breeding grounds and a propensity to aggregate
have been well documented. It is these two attributes, and a dependence
on wetlands, that has placed many members of this group of species at
risk.

Most shorebirds, including the most abundant species, are long-distance
migrants that typically have vast wintering and breeding ranges. During
migration, these species use flyways characterized by a network of
estu­aries, beaches, rocky shorelines, or wetlands that are typically
limited in size and distribution. These areas represent \"migratory
bottlenecks\" (Myers 1983) that the birds must negotiate twice each
year. The comparatively limited availability of resources in these
bottlenecks present energetic demands on shorebirds that poten­tially
influence migration, reproduction, and even survival (Goss-Custard 1977,
Evans et al. 1991, Sutherland and Goss-Custard 1991). Other shorebirds,
including residents, overwintering species, and local nesters, are
similarly con­strained by the availability of suitable habitats.

Shorebird populations and habitats have been impacted by a variety of
human activi­ties. Many species were formerly exploited for market
hunting and several species suffered substantial population declines and
have yet to recover (Paulson 1993, Page and Gill 1994). With the
exception of the Com­mon Snipe (scientific names are listed in Appendix
1), shorebirds are no longer hunted in the Northern Pacific Region (NPR)
covered by this document. New threats have emerged, however, including
habitat degradation and destruc­tion. Over 66% of intertidal wetlands in
Washington state have been destroyed in the last century (Boule et al.
1983). Wetland loss in Oregon has been similarly severe where a 50-80%
reduction of intertidal marsh has oc­curred (Boule and Bierly 1987). The
loss of wetlands in the Willamette Valley has been estimated at between
40% (Gabriel 1993) and 87% (Titus et al. 1996). Habitat loss leads to
increased levels of competition for resources among shore­birds and can
eventually result in density dependent mortality (Goss-Custard 1977).
Other potential threats to shorebirds in the region include various
types of pollution (e.g. oil spills, agricultural and industrial
chemicals) and human disturbance (Table 1) (for review, see Buchanan in
press).

The northern Pacific coast of the United States is an important part of
the Pacific Flyway used by many migrating and winter­ing shorebirds.
Habitats in the region, including coast­al estuaries, beaches, rocky
shorelines, ocean waters, and interior freshwater areas support large
numbers of migrant Western Sandpip­ers, Short-billed Dowitchers, Greater
Yellowlegs, and Sanderlings (Herman and Bulger 1981, Myers et al. 1984,
Paulson 1993, Buchanan and Evenson 1997, Evenson and Buchanan 1997, Page
et al. 1999), and perhaps the greatest concentra­tion of wintering
Dunlins in western North America (Page et al. 1999). The Willamette
Valley appears to be the most important wintering area for Killdeers in
the Pacific Northwest (Paulson 1993). Given the tremendous importance of
this region to these and other shorebird species, the Northern Pacific
Regional Working Group was convened under the auspices of the United
States National Shorebird Conserva­tion Plan (NSCP) to develop a
conservation strategy for shorebirds in the region. In this document,
regional goals and manage­ment strategies to address shorebird
conservation issues in western Washington and western Oregon are
presented. This document should be viewed as guidance for the working
group and managers in the region, with the understanding that the
working group will refine recommendations through time as new
information and opportunities arise.

**II. DESCRIPTION OF THE RE­GION**

The planning area for the NPR was defined as those areas of Washington
and Oregon west of the Cascade Moun­tain crest. This area, with an
exception explained below, coincides with the Pacific Northwest Bird
Conservation Region (BCR) proposed by Babcock et al. (1998). For
planning purposes, northwest­ern California was included within the
Southern Pacific Region (Coastal California BCR) because coordination of
the NPR plan would have been difficult across the larger three-state
area.

The NPR is a coastal region dominated by a mari­time climate which
produces moist, mild conditions throughout much of the year. The region
supports vast conifer forests that extend from sea level to the Cascade
Mountain crest. Before European settle­ment, wetland prairie and oak
savan­nah (Franklin and Dyrness 1973) were dominant features of the
Willamette Valley and portions of the Puget Trough lowlands. These areas
have now been altered sub­stan­tially through urban development and
con­version to agriculture. Important general habitats for shorebirds
include coastal estu­aries, coastal beaches, rocky marine shore­lines,
open ocean and other deep water areas, and freshwater systems (natural
and managed wetlands, agricultural areas, and riverine systems).

**Coastal Estuaries**

Within the NPR, the greatest diversity and abundance of shorebirds are
found in the coastal estuaries. At these sites, shorebirds rely on
intertidal mud flats and salt marshes to meet various life requisites
(Buchanan in press). There are 26 estuarine sites that support at least
1000 shorebirds in Puget Sound (Evenson and Buchanan 1997, Bu­chanan
1988) and 23 such bays or estuaries along the outer coasts of Washington
and Oregon (Table 2). Often large numbers of wintering and migrant
shore­birds use these estuaries (Herman and Bulger 1981, Buchanan and
Evenson 1997, Evenson and Buchanan 1997, Page et al. 1999; see Table 1
for other references). The important estuaries vary in size from less
than one km^2^ in area to well over 50 km^2^; Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay,
and the Columbia River estuary are examples of larger sites.

**Sand Beaches**

Among the dominant features of coastal Washington and Oregon are the
sand beach­es. The primary sand beaches in Washing­ton (Copalis/Ocean
Shores Beach, Grayland Beach, North Beach \[\"Longbeach\"\] each support
over 1,000 shorebirds) are found between the Copalis River and the mouth
of the Columbia River. Other sand beaches on the northern outer coast
and Strait of Juan de Fuca (typically small, isolated, and backed by
rocky headlands) support comparatively fewer shorebirds. Small sand
beaches are also present in the Puget Sound region; however, these also
support few shorebirds. Sand beaches are found along much of the coast
of Oregon as well, although the beaches are generally smaller south of
Cape Blanco. Sand beach­es used by shorebirds in either state are
typically extensive, wide beach areas with fine-grained sand and
relatively gradual slope. At least five beach segments in Ore­gon support
≥1,000 shorebirds during one or more seasons; the more important beaches
are Clatsop Beach, Sunset Beach, Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area,
and the beach between Coquille River and Cape Blanco (Table 2). The
coastal beaches in the NPR host some of the greatest concentrations of
migrant and wintering sanderlings in North America (Myers et al. 1984,
Buchanan 1992, Buchanan and Evenson 1997). Beaches are used as roosting
habitat by thousands of Dunlins, Western Sandpipers, and Black-bellied
Plovers, and lesser numbers of other species, when tides are high in
adjacent estuaries (Buchanan 1992). The federally threatened Snowy
Plover nests on some of these beaches; nine beach areas in the region
are listed as critical habitat by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service:
Damon Point (Grays Harbor County, WA), Leadbetter Point (Pacific County,
WA), Bayocean Spit (Tillamook County, OR), Haceta Head to Sutton Creek
(Lane County, OR), Siltcoos River North (Lane County, OR), Siltcoos
River to Threemile Creek (Lane and Douglas counties, OR), Umpqua River
to Horsfall Beach (Douglas and Coos counties, OR), Horsfall Beach to
Coos Bay (Coos County, OR), and Bandon Park to Floras Lake (Coos and
Curry counties, OR) (USDI 1999; see Table 2).

**Rocky Shoreline**

Many sand beaches in the region are sepa­rated by rocky shorelines,
important habitats for species such as Black Oystercatcher, Wandering
Tattler, Rock Sandpiper, Surfbird, Ruddy Turnstone, and Black Turnstone.
Rocky shorelines are found along coastal regions in the conservation
planning area (Table 2) but there are differ­ences among sites in height,
extent, slope, and geologi­cal history. For example, portions of the
Washington and Oregon coasts are characterized by towering cliffs that
drop nearly vertically to the breaker zone. In other areas, such as the
mainland shore­line of portions of Puget Sound, the shore­line substrate
is glacial in origin, generally unstable, and often less than 50 meters
in height. Rocks, reefs, and nearshore islands provide rocky intertidal
habitat as well.

**Pelagic**

Another marine habitat, used almost exclu­sively by Red-necked Phalaropes
and Red Phalaropes, is the pelagic zone. Several marine habitats are
recognized within this pelagic habitat category: inland marine waters
(e.g., Puget Sound), nearshore waters, shelf and slope waters (i.e., up
to 2000 m in depth), and offshore waters (i.e., \>2000 m in depth and
extending west to the jurisdictional boundary of the United States
(Buchanan et al. in press, Johnson and O'Neil in press). Large num­bers
of phalaropes have been reported off Tillamook Bay, off Cape Arago, off
Westport, off Newport Bay, and off Boiler Bay (Nehls 1994, Paulson
1993), but the location of essential areas in the region is not known.

**Freshwater Habitats**

A diverse group of habitats important to shorebirds is found in
freshwater environ­ments. The specific habitats include wetlands,
agricultural areas and pasture lands, prairies, and shorelines of ponds,
lakes, and riverine systems. Arguably, managed agricultural areas and
pasturelands with areas of moist, bare soil and/or very short
vegetation, often grazed by livestock, left fallowed, or simply flooded,
appear to be important habitats in certain areas of the region. The
important areas include sites adjacent to large coastal and Puget Sound
estuaries, and the central and southern parts of the Willamette Valley
(Table 2), where areas under grass seed production are im­portant.
Coastal pastures adjacent to sites such as Samish Bay and Willapa Bay
are used as roosting and foraging habitat by many wintering and migrant
species (Bu­chanan in press) whereas the Willamette Valley supports
flocks of Dunlins, as well as substantial numbers of Killdeers and
Common Snipes (Paulson 1993, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
1997).

Freshwater wetlands, although an important habitat in the region for
shorebirds, water­fowl, and marsh birds, are not extensive in area and
currently appear to support compara­tively fewer birds than agricultural
lands. Where present, however, these nutrient and re­source rich sites
greatly enhance the value of other habitats and are used by shorebirds
when water levels are shallow enough for foraging.

Shorelines and riverine areas are important for species that generally
do not occur in large concentrations. Riverine areas are particularly
important for Spotted Sandpipers and exposed shorelines of shallow ponds
and lakes are valuable habitats for shorebirds such as Solitary
Sandpiper and Semipalmated Plover. Shoreline use occurs primarily during
fall migration when typically lower water levels create opportunities
for foraging.

**III. SHOREBIRD SPECIES OC­CURRENCE AND REGIONAL SPECIES PRIORI­TIES**

National Priori­ty scores for all species which occur regularly in the
NPR were established through a system devised by the National Research
and Monitoring Working Group of the NSCP. The scoring was based on a
similar system used by Partners in Flight ­(Carter et al. in press) to
prioritize land birds of conservation concern. Re­gional scores were
adjusted to reflect regional con­cerns and priorities (Table 3). The
regional scores differed from those established at the National level
because the latter were less sensitive to local or regional information.
Consequently, the Regional scores reflect our Working Group\'s
collective opin­ion about the level of concern for each species within
the NPR.

We noted differences between National and Regional prioritization scores
(Table 3). Of the 38 species with both National and Re­gional scores (2
species had no Nation­al score), we considered 20 species to be of high
concern or highly imperiled (scores of 4 or 5, respectively) at the
Regional level compared to 14 species at the National level.
Fur­thermore, in comparison to 18 species considered of moderate concern
(score of 3) at the National level we identi­fied only 3 such species at
the Regional level. Finally, only 6 species received scores of ≤2 (low
concern or no risk) at the National level where­as 17 received these
scores at the Regional level. The primary reason for the disparity in
scores result­ed from different levels of importance of the region for
particular species. For example, species for which the NPR constituted a
minor portion of the species\' flyway or population received lower
regional scores. Only one species, the threatened Snowy Plover (USDI
1993), was ranked in the highest priority category at both the Nation­al
and Regional levels. Conversely, one species classified Nationally as
highly imperiled, the Long-billed Curlew, was ranked Regionally as a
species of moderate concern because it does not breed in the region and
few birds occur in the region during winter or migration.

**IV. OVERVIEW OF REGIONAL GOALS**

Determining the current population status of shore­birds within the NPR
and monitoring these species to determine long-term trends are primary
goals for the NSCP. Without this information, management of shorebirds
would be difficult and lack direction. This section establishes broad
goals for the NPR at both short- and long-term timeframes. Many of the
goals stated here should be considered within the context of Pacific
Flyway and/or national goals. Details about specific strategies needed
to meet Regional goals follow in the corresponding sections of this
document.

**Population Goals** (see Section V)

• Over the next ten years, measurably increase popula­tions of species
which have experienced (or are believed to have experienced) population
de­clines. This will require develop­ment of reliable base­line informa­tion
and appropri­ate monitoring techniques. After the 10-year peri­od, this
goal should be re-evaluated on a species-by-species basis to assess its
appropri­ate­ness and determine whether new approaches are needed to
facilitate achievement of the desired population response.

• Stabilize and/or maintain current levels of breeding, wintering, and
migrating populations of the more com­mon shorebirds within the
Region/Flyway.

**Monitoring and Research Goals** (see Sec­tion VI)

In many ways, monitoring goals are closely related to research goals. It
is anticipated that many of the monitoring and research activities in
the region, particularly those related to habitat restoration, will
involve adaptive management, an approach that uses experimentation and
monitoring to both evaluate alternatives and modify future management
practices (Holling 1978, Walters 1986, Walters and Holling 1990). For
this reason, monitoring and research goals are identified together in
the section below.

Population Status

• Monitor breeding, wintering, and migratory populations of shore­birds
within the Region to deter­mine short-term and long-term trends in
distribu­tion and abun­dance within the context of flyway and overall
populations.

Habitat Status (Availability and Use)

• Monitor the condition, distri­bution, availability and use of shorebird
habitat.

• Determine and evaluate habi­tat use by shorebirds in creat­ed and
restored wetlands and in integrat­ed wetland man­agement areas. Integrated
wetland management areas are here defined as those areas where
water-level and vegetation management are designed to address the
eco­logical needs of a variety of species associated with wetlands.

• Determine and assess poten­tial threats/benefits to shore­birds and/or
shorebird habi­tat, includ­ing, but not limited to: a) distur­bance, b)
develop­ment, c) wetland restoration, d) agricul­tural practices, e)
general man­agement activi­ties, and f) exotic species.

Contaminants

• Identify and monitor specific sites or areas where contaminants have a
reasonable likelihood of impact­ing shorebirds. Exam­ples in­clude sites
near ship­ping lanes or oil refineries for concerns about oil spills,
agricultural areas in the Willamette Valley and around larger estuaries
for con­cerns about agricultural chemi­cals, industrial ports for con­cerns
about introduction of plastic particles into the marine environment.

• Determine the potential impacts of environmental contaminants on the
health of shorebird popu­lations.

General Ecology

• Address ecological questions that identify or improve the spectrum of
management practices benefi­cial to shorebirds.

**Habitat Goal** (see Section VII)

• Protect, restore, and enhance the amount and quality of shorebird
nesting, roosting, and foraging habitats necessary to support Regional
population goals.

**Management Effectiveness and Coordination** (see Section VIII)

Planning

• Develop comprehensive manage­ment plans that address shore­birds and
other wetland species in the Region/Flyway.

• Develop and refine strategies to reduce threats to shorebirds from
contaminants, disturbance, introduced species, hazardous structures,
human and predator caused mortality, and habitat loss/degradation.

• Develop and implement integrat­ed conservation strategies that involve
multiple agencies and organizations at regional and Flyway scales.

Enhancement and Restoration

• Use a variety of existing or new management techniques and practices
to restore and enhance shorebird habitat.

Protection

• Use a variety of strategies to identify and protect shorebird habitat
and otherwise reduce the likelihood of impacts to shore­birds or their
habitats.

Management Effectiveness

• Maintain continuity in conserva­tion and management effort in the NPR.

Interagency Communication

• Improve communication among and within resource management agencies
about shorebird needs and management techniques.

**Outreach and Education** (see Section IX)

• Develop strategies to provide information on shorebird conservation
and management issues to land managers and private landowners, the
general public, and policy makers.

**Funding** (see Section X)

• Substantial levels of funding are required to support two management
biologists, research and monitoring efforts, on-the-ground habitat
management, and acquisition.

**V. POPULATION GOALS**

A number of shorebird species in North America have undergone population
declines in eastern North America in the past two or more decades (e.g.
Ruddy Turnstone, Red Knot, Short-billed Dowitcher; Howe et al. 1989,
Morri­son et al. 1994). Populations of some shorebird species appear to
be declin­ing in the Pacific Northwest as well (e.g., Snowy Plover,
Killdeer, Black Turnstone; see Buchanan \[in press\] for summary).
Additional species perhaps have yet to recover from population declines
dating back to the era of unregulated market hunt­ing (e.g., Marbled
Godwit; Page and Gill 1994, Paulson 1993). Although reversing these
declines (measur­ably increasing popu­lations) is an important objective,
scientifi­cally-based population targets, based on reliable estimates of
prior abundance, are lacking for most shorebird species.

Factors such as market hunting were re­sponsible for some of the
population de­clines noted above (Page and Gill 1994) and more recent
influences (e.g., habitat loss or degradation), in many cases unrelated
to the original declines, may now interfere with population recovery of
some species (Paulson 1993). For these reasons, it will be important to
first identify limiting factors and understand the current population
status of shorebirds within the NPR. Only then will it be possible to
establish realistic popu­lation targets and recovery periods for focal
species in the region. Consequently, estab­lishment of population goals,
beyond the general goal of measurable improvement, will require careful
monitoring and assess­ment as well as achievement of objectives outlined
below that address monitoring and research, habitat, management, and
out­reach.

While waiting for development of this important informa­tion, however, it
is possible to begin using the best available information to estimate
population targets and make preliminary assessments of conservation
priorities. Population targets have been developed at the National level
(S. Brown, personal communication; modified from Haig et al. 1999). The
targets are preliminary and will eventually be re­fined. Future
refinement will be particularly im­portant to improve flyway-level
conservation and management efforts. Haig et al. (1999) also prioritized
species recovery needs based on factors, evaluated by an expert panel,
such as relative abundance, population status, the size and location of
the breeding range, status of breeding habitat, and threats. After
establishing eight criteria important to recovery, they prioritized
species according to their recovery needs. Of the species considered to
be of high concern in the region (a score of 4 or higher in Table 3),
three had a high need for recovery: Snowy Plover, Black Oystercatcher,
and Marbled Godwit; two were vulnerable spe­cies requiring recovery:
Wandering Tattler and Whimbrel; eight were species of con­cern: Killdeer,
Surfbird, Red Knot, Short-billed Dowitcher, Dunlin, Common Snipe,
Red-necked Phalarope, and Red Phalarope; and three were species to
watch: Black Turnstone, Western Sandpiper, and Rock Sandpiper. These
scores will eventually require revision to more accurately reflect
regionally-specific population status and recovery needs.

It is proposed that concerted attempts be made over the next ten years
to measurably increase populations of species which have experienced
population declines in this region. Again, this will require develop­ment
of reliable baseline information and appropriate monitoring techniques.
After the 10-year period, this goal should be re-evaluated on a
species-by-species basis to determine its appropriateness and determine
whether new approaches are needed to facilitate achievement of the
desired popula­tion response.

**VI. MONITORING AND RESEARCH GOALS**

For the purposes of this document, monitor­ing and research were
combined. Shorebird monitoring and research will often require
cooperation and coordination among agen­cies, organizations, and
individuals at regional, national, and international levels within and
among flyways. Consequently, the recommended strategy is to develop and
implement a coordinated monitoring and research program at these spatial
scales. Partnerships should be developed and used to address issues of
importance across the region or along the Pacific Flyway. The strategy
should involve use of a stratified effort of five main species/habitat
groups: pelagic, rocky shoreline, estuarine, beach, and freshwater. It
may be possible to facilitate coordination through the working group, or
perhaps through a monitoring research group within that or another
organization. Adaptive management (Holling 1978, Walters 1986, Walters
and Holling 1990) should be used where possible.

The working group established research goals for four general topics: 1)
population status, 2) habitat status (availability and use), 3)
contaminants, and 4) general shorebird ecology. For each goal,
objec­tives will be presented first followed by specific strategies
recommended by the working group to meet the objectives. Specific
research and monitoring activities important to achieve recovery of the
Snowy Plover can be derived from other sources (e.g. Richardson 1995,
USDI 2000) and are not repeated here.

**Population Status**

There will be two general approaches to population monitoring. The first
is a population-level assessment that will require coordination of
monitoring efforts both within and among flyways. As such, this effort
will essentially be contained within the National monitoring strategy to
facilitate development of national or global population estimates.
Monitoring procedures are cur­rently being developed for all species and
subspecies covered by the National plan.

The second approach to population monitor­ing is more regional in scope.
Site-specific and regional monitoring efforts will be required to
evaluate shorebird responses to habitat changes and to further refine
our understanding of the location of important sites for shorebirds in
the region.

**Habitat Use**

A number of monitoring and research activi­ties were identified that
should be useful to future management by helping to determine and
evaluate potential benefits and threats to habitat used by shorebirds.
The proposed projects all involve investigating habitat use or habitat
selection in both managed and non-managed systems. We anticipate that
new project ideas will emerge in the coming decade as our knowledge
increases and new threats to shorebirds and their habitats are
identified. The list of projects will be eval­uated and updated annually
by the working group.

• In estuarine environments, evaluate the response of shorebirds to
introduced species (both exotic vegeta­tion and invertebrates), con­trol
programs for introduced species, and aquacultural practices that may
influence habitat quality.

• In freshwater environments, evaluate the response of shorebirds to the
spatial ar­rangement or quality of habi­tat in natural and managed
wetlands.

• In freshwater environments, evaluate the response of shorebirds to
grazing practic­es, farming practices, and crop changes in agricultural
fields.

• Develop predictive models or other analytical tools that can be used
to better understand shorebird use of freshwater habitats to facilitate
wetland management, restoration, and creation efforts.

• Assemble available informa­tion on shorebird ecology and habitat use in
the region. A comprehen­sive, species-spe­cific assessment of habitat
attributes and conditions important to shorebirds in various habitat
associations throughout Oregon and Washington will soon be available
(John­son and O\'Neil in press).

**Contaminants**

Determine the effects of contaminants on the health of shorebird
populations (see Buchanan in press, Calambokidis et al. 1991).

• Evaluate impacts of contami­nants on shorebirds including: lead,
agricultural chemicals, industrial chemicals, oil, and plastic particle
pollution in marine waters.

**Shorebird Ecology**

Address information gaps in knowledge of shorebird ecology to improve
management practices that benefit shorebirds.

• Develop and implement stud­ies on individual shorebird species of
concern in the region (e.g., black oystercatcher and common snipe).

• Conduct research to examine shorebird response to integrated wetland
man­agement.

• Evaluate and develop methods to increase prey abundance and
availability in created, restored, or managed habitats.

• Examine effects of human disturbance on shorebird behavior and
physiology.

• Describe characteristics of roost sites.

This list of research and monitoring needs is not complete. An important
task for the next year will be to develop a comprehen­sive document
outlining data gaps and spe­cific research projects needed in the region.
The resulting document will be reviewed annually by the working group
and revised as necessary.

**VII. HABITAT OBJECTIVES AND MANAGEMENT NEEDS**

**Critical Habitats**

We placed the critical habitats into four general categories that
reflect the diversity of geophysical conditions present in the planning
area. The habitats and representa­tive species associated within each are
listed in Table 4.

**Conservation Status**

The loss of habitat important to shorebirds has been particularly
dramatic in the last 100 years (Page and Gill 1994, Dahl 1990). For
example, over one-half of the intertidal wetlands in Washington and
Oregon were destroyed by conversion and development (Boule and Bierly
1987, Boule et al. 1983). Similarly, prairie and wetland habitats in the
Willamette Valley and Puget Trough have been converted to agricultural
croplands, pastures, and general development; perhaps 90-99% of this
habitat has been lost in Oregon (Altman and Janes, in press; see Gabriel
1993, Titus et al. 1996). Conversion of land for agricultural purposes,
in some cases, may impact shorebirds less than other wildlife species,
which de­pend on more pristine habitat conditions. In fact, it appears
that shorebirds may benefit from certain agricultural management
prac­tices (Colwell and Dodd 1995, 1997). Other agricultural practices,
however, such as tiling and chemical use, degrade or likely degrade
habitats. Although other habitats, such as open wa­ter, sand beach, and
rocky shoreline, have not been reduced in size, human activi­ties (e.g.
oil spills or other forms of pollu­tion, exotic vegetation, disturbance
from human recreation) have degraded conditions in many areas.

Although some of the most important sites or areas (e.g. Skagit Bay,
portions of Grays Harbor, portions of Willapa Bay, Oregon Dunes National
Recreation Area) in the planning region are on state or federal lands
and are protected from industrial and urban development, many other
sites are on unpro­tected lands or on lands not specifically managed to
address shorebird habitat needs. Some of these sites have been
identified as priorities for acquisition or other conservation measures
(see below). A very high proportion of potentially important
estuarine/beach and freshwater sites in Washington and Oregon are either
wholly or partly owned by private entities (Table 2). As a group, these
latter sites support large numbers of shorebirds and their acquisition
and/or protection should be a high priority. Al­though work is in
progress (Buchanan and Evenson, in preparation), we currently lack
estimates of the actual geographic size of most of the important areas
in the planning region.

**Habitat Goals**

The habitat goal for the planning region is to protect, restore, and
enhance habitat conditions necessary to achieve population goals.
Achieving this goal will likely pro­vide important habitats for other
wildlife species as well. Although it is impossible to manage for all
species in all places, comprehensive planning at various spatial and
temporal scales is important and should be used to ensure the presence
of well-dis­tributed habitats and associated populations of all species
in the region. Shorebird conservation will be most effective when scale
factors are considered in the planning process (Haig et al. 1998,
Buchanan in press).

Four main objectives were identified to meet habitat goals: 1)
identification of sites, 2) protection of important sites, 3)
restoration and/or enhancement of sites, and 4) identifi­cation of
current and potential threats to the quality of sites.

Identification of Important Sites

• Achieving the habitat goal will require, among other things,
identification of im­portant sites, in all basic habitat types, for
protec­tion, acquisition, restoration, or creation activities designed to
improve habitats important to shorebirds. Important sites in the
planning region have been identified and are pre­sented in Table 2. It is
antic­ipated that other sites may be added to the list as more surveys
are conducted, or after shorebirds respond to restoration or creation
activi­ties.

Protection of Known Important Sites

• Important sites should be protected through various means including
acquisition, conservation easement, and development of voluntary
conservation plans.

• Important nesting, roosting and foraging sites should be protected
from human distur­bance.

Restoration and Enhancement Activities

• Specific desired or ongoing restora­tion and enhancement activities
were identified. These came from members of the NPR working group and a
questionnaire distributed to land managers throughout the Region.
Questions were designed to elicit responses regarding on-going shorebird
management activities in the Region. Results from the questionnaire will
be presented elsewhere, but restoration and enhancement projects are
summarized below. For further discussion of restoration and enhance­ment
activities, see Buchanan (in press).

*Pelagic*

• There were no priority resto­ration or enhancement activi­ties
identified for this general habitat type.

*Rocky Shoreline*

• Increase the number and quality of black oystercatcher nesting areas
by reducing human disturbance.

*Estuarine*

• Remove and control *Spartina* (cordgrass) and other exotic vegetation
in tidal areas (e.g., Willapa Bay, Padilla Bay).

• Remove dikes to restore natural tidal influence of estuarine marsh.

• Reduce potentially deleterious silt accumulation in marsh and mud
flats (e.g., Bowerman Basin in Grays Harbor).

• Plant or otherwise encourage growth of native vegetation in restored
marsh areas.

• Restore important roosting areas (e.g., Tillamook Bay).

*Beach*

• Remove and control European beach grass in dune areas (nearly all
coastal beaches).

*Freshwater*

• Restore wetland habitat where it has been lost to agriculture and
other development.

• Remove and/or control exotic vegetation such as reed ca­nary grass,
scotch broom (e.g., in southern Puget Trough), and purple loosestrife.

• Plant or manage for native vegetation, conducive to shorebird use, in
restored freshwater habitats.

• Manage water levels and vegetation to create conditions suitable for
use by wintering or migrating shorebirds.

• Mow and disc vegetation in areas to be flooded during fall migration
and winter.

• In agricultural areas, use crop management practices that are
compatible with shorebird use at a landscape scale and refrain from
tiling and other practices that actually or potentially degrade
habitats.

Acquisition, Conservation Easements, De­velopment of Conservation Plans

• An effective protection pro­gram will require identifica­tion of
important unprotected shorebird habitats and sites that can be restored
to shore­bird habitat. A strategy to achieve this objective will be to
consult local experts and identify potentially important sites.
Information generated from the shorebird manage­ment questionnaire and
dis­cussions with experts within the working group were used to identify
the important sites presented below. Additional sites identified in
Table 2 (and any other sites of impor­tance) may prove to also be
appropriate for protection.

• Through outreach and educa­tion programs, work with landowners and
other groups to develop voluntary and/or incentive-based approaches,
such as conservation ease­ments, to protect or restore important
habitats.

*Pelagic*

• There were no priority acqui­sitions identified for this general
habitat type. It is anticipated that various marine protected areas (see
Buchanan et al. in press) in the pelagic zone will be identified in the
future.

• Conservation strategies should be developed within the shipping
industry to reduce marine pollution (Buchanan in press).

*Rocky Shoreline*

• Acquisition or protection of Long Island (in the San Juan Islands).

*Estuarine*

• Acquire diked former tidal wetlands (vicinity of National Wildlife
Refuges such as Bandon Marsh, Siletz Bay, Nestucca, and Nisqually).

• Acquire or develop conservation easements for various intertidal areas
(Port Susan Bay in Puget Sound, Dungeness River estuary, unprotected
areas in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay, Tillamook Bay, Coos Bay,
unprotected areas on Padilla Bay, Totten Inlet, Skokomish estuary,
Salmon River estu­ary, Skokomish estuary).

• Any other areas listed in Table 1.

*Beach*

• Acquire or protect non-federal portions of the New River spit.

*Freshwater*

• Acquire or protect agricultural and pasture lands (areas adjacent to
Ankeny, Baskett Slough, W.L. Finley, Wapato Lake, and Tualatin River
National Wildlife Ref­uges and additional lands in the central and
southern Willamette Valley; Sauvie Island; areas adjacent to Jackson
Bottom Wetland Preserve; areas adjacent to Willapa Bay; vicinity of
Puget Sound sites such as Port Susan and Drayton Har­bor; Chehalis River
flood­plain in southwest­ern Wash­ington; area adjacent to Ridgefield NWR;
vicinity of Sand Lake Recreation Area; complex of sites near conflu­ence
of Columbia and Willamette Rivers \[Bybee Lake, Smith Lake, Vancouver
Lake\]).

The Pacific Coast Joint Venture (PCJV), in a program estab­lished under
the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, has identified many of
these sites for potential acquisition. Coordi­nation among the PCJV and
the shorebird con­servation initiatives is essential for meeting
acquisition goals that will benefit multiple species (see Section VIII,
Management Effectiveness and Coor­dination). Efforts should also be made
to coordinate with other acquisition programs within the region (e.g.,
West Eugene Wetlands \[BLM\], The Nature Conservancy, The Wetland
Conservancy).

Identification of Threats

Many of the actual or potential threats to shorebirds or their habitats
have been identi­fied here or in Buchanan (in press). The working group
will seek to develop better informa­tion on new threats as they are
identified.

**Current Shorebird Management Activities**

A wide range of management activities have recently been implemented in
the NPR to protect shorebirds and their habitats. The activities include
control and/or removal of exotic vegetation, active restoration and
enhancement, water level management, and a variety of outreach
strategies to limit human disturbance and increase public awareness. The
primary means to address human disturbance have been a combination of
area closures and dissemination of information to the public via
outreach activities and the use of site-specific signs describing
management and conservation issues. A detailed description of shorebird
conservation and management activities will be presented elsewhere.

**VIII. MANAGEMENT EFFEC­TIVENESS AND COORDINATION**

The NPR working group recognized the need for better involvement and
coordination among stakeholders with interests and/or responsibilities
relating to shorebird conservation and management. These parties include
government agencies (feder­al, state, and local), non-governmental
organizations, private landowners, and the public. Involvement and
coordination within resource management agencies is minimal or lacking
in many instances and must be improved if shorebird management needs are
to be adequately addressed. Consequently, the goal is to im­prove
communication among agencies and orga­nizations about shorebirds. Two
main objectives were formulated to accomplish this goal:

1\) Provide and share information about shorebird life history
requirements, habitat needs, and population status among and within
agencies, non-governmental organiza­tions, landowners, and the public.

2\) Increase awareness and knowledge of integrated management for
waterbirds.

Recommended strategies to meet these objectives are as follows:

• Coordinate with the PCJV and other programs/organizations (e.g., U.S.
Army Corps of Engi­neers-Flood Initiative, Nation­al Resource Conservation
Service programs, Partners-in-Flight, The Nature Conservancy, Audubon
Soci­ety, The Wetland Conservancy) concerned with habitat acquisition and
habitat enhance­ment/restoration.

• Develop comprehensive re­gional management plans that address the needs
of all spe­cies affected similarly by wetland loss, water level
management, and other man­agement practices. Develop site-specific plans
within the context of these regional recom­mendations.

• Provide data and resource access to county and munici­pal planning
agencies to enhance management efforts for shorebirds.

• Develop and share among agencies and organizations maps of known
shorebird use sites and concentra­tion areas. Such maps may be species-
and/or season-specific.

• Establish a program to facili­tate regular meetings for shorebird
biologists, wildlife area managers, ref­uge managers, and other managers
­to discuss shorebird issues. Ideally, members of the working group would
participate in these meetings.

• Facilitate communication on the state, regional, and Fly­way levels to
address the tasks described in this docu­ment.

• To facilitate commitments of agencies and other organiza­tions to
participate in shore­bird conservation and man­agement activities,
encourage stakeholders to sign a memo­randum of understanding to
formalize the stated commitment. This may result in greater recognition
of the NPR work­ing group.

• To ensure proper management and monitoring among states and regions
within the Pacific Flyway, the two state wildlife agencies should
develop and fill shorebird biologist positions.• Due to substantial
information gaps, the conservation plan should be evaluated and revised,
as needed, at five-year intervals.

• The NPR working group should evaluate specific tasks and priorities on
an annual basis.

Although the actual functioning of the work­ing group has yet to be
determined, a num­ber of meaningful activities can be surmised. The group
will likely consist of biologists and managers representing a broad
range of interest groups. The group will meet at least annually (and
more frequently as the program develops) to discuss management issues
and to seek opportunities to update and implement components of the
conservation plan. The working group may elect to identify a
representative to attend meetings of other organizations such as the
PCJV. The group will also identify information needs and will attempt to
secure funds to address these and other conservation issues in the
region.

**IX. OUTREACH AND EDUCATION**

The NPR working group believes outreach should concentrate on three
groups of people: 1) land managers and private landowners, 2) the
general public, and 3) public policy makers.

**Land Managers and Private Landowners**

• Develop materials needed for programs, described below, that would
meet with various interest groups to share infor­mation regarding
shorebird conservation and management issues.

• Establish a program in the region that would meet with the
agricultural community, the aquaculture community, hunting clubs, sewage
treat­ment facilities, and Watershed Councils, to share information
regarding shorebird needs and how management practices can be
implemented to en­hance conditions for shore­birds. Efforts should focus
on mainte­nance and/or en­hancement of shorebird habi­tat and responsible
use of chemical fertilizers, pesti­cides, and herbicides.

• Improve hunter education information (enhanced illus­trations and text
regarding shorebirds) to reduce inciden­tal take of shorebirds during
waterfowl and other gamebird hunting seasons.

**General Public**

• Incorporate the NPR into the Shorebird Sister School Pro­gram. This
internation­al program is designed to allow students to track shorebird
migration by communi­cat­ing, via an e-mail list server and a World Wide
Web site, with other students and scientists during shorebird migration
periods.

• Establish a program that would access existing materi­als/programs and
develop new brochures, websites, and other educational materials about
shorebirds. The focus of this program would be on Grades K-12.

• Build observation platforms to facilitate public viewing of shorebirds
at areas such as high tide roosts near estuaries and inland wetlands.
Use signs at these areas to inform the public about shore­bird needs. An
emphasis of the public signs should be on reduction of disturbance by
humans and pets.

• Develop a program to work with various informa­tion media to increase
dissem­ination about shorebird issues and activities.

• Develop and foster shorebird festivals during migration to promote
awareness and appre­ciation.

• Support and contribute to efforts like \"All Bird TV\" that can
promote, via televi­sion, avian conservation issues at a
region­al/national scale.

• Involve the public (i.e., as volunteers), to the extent possible, in
organized efforts to collect information about the distribution and
abun­dance of shorebirds.

• Involve the public (i.e., as volunteers), to the extent possible, in
efforts to enhance shorebird habitat in areas with good viewing
opportunities.

**Policy Makers**

• Meet with legislators and other public policy makers to inform them
about shorebird issues. The focus would be on habitat protection,
habitat restoration, and control of introduced species such as
*Spartina* and European beachgrass.

• Develop and promote funding packages at agency and legis­lative levels
for shorebird monitoring, research, and management activities.

• Continue to demonstrate the economic value of shorebird viewing to the
tourism indus­try. Develop partnerships with tourism agencies and
organizations and local community organizations.

**X. FUNDING**

Four general areas of funding needs were identified by the working
group: 1) management biologists, 2) monitoring and research activities,
3) habitat management, and 4) protection and acquisi­tion. It is
recommended that two biologist positions be filled, one for each state.
The annual cost to support these positions would be approximately
\$200,000 to \$250,000. Monitoring and research needs identified by the
working group would be about \$320,000 per year for projects (e.g.,
monitor shorebird populations, evaluate responses to habitat restoration
efforts, evaluate responses to human disturbance). Habitat management
activities (e.g., active management of shorebird habitat) would require
approximately \$1,400,000 per year. Finally, acquisition costs would be
substantial, running to about \$8,000,000 per year. An important point
should be made regarding these figures. The costs reflect only those
issues identified in the questionnaire or raised by members of the
working group. A more exhaustive assessment of needs would have resulted
in higher estimates for acquisitions, habitat management activities, and
monitoring and research.

**XI. NOMINATION OF SITES FOR INCLUSION IN THE WEST­ERN HEMISPHERE
SHOREBIRD RESERVE NETWORK**

It is recommended that seven sites be added to the Western Hemisphere
Shorebird Reserve Network (WHSRN) at the International Level (\>100,000
birds or 15% of the Flyway total) or the Regional Level (\>20,000 birds
or 5% of the Flyway total). Grays Harbor and Coos Bay have been
identified as WHSRN sites (Harrington and Perry 1995) and are not
discussed below. A seventh site, Tillamook Bay, supported approximate­ly
100,000 birds in August 1979 (Nehls 1994). This site, however, no longer
sup­ports such numbers of birds, possibly due to destruction of roost
sites (Jeff Gilligan, personal communication). For this reason, we
believe the site has the potential to be very important and that the
site\'s status should be reevaluated after attempts are made to restore
roosting and other habi­tats that were destroyed in the past two decades.

The Puget Sound is a large complex of estuaries which collectively
support large numbers of shorebirds during most seasons. Puget Sound
contains at least three sites of regional importance (Port Susan Bay,
Skagit Bay, Padilla Bay) and a multitude of other sites that
collectively support \>25,000 shorebirds in some winters (Evenson and
Buchanan 1997). Shorebirds appear to make regular movements among some
of the larger sites within Puget Sound and the nearby Fraser River
delta, a site of interna­tional significance just across the border in
British Columbia, Canada (Butler 1994). Although our recommendation
fol­lows the traditional WHSRN guidelines, it appears appropriate that
Puget Sound sites and the Fraser River delta be recognized as a complex
of sites that collectively are of international significance.

Similarly, large flocks of shorebirds from Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay
make daily flights of about three km to roosting areas along the outer
beaches (Copalis/Ocean Shores, Grayland, and North \[Longbeach\]
beaches) adjacent to these large estuaries. This suggests that the
beaches, two of which qualify individually as Regionally important sites
(see below), could appropriately be associated with Grays Harbor and
Willapa Bay as Internationally important sites.

The Willamette Valley in Oregon (portions of Polk, Marion, Benton, Linn,
and Lane counties) is an important area for at least three species
including Common Snipe, which may be declining, Killdeer, which may
number 10,000 or more in some win­ters (Paulson 1993, Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife 1997), and Dunlin (over 15,000 have been documented
in winter and migration; see Johnson 1994). Due to the rather ephemeral
nature of shorebird habitat over much of this largely agricultural area,
shore­birds are forced to move around in search of habitat. Consequently,
the Willamette Valley is best recognized as a complex of related sites
including National Wildlife Refuges, State Wildlife Areas, private
conservation lands, and private agricultural and pasture lands. Although
none of the individual sites have yet supported enough birds to meet
regional significance criteria, the central and southern valley areas,
taken as a whole, are clearly important for Common Snipe, Kill­deer, and
Dunlin. It is therefore recommended that the central and southern
portions of the Willamette Valley be recognized as a re­gionally
important site (using anticipated future criteria that evaluate groups
of sites).

**Sites of International Significance**

Willapa Bay, Washington. This large embayment on the southern Washington
coast contains numerous river deltas, two of which are individually of
regional signifi­cance (Buchanan and Evenson 1997). Counts over the
entire bay have exceeded 100,000 birds during spring migration (Buchanan
and Evenson 1997).

Columbia River Estuary (Oregon and Wash­ington). The intertidal areas of
the Colum­bia River estuary, two of which qualify individually as
regionally significant sites (Long Island, Quinn Island; see Table 2),
collectively qualify as a site of international significance (Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife 1992, 1993, 1994a, 1994b, ). This site
was recognized as Regionally important by Harrington and Perry (1995),
but should be upgraded to International status.

**Sites of Regional Significance**

Port Susan, Washington. High counts of shorebirds at this site have
exceeded 30,000 in winter and 50,000 in both spring and autumn (Evenson
and Buchanan 1997).

Skagit Bay, Washington. High counts of shorebirds at this site have
exceeded 29,000 in winter and 20,000 in spring (Evenson and Buchanan
1997). .

Padilla Bay, Washington. High counts of shorebirds at this site have
exceeded 30,000 during spring migration (Evenson and Bu­chanan 1997).

Copalis/Ocean Shores Beach, Washington. This beach has supported over
20,000 shorebirds, primarily Sanderlings and roost­ing Dunlins, during
winter (Buchanan 1992). The beach also supports large numbers of
migrating Sanderlings (Myers et al. 1984).

North Beach, Washington. High counts at this beach include over 30,000
Dunlins (Buchanan 1992), regular counts exceeding 2,000 Sanderlings
(Myers et al. 1984, Bu­chanan 1992), and a high of over 3,800
Black-bellied Plovers (Buchanan and Evenson 1997).

Clatsop/Sunset Beach, Oregon. This beach supports large numbers of
Sanderlings, particularly during migration (Myers et al. 1984).

Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, Oregon. Efforts are also underway
to nominate the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area as a WHSRN site
(Jim Heaney, personal com­munication; Carrie Phillips, personal
com­munication). The limited information avail­able indicated the presence
of over 18,000 Sanderlings in the area during au­tumn migration in 1993
(Platt and Goggans 1993).

**XII. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS**

We wish to thank the many individuals who participated in the working
group and pro­vided substantial assistance necessary to complete this
plan. These people, and their supporting organizations, are: **U. S.
Fish & Wildlife Service:** Jeff Dillon, Oregon State Office, Portland;
Joe Engler, Ridgefield NWRC, Ridgefield, WA; Joe La Tourette,
Intermountain West Joint Venture, Olympia, WA; Roy Lowe, Oregon Coastal
NWR, Newport; Maura Naughton, Western Ore­gon NWRC, Corvallis, OR; Carrie
Phillips, Oregon Coastal Field Office, Newport; Pam Sanguinetti,
Dungeness NWR, Port Angel­es, WA; Nanette Seto, Nisqually NWRC, Olympia,
WA; Carey Smith, Pacific Coast Joint Venture, Vancouver, WA; Jean
Takekawa Nisqually NWRC, Olympia, WA; Bruce Taylor, Oregon Joint
Venture, Lake Oswego, OR; Tara Zimmerman, Portland Regional Office;
**State of Oregon:** Dave Budeau, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife,
Monmouth; Rebecca Goggans, Oregon Department of Fish & Wildlife,
Corvallis; Mike Graybill, Oregon Division of State Lands, South Slough
NERR, Charleston; Martin Nugent, Oregon De­partment of Fish & Wildlife,
Portland; **State of Washington:** Lora Leschner, Washington Department
of Fish & Wildlife, Mill Creek; Sharon Riggs, Washington Department of
Ecology, Padilla Bay NERR, Mount Vernon; **Other Federal Agenices:**
Jock Beall, Bureau of Land Management, West Eugene Wetlands, Eugene, OR;
Geoff Dorsey, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR; Carl
Frounfelker, U.S. Forest Service, Siuslaw NF, Oregon Dunes NRA,
Corvallis, OR; Kerrie Palermo, Bureau of Land Management, North Bend,
OR; **Non-Government Organiza­tions/ University/ Private Citizens:** Paul
Adamus, Corvallis, OR; Stephen Brown, Manomet Center for Conservation
Sciences, Manomet, MA; Jeff Gilligan, Portland, OR; Leah Gorman,
USGS-BRD/Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR; Sue Haig,
USGS-BRD/Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR; Catherine Hickey,
Manomet Center for Conservation Sciences, Manomet, MA; Neal Maine,
Pacific Educa­tional Resources, Seaside, OR; Tom Mickel, Eugene, OR;
Harry Nehls, Port­land, OR; Peter Sanzenbacher, USGS-BRD/Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR; Oriane Taft, USGS-BRD/Oregon State
University, Corvallis, OR; Nils Warnock, Point Reyes Bird Observatory,
Stinson Beach, CA. Many of these people reviewed a draft version of this
report and made helpful comments that we hope were appropriately used to
clarify the presentation. We also thank Gary Page, Lynne Stenzel, Janet
Kjelmyr, Jim Heaney, and Dave Lauten for providing information that we
used in this document. Cascadia Research and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service provided funds necessary to complete this document.

**XIII. LITERATURE CITED**

Altman, R. and S. Janes. In press. Wild­life communities of westside
grass­land and chapparal habitats. In Johnson, D.J. and T.A. O\'Neil,
(eds.). Wildlife habitats and species associations in Oregon and
Washing­ton: Building a common understand­ing for management. Oregon State
University Press, Corvallis.

American Ornithologists\' Union. 1998. Check-list of North American
birds. Seventh edition. American Ornithologists\' Union, Washing­ton,
D.C.

Babcock, K., C. Baxter, S. Brown, B. Ford, R. Johnson, J. Leach, J.
McCauley, G. Myers, J. Omernik, D. Pashley, K. Rosenberg, D. Smith, M.
Steinkamp, B. Uihlein, and S. Yaich. 1998. A proposed framework for
delineating ecological­ly-based planning, implementation, and evaluation
units for cooperative bird conservation in the United States. 23 pages +
appendices.

Boule, M.E. and K.F. Bierly. 1987. His­tory of estuarine wetland
develop­ment and alter­ation: What have we wrought? Northwest
Environmental Journal 3:43-61.

Boule, M., N. Olmstead, and T. Miller. 1983. Inventory of wetland
resourc­es and an evaluation of wetland management in western Washington.
Washington Depart­ment of Ecology, Olympia.

Brennan, L.A., J.B. Buchanan, S.G. Herman, and T.M. Johnson. 1985.
Interhabitat move­ments of wintering Dunlins in western Washington.
Murrelet 66:11-16.

Buchanan, J.B. 1988. The abundance and migration of shorebirds at two
Puget Sound estuaries. Western Birds 19:69-78.

Buchanan, J.B. 1992. Winter abundance of shorebirds at coastal beaches
of Washington. Washington Birds 2:12-19.

Buchanan, J.B. in press. Shorebirds: plovers, oystercatchers, avocets
and stilts, sandpipers, snipes, and phala­ropes. In Larson, E. and N.
Nordstrom (editors). Management recommenda­tions for priority bird
species. Washington Depart­ment of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.
\[available at: www.wa.gov/WDFW/hab/phspage. htm/phsrecs.htm\]

Buchanan, J.B. 1999. Recent changes in the winter distribution and
abundance of Rock Sandpipers in North Ameri­ca. Western Birds 30:193-199.

Buchanan, J.B. and J.R. Evenson. 1997. Abundance of shorebirds at
Willapa Bay, Washington. Western Birds 28:158-168.

Buchanan, J.B., D.H. Johnson, E.L. Greda, G.A. Green, T.R. Wahl, and
S.J. Jeffries. In press. Wildlife of coastal and marine habitats. In
Johnson, D.H. and T.A. O'Neil (editors), Wildlife habitats and species
associations in Oregon and Washington: Building a common understanding
for management. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.

Butler, R.W. 1994. Distribution and abun­dance of Western Sandpipers,
Dunlins, and Black-bellied Plovers in the Fraser River estuary. Pages
18-23 in Butler, R.W. and K. Vermeer (editors) The abundance and
distribu­tion of estuarine birds in the Strait of Georgia, British
Columbia. Canadi­an Wildlife Service Occasional Paper No. 83. Ottawa,
Ontario, Canada.

Calambokidis, J., J.B. Buchanan, G.H. Steiger, and J.R. Evenson. 1991.
Toxic contaminants in Puget Sound wildlife: Literature review and
recommendations for research and monitoring. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency contract 68-D8-0085. Seattle, Washington.

Carter, M.F., W.C. Hunter, D.N. Pashley, J.S. Bradley, C.S. Aid, J.
Price, and G.S. Butcher. In press. The Partners in Flight method for
setting bird conservation priorities for states and physiographic areas
of North America. Auk.

Colwell, M.A. and S.L. Dodd. 1995. Waterbird communities and habitat
relationships in coastal pastures of northern California. Conservation
Biology 9:827-834.

Colwell, M.A. and S.L. Dodd. 1997. Environmental and habitat correlates
of pasture use by nonbreeding shore­birds. Condor 99:337-344.

Dahl, T.E. 1990. Wetlands of the United States 1780\'s to 1980\'s.
Unpub­lished Report, U.S. Fish and Wild­life Service, Washington, D.C.

Evans, P.R., N.C. Davidson, T. Piersma, and M.W. Pienkowski. 1991.
Implications of habitat loss at migra­tion staging posts for shorebird
populations. Proceedings of the International Ornithological Congress
20:2228-2235.

Evenson, J.R. and J.B. Buchanan. 1997. Seasonal abundance of shorebirds
at Puget Sound estuaries. Washington Birds 6:34-62.

Franklin, J.F. and C.T. Dyrness. 1973. Natural vegetation of Oregon and
Washington. U.S. Forest Service, General Technical Report PNW-8.

Gabriel, J.T. 1993. A modified synoptic analysis of the status of
Oregon's Willamette Valley wetlands. M.S. Research Paper (Geography),
Oregon State University, Corvallis.

Goss-Custard, J.D. 1977. The ecology of the Wash. III. Density-related
behavior and the possi­ble effects of a loss of feeding grounds on wading
birds (Charadrii). Journal of Applied Ecology 14:721-739.

Haig, S., L. Gorman, and P. Sanzenbacher. 1999. Species recovery
assessment for the U.S. shorebird conservation plan. Unpublished report.

Haig, S.M., D.W. Mehlman, and L.W. Oring. 1998. Avian movements and
wetland connectivity in landscape conservation. Conservation Biology
12:749-758.

Harrington, B. and E. Perry. 1995. Im­portant shorebird staging sites
meet­ing Western Hemisphere Shorebird Reserve Network criteria in the
United States. USDI Fish and Wild­life Service.

Herman, S.G. and J.B. Bulger. 1981. Distribution and abundance of
shore­birds during the 1981 spring migra­tion at Grays Harbor, Washington.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, contract report DACW67-81-M-0936. Seattle,
Washington.

Holling, C.S. 1978. Adaptive environmen­tal assessment and management.
John Wiley and Sons. New York.

Howe, M.A., P.H. Geissler, and B.A. Harrington. 1989. Population trends
of North American shorebirds based on the International Shorebird
Survey. Biological Conservation 49:185-199.

Johnson, D.J. and T.A. O\'Neil, (eds.). In press. Wildlife habitats and
species associations in Oregon and Washing­ton: Building a common
understand­ing for management. Oregon State University Press, Corvallis.

Johnson, J. 1994. Fieldnotes: western Oregon, winter 1993-1994. Oregon
Birds 20:104-108.

Morrison, R.I.G., C. Downes, and B. Collins. 1994. Population trends of
shorebirds on fall migration in east­ern Canada. Wilson Bulletin
106:431-447.

Myers, J.P. 1983. Conservation of migrat­ing shorebirds: staging areas,
geo­graphic bottlenecks, and regional movements. American Birds 37:23-25.

Myers, J.P., C.T. Schick, and C.J. Hohenberger. 1984. Notes on the 1983
distribution of Sanderlings along the United States\' Pacific coast.
Wader Study Group Bulletin 40:22-26.

Nehls, H.B. 1994. Oregon shorebirds: Their status and movements. Ore­gon
Department of Fish and Wild­life, Technical Report 94-1-02.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1997. Shorebird survey of the
Willamette Valley. Unpublished table of survey results on file with U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994a. Shorebird aerial survey -
Lower Columbia River Estuary, April 24, 1994. Unpublished report to U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994b. Shorebird aerial survey -
Lower Columbia River Estuary, August 21, 1994. Unpublished report to
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994c. Shorebird survey of
Oregon coastal beaches and estuaries: April 1994. Unpublished table of
survey results on file with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland,
Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994d. Shorebird survey of
Oregon coastal beaches and estuaries: August 1994. Unpublished table of
survey results on file with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland,
Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1993. Shorebird aerial survey -
Lower Columbia River Estuary, August 22, 1993. Unpublished report to
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1992. Shorebird survey of the
Low­er Columbia Estuary: August 1992. Unpublished table of survey results
on file with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, Oregon.

Page, G.W. and R.E. Gill, Jr. 1994. Shorebirds of western North Ameri­ca:
late 1800s to late 1900s. Studies in Avian Biology 15:285-309.

Page, G.W., L.E. Stenzel, and J.E. Kjelmyr. 1999. Overview of shore­bird
abundance and distribution in wetlands of the Pacific Coast of the
contiguous United States. Condor 101:461-471.

Paulson, D. 1993. Shorebirds of the Pacif­ic Northwest. University of
Wash­ington Press, Seattle.

Pitelka, F.A. 1979. Introduction: the Pacific coast shorebird scene.
Stud­ies in Avian Biology 2:1-11.

Platt, M. and R. Goggans. 1993. Observa­tion of shorebirds between Coos
and Siuslaw rivers during fall migration, 1993. Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife report to Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area.

Richardson, S.A. 1995. Washington state recovery plan for the Snowy
Plover. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia.

Sutherland, W.J. and J.D. Goss-Custard. 1991. Predicting the consequence
of habitat loss on shorebird populations. Proceedings of the
International Ornithological Congress 20:2199-2207.

Titus, J.H., J.A. Christy, D. VanderSchaaf, J.S. Kagan, and E.R.
Alverson. 1996. Native wetland, riparian, and upland plant communities
and their biota in the Willamette Valley, Oregon. The Nature
Conservancy, Portland.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1993. Endangered and threatened
wildlife and plants. Determination of threat­ened status for the Pacific
Coast population of the Western Snowy Plover. Federal Register
58:12864-12874.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 1999. Endangered and threatened
wildlife and plants; designation of critical habitat for the Pacific
coast popula­tion of the Western Snowy Plover. Federal Register
64:68507-68544.

U.S. Department of the Interior. 2000. Western Snowy Plover (*Charadrius
alexandrinus nivosus*) Pacific Cast population recovery plan.
Preliminary draft.

Wahl, T.R. 1995. Birds of Whatcom County: Status and distribution.
Published by the author. Bellingham, Washington.

Wahl, T.R. 1996. Waterbirds in Washington\'s inland marine waters: some
high counts from systematic censusing. Washington Birds 5:29-50.

Walters, C.J. 1986. Adaptive management of renewable resources. McMillan
Publishers. New York.

Walters, C.J. and C.S. Holling. 1990. Large-scale experiments and
learning by doing. Ecology 71:2060-2068.

Table 1. Issues of management concern for shorebirds in western
Washington and western Oregon, according to major habitat type. See
Buchanan (in press) for a review of these management issues.

+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
|                          | **    |        |        |        |        |
|                          | Major |        |        |        |        |
|                          | Ha    |        |        |        |        |
|                          | bitat |        |        |        |        |
|                          | Ty    |        |        |        |        |
|                          | pes** |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Issue**                | *     | *      | **B    | *      | **F    |
|                          | *Pela | *Estua | each** | *Rocky | resh-w |
|                          | gic** | rine** |        | Shore  | ater** |
|                          |       |        |        | line** |        |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Habitat Loss:**        |       |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Habitat loss           |       | •      |        |        | •      |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Habitat Degradation:** |       |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Draining of wetlands   |       | •      |        |        | •      |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Dike creation          |       | •      |        |        | •      |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Water level            |       |        |        |        | •      |
| > manipulation           |       |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Utility lines          |       | •      |        |        | •      |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Climate change         | •     | •      | •      | •      | •      |
| > (including oceanic     |       |        |        |        |        |
| > warming)               |       |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Introduction of exotic | ?     | •      | •      | ?      | •      |
| > vege­tation and         |       |        |        |        |        |
| > invertebrates          |       |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Pollution:**           |       |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Agricultural           |       | •      |        |        | •      |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Industrial             |       | •      |        |        | •      |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Oil                    | •     | •      | •      | •      | •      |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Heavy metal            |       | •      |        |        | •      |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Plastic particle       | •     |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| **Human Disturbance:**   |       |        |        |        |        |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Pedestrian             |       | •      | •      | •      | •      |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Motorized vehicles     |       | •      | •      |        | •      |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Water craft            |       | •      |        |        | •      |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| > Pets                   |       | •      | •      | •      | •      |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+
| Hunting                  |       | •      |        |        | •      |
+--------------------------+-------+--------+--------+--------+--------+

Table 2. Ownership and protection status of important shorebird sites in
western Wash­ington and western Oregon. The list in­cludes ownership
information for estuarine and freshwater sites that support at least
1000 shorebirds during winter, spring, or autumn; critical habitat areas
of the Snowy Plover (indicated in columns by \'SP\'), and potentially
important rocky beach areas (numerical data were lacking and therefore
were not used for the latter). Ownerships at estuaries, sand beaches,
and freshwater sites that support at least 1000 foraging or roost­ing
shorebirds are indicated with a solid symbol (•) and sites with
owner­ships used by fewer birds are indicated with a hollow symbol ().
Important rocky shoreline sites are indicated with solid symbols; sites
that likely support few birds are indicated with a hollow symbol. Sites
which supported at least 4000 birds are indicated with an aster­isk (\*)
in the left column and sites which qualify for WHSRN regional or
internation­al status are identified in *italics*. Pelagic sites were not
included although large num­bers of the pelagic Red Phalarope have been
recorded at sea off Boiler Bay, Cape Arago, the south jetty of the
Columbia River, Neah Bay, Newport, Westport, and Yaquina (Paulson 1993,
Nehls 1994, Wahl pers. comm.).

  -------------------- ------------- -------- ---------- ---------- ---------------- --------- --------
  **Region and         **Ownership                                                             
  Site**^a^            or Protection                                                           
                       Status^b^**                                                             

                       Refuge        Park     State^c^   Military   Environ-mental   Private   Tribal

  **Estuarine -                                                                                
  Washington**                                                                                 

  Ala Spit             \-            \-       •          \-         \-               •         \-

  Annas Bay                         \-       \-         \-         \-               \-        •

  Baker Bay            \-            \-       \-         \-         \-               •         \-

  Bellingham Bay \*    \-            \-                 \-         \-                        •

  Birch Bay            \-                    •          \-         \-               •         \-

  Boz Lake             \-            \-       \-         \-         \-               •         \-

  Chuckanut Bay \*     \-            \-                 \-         \-               •         \-

  Crockett Lake        \-            •        \-         \-         \-               •         \-

  Cultus Bay           \-            \-       •          \-         \-               •         \-

  Deer Lagoon          \-            \-       •          \-         \-               •         \-

  Drayton Harbor \*    \-            \-       •          \-         \-               •         \-

  Dungeness Bay \*     •                     •          \-         \-               •         •

  Eld Inlet            \-            \-       •          \-         \-               •         \-

  Fidalgo Bay \*       \-            \-       \-         \-         \-               •         \-

  *Grays Harbor*^d^    •             •        •          \-         •                •         \-

  Kilisut Harbor       \-                                        \-                        \-

  Lummi Bay \*         \-            \-       \-         \-         \-               \-        •

  Nisqually R. delta   •             •                  \-                         •         

  Oak Bay              \-            \-                           \-                        \-

  *Padilla Bay* ^e^    •                     \-         \-         \-               •         \-

  Port Angeles Harbor  \-                    •                    \-                        \-

  *Port Susan*         \-                    \-         \-         \-               •         \-

  *Samish Bay*         \-            \-       •          \-         \-               •         \-

  **Region and         **Ownership                                                             
  Site**^a^            or Protection                                                           
                       Status^b^**                                                             

                       Refuge        Park     State^c^   Military   Environ-mental   Private   Tribal

  Sequim Bay \*        \-            \-       •          \-         \-               •         \-

  Sinclair Inlet       \-            \-                 \-         \-               •         \-

  *Skagit Bay*         •             \-       •          \-         \-               •         \-

  Snohomish Bay \*     \-            \-       \-         \-         \-               •         

  Totten Inlet \*      \-            \-       •          \-         \-               •         \-

  *Willapa Bay*^d^     •             •        •          \-         \-               •         •

  **Estuarine -                                                                                
  Oregon**                                                                                     

  Alsea Bay            \-            \-       •?         \-         \-               •         \-

  *Bandon              •             ?       •?         \-         \-               ?        \-
  Marsh/Coquille River                                                                         
  Estuary*                                                                                     

  Coos Bay \*          •             •        •?         \-         \-               •         \-

  Green Island         •             \-       \-         \-         \-               \-        \-
  (CRE)^f^                                                                                     

  Lois Island (CRE)\*  •             \-       \-         \-         \-               \-        \-

  *Long Island* (CRE)  \-            \-       •?         \-         \-               •?        \-

  Miller Island Spit   •             \-       \-         \-         \-               \-        \-
  (CRE)\*                                                                                      

  Nehalem Bay          \-            •        •?         \-         \-               •         \-

  New River Estuary    \-            •        •?         \-         \-               •         \-

  Netarts Bay \*       \-            •        \-         \-         \-               •         \-

  Piller Rock (CRE)\*  •             \-       \-         \-         \-               \-        \-

  *Quinn Island* (CRE) •             \-       \-         \-         \-               \-        \-

  Russian Island       •             \-       \-         \-         \-               \-        \-
  (CRE)\*                                                                                      

  Siletz Bay           •?            \-       ?         \-         \-               •         \-

  Siuslaw River        \-            \-       •?         \-         \-               •         \-
  Estuary                                                                                      

  Snag Island (CRE)    •             \-       \-         \-         \-               \-        \-

  Tillamook Bay \*     \-            •        •          •          \-               •         \-

  *Trestle Bay -       \-            •        ?          \-         \-               \-        \-
  Clatsop Spit* (CRE)                                                                          

  Yaquina Bay          \-            •        •?         \-         \-               •         \-

  **Sand Beaches -                                                                             
  Washington**                                                                                 

  Damon Point          \-             SP      SP       \-         \-               \-        \-

  Grayland Beach \*    \-            •        •          \-         \-               \-        \-

  *North Beach*        • SP          •        •          \-         \-               \-        \-
  \[Longbeach\]                                                                                

  **Region and         **Ownership                                                             
  Site**^a^            or Protection                                                           
                       Status^b^**                                                             

                       Refuge        Park     State^c^   Military   Environ-mental   Private   Tribal

  OceanShores/ Copalis \-            •        •          \-         \-               \-        \-
  Beach \*                                                                                     

  **Sand Beaches -                                                                             
  Oregon**                                                                                     

  Bayocean Spit        \-             SP     \-         \-         \-                        \-

  *Clatsop Beach* \*   \-            •        •          \-         \-               \-        \-

  Coquille R. to Cape  \-            • SP     • SP       \-         \-                SP      \-
  Blanco                                                                                       

  Haceta Head to       \-            •        •          \-         \-               ?         \-
  Siuslaw R.                                                                                   

  Horsfall Beach to    \-            ? SP     ? SP       \-         \-               \-        \-
  Coos Bay                                                                                     

  Oregon Dunes NRA\*   \-            • SP     •          \-         \-               \-        \-

  *Sunset Beach* \*    \-            •        •          •          \-               •         \-

  Yachats to Seal Rock \-                              \-         \-               ?         \-

  **Rocky Shorelines -                                                                         
  Washington**^g^                                                                              

  San Juan Islands NWR •             •        •          \-         \-               •         \-

  Strait of Juan de    •                     •          \-         \-                        •
  Fuca                                                                                         

  Washington Maritime  •             \-       \-         \-         \-               \-        •
  NWR                                                                                          

  **Rocky Shorelines -                                                                         
  Oregon**^g^                                                                                  

  Columbia R. to       •             •        •          \-         \-               •         \-
  Siletz Bay                                                                                   

  Coos Bay to          •             •        •          \-         \-               •         \-
  California border                                                                            

  Siletz Bay to Coos   •             •        •          \-         \-                        \-
  Bay                                                                                          

  **Freshwater Sites -                                                                         
  Washington**                                                                                 

  Chehalis River       \-            \-       ?         \-         \-               •         
  Valley                                                                                       

  Near Drayton Harbor  \-            \-       \-         \-         \-               •         \-

  Near Grays Harbor    \-            \-       \-         \-         \-               •         \-

  Near Nisqually R.    \-            \-       \-         \-         \-               •         \-
  Delta                                                                                        

  Near Padilla Bay     \-            \-       \-         \-         \-               •         \-

  Near Port Susan      \-            \-       \-         \-         \-               •         \-

  Near Samish Bay      \-            \-                 \-         \-               •         \-

  Near Skagit Bay      •             \-       \-         \-         \-               •         \-

  Near Snohomish R.    \-            \-       \-         \-         \-               •         \-
  Delta                                                                                        

  Vancouver Lake       \-            \-       \-         \-         \-                        \-

  **Region and         **Ownership                                                             
  Site**^a^            or Protection                                                           
                       Status^b^**                                                             

                       Refuge        Park     State^c^   Military   Environ-mental   Private   Tribal

  Near Willapa Bay     \-            •        \-         \-         \-               •         

  Wynoochee River      \-            \-       \-         \-         \-                        \-
  Valley                                                                                       

  **Freshwater Sites -                                                                         
  Oregon**                                                                                     

  Ankeney NWR          •             \-       \-         \-         \-               \-        \-
  (CSWV)^h^                                                                                    

  Baskett Slough NWR   •             \-       \-         \-         \-               \-        \-
  (CSWV)                                                                                       

  Brownsville          \-            \-       \-         \-         \-               •         \-
  ricefields (CSWV)                                                                            

  Bybee Lake           \-            \-       ?          \-         \-               ?         \-

  Cape Blanco          \-            \-       \-         \-         \-               •         \-

  Fern Ridge Reservoir \-            •?       \-         •          \-               \-        \-
  (CSWV)                                                                                       

  William L. Finley                 \-       \-         \-         \-               \-        \-
  NWR (CSWV)                                                                                   

  Lake Labish (CSWV)   \-            \-       \-         \-         \-               •         \-

  Medford              \-            \-       \-         \-         \-               •         \-

  Roseburg-Sutherlin   \-                    \-         \-         \-               •         \-

  Sauvie Island        •             \-       •          \-         \-               •         \-

  Smith Lake           \-            \-       ?          \-         \-               ?         \-

  unnamed ephemeral    \-            \-       \-         \-         \-               •         \-
  agri­cultural areas                                                                           
  (CSWV)\*                                                                                     

  West Eugene wetlands \-            •?       \-         \-         \-               \-        \-
  (CSWV)                                                                                       

  E.E. Wilson WMA                   \-       \-         \-         \-               \-        \-
  (CSWV)                                                                                       

  **Number and                                                                                 
  Proportion of (•)                                                                            
  Sites According to                                                                           
  Ownership Category**                                                                         

  Total Estuaries -    6 (21%)       4 (14%)  14 (48%)   0 (0%)     1 (3%)           23 (79%)  5 (17%)
  Washing­ton                                                                                   

  Total Estuaries -    11 (58%)      7 (37%)  9 (47%)    1 (5%)     0 (0%)           10 (52%)  0 (0%)
  Oregon                                                                                       

  Total Estuaries -    17 (35%)      11 (23%) 23 (48%)   1 (2%)     1 (2%)           33 (69%)  5 (10%)
  both states                                                                                  

  Total Beaches -      1 (33%)       3 (100%) 3 (100%)   0 (0%)     0 (0%)           0 (0%)    0 (0%)
  Washing­ton                                                                                   

  Total Beaches -      0 (0%)        5 (83%)  5 (83%)    1 (17%)    0 (0%)           1 (17%)   0 (0%)
  Oregon                                                                                       

  Total Beaches - both 1 (11%)       8 (89%)  8 (89%)    1 (11%)    0 (0%)           1 (11%)   0 (0%)
  states                                                                                       

  Total Rocky          6 (100%)      4 (66%)  5 (83%)    0 (0%)     0 (0%)           3 (50%)   2 (33%)
  Shoreline - both                                                                             
  states                                                                                       

  **Region and         **Ownership                                                             
  Site**^a^            or Protection                                                           
                       Status^b^**                                                             

                       Refuge        Park     State^c^   Military   Environ-mental   Private   Tribal

  Total Freshwater -   1 (8%)        1 (8%)   0 (0%)     0 (0%)     0 (0%)           10 (83%)  0 (0%)
  Wash­ington                                                                                   

  Total Freshwater -   3 (20%)       2 (13%)  1 (7%)     1 (7%)     0 (0%)           7 (47%)   0 (0%)
  Oregon                                                                                       

  Total Freshwater -   4 (15%)       3 (11%)  1 (4%)     1 (4%)     0 (0%)           17 (63%)  0 (0%)
  both states                                                                                  

  Total of all sites - 27 (29%)      26 (28%) 37 (41%)   3 (3%)     1 (1%)           54 (58%)  7 (8%)
  both states                                                                                  
  -------------------- ------------- -------- ---------- ---------- ---------------- --------- --------

^a^ Sources used to categorize sites for **Washington beaches and
estuaries:** Herman and Bulger (1981), Brennan et al. (1985), Buchanan
(1988), Buchanan (1992), Paulson (1993), Oregon Department of Fish and
Wildlife (1992, 1993, 1994a, 1994b), Buchanan and Evenson (1997),
Evenson and Buchanan (1997), Wahl (1995); **Oregon beaches and
estuaries:** Nehls (1994), Paulson (1993), Platt and Goggans (1993),
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (1994c, 1994d), Page et al.
(1999), USDI (1999); **Washington rocky shorelines:** Paulson (1993),
Wahl (1996); **Oregon rocky shorelines:** Nehls (1994); **Washington
freshwater sites:** Paulson (1993); and **Oregon freshwater sites:**
Nehls (1994), Paulson (1993), Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(1997).

^b^ Categories of ownership are defined as **Refuge** (federal, state,
county, or other government-owned refuge or park with emphasis on
protection of wildlife \[with the exception of hunting\]), **Park**
(federal, state, county, or other government-owned park with emphasis on
recreation or multiple-use \[with the exception of hunting\]), **State**
(any other state-owned areas not included above, including public-use
beaches and beaches which are leased to private parties), **Military**
(any lands owned and managed by the military), **Environmental** (any
lands owned and managed as reserves by environmental groups or other
private entities), **Private** (any unprotected lands owned by private
entities), **Tribal** (any lands owned by Native American Tribes).
Abbreviations used include NRA (National Recreation Area), NWR (National
Wildlife Refuge), and WMA (Wildlife Management Area).

^c^ State-owned tidelands in Washington, where present, are variable in
width and may encompass as much as the area between mean high tide and
extreme low tide. The state of Washington also owns much of the
sub-tidal zone.

^d^ Most state-owned tidelands in Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay are
bounded on the waterward side by private oyster beds.

^e^ As a National Estuarine Research Reserve, most of Padilla Bay is
reserved for research and education about estuaries. Some areas of
Padilla Bay are designated as wildlife refuge by Washington Department
of Fish and Wildlife.

^f^ CRE = Columbia River Estuary. Most of the listed CRE sites are
within the Lewis and Clark National Wildlife Refuge.

^g^ Large jetties associated with major river estuaries and embayments
are important shorebird sites in both states.

^h^ CSWV = Central and southern portions of the Willamette Valley.

Table 3. Conservation priority of regularly-occurring shorebird
species^a^ in the Northern Pacific Region (western Washington and
western Oregon). Regional priority scores reflect several factors,
including population status, population trend, and comparative
importance of the region. Specific factors and rationale related to the
Regional priority scores, particularly when they differ from the
National scores, are explained in the comments column. Species are
sorted by Regional priority, followed by National priority, and then
arranged alphabetically.

  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  **Species**     **Species         **Regional   **National   **Comments**
                  Occurrence^b^**   Score^c^**   Score^c^**   
  --------------- ----------------- ------------ ------------ ----------------------------------
  Snowy Plover    M, ***W, B***     5            5            Management critical; federally
                                                              listed threatened species
                                                              (considered endangered by
                                                              Washington Wildlife Commission;
                                                              see Richardson 1995)

  Black           M, ***W, B***     4            4            Area of high importance; large
  Oystercatcher                                               numbers of migrants and winter
                                                              residents.

  Black Turnstone M, ***W***        4            4            Area of high importance.

  Marbled Godwit  M, w              4            4            Alaskan breeding population may
                                                              migrate exclusively through
                                                              region.

  Red Knot        ***M***           4            4            Area of high importance to western
                                                              (?) subspecies.

  Ruddy Turnstone M, w              4            4            Area of high importance.

  Sanderling      ***M, W***        4            4            Large concentrations in winter and
                                                              migration; major flyway for
                                                              species.

  Surfbird        M, ***W***        4            4            Area of high importance

  Whimbrel        ***M***, w        4            4            

  Black-bellied   ***M,*** W        4            3            Area of high importance; large
  Plover                                                      numbers of migrants and winter
                                                              residents.

  Common Snipe    m, ***W***, b     4            3            Large wintering concentrations;
                                                              population may be declining in the
                                                              Willamette Valley, Oregon.

  Dunlin          ***M, W***        4            3            Large concentrations in winter and
                                                              migration; major flyway for
                                                              species.

  Greater         ***M***, W        4            3            Area of high importance; large
  Yellowlegs                                                  numbers of migrants and winter
                                                              residents.

  Killdeer        ***M, W***        4            3            Breeding Bird Survey data indicate
                                                              regional population declines;
                                                              important wintering concentrations
                                                              in Willamette Valley.

  Red Phalarope   ***M***, w        4            3            Offshore portion of region
                                                              supports large numbers of birds
                                                              and is important part of migratory
                                                              route.

  Red-necked      ***M***           4            3            Offshore portion of region
  Phalarope                                                   supports large numbers of birds
                                                              and is important part of migratory
                                                              route.

  Rock Sandpiper  m, w              4            3            Large-scale range contraction from
                                                              coastal Washington and Oregon
                                                              portions of wintering range.

  Short-billed    ***M***           4            3            Large concentrations in migration.
  Dowitcher                                                   

  Wandering       M                 4            3            Entire population appears to
  Tattler                                                     migrate along/off Washington and
                                                              Oregon coasts.

  Western         ***M***, w        4            3            Large concentrations in migration;
  Sandpiper                                                   major flyway for species.

  Least Sandpiper M, w              3            3            

  Spotted         m, w, b           3            3            
  Sandpiper                                                   

  Long-billed     ***M***, w        3            2            
  Dowitcher                                                   

  Semipalmated    ***M***, w        3            2            Fairly high concentrations.
  Plover                                                      

  Long-billed     m, w              2            5            Small number of local wintering
  Curlew                                                      and migratory birds in region.

  American        m                 2            4            Small numbers present; not a
  Golden-Plover                                               primary flyway for species.

  Solitary        m                 2            4            Little apparent risk to habitat;
  Sandpiper                                                   no areas of concentrated use.

  Wilson\'s       m, b              2            4            Small numbers present; not a
  Phalarope                                                   primary flyway for species.

  Pacific         m                 2            3            Small numbers present; not a
  Golden-Plover                                               primary flyway for species.

  Willet          m, w              2            3            Small local wintering populations.

  Lesser          M                 2            2            
  Yellowlegs                                                  

  Pectoral        m                 2            2            
  Sandpiper                                                   

  Buff-breasted   m                 1            4            Small numbers present; not a
  Sandpiper                                                   primary flyway for species.

  American Avocet m                 1            3            Rare in North Pacific Region.

  Semipalmated    m                 1            3            Small numbers present; not a
  Sandpiper                                                   primary flyway for species.

  Stilt Sandpiper m                 1            3            Small numbers present; not a
                                                              primary flyway for species.

  Baird\'s        m                 1            2            Small numbers present; not a
  Sandpiper                                                   primary flyway for species.

  Black-necked    m                 1            2            Rare in North Pacific Region.
  Stilt                                                       

  Ruff            m                 1            \-           Small numbers present; not a
                                                              primary flyway for species.

  Sharp-tailed    m                 1            \-           Small numbers present; not a
  Sandpiper                                                   primary flyway for species.
  ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

^a^ Species not occurring regularly in the Northern Pacific Region:
Mountain Plover (*Charadrius montanus*), Eskimo Curlew (*Numenius
borealis*), Bristle-thighed Curlew (*Numenius tahitiensis*), Hudsonian
Godwit (*Limosa haemastica*), Bar-tailed Godwit (*Limosa lapponica*),
Upland Sandpiper (*Bartramia longicauda*), White-rumped Sandpiper
(*Calidris fuscicollis*), Grey-tailed Tattler (*Heteroscelus brevipes*),
Rufous-necked Stint (*Calidris ruficollis*), and Curlew Sandpiper
(*Calidris ferruginea*).

^b^ Species use codes: M = migration, W = wintering, B = breeding;
[Capitalized, Bold, Italics]{.underline} - species occurs regularly in
the region, and management in region is relatively more important than
other regions where it occurs; [Capitalized]{.underline} - species
occurs regularly, and in large enough numbers to warrant management;
[Lower Case]{.underline} - species occurs rarely to regularly, but not
in large enough numbers to warrant management (exclusive of Threatened &
Endangered Species).

^c^ Category codes: 5 = Highly imperiled, including species listed as
threatened or endangered; 4 = High concern; 3 = Moderate concern; 2 =
Low concern; 1 = No risk.

Table 4. Summary of \"natural\" and human-created habitat types in the
North Pacific Coast region, and some of the shorebird species known to
use them.

+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| **Habitat Types**             | **Representative Species**           |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| **I. Pelagic:**               |                                      |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Open ocean (shelf and       | Red-necked Phalarope, Red Phalarope  |
| > offshore waters)            |                                      |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Nearshore and inland marine | Red-necked Phalarope, Red Phalarope  |
| > waters                      |                                      |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| **II. Rocky Shoreline:**      |                                      |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Rocky islands, reefs, rocky | Black Oystercatcher, Surfbird, Black |
| > shores, and headlands       | Turnstone                            |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Jetties and bulkheads       | Black Oystercatcher, Surfbird, Black |
| > (coastal and estuarine)     | Turnstone                            |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| **III. Beach and Estuarine:** |                                      |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Sand beach                  | Sanderling, Snowy Plover, roosting   |
|                               | sandpipers, Whimbrel, Black-bellied  |
|                               | Plover                               |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Unstable foredunes          | Snowy Plover                         |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Estuarine sandflats         | Sanderling, sandpipers               |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Estuarine silt/sand flats   | Black-bellied Plover, Semipalmated   |
|                               | Plover, Red Knot                     |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Estuarine silt (mud) flats  | Dunlin, Western Sandpiper            |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Estuarine pebble/cobble     | Spotted Sandpiper, turnstones        |
| > shoreline                   |                                      |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Oyster beds                 | turnstones, Greater Yellowlegs       |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Tidally-influenced ponds    | sandpipers, dowitchers               |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Salt marsh                  | Pectoral Sandpiper; roosting habitat |
|                               | for many other species               |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| **IV. Freshwater:**           |                                      |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Shallow-water wetlands      | sandpipers, dowitchers, yellowlegs,  |
|                               | Common Snipe, Dunlin, Spotted        |
|                               | Sandpiper                            |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Deep-water wetlands         | Red-necked Phalarope                 |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Agricultural lands          | Killdeer, Common Snipe, Dunlin       |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Short pasture               | Black-bellied Plover; roosting       |
|                               | habitat for many species             |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Grasslands                  | Whimbrel                             |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > River and stream shorelines | Spotted Sandpiper                    |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Lake and pond shorelines    | Killdeer, Solitary Sandpiper         |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Gravel/pebble               | Killdeer                             |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Sewage treatment ponds      | many species                         |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+
| > Dredge-spoil islands        | many species                         |
+-------------------------------+--------------------------------------+

Appendix 1. Common and standard names of species mentioned in the
document. Information on subspecies is from Paulson (1993) and AOU
(1998).

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Common Name Standard Name

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Black-bellied Plover Pluvialis squatarola

American Golden-Plover Pluvialis dominica

Pacific Golden-Plover Pluvialis fulva

Snowy Plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus

Semipalmated Plover Charadrius semipalmatus

Killdeer Charadrius vociferus

Black Oystercatcher Haematopus bachmani

Black-necked Stilt Himantopus mexicanus mexicanus

American Avocet Recurvirostra americana

Greater Yellowlegs Tringa melanoleuca

Lesser Yellowlegs Tringa flavipes

Solitary Sandpiper Tringa solitaria solitaria and cinnamonomea

Willet Catoptrophorus semipalmatus inornatus

Wandering Tattler Heteroscelus incanus

Spotted Sandpiper Actitis macularia

Whimbrel Numenius phaeopus

Long-billed Curlew Numenius americanus parvus

Marbled Godwit Limosa fedoa beringiae (and perhaps L. f. fedoa)

Ruddy Turnstone Arenaria interpres interpres

Black Turnstone Arenaria melanocephala

Surfbird Aphriza virgata

Red Knot Calidris canutus (subspecies not determined)

Sanderling Calidris alba

Semipalmated Sandpiper Calidris pusilla

Western Sandpiper Calidris mauri

Least Sandpiper Calidris minutilla

Baird\'s Sandpiper Calidris bairdii

Pectoral Sandpiper Calidris melanotos

Sharp-tailed Sandpiper Calidris acuminata

Rock Sandpiper Calidris ptilocnemis (possibly both tschuktschorum and
couesi)

Dunlin Calidris alpina pacifica

Stilt Sandpiper Calidris himantopus

Buff-breasted Sandpiper Tryngites subruficollis

Ruff Philomachus pugnax

Short-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus griseus caurinus

Long-billed Dowitcher Limnodromus scolopaceus

Common Snipe Gallinago gallinago

Wilson\'s Phalarope Phalaropus tricolor

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatus

Red Phalarope Phalaropus fulicaria

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_