Western Snowy Plover 

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus)

Pacific Coast Population

Draft Recovery Plan

(May 2001)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 1

Approved: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 Manager, California/Nevada Operations Office

 Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

 Date: XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
i

PRIMARY AUTHORS

Ruth Pratt of the Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Sacramento, California, acted as the Recovery Team Manager and

coordinated preparation of the recovery plan. Recovery plan preparation was

supervised and edited by Karen Miller, Diane Elam, and Ina Pisani, Sacramento

Fish and Wildlife Office. 

We gratefully acknowledge the efforts of the Pacific Coast Western Snowy Plover

Recovery Team in preparing this recovery plan. Special acknowledgment is also

given to Nadav Nur, Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, California, for

his work on the population viability analysis.
ii

DISCLAIMER

Recovery plans delineate reasonable actions that are believed to be required to

recover and/or protect listed species. We, the Fish and Wildlife Service, publish

recovery plans, sometimes preparing them with the assistance of recovery teams,

contractors, State agencies, and others. Recovery teams serve as independent

advisors to the Fish and Wildlife Service. Objectives of the plan will be attained

and necessary funds made available subject to budgetary and other constraints

affecting the parties involved, as well as the need to address other priorities. 

Recovery plans do not obligate cooperating or other parties to undertake specific

tasks, and may not represent the views nor the official positions or approval of any

individuals or agencies involved in the plan formulation, other than our own. 

They represent our official position only after they have been signed by the

Director, Regional Director, or Operations Manager as approved. Approved

recovery plans are subject to modification as dictated by new findings, changes in

species status, and the completion of recovery tasks.

Literature Citation Should Read As Follows: 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Western Snowy Plover (Charadrius

alexandrinus nivosus) Pacific Coast Population Draft Recovery Plan. Portland,

Oregon. xix + 630 pp. 
iii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The following U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff provided valuable review and

comments on the recovery plan: John Grettenberger, Western Washington Office,

Lacey, Washington; Carrie Phillips, Newport Fish and Wildlife Office, Newport,

Oregon; Jim Watkins, Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata, California; Robert

Mesta, Bureau of Land Management Region 2 Office, Tucson, Arizona; and

Doreen Stadtlander, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California.

Maps of snowy plover sites in Appendix L were prepared by Scott Phillips of the

Endangered Species Recovery Program, Fresno, California.

The cover illustrations for the front cover and Appendix K are used courtesy of

Carleton R. Eyster, Santa Cruz, California.
iv

PACIFIC COAST WESTERN SNOWY PLOVER RECOVERY TEAM

Sarah Allen Sean Morton

National Park Service County of Santa Barbara

Point Reyes, California Santa Barbara, California

Tim Burr Martin Nugent

U.S. Department of the Navy Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

San Diego, California Portland, Oregon

Jeff Chastain Gary Page

C & M Stables Point Reyes Bird Observatory

Florence, Oregon Stinson Beach, California

Janet Didion Kerrie Palermo

California Dept. of Parks and Recreation U.S. Forest Service

Sacramento, California Reedsport, Oregon

 

David Dixon Daniel Pearson

California Dept. of Parks and Recreation Southern California Edison

Monterey, California Rosemead, California

Erin Fernandez John Phillips

San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge Oregon Parks and Recreation Dept.

Newark, California Coos Bay, Oregon

Richard Griffiths Abby Powell

U.S. Marine Corps U.S.G.S., Biological Resources Division

Camp Pendleton, California Fayetteville, Arkansas

Jim Heaney Jim Raives

U.S. Bureau of Land Management California Coastal Commission

North Bend, Oregon San Francisco, California

William Hornbrook Nancy Read

Fish Phone U.S. Department of the Air Force

Eureka, California Vandenberg Air Force Base, California

Tim Jensen Chris Regan

Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District Washington State Parks and Recreation 

Carmel Valley, California Olympia, Washington

Ron Jurek Scott Richardson

California Department of Fish and Game Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

Sacramento, California Olympia, Washington

Don Klusman Mark Stern

California Assoc. of 4 Wheel Drive Clubs, Inc. Oregon Natural Heritage Program

Yuba City, California Portland, Oregon
v

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

CURRENT SPECIES STATUS: The Pacific coast population of the western

snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) is federally listed as threatened. 

The current Pacific coast breeding population extends from Damon Point,

Washington, to Bahia Magdalena, Baja California, Mexico. The snowy plover

winters mainly in coastal areas from southern Washington to Central America.

HABITAT REQUIREMENTS AND LIMITING FACTORS: The Pacific

coast population of western snowy plovers breeds primarily above the high tide

line on coastal beaches, sand spits, dune-backed beaches, sparsely-vegetated

dunes, beaches at creek and river mouths, and salt pans at lagoons and estuaries. 

Less common nesting habitats include bluff-backed beaches, dredged material

disposal sites, salt pond levees, dry salt ponds, and river bars. In winter, snowy

plovers are found on many of the beaches used for nesting as well as on beaches

where they do not nest, in man-made salt ponds, and on estuarine sand and mud

flats.

Habitat degradation caused by human disturbance, urban development, introduced

beachgrass (Ammophila spp.), and expanding predator populations have resulted

in a decline in active nesting areas and in the size of the breeding and wintering

populations.

RECOVERY OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this recovery plan is to

remove the Pacific coast western snowy plover population from the List of

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants by: (1) achieving welldistributed increases in numbers and productivity of breeding adult birds, and (2)

providing for long-term protection of breeding and wintering plovers and their

habitat.

RECOVERY PRIORITY: 3C, per criteria published by Federal Register Notice

(48 FR 43098; September 12, 1983).
vi

RECOVERY CRITERIA: The Pacific coast population of the western snowy

plover will be considered for delisting when the following criteria have been met:

1. Maintain for 10 years an average of 3,000 breeding adults distributed among 6

recovery units as follows: Washington and Oregon, 250 breeding adults; Del

Norte to Mendocino Counties, California, 150 breeding adults; San Francisco

Bay, California, 500 breeding adults; Sonoma to Monterey Counties, 400 breeding

adults; San Luis Obispo to Ventura Counties, California, 1,200 breeding adults;

and Los Angeles to San Diego Counties, California, 500 breeding adults.

2. Maintain a 5-year average productivity of at least 1.0 fledged chick per male in 

each recovery unit in the last 5 years prior to delisting.

3. Have in place participation plans among cooperating agencies, landowners, 

and conservation organizations to assure protection and management of breeding,

wintering, and migration areas listed in Appendix B to maintain the subpopulation

sizes and average productivity specified in criteria 1 and 2 above.

ACTIONS NEEDED:

1. Monitor and manage breeding habitat of the Pacific coast population of the

western snowy plover to maximize survival and productivity.

2. Monitor and manage wintering and migration areas to maximize snowy plover

population survival.

3. Develop mechanisms for long-term management and protection of snowy

plovers and their breeding and wintering habitat.

4. Undertake scientific investigations that facilitate recovery efforts.

5. Undertake public information and education programs.

6. Review progress towards recovery annually and revise recovery efforts as 

appropriate.
vii

7. Dedicate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff and funding for the Sacramento 

Fish and Wildlife Office to coordinate recovery implementation.

8. Establish an international conservation program with the government of

Mexico to protect snowy plovers and their breeding and wintering locations in

Mexico.

Appendix J addresses Actions 1 and 2, providing guidelines for monitoring snowy

plovers during the breeding and wintering seasons. Appendix K addresses

Action 5, providing a public information and education plan. 

ESTIMATED COST OF RECOVERY: $28,588,000 plus additional costs that

cannot be estimated at this time.

DATE OF RECOVERY: Delisting could occur by 2025 if recovery criteria

have been met.
viii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................1

A. DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY .........................4

B. LIFE HISTORY AND ECOLOGY ...........................6

1. Breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

a. Population Size and Distribution .................7

b. Arrival and Courtship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

c. Duration of Breeding Season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

d. Nests and Nest Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

e. Egg Laying, Clutch Size, and Incubation . . . . . . . . . . 10

f. Clutch Hatching Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

g. Brood-rearing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

h. Fledging Success . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

i. Productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

j. Survival . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

2. Feeding Habitat and Habits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3. Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4. Wintering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

a. Distribution and Abundance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

b. Site Fidelity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

c. Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

C. POPULATION STATUS AND TRENDS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

1. Historical Trends . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

a. Washington Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

b. Oregon Coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

i. Coastwide Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

ii. Regional Perspective . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

2. Current Breeding Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

3. Habitat Carrying Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

D. REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CONTINUING THREATS . . . . 30

1. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or

Curtailment of Habitat or Range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

a. Shoreline Stabilization and Development . . . . . . . . . . 30
ix

b. Resource Extraction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

i. Sand Removal and Beach Nourishment . . . . . 32

ii. Dredging and Disposal of Dredged Materials

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

iii. Driftwood Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

iv. Beach Fires and Camping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

v. Water Course Diversion, Impoundment, or

Stabilization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

vi. Operation of Salt Ponds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

c. Encroachment of Introduced Beachgrass and Other

Nonnative Vegetation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

d. Habitat Conversion for Other Special Status Species

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

2. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or

Education Purposes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

3. Disease and Predation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

4. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms . . . . . . . 49

5. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued

Existence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

a. Natural Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

b. Disturbance of Breeding Plovers by Humans and

Domestic Animals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

i. Pedestrians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

ii. Dogs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

iii. Motorized Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

iv. Beach Cleaning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

v. Equestrian Traffic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

vi. Fishing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

vii. Fireworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

viii. Falconry, Kite Flying, and Model Airplanes

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

ix. Aircraft Overflights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

x. Special Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

xi. Coastal Access . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

xii. Livestock Grazing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
x

c. Oil Spills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

d. Contaminants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

e. Litter, Garbage, and Debris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

f. Water Quality and Urban Run-off . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

g. Management for Other Special Status Species . . . . . . 74

E. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COASTAL BEACH-DUNE

ECOSYSTEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

1. Description of Coastal Beach-Dune Ecosystem . . . . . . . . . . . 75

2. Sensitive Species of the Coastal Beach-Dune Ecosystem . . . 77

F. CONSERVATION EFFORTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

1. Conservation Planning on Federal and State Lands . . . . . . . . 80

2. Conservation Efforts on Federal And State Lands . . . . . . . . . 83

a. Exclosures, Symbolic Fencing, and Signs . . . . . . . . . . 83

b. Law Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

c. Predation Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

d. European Beachgrass Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88

e. Off-Road Vehicle Restrictions and Management . . . . 92

f. Population Monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

g. Salt Pond Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

h. Habitat Acquisition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

i. Use of Volunteers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

j. Public Outreach and Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

k. Section 6 Cooperative Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

3. Conservation Efforts on Private Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98

4. Federal Regulatory Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

a. Critical Habitat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99

b. Section 9 Take Prohibitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

c. Section 10 Permits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

d. Section 7 Requirements and Consultations . . . . . . . . 103

e. Other Federal Regulations, Executive Orders, and

Agreements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

5. State Regulatory Protection, Policies, and Agreements . . . . 107

6. Consultations, Habitat Conservation Plans, and Other

Regulatory Actions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
xi

7. Regulatory Protection and Policies of Local Governments

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

8. Interagency Coordination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

II. RECOVERY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

A. RECOVERY OBJECTIVE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

B. RECOVERY CRITERIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

C. RECOVERY STRATEGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

1. Principles for Recovery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

2. Roles of Federal, State, Local, and Private Sectors . . . . . . . 120

a. Role of Federal Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120

b. Role of State Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121

c. Roles of State and Local Governments . . . . . . . . . . . 121

d. Role of Municipal Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

e. Role of Private Lands . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

3. Conservation Tools and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

4. Funding Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

5. Coordination, Participation, and Working Groups . . . . . . . . 124

III. STEPDOWN NARRATIVE OF RECOVERY ACTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . 135

IV. IMPLEMENTATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 177

V. REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

A. Literature Cited . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207

B. Personal Communications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

C. In Litt. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 226

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A. Locations of Current or Historical Snowy Plover Breeding and

Wintering Areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1

Appendix B. Information on Snowy Plover Breeding and Wintering Locations 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1
xii

Appendix C. Summary of Current and Additional Needed Management 

Activities for Snowy Plover Breeding and Wintering Locations 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

Appendix D. Population Viability Analysis for Pacific Coast Snowy Plovers D-1

Appendix E. Associated Sensitive Species of the Coastal Beach-Dune

Ecosystem and Adjacent Habitats . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

Appendix F. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Exclosure Protocols for Snowy

Plover Nests, July 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

Appendix G. Priorities for Recovery of Threatened and Endangered Species G-1

Appendix H. Conservation Tools and Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . H-1

Appendix I. Summary of Potential Funding Sources for Recovery Actions . I-1

Appendix J. Monitoring Guidelines for the Western Snowy Plover, U.S. Pacific

Coast Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-1

Appendix K. Information and Education Plan for the Western Snowy Plover,

U.S. Pacific Coast Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . K-1

Appendix L. Maps of Snowy Plover Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-1

Appendix M. Summary of Public Comments on Draft Recovery Plan and Service

Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M-1

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Number of adult snowy plovers on window surveys of the Oregon

coast during the breeding season . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Table 2. Comparison of population estimates of adult western snowy

plovers on the Oregon coast during the breeding season (1993

to 1997) based on three different measures of abundance . . . . . . 23

Table 3. Number of adult snowy plovers during breeding season window

surveys on the California coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Table 4. Number of adult snowy plovers at selected California nesting sites 

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Table 5. Breeding season surveys of snowy plover adults at selected sites 

along the coast of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura 

Counties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Table 6. Recovery task outline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
xiii

Table B-1. Numbers of snowy plovers breeding and wintering at U.S. Pacific 

Coast locations and management goals at these locations . . . . . B-6

Table C-1. Summary of current and additional needed management activities

at U.S. Pacific Coast snowy plover breeding and wintering

locations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-7

Table D-1 Snowy plover demographic parameter estimates . . . . . . . . . . D-26

Table D-2 Summary of stochastic results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-27

Table D-3 Summary of results for growth scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-29

Table E-1. Associated sensitive fish, wildlife, and plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-3

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Map of known breeding and wintering distribution of Pacific Coast

population of western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus

nivosus) .............................................2

Figure 2. Adult male snowy plover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 3. Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Figure 4. Snowy plover clutch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 5. New housing development next to beach at Monterey Bay,

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 6. Recreationists at Salt Creek Beach, California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Figure 7. Equestrians on beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

Figure 8. Erecting snowy plover exclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Figure 9. Symbolic fencing on beach at Monterey Bay, California . . . . . . 84

Figure 10. Banding snowy plover chick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Figure 11. High school students removing European beachgrass . . . . . . . . . 97

Figure 12. Flow chart of recovery planning and implementation efforts . . 161

Figure A-1. Recovery Units 1 to 6 - Washington, Oregon, and California . A-2

Figure A-2. Recovery Unit 1 - Washington and Oregon locations . . . . . . . A-3

Figure A-3. Recovery Unit 2 - Northern California locations (Del Norte,

Humboldt, and Mendocino Counties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4

Figure A-4. Recovery Unit 3 - San Francisco Bay (Napa, Alameda, Santa Clara, 

and San Mateo Counties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5
xiv

Figure A-5. Recovery Unit 4 - Northern to Central California and Monterey

Bay locations (Sonoma, Marin, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and

Monterey Counties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-6

Figure A-6. Recovery Unit 5 - Central to Southern California locations (San

Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties) . . . . . . . . A-7

Figure A-7. Recovery Unit 6 - Southern California (Los Angeles, Orange, and

San Diego Counties) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-8

Figure D-1. Scenario 1: Status quo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-34

Figure D-2. Scenario 2: Status quo with 75% adult survival . . . . . . . . . . D-37

Figure D-3. Scenarios 4 and 5: Status quo with reduction in juvenile survival

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-38

Figure D-4. Scenarios 8 and 9: Status quo with reduction in dispersal . . D-39

Figure D-5. Scenario 12: No management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-40

Figure D-6. Scenario 14: Improve reproductive success in San Luis

Obispo/Santa Barbara/Ventura subpopulation, status quo elsewhere

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-41

Figure D-7. Scenario 16: Improve reproductive success in San Francisco Bay

and Northern California Coast subpopulations, status quo

elsewhere . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-42

Figure D-8. Scenario 17: Management at all areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-43

Figure D-9. Scenario 18: Recovery of snowy plovers assuming 1.3 chicks

fledged per male in all subpopulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-44

Figure F-1. Triangular exclosure design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-8

Figure F-2. Circular exclosure design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-9

Figure J-1. Western snowy plover window survey report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . J-9

Figure L-1. Copalis Spit (WA-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-2

Figure L-2. Damon Point/Oyhut Wildlife Area (WA-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-3

Figure L-3. Westport, Units 1-2 (WA-3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-4

Figure L-4. Midway Beach (WA-4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-5

Figure L-5. Leadbetter Point/Gunpowder Sands (WA-5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-6

Figure L-6. Columbia River to Necanicum River (OR-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-7

Figure L-7. Nehalem Spit (OR-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-8
xv

Figure L-8. Bayocean Spit (OR-3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-9

Figure L-9. Netarts Spit (OR-4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-10

Figure L-10. Sand Lake Spits (OR-5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-11

Figure L-11. Nestucca Spit (OR-6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-12

Figure L-12. South Beach, Newport (OR-7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-13

Figure L-13. Heceta Head to Siuslaw River (OR-8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-14

Figure L-14. Siuslaw River to Siltcoos River (OR-9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-15

Figure L-15. Siltcoos River to Threemile Creek (OR-10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-16

Figure L-16. Threemile Creek to Umpqua River (OR-11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-17

Figure L-17. Umpqua River to Horsfall Beach (OR-12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-18

Figure L-18. Horsfall Beach to Coos Bay, Units 1-3 (OR-13) . . . . . . . . . . . L-19

Figure L-19. Whiskey Creek to Coquille River (OR-14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-20

Figure L-20. Bandon State Park to Floras Lake (OR-15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-21

Figure L-21. Euchre Creek (OR-16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-22

Figure L-22. Pistol River (OR-17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-23

Figure L-23. Sixes River Mouth (OR-18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-24

Figure L-24. Elk River Mouth (OR-19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-25

Figure L-25. Smith River Mouth (CA-1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-26

Figure L-26. Lake Earl (CA-2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-27

Figure L-27. Gold Bluffs Beach (CA-3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-28

Figure L-28. Stone Lagoon (CA-4) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-29

Figure L-29. Big Lagoon (CA-5) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-30

Figure L-30. Clam Beach/Little River (CA-6) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-31

Figure L-31. Mad River Mouth and Beach (CA-7) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-32

Figure L-32. Humboldt Bay, North Spit (CA-8) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-33

Figure L-33. Humboldt Bay, South Spit (CA-9) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-34

Figure L-34. Eel River, North Spit and Beach (CA-10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-35

Figure L-35. Eel River Mouth to Van Duzen River (CA-11) . . . . . . . . . . . . L-36

Figure L-36. Eel River, South Spit and Beach (CA-12) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-37

Figure L-37. McNutt Gulch (CA-13) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-38

Figure L-38. MacKerricher Beach, Units 1-2 (CA-14) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-39

Figure L-39. Manchester Beach (CA-15) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-40

Figure L-40. Salt Pond 7A Levee (CA-25) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-41

Figure L-41. Little Island (CA-26) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-42

Figure L-42. Alameda Naval Air Station (CA-27) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-43
xvi

Figure L-43. Alameda South Shore (CA-28) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-44

Figure L-44. Bay Farm Island (CA-29) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-45

Figure L-45. Oakland Airport, Units 1-2 (CA-30) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-46

Figure L-46. Oliver Salt Ponds, North of Hwy. 92 (CA-31) . . . . . . . . . . . . L-47

Figure L-47. Oliver Salt Ponds, South of Hwy. 92 (CA-32) . . . . . . . . . . . . L-48

Figure L-48. Baumberg Salt Ponds (CA-33) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-49

Figure L-49. Turk Island Salt Ponds (CA-34) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-50

Figure L-50. Coyote Hills Salt Ponds (CA-35) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-51

Figure L-51. Dumbarton Salt Ponds (CA-36) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-52

Figure L-52. Plummer Creek Salt Pond (CA-37) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-53

Figure L-53. Mowry Salt Ponds (CA-38) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-54

Figure L-54. Warm Springs Salt Pond (CA-39) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-55

Figure L-55. Knapp Salt Pond (CA-40) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-56

Figure L-56. Alviso Salt Ponds (CA-41) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-57

Figure L-57. Moffett Field (CA-42) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-58

Figure L-58. Crittenden Marsh (CA-43) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-59

Figure L-59. Ravenswood Salt Pond Levee (CA-44) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-60

Figure L-60. Redwood City Salt Pond (CA-45) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-61

Figure L-61. Redwood Creek (CA-46) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-62

Figure L-62. Middle Bair Island (CA-47) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-63

Figure L-63. Salmon Creek (CA-16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-64

Figure L-64. Bodega Harbor (CA-17) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-65

Figure L-65. Doran Spit (CA-18) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-66

Figure L-66. Dillon Beach (CA-19) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-67

Figure L-67. Point Reyes Beach (CA-20) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-68

Figure L-68. Drakes Spit (CA-21) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-69

Figure L-69. Limantour Spit (CA-22) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-70

Figure L-70. Bolinas Spit/Stinson Beach (CA-23) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-71

Figure L-71. Ocean Beach (CA-24) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-72

Figure L-72. Pacifica Beach (CA-48) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-73

Figure L-73. Pillar Point (CA-49) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-74

Figure L-74. Half Moon Bay Beaches (CA-50) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-75

Figure L-75. Tunitas Beach (CA-51) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-76

Figure L-76. San Gregorio Beach (CA-52) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-77

Figure L-77. Pomponio Beach (CA-53) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-78
xvii

Figure L-78. Pescadero Beach (CA-54) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-79

Figure L-79. Gazos Creek (CA-55) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-80

Figure L-80. Ano Nuevo, Units 1-3 (CA-56) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-81

Figure L-81. Waddell Creek (CA-57) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-82

Figure L-82. Scott Creek Beach (CA-58) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-83

Figure L-83. Laguna Creek Beach (CA-59) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-84

Figure L-84. Baldwin Creek Beach (CA-60) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-85

Figure L-85. Wilder Ranch Beach (CA-61) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-86

Figure L-86. Seabright Beach (CA-62) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-87

Figure L-87. Jetty Road to Aptos (CA-63) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-88

Figure L-88. Elkhorn Slough Mudflat/Salt Pond (CA-64) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-89

Figure L-89. Monterey to Moss Landing (CA-65) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-90

Figure L-90. Asilomar Beach, Units 1-2 (CA-66) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-91

Figure L-91. Carmel River Mouth (CA-67) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-92

Figure L-92. Point Sur (CA-68) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-93

Figure L-93. San Carpoforo Creek (CA-69) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-94

Figure L-94. Arroyo Hondo Creek (CA-70) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-95

Figure L-95. Pt. Sierra Nevada (CA-71) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-96

Figure L-96. Arroyo de la Cruz (CA-72) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-97

Figure L-97. Sidney’s Lagoon (CA-73) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-98

Figure L-98. Piedras Blancas, Units 1-2 (CA-74) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-99

Figure L-99. Arroyo Laguna Creek (CA-75) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-100

Figure L-100. Pico Creek (CA-76) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-101

Figure L-101. San Simeon Beach (CA-77) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-102

Figure L-102. Villa Creek (CA-78) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-103

Figure L-103. Toro Creek (CA-79) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-104

Figure L-104. Atascadero Beach (CA-80) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-105

Figure L-105. Morro Bay Beach (CA-81) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-106

Figure L-106. Avila Beach (CA-82) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-107

Figure L-107. Pismo Beach/Nipomo Dunes (CA-83) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-108

Figure L-108. Vandenberg Air Force Base (CA-84) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-109

Figure L-109. Santa Ynez River Mouth/Ocean Beach (CA-85) . . . . . . . . . . L-110

Figure L-110. Jalama Beach (CA-86) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-111

Figure L-111. Hollister Ranch (CA-87) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-112

Figure L-112. Devereaux Beach (CA-88) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-113
xviii

Figure L-113. Goleta Beach (CA-89) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-114

Figure L-114. Point Castillo/Santa Barbara Harbor (CA-90) . . . . . . . . . . . . L-115

Figure L-115. Carpinteria Beach (CA-91) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-116

Figure L-116. San Miguel Island, Units 1-8 (CA-92) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-117

Figure L-117. Santa Rosa Island, Units 1-11 (CA-93) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-118

Figure L-118. Santa Cruz Island, Units 1-2 (CA-94) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-119

Figure L-119. San Buenaventura Beach (CA-95) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-120

Figure L-120. Mandalay Bay/Santa Clara River Mouth (CA-96) . . . . . . . . . L-121

Figure L-121. Hollywood Beach (CA-97) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-122

Figure L-122. Ormond Beach (CA-98) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-123

Figure L-123. Mugu Lagoon Beach (CA-99) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-124

Figure L-124. San Nicolas Island, Units 1-15 (CA-100) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-125

Figure L-125. Zuma Beach (CA-101) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-126

Figure L-126. Corral Beach (CA-102) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-127

Figure L-127. Malibu Lagoon/Beach (CA-103) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-128

Figure L-128. Santa Monica Beach (CA-104) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-129

Figure L-129. Dockweiler to Hermosa Beach (CA-105) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-130

Figure L-130. San Clemente Island, Units 1-5 (CA-106) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-131

Figure L-131. Huntington Beach (CA-107) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-132

Figure L-132. Bolsa Chica Wetlands (CA-108) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-133

Figure L-133. Newport Beach (CA-109) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-134

Figure L-134. Crystal Cove (CA-110) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-135

Figure L-135. Salt Creek Beach (CA-111) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-136

Figure L-136. Doheny Beach/Dana Point (CA-112) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-137

Figure L-137. San Onofre Beach (CA-113) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-138

Figure L-138. Aliso/French Creek Mouth (CA-114) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-139

Figure L-139. Santa Margarita River Estuary (CA-115) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-140

Figure L-140. San Luis Rey River Mouth (CA-116) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-141

Figure L-141. Agua Hedionda Lagoon/Beach (CA-117) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-142

Figure L-142. South Carlsbad Beach (CA-118) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-143

Figure L-143. Batiquitos Lagoon (CA-119) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-144

Figure L-144. San Elijo Lagoon/Beach (CA-120) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-145

Figure L-145. San Dieguito Lagoon/Beach (CA-121) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-146

Figure L-146. Los Penasquitos Lagoon/Beach (CA-122) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-147

Figure L-147. Mission Bay, Bonita Cove (CA-123) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-148
xix

Figure L-148. Mission Bay, Fiesta Island (CA-124) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-149

Figure L-149. South Mission Beach (CA-125) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-150

Figure L-150. Ocean Beach/San Diego FCC (CA-126) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-151

Figure L-151. NAS North Island (CA-127) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-152

Figure L-152. NAB Coronado/Silver Strand State Beach/Naval Radio Receiving

Facility (CA-128) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-153

Figure L-153. NAB Delta Beach Bay (CA-129) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-154

Figure L-154. South San Diego Bay Marine Biological Study Area (CA-130)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-155

Figure L-155. Western Salt Company (CA-131) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-156

Figure L-156. Sweetwater National Wildlife Refuge (CA-132) . . . . . . . . . . L-157

Figure L-157. Tijuana River Beach (CA-133) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . L-158
1

I. INTRODUCTION

On March 5, 1993, the Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) was listed as threatened under provisions of

the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C., 1531-1544), as amended (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 1993a). This population breeds primarily on coastal

beaches from southern Washington to southern Baja California, Mexico

(Figure 1). General locations of the snowy plover’s breeding and wintering

locations are shown in Appendix A. Recent surveys, status reviews, and literature

searches have identified 157 current or historical snowy plover breeding or

wintering locations on the U.S. Pacific coast. These localities include 5 in

Washington, 19 in Oregon, and 133 in California (Appendix B). In Baja

California, breeding plovers concentrate at coastal wetland complexes as far south

as Bahia Magdalena, Mexico (Palacios et al. 1994). The locations listed in

Appendix B are important for the recovery of the United States Pacific coast

population of the western snowy plover.

In Washington, the western snowy plover was listed as endangered under

Washington Department of Game Policy #402 in 1981. The State endangered

status was reaffirmed in 1990 by the Washington Wildlife Commission

(Washington Administrative Code 232-12-014). In Oregon, the western snowy

plover was listed as a threatened species by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife

Commission in 1975. Its threatened status was reaffirmed in 1989 under the

Oregon Endangered Species Act during the review required by Oregon Revised

Statutes 496.176(7)(b). The Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission confirmed the

species’ threatened status as part of its periodic review in December 1993, and

again in December 1998. The Oregon Endangered Species Act was amended

through House Bill 2120 in 1995 and was implemented by administrative rule in

January 1998. The western snowy plover conservation program adopted in 1994

provides “survival guidelines” for this species under this amended rule. In

California, the western snowy plover has been classified by the California

Department of Fish and Game as a “species of special concern” throughout all of 
2

Figure 1. Map of known breeding and wintering distribution of the Pacific

coast population of the western snowy plover.
3

California since 1978 (Remsen 1978, California Natural Diversity Database

2001).

Under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service is required to develop a recovery plan after a species is

federally listed as threatened or endangered, unless it is determined that such a

plan will not promote the conservation of the species. Recovery is the process

that reverses the decline of a listed species, neutralizes threats, and ensures the

species’ long-term survival. This recovery plan recommends actions necessary to

satisfy the biological needs and assure recovery of the Pacific coast population of

the western snowy plover. These actions include protection, enhancement, and

restoration of all habitats deemed important for recovery; monitoring; research;

and public outreach. 

This recovery plan will serve as a guidance document for interested parties

including Federal, State, and local agencies, private landowners, and the general

public. It includes recommendations for plover management measures for all

known breeding and wintering locations (Appendix C). These locations have

been divided into six recovery units, as follows: (1) Oregon and Washington; (2)

northern California (Del Norte, Humboldt, and Mendocino Counties); (3) San

Francisco Bay (locations within the counties of Napa, Alameda, Santa Clara, and

San Mateo); (4) Monterey Bay (including coastal areas along counties of

Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin, and Sonoma); (5) San

Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties; and (6) Los Angeles, Orange,

and San Diego Counties). Designation of these locations and recovery units

assists in identifying priority areas for conservation planning across the snowy

plover’s breeding and wintering range.

This recovery plan emphasizes opportunities for improved management on

Federal and State lands. Improved management on these lands will incur longterm costs to these public land managers and restrict public use on some habitat

areas. Public support and involvement will be crucial to the recovery of the

western snowy plover. The nesting season of the snowy plover includes the

period of greatest public recreational use of beaches (Memorial Day through

Labor Day). This recovery plan is a call to action to the public for snowy plover
4

conservation. Opportunities for public participation in recovery efforts are

emphasized in Appendix K (Information and Education Plan). This recovery plan

provides a strategy for recovery of the entire Pacific coast population of the

western snowy plover, although site-specific recommendations are limited to the

populations within its United States range.

A. DESCRIPTION AND TAXONOMY

The snowy plover, a small shorebird in the family Charadriidae, weighs from 34

to 58 grams (1.2 to 2 ounces) and ranges in length from 15 to 17 centimeters (5.9

to 6.6 inches) (Page et al. 1995a). It is pale gray-brown above and white below,

with a white hindneck collar and dark lateral breast patches, forehead bar, and eye

patches (see Figure 2). The bill and legs are blackish. In breeding plumage, 

Figure 2. Adult male snowy plover (photo by Peter Knapp, with permission).

males usually have black markings on the head and breast; in females, usually one

or more of these markings are dark brown. Early in the breeding season, a rufous

crown is evident on breeding males, but not on females. In nonbreeding plumage,

sexes cannot be distinguished because the breeding markings disappear. Fledged

juveniles have white edges on their wing coverts and scapulars and can thus be
5

distinguished from adults until approximately July through October, depending on

when the eggs hatch. During this period, molt and feather wear makes fledged

juveniles indistinguishable from adults. The mean annual life span of snowy

plovers is about 3 years, but at least one individual was at least 15 years old when

last seen (Page et al. 1995a). 

The species was first described in 1758 by Linnaeus (American Ornithologists’

Union 1957). Two subspecies of the snowy plover have been recognized in North

America (American Ornithologists’ Union 1957): the western snowy plover

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) and the Cuban snowy plover (C. a.

tenuirostris). The western snowy plover breeds on the Pacific coast from southern

Washington to southern Baja California, Mexico, and in interior areas of Oregon,

California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Oklahoma, and northcentral Texas, as well as coastal areas of extreme southern Texas, and possibly

extreme northeastern Mexico (American Ornithologists’ Union 1957). Although

previously observed only as a migrant in Arizona, small numbers have bred there

in recent years (Monson and Phillips 1981, Davis and Russell 1984). The Cuban

snowy plover (C. a. tenuirostris) breeds along the Gulf coast from Louisiana to

western Florida and south through the Caribbean (American Ornithologists’

Union 1957). More recent works recognize only subspecies C. a. nivosus for

North America (Hayman et al. 1986, Binford 1989, Sibley and Monroe 1990). 

The Pacific coast population of the snowy plover is defined as those individuals

that nest on the mainland coast, peninsulas, offshore islands, bays, estuaries, or

rivers of the United States Pacific coast and Baja California, Mexico (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service 1993a).

A large amount of breeding data indicates that the Pacific coast population of the

western snowy plover is distinct from western snowy plovers breeding in the

interior (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993a). Snowy plovers tend to be site

faithful, with the majority of birds returning to the same nesting location in

subsequent years (Warriner et al. 1986). Intensive banding and monitoring

studies have documented only two clear instances of interbreeding between

coastal and interior populations, but there have been observations of four other

birds that may have been interbreeding. First, a banded female hatched at
6

Monterey Bay was observed nesting the following year at Mono Lake, California

(G. Page in litt. 1989). This one observation was among 1,730 plovers observed

at interior sites. Secondly, a snowy plover that nested at Monterey was observed

the following year nesting at a Central Valley site (G. Page pers. comm. 1992). It

is expected that more than these two individuals would have been seen if the two

populations mixed more fully. In addition, an adult male, banded as a chick in

San Diego County, was seen at Owens Lake in May of 1997 and may have been

breeding (G. Page and A. Powell pers. comm. 1998). Three snowy plovers

banded as chicks on the California coast were observed at interior Oregon

breeding sites during the breeding season in 1990 (Stern et al. 1991a). However,

there was no documentation whether or not these birds nested at these interior

sites. Conversely, no breeding plovers or their young banded at Abert Lake, in

interior Oregon, Mono Lake in interior California, or at Great Salt Lake, Utah 

have been observed nesting at any coastal sites (Stern et al. 1990a, G. Page pers.

comm. 1998). Since 1977, several thousand snowy plovers have been banded on

the Pacific coast; the numbers of plovers banded in the interior were: 130 adults

and 237 chicks at Mono Lake; 356 adults and 139 chicks at Great Salt Lake; and

166 adults and 204 chicks at Abert Lake (G. Page pers. comm. 1999). 

B. LIFE HISTORY AND ECOLOGY

1. Breeding

The Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover breeds primarily on

coastal beaches from southern Washington to southern Baja California, Mexico

(e.g., coastal beach, Figure 3). This habitat is unstable because of unconsolidated

soils, high winds, storms, wave action, and colonization by plants. Sand spits,

dune-backed beaches, beaches at creek and river mouths, and salt pans at lagoons

and estuaries are the main coastal habitats for nesting (Wilson 1980, Stenzel et al.

1981). Less common nesting habitats include bluff-backed beaches, dredged

material disposal sites, salt pond levees, dry salt ponds, and river bars (Wilson

1980, Page and Stenzel 1981, Powell et al. 1996, Tuttle et al. 1997). 
7

Figure 3. Oregon Dunes National Recreational Area (photo by Ruth Pratt,

with permission)

a. Population Size and Distribution

Snowy plovers concentrate in suitable habitat, with the number of adults at coastal

breeding locations ranging from 1 to 246, depending, in part, on the size of the

area (Appendix B). It is estimated that, at most, about 2,000 snowy plovers may

breed along the U.S. Pacific coast (Page et al. 1995a, Appendix D) and at least a

similar number breed on the west coast of Baja California (Palacios et al. 1994). 

The largest number of breeding birds occurs from south San Francisco Bay to

southern Baja California (Page and Stenzel 1981, Palacios et al. 1994). 

Population estimates referenced below were based on window surveys, breeding

surveys, and data used in the population viability analysis prepared for this

recovery plan. The locations of the following parenthetical references to snowy

plover breeding and wintering locations in the States of Washington, Oregon, and

California are shown in Figures A-1 through A-7 of Appendix A. Information on

the numbers of breeding and wintering snowy plovers at these locations is

described in Appendix B. 

Three breeding areas currently exist in southern Washington: Leadbetter Point, in

Willapa Bay (WA-5); Damon Point, in Grays Harbor (WA-2); and Midway Beach

(WA-4). During most recent breeding seasons, fewer than 25 plovers and 12 nests
8

have been found during regular, standardized surveys. In Oregon, nesting birds

have been recorded in nine locations (Appendix B). In 1997, snowy plovers

nested at seven sites in Oregon: Sutton (OR-8), Siltcoos (OR-10), Tenmile (OR12), Coos Bay North Spit (OR-13), Bandon (OR-15), New River Spit (OR-15),

and Floras Lake (OR-15). An estimated 141 adult plovers were observed at these

sites during the breeding season. Ninety-three nests were located, with 52 percent

of the nests at two sites (Coos Bay North Spit and New River Spit). In 1995 and

1996, individual nests were also found at two other Oregon sites, Bayocean Spit

(OR-3) and Threemile-Umpqua River (OR-11), respectively. Eight geographic

areas support over three-quarters of the California coastal breeding population: 

San Francisco Bay (CA-27 to 47), Monterey Bay (CA-63 to 65), Morro Bay (CA79 to 81), the Callendar-Mussel Rock Dunes area (CA-83), the Point Sal to Point

Conception area (CA-84 to 88), the Oxnard lowland (CA-96 to 99), Santa Rosa

Island (CA-93), and San Nicolas Island (CA-100) (Page et al. 1991). A survey of

breeding snowy plovers along the Pacific coast of Baja California, Mexico in

1991 to 1992 found 1,344 adults, mostly at 4 coastal wetland complexes: Bahia

San Quintin; Lagunas Ojo de Liebre and Guerrero Negro; Laguna San Ignacio;

and Bahia Magdalena (Palacios et al. 1994).

b. Arrival and Courtship

Nesting birds at coastal locations consist of both year-round residents and

migrants (Warriner et al. 1986). Migrants begin arriving at breeding sites in

southern Washington in early March (Widrig 1980) and in central California as

early as January, although the main arrival is from early March to late April (Page

et al. 1995a). Since some individuals nest at multiple locations during the same

year, birds may continue arriving through June (Stenzel et al. 1994). 

Although pair bonds are first observed on the breeding grounds, they are likely to

begin while birds are together in wintering flocks. Mated birds from the previous

breeding season frequently reunite. Old and new pair bonds may be established

prior to territory defense and nest scraping (Warriner et al. 1986). In California,

pre-nesting bonds and courtship activities are observed as early as mid-February. 

Similar activities begin by March in Oregon. 
9

During courtship, males defend territories and usually make multiple scrapes. A

scrape is a depression in the sand or substrate that a male constructs by leaning

forward on his breast and scratching his feet while rotating his body axis (Page et

al. 1995a). Copulations are associated with scraping behavior (Warriner et al.

1986). Females choose which scrape becomes the nest site by laying eggs in one

of them.

c. Duration of Breeding Season

Along the west coast of the United States, the nesting season of the snowy plover

extends from early March through late September. Generally, the breeding season

begins earlier in more southerly latitudes, and may be 2 to 4 weeks earlier in

southern California than in Oregon and Washington. Fledging (reaching flying

age) of late-season broods may extend into the third week of September

throughout the breeding range.

Earliest nests on the California coast occur during the first week of March in some

years and by the third week of March in most years (Page et al. 1995a). Peak

nesting is from mid-April to mid-June (Warriner et al. 1986, Powell et al. 1997). 

Hatching lasts from early April through mid-August, with chicks reaching

fledging age approximately 1 month after hatching (Powell et al. 1997). On the

Oregon coast nesting may begin as early as mid-March, but most nests are

initiated from mid-April through mid-July (Wilson-Jacobs and Meslow 1984);

peak nest initiation occurs from mid-May to early July (Stern et al. 1990b). In

Oregon, hatching occurs from mid-April through mid-August, with chicks

reaching fledging age as early as mid- to late May. Peak hatching occurs from

May through July, and most fledging occurs from June through August. On the

Washington coast, most adults arrive during late April, with maximum numbers

present from mid-May to late June; fledging occurs from late June through August

(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1995).

d. Nests and Nest Sites

 Nests typically occur in flat, open areas with sandy or saline substrates;

vegetation and driftwood are usually sparse or absent (Widrig 1980, Wilson 1980,
10

Stenzel et al. 1981). In southern California, plovers nest in areas with 6 to 18

percent vegetative cover and 1 to 14 percent inorganic cover; vegetation is usually

less than 6 centimeters (2.3 inches) tall (Powell et al. 1995, 1996). Nests consist

of a shallow scrape or depression lined with beach debris (e.g., small pebbles,

shell fragments, plant debris, and mud chips); nest lining increases as incubation

progresses. Driftwood, kelp, and dune plants provide cover for chicks that crouch

near objects to hide from predators. Invertebrates are often found near debris, so

driftwood and kelp are also important for harboring plover food sources (Page et

al. 1995a). Page and Stenzel (1981) found that nests were usually within 100

meters (328 feet) of water, but could be several hundreds of meters away when

there was no vegetative barrier between the nest and water. They believed the

absence of such a barrier is probably important for newly-hatched chicks to have

access to the shore. Powell et al. (1995, 1996) also reported nests from southern

California were usually located within 100 meters (328 feet) of water, which

could be either ocean, lagoon, or river mouth. Although the majority of snowy

plovers are site-faithful, returning to the same breeding site in subsequent

breeding seasons, some also disperse within and between years (Warriner et al.

1986, Stenzel et al. 1994). Birds occasionally nest in exactly the same location as

the previous year (Warriner et al. 1986).

e. Egg Laying, Clutch Size, and Incubation

Along the U.S. Pacific coast, snowy plovers make scrapes in February but never

lay eggs that early. Initiation of clutches (i.e., groups of eggs) and egg laying

occurs from early March through the third week of July (Wilson 1980, Warriner et

al. 1986). The approximate periods required for nesting events are: scrape

construction (in conjunction with courtship and mating), 3 days to more than a

month; egg laying, usually 4 to 5 days; and incubation, 26 to 31 days (mean 27

days) (Warriner et al. 1986). The usual clutch size is three eggs (see Figure 4)

although, rarely, up to six eggs have been found and two eggs are not unusual

(Warriner et al. 1986, Page et al. 1995a). Both sexes incubate the eggs, with the

female tending to incubate during the day and the male at night (Warriner et al.

1986). Adult plovers will frequently attempt to lure people and predators from

hatching eggs with alarm calls and distraction displays. Occasionally, parents

behave similarly when they have incomplete clutches or, less often, clutches that 
11

Figure 4. Snowy plover clutch (photo by Bruce Casler, with permission).

are only partly incubated. More typical, however, is for the incubating adult to

run away from the eggs without being seen. Incomplete clutches are those in

which all eggs have not been laid. Partly-incubated clutches are those with three

eggs having some degree (in days) of incubation.

Snowy plovers renest readily after loss of their eggs (Wilson 1980, Warriner et al.

1986). Renesting occurs 2 to 14 days after failure of a clutch and up to five

renesting attempts have been observed for a pair (Warriner et al. 1986). Double

brooding with polyandry (meaning the female successfully hatches more than one

brood in a nesting season with different mates) is common in coastal California

(Warriner et al. 1986) and Oregon (Wilson-Jacobs and Meslow 1984). On the

California coast, the breeding season is long enough for some females to triple

brood and for some males to double brood (Page et al. 1995a). After losing a

clutch or brood (i.e., group of chicks) or successfully hatching a nest, plovers may

renest at the same site or move up to several hundred kilometers to nest at other

sites (Stenzel et al. 1994, Powell et al. 1997).
12

f. Clutch Hatching Success

Widely varying clutch hatching success (percent of clutches hatching at least one

egg) is reported in the literature. Clutch hatching success ranging from 0 to 90

percent has been recorded for coastal snowy plovers (Widrig 1980, Wilson 1980,

Saul 1982, Wilson-Jacobs and Dorsey 1985, Wickham unpubl. data in Jacobs

1986, Warriner et al. 1986). Low clutch hatching success has been attributed to a

variety of factors, including predation, human disturbance, high tides, and

inclement weather. In San Diego County, at least one egg hatched in 56 to 76

percent of clutches from 1994 to 1997 (Powell and Collier 1994, Powell et al.

1995, 1996, 1997). Observed clutch hatching success ranged from 12.5 to 86.8

percent and averaged 50.6 percent in eight studies of coastal breeding snowy

plovers (Page et al. 1995a). 

g. Brood-rearing

The first chick hatched remains in or near the nest until other eggs (or at least the

second egg) hatch. The adult plover, while incubating the eggs, also broods the

first chick. The nonincubating adult may also brood the first-born chick a short

distance from the nest. If the third egg of a clutch is 24 to 48 hours behind the

others in hatching, it may be deserted. 

Snowy plover chicks are precocial, leaving the nest within hours after hatching to

search for food. They are not able to fly for approximately 4 weeks after hatching;

fledging requires 28 to 33 days (mean equals 31 days) (Warriner et al. 1986). 

Broods rarely remain in the nesting area until fledging (Warriner et al. 1986, Stern

et al. 1990b). Plover broods may travel along the beach as far as 6.4 kilometers (4

miles) from their natal area (Casler et al. 1993). 

Adult plovers do not feed their chicks, but lead them to suitable feeding areas. 

Adults use distraction displays to lure predators and people away from chicks. 

Adult plovers signal the chicks to crouch, with calls, as another way to protect

them (Page et al. 1995a). They may also lead chicks, especially larger ones, away

from predators. Most chick mortality occurs within 6 days after hatching

(Warriner et al. 1986).
13

Females generally desert mates and broods by the sixth day after hatching and

thereafter the chicks are typically accompanied by only the male. While males

rear broods, females obtain new mates and initiate new nests (Page et al. 1995a). 

h. Fledging Success

The fledging success of snowy plovers (percentage of hatched young that reach

flying age) varies greatly by location and year. Even snowy plovers nesting on

neighboring beach segments may exhibit quite different success in the same year. 

For example, the percentage of chicks fledged on different beach segments of

Monterey Bay in 1997 varied from 11 to 59 percent and averaged 24 percent

overall (Page et al. 1997). During the prior 13 years, the percentage of young

fledged on Monterey Bay beaches averaged 39 percent (Page et al. 1997). From

the former Moss Landing salt ponds (now known as the Moss Landing Wildlife

Area) in Monterey Bay (CA-64 in Appendix B), the fledging rate of chicks ranged

from 13.2 percent to 57.1 percent (mean equals 41.4 percent) from 1988 to 1997. 

In San Diego County, the fledging rate of chicks ranged from 32.6 to 51.4 percent 

(mean equals 41 percent) from 1994 through 1998 (Powell et al. 1997). In

Oregon, annual fledging success for 1992 to 1997 for all coastal sites combined,

ranged from 30 to 48 percent (mean equals 38 percent) (M. Stern unpubl. data). 

Like California, there is considerable variation among sites within years. For

example, in 1997, the fledging rate ranged from a low of 14 percent at Sutton

(OR-8) to a high of 66 percent at South Tenmile (OR-12). There is also variation

at individual sites among years. For example, at the Coos Bay North Spit (OR13), one of the larger nesting areas in coastal Oregon, annual fledging rates for

1993 to 1997 ranged from 32 to 63 percent (mean equals 46 percent).

i. Productivity

The productivity information most useful for this recovery plan is reproductive

success (the annual number of young fledged per adult male). For the population

viability analysis (Appendix D), males were used in the model because their

population parameters can be estimated with greater certainty than for females. In

addition, it is reasonable to consider that the availability of males is limiting
14

reproductive success because they are responsible for post-hatching parental care,

and females can lay clutches for more than one male (Warriner et al. 1986). 

Chicks are considered fledged at 28 days after hatching. Estimates of the number

of young fledged per adult male are available for the coast of Oregon, the

shoreline of Monterey Bay, California, and the coast of San Diego County,

California. Along the Oregon coast, coincident with extensive efforts to protect

nests from predators, the average number of young fledged per male and per

female annually from 1993 to 1997 has been estimated as 1.04 and 1.30,

respectively. Male fledging rates ranged from 0.80 to 1.51 annually and female

rates from 0.73 to 2.10 (M. Stern unpubl. data). At Monterey Bay, California,

from 1984 to 1991, when little effort was made to protect nests from predators

and people, males averaged 0.85 and females 0.86 fledglings annually. After

intensive efforts were undertaken to protect nests from predators and people from

1992 to 1997, the number of young fledged per adult averaged 1.11 for males and

1.23 for females (Point Reyes Bird Observatory, unpubl. data). Over the 14 years

of study at Monterey Bay, the annual number of young fledged ranged from 0.61

to 1.26 per male and 0.70 to 1.36 per female (Point Reyes Bird Observatory

unpubl. data). From 1995 to 1997 in San Diego County, males averaged 0.92

fledged young. From 1994 to 1997 in San Diego County, females averaged 0.87

fledged young. Rates for males ranged from 0.80 to 1.08 fledged young annually,

and for females 0.82 to 1.06 fledged young annually (A. Powell and J. Terp

unpubl. data). From 1995 to 1997, nesting snowy plovers in San Diego County

likely benefitted from predator management efforts targeted at California least

terns (A. Powell pers. comm. 1998). Male reproductive rates were used in the

snowy plover population viability analysis as explained in Appendix D.

j. Survival

Annual survival rates for adult and juvenile snowy plovers have been calculated

from studies of color banded birds from the coast of Oregon (M. Stern unpubl.

data), the shoreline of Monterey Bay, California (Point Reyes Bird Observatory

unpublished data), and the coast of San Diego County, California (A. Powell and

J. Terp unpublished data) using the program SURGE (Lebreton et al. 1992, Cooch

et al. 1996). Annual juvenile survival rates for fledged young averaged 51 percent
15

from the Oregon coast, 45 percent from Monterey Bay, and 45 percent from the

San Diego coast. Annual survival rates for adult females averaged 75 percent

from the Oregon coast, 69 percent from Monterey Bay, and 72 percent from the

San Diego coast. Male survival rates were 75 percent for the Oregon coast, 75

percent for Monterey Bay, and 71 percent for San Diego County. Differences

between males and females were only significant for the Monterey Bay area. 

Adult survival rates for San Diego County were not significantly different from

the other areas. Appendix D explains how these survival rates were incorporated

into the population viability analysis. At the Great Salt Lake, Utah, Paton (1994)

estimated annual survival rates of snowy plovers from 58 to 88 percent, depending

on year, with no significant difference between the sexes.

2. Feeding Habitat and Habits

Snowy plovers are primarily visual foragers, using the run-stop-peck method of

feeding typical of Charadrius species. They forage on invertebrates in the wet

sand and amongst surf-cast kelp within the intertidal zone, in dry, sandy areas

above the high tide, on salt pans, on spoil sites, and along the edges of salt

marshes, salt ponds, and lagoons. They sometimes probe for prey in the sand and

pick insects from low-growing plants. At the Bolsa Chica wetlands in California,

snowy plovers have been observed pecking small, flying insects from mid-air and

shaking one foot in very shallow water to agitate potential prey (Fancher et al.

1998). Snowy plover food consists of immature and adult forms of marine and

terrestrial invertebrates. Little quantitative information is available on food

habits. In San Diego, invertebrates found in snowy plover feces during the

breeding season included rove beetles (Staphylinidae), long-legged flies

(Dolichopodidae), shore flies (Ephydridae), water bugs (Saldidae), hymenopterans

(Braconidae), and unidentified insect larvae (Tucker and Powell 1999). During

the breeding season, Jacobs (1986) observed adult snowy plovers feeding on sand

hoppers (Orchestoidea) and small fish on the Oregon coast. Other food items

reported for coastal snowy plovers include mole crabs (Emerita analoga), crabs

(Pachygrapsus crassipes), polychaetes (Neridae, Lumbrineris zonata, Polydora

socialis, Scoloplos acmaceps), amphipods (Corophium ssp., Ampithoe spp.,

Allorchestes angustus), tanadacians (Leptochelia dubia), flies (Ephydridae),

beetles (Carabidae, Buprestidae, Tenebrionidae), clams (Transenella sp.), and
16

ostracods (Page et al. 1995a). In San Francisco Bay salt evaporation ponds, the

following prey have been recorded: flies (Ephydra cinerea), beetles (Tanarthrus

occidentalis, Bembidion sp.), moths (Perizoma custodiata), and lepidopteran

caterpillars (Feeney and Maffei 1991).

3. Migration

While some snowy plovers remain in their coastal breeding areas year-round,

others migrate south or north for winter (Warriner et al. 1986, Page et al. 1995a,

Powell et al. 1997). On Monterey Bay in California, 41 percent of nesting males

and 24 percent of the females were consistent year-round residents (Warriner et

al. 1986). At Camp Pendleton in San Diego County, California, about 30 percent

of nesting birds stayed during winter (Powell et al. 1995, 1996, 1997). The

migrants vacate California coastal nesting areas primarily from late June to late

October (Page et al. 1995a). There is evidence of a late-summer

(August/September) influx of snowy plovers into Washington; it is suspected that

these wandering birds are migrants (S. Richardson pers. comm. 1998). 

Most plovers that nest inland migrate to the coast for the winter (Page et al. 1986,

1995b). Those from the Central Valley of California and the western Great Basin

migrate to the California or Baja California coasts, and those from the eastern

Great Basin (Great Salt Lake) migrate to Mexico (Page et al. 1995b). The

departure from inland nesting areas begins by early July and is completed, except

for stragglers, by mid-October (Page et al. 1995a).

Thus, the flocks of nonbreeding birds that begin forming along the U.S. Pacific

coast in early July are a mixture of adult and hatching-year birds from both coastal

and interior nesting areas. During migration and winter, these flocks range in size

from a few individuals to up to 300 birds (Appendix B).
17

4. Wintering

a. Distribution and Abundance

In western North America, the snowy plover winters (here defined as November 1

to February 28/29) mainly in coastal areas from southern Washington to Central

America (Page et al. 1995a). Both coastal and interior populations use coastal

locations in winter. Small numbers of plovers occur at two locations on the

Washington coast, the northernmost being Midway Beach (WA-4) in Pacific

County (S. Richardson pers. comm. 1998). Fewer than 100 plovers winter at 9

locations on the Oregon coast (Appendix B), probably as many as 2,500 along the

mainland California coast, and hundreds more at each of San Francisco Bay and

the Channel Islands (Appendix B, Page et al. 1986). The majority of wintering

plovers on the California coast are found from Bodega Bay, Sonoma County,

southward (Page et al. 1986). Inland, a few hundred birds also winter at

agricultural waste water ponds in the San Joaquin Valley and at desert saline

lakes, particularly the Salton Sea in California (Shuford et al. 1995).

Nesting birds from the Oregon coast have wintered as far south as Monterey Bay,

California; those from Monterey Bay in central California have wintered north to

Bandon, Oregon, and south to Laguna Ojo de Liebre, Baja California, Mexico

(Page et al. 1995a); and those from San Diego in southern California have

wintered north to Vandenberg Air Force Base in Santa Barbara County and south

to Laguna Ojo de Liebre, Baja California, Mexico (Powell et al. 1995, 1996,

1997). 

In winter, snowy plovers are found on many of the beaches used for nesting and

some beaches where they do not nest (Appendix B). They also occur in manmade salt ponds and on estuarine sand and mud flats. In California, the majority

of wintering plovers concentrate on sand spits and dune-backed beaches. Some

also occur on urban and bluff-backed beaches, which are rarely used for nesting

(Page et al. 1986). Pocket beaches at the mouths of creeks and rivers on

otherwise rocky shorelines are used by wintering plovers south, but not north, of

San Mateo County, California. In Washington, the main wintering location is
18

Leadbetter Point, Willapa Bay (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

1995).

b. Site Fidelity

Snowy plovers that breed on the coast and inland are very site faithful in winter

(Point Reyes Bird Observatory unpublished data). For example, after 166 adults

and 204 chicks were banded at Lake Abert, Oregon during summer, many were

subsequently found along the California and Baja California, Mexico coasts. Of

those for which a wintering location was identified, 67 percent of the adult males,

73 percent of the adult females, and 60 percent of the birds banded as chicks

(immatures) were found at the same winter location in at least 2 consecutive

years; and 33 percent of the males, 32 percent of the females, and 35 percent of

the immatures for at least 3 years (Page et al. 1995b).

c. Behavior

Snowy plovers are typically gregarious in winter. Although some individuals

defend territories on beaches, most usually roost in loose flocks; frequently

plovers are also observed foraging in loose flocks (Page et al. 1995a). Roosting

plovers usually sit in small depressions in the sand, or in the lee of kelp, other

debris, or small dunes (Page et al. 1995a). Sitting behind debris or in depressions

provides some shelter from the wind and probably makes the birds more difficult

for predators to detect. When roosting snowy plovers are disturbed, they

frequently run a few meters to a new spot where they sometimes displace other

individuals. Alternatively, the whole flock may fly to a new location.

C. POPULATION STATUS AND TRENDS

1. Historical Trends

Historical records indicate that nesting western snowy plovers were once more

widely distributed and abundant in coastal Washington, Oregon, and California

than they are currently. In Washington, snowy plovers formerly nested at five

coastal locations (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1995). Three
19

sites are currently active, representing a minimum 40 percent decline in

Washington breeding sites. In Oregon, snowy plovers historically nested at 29

locations on the coast (C. Bruce pers. comm. 1991). Currently, there are only nine

nesting locations, representing a 69 percent decline in active breeding areas. In

California, there has also been a significant decline in breeding locations,

especially in southern California. 

a. Washington Coast

Records for snowy plovers in Washington span a full century. Most early

accounts described plover abundance at specific sites with terms such as “several”

or “small numbers.” Although similar descriptors could still be applied today,

current field efforts are more thorough than in the past. In addition, significant

habitat losses have occurred, primarily through erosion and invasion of introduced

beachgrass, and some sites no longer support nesting plovers. For these reasons, a

decline in the Washington population is believed to have occurred, but it is

difficult to quantify.

Copalis Spit (WA-1) held 6 to 12 snowy plover pairs in the late 1950's or early

1960's, according to biologist Gordon Alcorn (cited in Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife 1995). No other information on breeding at Copalis Spit is

available. Suitable habitat was judged capable of supporting four pairs in 1984

(Ralph Widrig, cited in Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1995). 

Periodic surveys since 1983 have revealed just a single plover (Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife unpubl. data).

Damon Point and Oyhut Wildlife Area (WA-2) lack snowy plover records prior to

1971, but this is due to limited visitation rather than plover absence. Between

1971 and 1983, birders reported up to six plovers during infrequent visits to

Damon Point (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1995). Plover

research in 1985 and 1986 revealed up to 20 plovers and 8 nests at Damon Point

(Anthony 1987), but no more than 5 nests have been found in subsequent years

(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1995, unpublished data). Intensive

surveys in 1997 and 1998 revealed five or fewer plovers and no more than two

nests each year (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife unpublished data).
20

Westport Spit (WA-3) held low numbers of snowy plovers from before 1915 until

at least 1968, and scientific collecting was concentrated there through 1934

(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1995). A single nest, poorly

documented, was reported in 1983 (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

unpublished data). No other quantitative information on abundance or nesting is

available for this site, which has now eroded significantly. Regular visits between

1994 and 1998 revealed no plovers (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,

unpublished data).

Midway Beach (WA-4) and Cape Shoalwater once contained several hundred

acres of suitable snowy plover habitat, but the area lacks historical records of

these birds except for specimens collected in 1914 and 1960 and labeled

“Tokeland” (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1995). Regular

surveys between 1994 and 1998 suggested intermittent plover use, with an

estimated eight plovers and six nests in 1998 (Richardson et al. in prep.). 

Leadbetter Point (WA-5) was rarely visited by plover observers prior to 1964. In

the 1960's and 1970's, birders reported up to 35 plovers. In 1967, the sighting of

two chicks confirmed nesting in Washington (Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife 1995). Up to 24 plovers and between 7 and 11 nests were estimated to

be present in 1978, 1979, and 1981 (Widrig 1980, 1981). Up to 23 plovers and 7

nests were found from 1985 to 1989 (Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

unpublished data), and similar numbers occurred from 1995 to 1997 (Williamson

1995, 1996, 1997). In recent years, Gunpowder Sands, a dynamic shoal just north

of Leadbetter Point, has supported up to 11 plovers and 2 nests between May and

July (Williamson 1995, 1996, 1997).

b. Oregon Coast

In Oregon, annual surveys of snowy plovers, including both adults and young of

the year, began in 1978, with counts ranging from a high of 139 to a low of 30

(Table 1). From 1978 to 1981, the mean number of plovers observed annually

along the Oregon coast was 104 at 12 sites. At 10 of these sites, plovers were

observed in all 4 years, while at the remaining 2 sites, plovers were recorded in 3

of 4 years. The number of plovers declined through the 1980's, and reached a low
21

0 

20 

40 

60 

80 

100 

120 

140 

Number of Adults

1978198019821984198619881990199219941996

Year

Table 1. Histogram of the number of adult snowy plovers on window surveys of

the Oregon coast during the breeding season. Window surveys estimate the

number of birds seen during 1-day censuses in May to June. 

Year Number

1978 93

1979 100

1980 80

1981 139

1982 78

1983 52

1984 46

1985 48

1986 73

1987 61

Year Number

1988 53

1989 58

1990 58

1991 35

1992 30

1993 45

1994 60

1995 72

1996 96

1997 85
22

from 1991 to 1993 with a mean of 33 individuals recorded annually. From 1994

to 1997, plover numbers increased, with a mean of 78 plovers observed at 7 sites. 

The increase in recent years is related to intensive management, including the use

of exclosures to reduce predation, restoration of breeding habitat by removing

European beachgrass, increased presence of law enforcement personnel,

additional and improved signs, additional symbolic fencing (consisting of one or

two strands of light-weight string or cable tied between posts to delineate areas

where pedestrians and vehicles should not enter), and increased efforts on public

information and education. Along the Oregon coast where intensive management

has taken place, the number of snowy plovers have decreased over 25 percent

since 1978 to 1981, and the number of active sites have decreased from 12 to 7. 

However, without intensive management, it is likely that current plover numbers

would be considerably lower.

Since 1993, the population on the Oregon coast has been intensively monitored,

with many of the adults and chicks being uniquely color-banded. The presence of

marked birds has allowed for the development of two other means of estimating

the population (Table 2). The number of snowy plovers, as indicated by all three

indices in Table 2, has increased between 1993 and 1997. The increasing trend

for all three indices remains consistent throughout the measurement period.

c. California Coast

 i. Coastwide Perspective

The first quantitative data on the abundance of snowy plovers along the California

coast came from window surveys conducted during the 1977 to 1980 breeding

seasons by Point Reyes Bird Observatory (Page and Stenzel 1981, Table 3). 

Window surveys are a one-time pass of a surveyor or team of surveyors through

potential snowy plover nesting habitat during May or June. The surveyor counts

all adult snowy plovers in the habitat and separates the adults into males and

females when possible. An estimated 1,593 adult snowy plovers were seen (and

extrapolated for one location not completely covered) on the pioneer surveys

(Table 3). The surveys suggested that the snowy plover had disappeared from 
23

significant parts of its coastal California breeding range by 1980. It no longer

bred along the beach at Mission Bay or at Buena Vista Lagoon in San Diego

County. In Orange County, the only remaining breeding location was the Bolsa

Chica wetlands; historically, the snowy plover was known to breed along the

beach from Upper Newport Bay to Anaheim Bay. It was absent from Los Angeles

County where it formerly nested along the shores of Santa Monica Bay. In

Ventura County, it had ceased breeding on Ventura Beach (San Buenaventura

Beach), and in Santa Barbara County on Carpinteria, Santa Barbara (East Beach),

and Goleta Beaches. Nesting no longer occurred along the northernmost portion

of Monterey Bay in Santa Cruz County or on Doran Beach at Bodega Harbor in

Sonoma County.

Subsequent coast-wide surveys by Point Reyes Bird Observatory in 1989 and

1991 indicated a further decline in numbers of breeding adult snowy plovers

during the decade after the 1977 to 1980 survey. Along the mainland coast,

including the shores of the Channel Islands, the decline of the snowy plover was

4.9 percent, and in San Francisco Bay about 40 percent (Table 3). The most

recent coastwide survey, during the summer of 1995, was accomplished through

Table 2. Comparison of population estimates of adult western snowy plovers

on the Oregon coast during the breeding season (1993 to 1997) based on

three different measures of abundance. Data for B and C estimates provided by

M. Stern (pers. comm. 1998). 

Year Estimates

 A B C

1993 45 55 to 61 72

1994 52 67 83

1995 67 94 120

1996 87 110 to 113 134 to 137

1997 85 106 to 110 141

 A = Window census.

 B = Estimated number of breeding adults. This number is lower than those in column C because it is an

estimate of the number of individual birds thought to be breeding birds.

 C = Total number of individual adults present during breeding season.
1

 260 adults during the survey; 28 additional adults extrapolated for unsurveyed portions

of Santa Rosa Island.

2

 176 seen during the survey; 27 additional birds extrapolated for unsurveyed areas.

24

Table 3. Number of adult snowy plovers during breeding season window surveys

of the California coast.

 Location 1977/80 1989 1991 1995

Del Norte County 11 8 3 0

Humboldt County 54 32 30 19

Mendocino County 15 2 0 -

Sonoma County 0 10 9 2

Marin County 40 24 25 8

San Mateo County 4 8 1 2

Northern Santa Cruz County 25 19 22 33

Monterey Bay 146 146 121 125

Point Sur 3 4 - -

Morro Bay Area 80 126 87 85

Pismo Beach/Santa Maria River 45 123 246 124

Vandenberg Air Force Base 119 115 242 213

Jalama Beach 0 1 1 0

Oxnard Lowland 136 175 105 69

Channel Islands (288)1 217 200 196

Orange County 19 21 6 9

Northern San Diego County 160 72 48 49

San Diego Bay 60 36 31 33

Tijuana Estuary 37 21 4 10

Subtotal 1242 1160 1181 977

South San Francisco Bay 351 216 (203)2 -

Total 1593 1376 1384 -
25

 the collaboration of researchers studying snowy plovers along the California coast. This

survey suggested a further 17.3 percent decline in the number of breeders along the outer

coast, making a 21 percent decline since the initial surveys of 1977 to 1980. Because San

Francisco Bay was not surveyed in 1995, it is not known whether numbers there have

changed from 1991 levels. Between the 1977 to 1980 surveys and the 1995 survey, the

snowy plover seems to have ceased nesting at Los Penasquitos, San Elijo, and Agua

Hedionda Lagoons in northern San Diego County (A. Powell pers. comm. 1998); Año

Nuevo State Beach and Pescadero State Beach in San Mateo County; Bolinas Lagoon in

Marin County; MacKerricher Beach in Mendocino County; the south and north spits of

Humboldt Bay and Big Lagoon in Humboldt County; and the Lake Talawa region of Del

Norte County (Point Reyes Bird Observatory, unpublished data).

Information on numbers of snowy plovers along the coast of California since 1995 is

available only for some sites. For those sites where nesting plovers are monitored and

most of the birds are color banded, estimates of the total number of nesting birds have

been made (Table 4). Breeding season window surveys are also available from some

sites (Table 4). However, estimates from both window surveys and total nesting birds are

not available for any site from 1995 to 1997.

ii. Regional Perspective

Mendocino, Humboldt, and Del Norte Counties - Numbers of breeders have declined

in this northern California region since the initial Point Reyes Bird Observatory survey in

1977. In 1977, 80 adults were tallied for the region compared to 42 in 1989, 33 in 1991,

and 19 in 1995. The Point Reyes Bird Observatory also conducted a survey of Humboldt

County and Del Norte County beaches during the summer of 1996 (regular nesting had

ceased in Mendocino County by this date) and tallied 15 adults. In 1996, snowy plovers

were documented breeding on the gravel bars of the Eel River, Humboldt County, for the

first time. R. LeValley (pers. comm. 1997) estimated that as many as 30 snowy plovers

nested on these gravel bars in 1997. Even if some plovers had shifted from the beaches to

the bars between 1977 and 1996, the total for the beaches and bars (15 + 30 = 45) is still a

reduction from the 80 plovers tallied in 1977.
26

Table 4. Number of adult snowy plovers at selected California nesting sites, 1995 to

1997.

 Location

 

1995 

 

1996 1997 Data

Type

Humboldt County Beaches 19 15 - Window

Survey

Point Reyes, Marin County 12 10-11 25 Total

Breeders

North Santa Cruz County 27-30 22-26 22-23 Total

Breeders

Monterey Bay 186-198 210-217 228-231 Total

Breeders

Atascadero Beach 38 28 23 Window

Survey

Morro Bay Spit 34 40 39 Window

Survey

Vandenberg Air Force Base 213 230 258 Window

Survey

Ormond Beach 20 19 34 Window

Survey

Mugu Naval Weapons Station 40 49 26 Window

Survey

Santa Rosa Island 71 78 79 Window

Survey

San Miguel Island 9 3 5 Window

Survey

San Nicolas Island 116 104 91 Window

Survey

Bolsa Chica 8 22 21 Window

Survey

San Diego County 255 272 282 Total

Breeders

Total Number of snowy

plovers

1048-1063 1102-1114 1133-1137
27

San Francisco Bay - As indicated in Table 3, numbers in San Francisco Bay

declined markedly between the initial survey in 1978 and follow-up surveys in

1989 and 1991. This region should be covered again to determine the snowy

plover's current status.

Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin, and Sonoma

Counties - Along this segment of coastline, numbers of adults during window

surveys in 1977 to 1978, 1989, 1991, and 1995 were: 215, 207, 178, and 170,

respectively. Point Sur is excluded from these estimates because of a lack of data

in 1991 and 1995. Thus, a decline for the region is indicated. However, the

numbers of adults breeding on the beaches and salt ponds of Monterey Bay, and

the beaches of northern Santa Cruz County, increased nearly 40 percent between

1993 and 1997 after management actions were undertaken to increase nesting

success (Point Reyes Bird Observatory, unpublished data)

 Ventura, Santa Barbara, and San Luis Obispo Counties - There is no clear

evidence of an overall decline in the number of breeding snowy plovers for this

region from 1978/1980 to the present. Numbers of adults during 1978, 1989,

1991, 1995, and 1998 window surveys were: 668, 757, 881, 687, and 570,

respectively. While numbers for the region may not have changed overall, there

have been definite changes at specific locations (Table 5). Most notable is the

decline in numbers on San Miguel Island from 1978 /1980 to 1997, and the

sudden increase in numbers at Vandenberg Air Force Base between 1989 and

1991, followed by the sudden decline from 1997 to1998 (Table 5).
28

Table 5. Breeding season surveys of snowy plover adults at selected sites

along the coast of San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties.

Location Year

1978-80 1989 1991 1995 1996 1997 1998

Atascadero Beach 0 17 2 38 28 23 26

Morro Bay Spit 80 94 69 34 40 39 55

Vandenberg Air

Force Base

119 115 242 213 230 238 130

Ormond Beach 25 24 34 20 19 34 19

Mugu Naval

Weapons Station

82 81 59 40 49 26 47

Santa Rosa Island 84 91 103 71 78 79 76

San Miguel Island 133 36 19 9 3 5 1

San Nicolas Island 71 90 78 116 104 91 90

Total 594 548 606 541 551 535 444

San Diego, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties - Numbers have declined during

window surveys from the period 1978 to 1995. From the 276 adults tallied during

the 1978 Point Reyes Bird Observatory survey, numbers declined to 150 adults

during the 1989 survey and 89 on the 1991 survey. A window survey by Abby

Powell, U.S. Geological Survey/Biological Resources Division, and her

colleagues produced 101 adults during the summer of 1995. The 1995 estimate

represented only 37 percent of the adults from the 1978 survey. Since 1995, the

total number of plovers nesting in San Diego County during the course of a

summer has been increasing (Table 4). Because birds move around, the number 

of banded birds tallied over a whole summer is greater than the number that could

be found on any particular day of a window survey. 

2. Current Breeding Distribution

The current Pacific coast breeding range of the snowy plover extends from Damon

Point, Washington, to Bahia Magdelena, Baja California, Mexico. The population
29

is sparse in Washington, Oregon, and northern California. At present, fewer than

40 adults are believed to be nesting in Washington, slightly more than 100 in

coastal Oregon, and fewer than 100 in California, north of the Golden Gate. 

When last surveyed in 1991, just over 200 adults were counted during the

breeding season in San Francisco Bay. Almost all were in salt evaporation ponds

in south San Francisco Bay. To the south of San Francisco Bay, the first large

concentration of snowy plovers is found along the shoreline of Monterey Bay

where currently 200 to 250 adults breed. Other large concentrations of nesting

snowy plovers occur south of Monterey Bay. Breeding season counts of nesting

snowy plovers during 1991, 1995, and 1998 ranged from 85 to 93 adults in the

Morro Bay area, from 103 to 246 adults between Pismo Beach and Point Sal, from

130 to 240 on Vandenberg Air Force Base, and from 69 to 105 in the Oxnard

Lowland. During the 1990's, 70 to 100 adults were consistently tallied during

breeding season counts of Santa Rosa Island. Similar numbers are found on San

Nicolas Island. South of Ventura County in the United States, nesting snowy

plovers are confined primarily to Bolsa Chica in Orange County, where there are

approximately 30 breeding adults, and to the coast of San Diego County with an

estimated 282 nesting adults in 1997. Along the coast of Baja California, Mexico,

most nesting snowy plovers are associated with the largest wetlands, especially

Bahia San Quintin, Laguna Ojo de Liebre, and Bahia Magdelena. Probably as

many snowy plovers nest along the west coast of Baja California, Mexico as along

the U.S. Pacific coast (Palacios et al. 1994). 

3. Habitat Carrying Capacity

There is no quantitative information on carrying capacity of beaches for snowy

plovers. The structure, width, vegetation, and level of human use of beaches is

quite variable, complicating such a measurement. With extensive management of

approximately 55 hectares (138 acres) of mostly dried ponds in the Moss Landing

Wildlife Area, Point Reyes Bird Observatory biologist Doug George has been able

to document 25 active nests, 3 pairs within 5 days of initiating nests, and 10

broods simultaneously. Thus, a peak of 76 nesting adults were accommodated

simultaneously by 55 hectares (138 acres) of playa, or 1.4 hectares (3.6 acres) per

functional pair (some of the broods were only being cared for by males) (Point

Reyes Bird Observatory unpublished data). If calculated over the approximate 4-
30

year period since management at the Moss Landing Wildlife Area commenced,

the number of nesting adults would be smaller. 

The numbers of nesting snowy plovers at the Moss Landing Wildlife Area cannot

be applied to beach areas because of the physical differences between salt pond

and beach habitats and because beach habitats are typically subject to much more

human disturbance. Also, since 1995, Point Reyes Bird Observatory staff have

conducted intensive management specifically for snowy plovers at the Moss

Landing Wildlife Area. These measures include predator control, removal of

excessive vegetation, and operation of water control structures to maintain desired

water levels. These numbers also cannot be applied to some other salt ponds (e.g.,

San Francisco Bay) because of the need to flood larger areas within the salt pond

system to keep sufficient areas from being vegetated while maintaining sufficient,

suitable nesting habitat (e.g., salt pans) for snowy plovers from year to year.

D. REASONS FOR DECLINE AND CONTINUING THREATS

Overall, western snowy plover numbers have declined on the U.S. Pacific coast

over the past century (see Population Status and Trends section). Habitat

degradation caused by human disturbance, urban development, introduced

beachgrass (Ammophila spp.), and expanding predator populations have resulted

in a decline in active nesting areas and in the size of the breeding and wintering

populations. Natural factors, such as inclement weather, have also affected the

quality and quantity of snowy plover habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

1993a). The reasons for decline and degree of threats vary by geographic

location. The following discussion is organized according to the five listing

criteria under section 4(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act. 

1. The Present or Threatened Destruction, Modification, or Curtailment of 

Habitat or Range

a. Shoreline Stabilization and Development 

The wide, flat, sparsely-vegetated beach strands preferred by snowy plovers are an

unstable habitat, subject to the dynamic processes of accretion and erosion and
31

dependent on natural forces for replenishment and renewal. These habitats are

highly susceptible to degradation by construction of seawalls, breakwaters, jetties,

piers, homes, hotels, parking lots, access roads, trails, bike paths, day-use parks,

marinas, ferry terminals, recreational facilities, and support services that may

cause direct and indirect losses of breeding and wintering habitat for the snowy

plover. 

Beach stabilization efforts may interfere with coastal dune formation and cause

beach erosion and loss of snowy plover nesting and wintering habitat. Shoreline

stabilization features such as jetties and groynes may cause significant habitat

degradation by robbing sand from the downdrift shoreline (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1996a). However, jetties can also redirect sand deposition, causing an

increase in available habitat. Construction of homes, resorts, and parking lots on

coastal sand dunes constitutes irrevocable loss of habitat for snowy plovers. 

Construction of these and other facilities adjacent to sand dunes also results in

loss of breeding and wintering habitat by increasing human disturbance to levels

where beaches are no longer suitable for snowy plovers (see Figure 5). Urban

development has permanently eliminated valuable nesting habitat on beaches in

southern Washington (Brittell et al. 1976), Oregon (Oregon Department of Fish 

Figure 5. New housing development next to beach at Monterey Bay,

California (photo by Peter Baye, with permission). 
32

and Wildlife 1994), and California (Page and Stenzel 1981). In addition to

causing direct loss of habitat, there are additional potential adverse impacts to

snowy plovers from urban development. When urban areas interface with natural

habitat areas, the habitat value to native species may be diminished by increased

levels of illumination at night (e.g., building and parking lot lights); increased

sound and vibration levels; and pollution drift (e.g., pesticides) (Kelly and

Rotenberry 1996/1997). Also, construction of residential development in or near

snowy plover habitat attracts predators, including domestic cats.

b. Resource Extraction

 i. Sand Removal and Beach Nourishment 

Sand is mined in coastal areas such as Monterey Bay. Mining sand from the

coastal mid-dunes and surf zone can cause erosion and loss of snowy plover

breeding and wintering habitat. Sand removal by heavy machinery can disturb

incubating plovers, destroy their nests or chicks, and result in the loss of

invertebrates and natural wave-cast kelp and other debris that plovers use for

foraging. Mining of surface sand from the 1930's through the 1970's at Spanish

Bay in Monterey County degraded a network of dunes by lowering the surface

elevations, removing sand to granite bedrock in many locations, and creating

impervious surfaces that supported little to no native vegetation (Guinon 1988).

Beach nourishment with sand can be beneficial for the snowy plover if it results in

an increase in habitat. However, unless beach nourishment projects are properly

designed and use appropriately-sized sediments, they can result in changes to

beach slope from redeposit of sediments by storm waves, and result in the loss of

snowy plover breeding and wintering habitat. For example, if an inappropriate

size class of sand (e.g., coarser-grained sand) and range of minerals are introduced

that are different from the current composition of native sand on a beach, it can

alter dune slope (making it steeper or narrower), sand mobility and sand color,

decrease the abundance of beach invertebrates, and facilitate establishment of

invasive exotic plants that may have a competitive advantage over native plants. 

Feeney and Maffei (1991) investigated the color hues of the ground surface within

San Francisco Bay salt ponds used as snowy plover nesting habitat. Predominant
33

soils were silty clay with varying amounts of humus, salt crystals, and shell

fragments. They found a strong similarity between the color of the substrate in

habitat preferred by snowy plovers and the color of plover mantles. Also, heavy

equipment associated with beach nourishment activities may destroy nests or

chicks, or disturb breeding and wintering plovers. 

 ii. Dredging and Disposal of Dredged Materials

Dredging is detrimental to snowy plovers when it eliminates habitat or alters

natural patterns of beach erosion and deposition that maintain habitat. 

Disturbances associated with dredging, such as placement of pipes, disposal of

dredged materials, or noise, also may negatively affect breeding and wintering

plovers. Dredging is detrimental when it promotes water-oriented developments

that increase recreational access to plover habitat (e.g., marinas, boat ramps, or

other facilities to support water-based recreation). Dredged materials may provide

important nesting habitat for plovers such as those at Coos Bay, Oregon (WilsonJacobs and Dorsey 1985). Snowy plovers have also been observed using dredged

material during the winter; however, these areas are not used nearly as often as the

adjacent ocean beach (E.Y. Zielinski and R.W. Williams in litt. 1999).

 iii. Driftwood Removal

Driftwood can be an important component of snowy plover breeding and

wintering habitat. Plovers often nest beside driftwood, so its removal may reduce

the number of suitable nest sites. Driftwood contributes to dune-building and

adds organic matter to the sand as it decays (Washington Department of Fish and

Wildlife 1995). Additionally, driftwood provides snowy plovers with year-round

protection from wind and blowing sand. 

Driftwood removal can negatively affect snowy plover habitat. Driftwood

removed for firewood or decorative items can result in destruction of nests and

newly-hatched chicks that frequently crouch by driftwood to hide from predators

and people. Removal of driftwood has been documented as a source of nest

destruction at Vandenberg Air Force Base where two nests were crushed beneath

driftwood dragged to beach fire sites (Persons 1994). Also, driftwood beach
34

structures built by visitors are used by avian predators of snowy plover chicks

such as loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus) and American kestrels (Falco

sparverius), and predators of adults such as merlins (Falco columbarius) and

peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus). 

Although driftwood is an important component of snowy plover habitat, too much

driftwood on a beach, which may occur after frequent and prolonged storm events,

can be detrimental if there is not sufficient open habitat to induce the birds to nest.

 iv. Beach Fires and Camping

Beach fires and camping may be harmful to nesting snowy plovers when valuable

driftwood is destroyed, as described above. Nighttime collecting of wood

increases the risk of stepping on nests and chicks, which are difficult to see even

during daylight hours. Fires near a snowy plover nest could cause nest

abandonment due to disturbance from human activities, light, and smoke. Fires

have the potential to attract large groups of people and result in an increase of

garbage, which attracts scavengers such as gulls (Larus spp.) and predators such

as coyotes (Canis latrans), American crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and

common ravens (Corvus corax). Also, after fires are abandoned, predators such

as coyotes may be attracted into the area by odors lingering from the fire,

particularly if it was used for cooking.

 v. Water Course Diversion, Impoundment, or Stabilization

Water diversion and impoundment of creeks and rivers may negatively affect

snowy plover habitat by reducing sand delivery to beaches and degrading water

quality. Water diversions are a major threat to snowy plovers when they impair

hydrologic processes (such as migration of creek and river mouths) that maintain

open habitat at river and creek mouths by retarding the spread of introduced

beachgrass (Ammophila spp.) and other vegetation. Water diversion,

impoundment, or stabilization activities could include construction of dams and

irrigation, flood control, and municipal water development projects.
35

 vi. Operation of Salt Ponds

Salt ponds of San Francisco Bay and San Diego Bay, which are filled and drained

as part of the salt production process, provide breeding and wintering habitat for

snowy plovers. Dry salt ponds and unvegetated salt pond levees are used as

plover nesting habitat. Ponds with shallow water provide important foraging

habitat for plovers. Nesting plovers can be attracted to an area when ponds are

drained during the breeding season, but flooding can then destroy the nests when

the ponds are refilled. Also, human disturbance resulting from maintenance

activities associated with the operation of commercial salt ponds (i.e., levee

reconstruction and maintenance of facilities) can result in the loss of snowy

plovers and alteration or disturbance of their habitat. If conducted during the

snowy plover breeding season, reconstruction of salt pond levees could destroy

snowy plover nests. Maintenance activities that are conducted by vehicles, on

foot, or through the use of dredging equipment could result in direct mortality or

harassment of snowy plovers (See Dredging, Pedestrian, and Motorized Vehicle

sections). 

c. Encroachment of Introduced Beachgrass and Other Nonnative Vegetation

One of the most significant causes of habitat loss for coastal breeding snowy

plovers has been encroachment of introduced European beachgrass (Ammophila

arenaria) and American beachgrass (Ammophila breviligulata). Foredunes

dominated by introduced beachgrass have replaced the original low, rounded,

open mounds formed by the native American dunegrass (Leymus mollis) and other

beach plants. Native dune plants do not bind sand like Ammophila, and thus

allow for sand movement and regenerating open expanses of sand. However,

Ammophila forms a dense cover that excludes many native taxa. On beaches

dominated by this invasive grass, species richness of vegetation is halved, in

comparison with foredunes dominated by native dune grass (Barbour and Major

1990). Similarly, American beachgrass greatly depresses the diversity of native

dune plant species (Seabloom and Wiedemann 1994). 

European beachgrass was introduced to the west coast around 1898 to stabilize

dunes (Wiedemann 1987). Since then, it has spread up and down the coast and
36

now is found from British Columbia to southern California (Ventura County). 

This invasive species is a rhizomatous grass that sprouts from root segments, with

a natural ability to spread rapidly. Its most vigorous growth occurs in areas of

wind-blown sand, primarily just above the high-tide line, and it thrives on burial

under shifting sand. In 1988, European beachgrass was considered a major dune

plant at about 50 percent of snowy plover breeding sites in California and all of

those in Oregon and Washington (J.P. Myers, National Audubon Society, in litt.

1988). 

American beachgrass is native to the East coast and Great Lakes region of North

America. The densest populations of American beachgrass on the Pacific coast are

currently located between the mouth of the Columbia River and Westport,

Washington. It is suspected that the source of this population was the Warrenton

Dunes stabilization project on the Clatsop Peninsula in Oregon near the mouth of

the Columbia River by the Soil Conservation Service (now the Natural Resources

Conservation Service) in 1935. Like European beachgrass, American beachgrass

is dominant on the mobile sands of the foredune and rapidly spreads through

rhizome fragments. American beachgrass occurs along the entire coast of

Washington, ranging from Shi Shi Beach, Washington, in the north, to Sand Lake,

Oregon, in the south, although its frequency decreases markedly at the northern

and southern limits of this range. Currently, American beachgrass is the dominant

introduced beachgrass species in much of the snowy plover range in the State of

Washington (Seabloom and Wiedemann 1994).

Stabilizing sand dunes with introduced beachgrass has reduced the amount of

unvegetated area above the tideline, decreased the width of the beach, and

increased its slope. These changes have reduced the amount of potential snowy

plover nesting habitat on many beaches and may hamper brood movements. In

Oregon, the beachgrass community may provide habitat for snowy plover

predators (e.g., skunks, weasels, coyotes, foxes, raccoons, and feral cats) that

historically would have been largely precluded by the lack of cover in the dune

community (Stern et al. 1991b, K. Palermo pers. comm. 1998). 

On most beaches with snowy plover habitat, European beachgrass has caused the

development of a vegetated foredune that effectively blocks movement of sand
37

inland and creates conditions favorable to the establishment of dense vegetation in

the deflation plain, which occurs behind the foredunes (Wiedemann et al.1969). 

In natural sand dunes, deflation plains consist of open sand ridges and flat plains

at or near the water table. Thus, in areas with European beachgrass, the open

features that characterize snowy plover breeding habitat are destroyed. The

establishment of European beachgrass has also caused sand spits at the mouths of

small creeks and rivers to become more stable than those without vegetation

because of the creation of an elevated beach profile. This elevated profile, in

effect, reduces the scouring of spits during periods of high run-off and storms. A

secondary effect of dune stabilization has been human development of beaches

and surrounding areas (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1994). This

development, in turn, has reduced available beach habitat and focused human

activities on a smaller area that must be shared with snowy plovers and other

shorebirds.

On the Oregon coast, the establishment of European beachgrass has produced

dramatic changes in the landscape (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

1994). The spread of this nonnative species was greatly enhanced by aggressive

stabilization programs in the State of Oregon in the 1930's and 1940's

(Wiedemann 1987).

European beachgrass spread profusely along the Washington coast, and was well

established by the 1950's (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1995). In

1988, the spread of beachgrass was termed an “increasing threat” to traditional

snowy plover nesting areas at Leadbetter Point, Washington, having become

established where absent only 4 years earlier (Willapa National Wildlife Refuge

1988).

In California, there are many beaches where European beachgrass has established

a foothold. These beaches include the dunes at Lake Earl, Humboldt Bay (from

Trinidad to Centerville Beach), MacKerricher State Beach/Ten Mile Dunes

Preserve, Manchester State Beach, Bodega Bay, Point Reyes National Seashore,

Golden Gate National Recreation Area, Monterey Bay, Morro Bay Beach,

Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes, and Vandenberg Air Force Base (A. Pickart in litt.

1996). Chestnut (1997) studied the spread of European beachgrass at the
38

Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes in San Luis Obispo County. He documented an

increase in beachgrass from approximately 8 to 109 hectares (20 to 270 acres)

between 1969 and 1997, and found that its rapid spread through native vegetation

posed a serious threat to nesting snowy plovers and rare plants.

 In addition to the loss of nesting habitat, introduced beachgrass may also

adversely affect snowy plover food sources. Slobodchikoff and Doyen (1977)

found that beachgrass markedly depressed the diversity and abundance of sandburrowing arthropods at coastal dune sites in central California. Because snowy

plovers feed on insects well above the high-tide line, the presence of this invasive

grass may also result in loss of food supplies for plovers (Stenzel et al. 1981). 

In some areas of California, such as the Santa Margarita River in San Diego

County, and the Santa Clara and Ventura Rivers in Ventura County, giant reed

(Arundo donax) has become a problem along riparian zones. During winter

storms, giant reed is washed downstream and deposited at the river mouths where

snowy plovers nest (Powell et al. 1997). Large piles of dead and sprouting giant

reed eliminate nesting sites and increase the presence of predators, which use it as

perches and prey on rodents in the piles of vegetation.

Other nonnative vegetation that has invaded coastal dunes, thereby reducing

western snowy plover breeding habitat, includes Scotch broom (Cytisus

scoparius), gorse (Ulex europaeus), South African iceplant (Carpobrotus edulis),

and iceplant (Mesembryanthemum sp.). Shore pine (Pinus contorta) is a native

plant species that has invaded coastal dunes and resulted in similar impacts to

snowy plovers. 

Many nonnative weed species also occur on and along San Francisco Bay salt

pond levees, resulting in unsuitable nesting habitat for snowy plovers

(J. Albertson in litt. 1999).

d. Habitat Conversion for Other Special Status Species

It is not known whether snowy plovers historically nested in San Francisco Bay

prior to the construction of salt evaporator ponds beginning in 1860 (Ryan and
39

Parkin 1998). However, snowy plovers have wintered on the San Francisco Bay

since at least the late 1800's, as indicated by a specimen dated November 8, 1889,

in the California Museum of Vertebrate Zoology (Grinnell et al. 1918). It is

possible that natural salt ponds in the vicinity of San Lorenzo once supported

nesting birds, but insufficient data exist to assess this possibility (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1992). Today, however, the San Francisco Bay recovery unit

supports an important snowy plover source population, representing

approximately 10 percent of the total breeding population. Feeney and Maffei

(1991) observed a sizable population of snowy plovers at the Baumberg and

Oliver salt ponds during the breeding and nonbreeding seasons, suggesting that

these ponds are important to snowy plovers throughout the year. They suspected

that these ponds are used by snowy plovers as both a pre-breeding and postbreeding staging area, based on the high numbers of plovers in mid-February and

in late August/September, respectively. 

As part of the Recovery Plan for Tidal Marsh Ecosystems of Central and Northern

California, which we are currently preparing, extensive tidal marsh restoration is

identified as a recovery action for listed and other sensitive species of tidal salt

marshes including the California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus) and

salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris). A large area of San

Francisco Bay salt ponds, especially within the South Bay, are proposed for tidal

marsh restoration for the benefit of tidal marsh dependent species listed under the

Endangered Species Act. These salt ponds are large, persistent hypersaline ponds

that are intermittently flooded with South Bay water. Some of these ponds

currently provide valuable breeding and wintering habitat for snowy plovers. 

However, they occur within the historical areas of tidal salt marsh, which once

dominated San Francisco Bay. Endangered tidal marsh species would benefit

from conversion of these ponds to salt marsh; however, snowy plovers would lose

suitable nesting and wintering areas. Therefore, this ecosystem plan also includes

recommendations to support habitat needs of the snowy plover and California

least tern (Sterna antillarum browni) on some of the existing salt ponds, through

the maintenance of some salt ponds to be managed to provide snowy plover

nesting and feeding habitats, including playas, salt flats, islands, and sparselyvegetated levees.
40

In southern California, unless carefully planned, conversion of snowy plover

habitat to tidal salt marsh may result in loss of snowy plover habitat. The lightfooted clapper rail (Rallus longirostris levipes) inhabits coastal tidal marshes from

Santa Barbara County south to Baja California, Mexico. Several locations in

Ventura, Orange, and San Diego Counties provide nesting and/or wintering

habitat for snowy plovers, but also provide high quality light-footed clapper rail

habitat or represent high priority tidal marsh restoration sites in the recovery plan

for the light-footed clapper rail (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1985). These sites

include Bolsa Chica, Agua Hedionda Lagoon, San Elijo Lagoon, San Dieguito

Lagoon, and Los Penasquitos Lagoon.

2. Overutilization for Commercial, Recreational, Scientific, or Education

Purposes

Egg collecting has been observed at several California nesting colonies (Stenzel et

al. 1981, Warriner et al. 1986). Occasionally recreational birdwatchers may also

harass plovers. The significance of these factors to nesting success is uncertain

but probably relatively minor.

Qualified individuals may obtain permits to conduct scientific research and

population census activities on snowy plovers under section 10(a)(1)(A) of the

Endangered Species Act. Specific activities that may be authorized include:

population censuses and presence/absence surveys; monitoring of nesting activity;

capturing, handling, weighing, measuring, banding, and color-marking of young

and adults on breeding and wintering grounds; radio-telemetry studies;

translocation studies; genetic studies; contaminant studies; behavioral, ecological,

and life history studies; and placing predator exclosures around active nests. 

Short-term impacts of these activities may include harassment and possible

accidental injury or death of a limited number of individual plovers. The longterm impacts will be to benefit recovery of the species by facilitating development

of more precise scientific information on status, life history, and ecology (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 1993b) 
41

3. Disease and Predation

Predator density is a significant factor affecting the quality of snowy plover

nesting habitat (Stenzel et al. 1994). Predation can result in the loss of adults,

chicks, or eggs; separation of chicks from adults is also caused by the presence of

predators. The snowy plover generally cannot defend itself or its nests against

predation but must rely on antipredator adaptations, including (1) pale coloration

of adults, eggs, and young, which acts as camouflage against detection by

predators; (2) a skulking retreat from the nest at a predator’s approach; (3)

extreme mobility and elusiveness of precocial young; and (4) maintenance of low

nesting density (Page et al. 1983). In natural ecosystems, there is a co-evolution

of the predator-prey relationship, where prey species slowly evolve with evading

behavior as predator species slowly evolve effective prey-capturing behavior. 

However, when exotic predators are introduced into the ecosystem and thrive

there, they frequently occur in much higher densities and possess more effective

strategies than native predators and, hence, usually have a more severe effect.

Predation has been identified as a major factor limiting western snowy plover

reproductive success at many Pacific coast sites. Known predators of western

snowy plover eggs, chicks, or adults include the following native species: gray

foxes (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), Santa Rosa Island foxes (Urocyon littoralis

santarosae), coyotes (Canis latrans), striped skunks (Mephitis mephitis), spotted

skunks (Spilogale putorius), raccoons (Procyon lotor), California ground squirrels

(Citellus beecheyi), long-tailed weasels (Mustela frenata), American crows

(Corvus brachyrhynchos), common ravens (Corvus corax), ring-billed gulls

(Larus delawarensis), California gulls (Larus californicus), western gulls (Larus

occidentalis), glaucous-winged gulls (Larus glaucescens), American kestrels

(Falco sparverius), peregrine falcons (Falco peregrinus), northern harriers

(Circus cyaneus), loggerhead shrikes (Lanius ludovicianus), merlins (Falco

columbarius), great horned owls (Bubo virginianus), burrowing owls (Speotyto

cunicularia), great blue herons (Ardea herodias); and the following nonnative

species: eastern red foxes (Vulpes vulpes regalis), Norway rats (Rattus

norvegicus), Virginia opossums (Didelphis marsupialis), domestic and feral dogs

(Canis familiaris), and cats (Felis domesticus).
42

Common ravens are known predators of snowy plover clutches at many locations,

including: Coos Bay, Oregon (Wilson-Jacobs and Dorsey 1985); Salmon Creek

Beach, Sonoma County (Point Reyes Bird Observatory unpublished data); Wilder

State Beach, Santa Cruz County (George 1997); Santa Rosa Island (Stein 1993);

San Diego County (Point Reyes Bird Observatory unpublished data); San

Francisco Bay salt ponds (J. Albertson in litt. 1999); and Point Reyes National

Seashore, where they are the main cause of nest loss (Point Reyes Bird

Observatory unpubl. data). At Point Reyes, ravens took at least 34 of 60 nests in

1987, at least 38 of 60 nests in 1988, and at least 39 of 60 nests in 1989; in 1995,

before protective steps were taken, they took 7 of 18 nests (Hickey et al. 1995). 

Corvids (ravens and crows) have also been a significant problem in southern

California, with ravens taking a significant number of snowy plover eggs. In San

Diego County, at least 22 of 179 nests were taken by ravens in 1996 (Powell et al.

1996), and at least 23 of 174 nests were taken by ravens and crows in 1997

(Powell et al. 1997). In 1991, high predation rates by common ravens occurred at

the south spoil nesting area of the Coos Bay north spit, Oregon. The plovers

responded by abandoning this nesting site, and moving remaining nesting efforts

during the 1991 nesting season westward to the ocean beach (Stern et al. 1991b).

Ravens probably also prey on snowy plover chicks, but not nearly to the extent

that they do on eggs. After exclosures were used to protect plover nests from

ravens on Point Reyes National Seashore in 1996, snowy plovers experienced

high chick fledging rates relative to other coastal sites. At Waddell State Beach in

1994, a raven was observed taking a live killdeer (Charadrius vociferus) chick (D.

George pers. comm. 1998), indicating they sometimes likely also take snowy

plover chicks. 

American crows have been documented preying on snowy plover nests at

Atascadero Beach, San Luis Obispo County (Page 1990) and at Vandenberg Air

Force Base, where they took at least 43 of 411 nests in 1997 (Persons and

Applegate 1997). Crows were also one of the main predators of snowy plover

nests at Vandenberg Air Force Base in 1998, where they took 19 nests (T.

Applegate pers. comm. 1999). Crows have also been documented as predators of

snowy plover eggs at locations along the Oregon coast (M. Stern pers. comm.

1999). 
43

Gulls pose a special threat to breeding snowy plovers because they not only

depredate nests and chicks, but also usurp and trample plover nesting habitat and

crush eggs. Trampling of some nests by gulls has been frequently recorded at

Vandenberg Air Force Base (Persons and Applegate 1997) and has been the cause

of some nest loss in 13 of 16 years since 1983 at Monterey Bay (Point Reyes Bird

Observatory unpublished data). Western and glaucous-winged gulls were primary

predators of snowy plover chicks at Leadbetter Point (Widrig 1980). California

gulls have trampled snowy plover nests and eaten eggs at San Francisco Bay

locations (J. Albertson in litt. 1999). California gulls were major predators of

snowy plover nests at Mono Lake, California (Page et al. 1983).

Loggerhead shrikes prey upon snowy plover chicks, but not eggs. Shrikes took at

least 14 snowy plover chicks on a salt pan at the Pajaro River mouth in 1979

(Warriner et al. 1986). In 1996, a shrike was observed taking a chick from a

hatching nest at the Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge (Page et al. 1997). In

1997, a shrike killed two chicks in an exclosure at Wilder State Beach (George

1997). In 1986 and 1987, loggerhead shrikes were regularly observed on the

beach at the Pajaro River mouth during the chick fledging period and were

suspected of taking most chicks before they reached fledging age; however,

fledging success was also low in the same area in 1988 and could not be attributed

to shrikes, which were not seen regularly there in that year (Page 1988). A

loggerhead shrike was twice observed in one day attempting to take snowy plover

chicks at San Francisco Bay salt ponds (Feeney and Maffei 1991). On these two

occasions, however, the shrike was not successful because of persistent attacks by

the tending male parent.

American kestrels are not known predators of snowy plover eggs. They are

predators of chicks and possibly adults. A kestrel was observed capturing a 2-

week-old snowy plover chick at Wilder State Beach in August 1989, and one was

observed eating a snowy plover chick in the Moss Landing Wildlife Area on two

occasions in August 1995 (D. George pers. comm. 1998). In 1998, a kestrel was

observed hunting regularly where there were snowy plover broods in the Moss

Landing Wildlife Area. During the period the kestrel was present at the pond, 43

chicks from 17 broods scheduled to fledge from June 11 to 24, had been banded. 

Only four chicks (9.3 percent) fledged. The kestrel disappeared unexpectedly, and
44

the fledging rate of broods increased dramatically. Of 105 banded chicks from 39

broods scheduled to fledge from June 25 to August 17, 67 chicks (63.8 percent)

fledged. Later, Point Reyes Bird Observatory staff learned that a pair of kestrels

had nested in a newly-erected nesting box about 0.4 kilometer (0.25 mile) from

the brood-rearing area. Staff of Point Reyes Bird Observatory were invited to

examine the contents of the nest box when it was being cleaned out and found

bands for 12 snowy plover chicks in and below the box. The bands were from

chicks scheduled to fledge from June 12 to June 20 (Page et al. 1998).

In 1997, a merlin with an adult snowy plover in its talons was observed flying

from an exclosure at Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge. Within a period of a

few days, 13 banded adults were found missing from the area. All were suspected

of having been taken by the merlin, which was present in the area at the time. At

the time of their disappearance, 10 of the 13 adults were nesting in exclosures and

3 were not (Page et al. 1997). Merlins are also probably effective predators of

snowy plovers during the winter.

Snowy plovers are among the avian prey of the peregrine falcon (B. Walton pers.

comm. 1998). In August 1996, a peregrine falcon was observed capturing a 27-

day-old snowy plover chick from the ground at the Moss Landing Wildlife Area

(D. George pers. comm. 1998). In San Francisco Bay, a peregrine falcon was seen

taking an adult snowy plover at the Oliver North salt ponds; it was also seen at the

Baumberg salt ponds, with 10 snowy plovers calling in alarm several meters

(about 10 feet) away (Feeney and Maffei 1991).

Northern harriers are effective predators of snowy plover chicks. They may also

take some adults. In 1987, 65 to 66 chicks hatched from 30 clutches on islands in

the Salinas River. Subsequently, a harrier was observed hunting on the islands on

several occasions. Of the 65 to 66 chicks, only 20 banded ones and 3 unbanded

ones (34.8 to 35.4 percent) reached fledging age of 28 days. Of the 20 banded

chicks, 12 were never seen off the islands and are presumed to have been eaten. 

Four adults caring for the chicks also disappeared. At the end of the nesting

season, Point Reyes Bird Observatory staff visited the islands and found the eaten

remains of two young snowy plovers and at least five other shorebirds on the

ground (Point Reyes Bird Observatory unpubl. data). At the Moss Landing
45

Wildlife Area, a sharp drop in the fledging rate of snowy plover chicks was

noticed after a harrier began foraging there. Prior to the appearance of the harrier,

61 percent of the chicks from 40 clutches fledged, compared to 23 percent of the

chicks from 19 clutches subsequent to its appearance (Page et al. 1997).

In recent decades, alien eastern red foxes have become a serious new predator of

endangered and threatened animals in coastal habitats (Jurek 1992, Golightly et al.

1994, Lewis et al. 1993). Nonnative red foxes were imported and released into

the southern Sacramento Valley as early as the 1870's. The completion of the

Transcontinental Railroad in 1869 allowed people to rapidly transport fish and

wildlife from the eastern United States. The foxes might have been imported for

sport hunting (fox chasing), for farmland rodent control, or for nostalgic reasons

by the new settlers (Jurek 1992, Lewis et al. 1995). By the 1890's, red foxes in

the Sacramento Valley were becoming plentiful and were being hunted and

trapped for fur. In the 1920's, red foxes were being imported for the new

endeavor of fox farming. By the 1930's, red foxes were widespread in the

Sacramento Valley. By the 1970's, they were occurring in the Sacramento-San

Joaquin Delta, and there were early indications of red fox populations in Los

Angeles County. Although the spread of this alien species had been a gradual one

for a century, an explosive spread was apparent from the 1970's into the 1980's,

possibly from a combination of welfare relocations by landowners, animal welfare

groups, and animal control entities; releases of unwanted captives or pets; and

increasing red fox habitat offered by urbanization (Lewis et al. 1993). The fox

apparently now occurs throughout a significant portion of coastal California,

including Marin, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa

Barbara, Ventura, Orange, and Los Angeles Counties (California Department of

Fish and Game 1994). It also occurs at Monterey Bay (G. Page in litt. 1988) and

San Francisco Bay (Harding et al. 1998), including the additional San Francisco

Bay area counties of Napa, Solano, Contra Costa, Alameda, and Santa Clara

(California Department of Fish and Game 1994).

Red foxes have been identified as a significant predator of snowy plover clutches

in the Monterey Bay area, where they are also suspected of preying on adults and

chicks. On Monterey Bay beaches, clutch hatching rates of snowy plovers

declined steadily from 63 percent in 1984 to 33 percent in 1990 as red foxes
46

became a primary cause of clutch loss. Clutch losses attributed to red foxes rose

from 4 in 1984, to 12 in 1985, to 34 in 1986. From 1986 to 1991, annual losses

attributed to red foxes ranged from 22 to 57 clutches and represented 30 to 55

percent of all clutch losses. Since exclosures came into use to protect nests

around Monterey Bay in 1992, losses to red foxes have ranged from zero to seven

annually, and clutch hatching rates have climbed from 59 to 72 percent annually

(Point Reyes Bird Observatory unpubl. data).

Coyotes are known predators of snowy plover clutches in the Pismo Beach/Santa

Maria River area of San Luis Obispo County (T. Applegate pers. comm. 1996). 

They are the main nest predator of eggs on Vandenberg Air Force Base where

they were the cause of 62 percent of all clutch losses attributed to predators from

1994 to 1997 (Persons and Applegate 1997). At Vandenberg Air Force Base,

coyotes may be attracted to marine mammal carcasses on the beach early in the

plover nesting season (Page and Persons 1995). Coyotes have also been identified

as predators of plover nests at Mono Lake, California (Page et al. 1983).

Striped skunks have been recorded as predators of snowy plover clutches at Point

Reyes National Seashore (Hickey et al. 1995), pocket beaches in northern Santa

Cruz County (George 1997), Monterey Bay (Page et al. 1997), Morro Bay

(Hutchinson et al. 1987), Santa Rosa Island (Stein 1993), and Coos Bay North

Spit (Stern et al. 1991b). Skunks were believed to be the main cause of nest loss

on Morro Bay Spit in 1987, the only year that the reproductive success of snowy

plovers has been monitored at that location (Hutchinson et al. 1987). In the

Monterey Bay area, small skunks occasionally squeeze through the fencing of

exclosures and eat the plover’s eggs (G. Page pers. comm. 1998).

Domestic and feral cats are widespread predators. The threat of predation of

snowy plovers by cats increases when housing is constructed near snowy plover

breeding habitat. As natural-appearing beaches continue to be surrounded by

urban areas, snowy plovers will increasingly be subjected to this predator in the

future. Cats are also one of the most common predators seen at California least

tern nesting sites every year (R. Jurek pers. comm. 1999). At Venice Beach in

southern California, cats are a constant threat to California least terns, which are

found in habitat similar to that used by snowy plovers. This California least tern
47

colony had to be fenced to protect the terns from predators, including cats. When

cats attempted to get over the fence, the fence had to be modified to further

discourage entry by cats. Predation by cats is a major threat to snowy plovers;

however, it is difficult to measure because of the difficulty in finding evidence of

bird remains. Cats are known to take snowy plover adults and eggs. An adult

snowy plover, found dead in 1994, was caught by a domestic cat at Buena Vista

Lagoon, located between the mouth of the Santa Margarita River and Aqua

Hedionda Lagoon (B. Farner pers. comm. in Powell and Collier 1994). During

1986, at the north spit of the Salinas River, two snowy plover clutches were lost to

domestic cats (Page 1988).

Predation, while predominantly a natural phenomenon, is exacerbated through the

introduction of nonnative predators and unintentional human encouragement of

larger populations of native predators. Elevated predation pressures result from

landscape-level alterations in coastal dune habitats which, in turn, now support

increased predator populations within the immediate vicinity of nesting habitat for

snowy plovers. Urbanization benefits red fox population growth by eliminating

coyotes, which are the red fox’s most serious native predator and competitor; by

providing ready sources of food, water and denning sites; and by aiding dispersion

of foxes into new areas. Red foxes disperse readily in urban areas because there

are no serious predators besides the dog. Red foxes traverse most urban habitats,

and readily cross busy highways and travel long distances underground through

culverts (Lewis et al.1993). Other predators, such as corvids, attracted by the

presence of human activities (e.g., improper disposal of trash), may frequent

beaches in increasing numbers. Gulls have greatly expanded their range and

numbers, especially along the United States portion of the Pacific coast, as a result

of human-supplied food sources (trash, fish offal, and dumps). Thousands of

California gulls now breed in the southern part of San Francisco Bay, where only

a few were present in the early 1980's (J. Albertson in litt. 1999). This population

growth is attributed largely to the increase in landfills along the Bay within the

last 20 years. Also, crows and ravens forage at landfills. Buick and Paton (1989)

found that losses of hooded plover (Charadrius rubricollis) nests with human

footprints around them were higher than at those without footprints, suggesting

“that scavenging predators may use human footprints as a visual cue in locating

food.” Beach litter and garbage also attract predators such as skunks and coyotes. 
48

Continued settlement of coastal areas by humans has generally supported

increased populations of predators. Unnatural habitat features such as landscaped

vegetation (e.g., palm trees), telephone poles, fences, buildings, and landfills near

snowy plover nesting areas attract predators and provide them with breeding sites.

 These alterations all combine to make the coastal environment more conducive to

various native and nonnative predators that adversely affect snowy plovers. 

Substantial evidence exists that human activities are affecting numbers and

activity patterns of predators on snowy plovers. For example, increased

depredation of snowy plover nests by ravens at the Oliver Brothers salt pond,

California, may be an indirect adverse impact of nearby installation of light

structures by the California Department of Transportation and high-tension power

lines by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company, thereby creating corvid nesting

sites (G. Page pers. comm. 1997). On the Oregon coast, predation risk by

mammals has increased as a result of the spread of European beachgrass, Scotch

broom, and shore pine, which has transformed vast areas of open sand into dense

grass-shrub habitat, providing excellent habitat for native and nonnative

mammalian predators, such as skunks, raccoons, foxes, and feral cats (Stern et al.

1991b). At Vandenberg Air Force Base, coyote predation can be exacerbated by

human presence when trash or debris is left behind (N. Read in litt. 1998). Also,

widespread urbanization has depleted native predator habitat, bringing increased

predatory pressure into the few undeveloped areas that are left, including habitat

for snowy plovers and other sensitive species. 

Widespread urbanization has depleted native predator habitat, bringing increased

predation pressure into the few undeveloped areas that are left, including habitat

for the snowy plover and other sensitive species. In heavily-developed areas in

particular, habitat protected for sensitive species may be a “magnet” to native

predators that have lost foraging habitat elsewhere. Continuing to remove

predators from these areas effectively creates a “sink,” such that the need for

ongoing predator removal never ends and negative ecological consequences occur

over large areas beyond the boundaries of snowy plover nesting areas. Most

predators having the greatest impacts on snowy plovers (e.g., coyotes, American

kestrels) are territorial; if they, as individuals, can be deterred from preying on
49

snowy plovers, their eggs, and chicks, they may prove beneficial in excluding

other conspecifics from plover nesting areas.

Signing and fencing of restricted areas on the beach may provide perches for avian

predators of snowy plover adults or chicks. In 1995, corvids were known

predators of plovers at the Siltcoos River area in Oregon, and there was evidence

they used restrictive signs as perches (Hallett et al. 1995). Although signs and

fences are important conservation tools in many areas, land managers need to be

aware that modifications to them may be necessary to deter predators in some

circumstances.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services Branch, has been involved

in predator damage management for protection of threatened and endangered

species for over 10 years in California. The management of nonnative red foxes

has become a controversial issue in many areas of California, particularly in

coastal habitats near urban areas (California Department of Fish and Game 1994). 

In November 1998, California voters approved Proposition 4, which banned the

use of leghold traps in California. In February 1999, the U.S. District Court

issued a Preliminary Declaratory Relief Order, which allows the use of padded

leghold traps on Federal and non-Federal lands for the purpose of protecting

threatened or endangered species. Trapping of nonnative and native predators of

snowy plovers will therefore not be affected by Proposition 4 (J. Albertson in litt.

1999).

4. The Inadequacy of Existing Regulatory Mechanisms

The western snowy plover is protected by the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act

(16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.) and by State law as a nongame species. The plover's

breeding habitat, however, receives only limited protection from these laws (e.g.,

the Migratory Bird Treaty Act prohibition against taking "nests.") Listing of the

snowy plover under State endangered species laws generally provides some

protection against direct take of birds, and may require State agencies to consult

on their actions, but may not adequately protect habitat. State regulations,

policies, and goals include mandates both for protection of beach and dune habitat

and for public recreational uses of coastal areas; consequently they may conflict
50

with protection of snowy plovers in some cases. Section 404 of the Clean Water

Act and section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act are the primary Federal laws

that could provide some protection of nesting and wintering habitat of the western

snowy plover that is determined by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to

be wetlands or historic navigable waters of the United States. These laws,

however, would apply to only a small fraction of the nesting and wintering areas

of the western snowy plover on the Pacific coast. Aside from the Migratory Bird

Treaty Act, snowy plovers have no protection status in Mexico. 

To effectively recover the snowy plover, it is necessary to develop participation

plans among cooperating agencies, landowners, and conservation organizations to

assure protection and appropriate management of breeding, wintering, and

migration areas. Since listing of the snowy plover in 1993, several local working

groups have been developed and local governments and State and Federal

agencies have cooperated extensively to implement a wide variety of snowy

plover conservation actions. These partners continue to work to implement

appropriate management of coastal areas for recovery of the snowy plover. These

conservation efforts and the environmental policies of State and Federal agencies

are described in greater detail in the Conservation Efforts section, below.

5. Other Natural or Manmade Factors Affecting Their Continued Existence

a. Natural Events

Snowy plover breeding and wintering habitat is subject to constant change from

weather conditions. Stenzel et al. (1994) reported that the quality and extent of

snowy plover nesting habitat is variable in both the short- and long-term. Coastal

beaches increase in width and elevation during the summer through sand

deposition, making marginal beaches more suitable for nesting later in the season. 

Over the longer term, an increase or decrease in habitat quality may occur after

several years of winter storms. Based on the amount of flooding, the availability

of dry flats at the edges of coastal ponds, lagoons, and man-made salt evaporators

also varies within and between seasons. Therefore, the number of snowy plovers

breeding in some areas may change annually or even over one breeding season in

response to natural alterations in habitat availability (Stenzel et al. 1981).
51

Because most snowy plover nesting areas occur on unstable sandy substrates, nest

losses caused by weather-related natural phenomena commonly occur. High tides

and strong winds cause many nest losses. Events such as extreme high tides

(Wilson 1980, Stenzel et al. 1981), river flooding (Stenzel et al. 1981), and heavy

rain (Wilson 1980, Warriner et al. 1986, Page 1988) have been reported to destroy

or wash away nests. The annual percentage of total nest losses attributed to

weather-related phenomenon has reached 15 to 38 percent at some locations

(Wilson 1980, Warriner et al. 1986, Page 1988). 

Stormy winters can adversely affect the snowy plover. It is suspected that the

severe storms occurring during the El Niño atmospheric and oceanic phenomenon

of 1997/1998 winter caused a 10 to 30 percent decline in the 1998 snowy plover

breeding population, depending on the coastal region. In all monitored recovery

units, the number of breeding birds in 1998 was lower than in the 1997 nesting

season. Additionally, a very wet spring resulted in a later than normal breeding

initiation and fewer nesting attempts. 

The snowy plover population naturally varies, both spatially and temporally,

because of natural changes in weather and habitat conditions from year to year. 

However, human influences over the past century (e.g., habitat destruction,

invasion of introduced beachgrass, and elevated predation levels) have reduced

the plover’s ability to respond to these natural perturbations. 

b. Disturbance of Breeding Plovers by Humans and Domestic Animals

The increasing level of human recreation was cited as a major threat to the

breeding success of the Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993a). Also, human settlement and actions

within coastal areas are affecting the numbers and activity patterns of predators of

snowy plovers, to the detriment of the plovers. The coastal zone of the United

States is home to over one-third of the U.S. human population, and that proportion

is increasing (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a). The coastal zone includes

both open coastal areas and inland portions of coastal watersheds. The southern

California coastal area, which constitutes the central portion of the snowy plover’s

coastal breeding range, attracts large crowds on a regular basis (see Figure 6). 
52

Figure 6. Recreationists at Salt Creek Beach, California (photo by Ruth

Pratt, with permission). 

 i. Pedestrians

Pedestrians (e.g., beach walkers and joggers) can cause both direct mortality and

harassment of snowy plovers. Pedestrians on beaches may crush eggs or chicks

and chase snowy plovers off their nests. Separation of plover adults from their

nests and broods can cause mortality through exposure of vulnerable eggs or

chicks to heat, cold, blowing sand, and/or predators. Pedestrians have been

known to inadvertently step on eggs and chicks, deliberately take eggs from nests,

and remove chicks from beaches, erroneously thinking they have been abandoned. 

People may also cause broods of snowy plovers to run away from favored feeding

areas. Trash left on the beach by pedestrians also attracts predators. In addition to

public pedestrians, military personnel using the beach for maneuvers, launches,

and landings can also cause many of these adverse impacts to snowy plovers.

Beach-related recreational activities that are concentrated in one location (e.g.,

sunbathing, picnicking, sandcastle building, and birding/photography) can

negatively affect incubating adult snowy plovers when these activities occur too

close to their nests. Recreational activities that occur in the wet sand area (e.g.,

sand sailing) can adversely affect snowy plovers when they disturb plover adults
53

or broods, which feed at the edge of the surf. Recreational activities that occur in

or over deep water may not directly affect snowy plovers; however, they can

potentially be detrimental to plovers when recreationists use the beach to take a

break from these activities, or as access, exit, or landing points. These

recreational activities could include the beach- and water-oriented activities of

surfing, kayaking, wind surfing, jet skiing, and boating, and the coastal-related

recreational activity of hang gliding. 

Concentrations of people may deter snowy plovers and other shorebirds from

using otherwise suitable habitats. Anthony (1985) found that intensive human

activity at Damon Point had a “bracketing effect” on the distribution of nesting

snowy plovers, confining their breeding activity to a section of the spit and

precluding their regular use of otherwise suitable habitat. Fox (1990) also found

that snowy plovers avoided humans at Damon Point, and the presence of

fishermen and beachcombers kept them hundreds of yards away from potential

habitat. Because early-nesting snowy plovers have narrower beaches from which

to select nest locations, recreational use may be more concentrated in the limited

habitat available. Also, repeated intrusions by people into snowy plover nesting

areas may also cause birds to move into marginal habitats where their chances of

reproductive success are reduced. Studies of the Atlantic coast population of the

piping plover (Charadrius melodus), an East coast species with habitat

requirements very similar to the snowy plover, indicate that some piping plovers

that nest early in the season are forced to move elsewhere when human use

becomes too intense (Cairns and McLaren 1980). These authors concluded that

piping plovers that nest early before beaches become heavily used for recreation,

“cannot predict and avoid reproductive failure in habitats that otherwise appear

suitable to them.” Burger (1993) observed that piping plovers, in response to

human disturbance, spent more energy on vigilance and avoidance behavior at the

expense of foraging activity, and sometimes abandoned preferred foraging habitat.

Page et al. (1977) observed snowy plovers’ response to human disturbance at two

coastal beaches where normal beach use ranged from light to heavy. The study

included 156 hours of observation at 15 snowy plover nests. At Point Reyes, they

found that pedestrians disrupt incubation of nests. When humans approached

snowy plovers, adults left their nests 78 percent of the time when people were
54

within 1 to 50 meters (3 to 164 feet); 65 percent of the time when people came

within 50 to 100 meters (164 to 328 feet); and 34 percent of the time when people

were within 100 to 250 meters (328 to 820 feet). They also found that plovers’

reaction to disturbance by humans varied, ranging from one bird remaining off the

nest for less than 1 minute when a person walked within 1 meter (3 feet) of the

nest on a heavily-used beach to another plover leaving the nest when three people

were 200 meters (656 feet) away on a less-used beach. They noted that “birds

exposed to prolonged human activity near the nest seemed to become accustomed

to it.” It has been speculated that predators of plovers may benefit from a decline

in wariness by plovers nesting on beaches that are subject to ongoing high levels

of human disturbance (Persons and Applegate 1997).

Fahy and Woodhouse (1995) quantified the levels of recreational disturbance,

their effect on snowy plovers, and the effectiveness of the Linear Restriction

Program at Ocean Beach, Vandenberg Air Force Base. Randomized observations

of four study plots covered 71 days, with the majority lasting 90 minutes. Overall

plover responses to activities occurring within and outside the restriction area

were recorded. The disturbance types that caused incubating snowy plovers to

flush from their nests most frequently were joggers and walkers, followed by

joggers or walkers with dogs off leash, and stationary visitors. The disturbance

types that kept incubating snowy plovers off their nests for the longest period of

time were stationary visitors and surf fishermen, probably because of the duration

of these stationary disturbances that occurred close to nests. 

Signs warn visitors not to cross the Linear Restriction Boundary into dune habitat

used by plovers. Seventy percent of all disturbances were in compliance and 30

percent in noncompliance with this restriction. The disturbance types that were

most and least frequently in compliance with the boundary were joggers or

walkers and stationary visitors, respectively. All-terrain vehicles caused the most

significant alert and flight behaviors by plovers, even though they were in

compliance with the Linear Restriction. The authors of this study also predicted

that “the closer the disturbance occurs to the plover, the more severe the plover

response.” Plover responses to disturbance types ranged from approximately 1

meter (3 feet) for flight responses to 130 meters (426 feet) for alert responses. 

Weekends accounted for 60 percent of all disturbances. The effectiveness of
55

enforcement personnel was limited; their presence was documented during only

14 percent of all identified disturbances. 

At the Pajaro River mouth in California, at least 26 of 189 snowy plover clutches,

representing 14 percent of the observed clutches, were destroyed by being driven

over, stepped on, or deliberately taken by people (Warriner et al. 1986). Since

exclosures have been used to protect nests at the Pajaro River mouth and other

locations at Monterey Bay, a few nests have still been deliberately destroyed by

vandals in most years (Point Reyes Bird Observatory unpublished data). At South

Beach, Oregon, the number of snowy plovers declined from 25 in 1969 to 5 in

1979 to 0 by 1981 when a new park was constructed next to the beach and the

adjacent habitat became more accessible to vehicles and people (Hoffman 1972 in

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1994). At Vandenberg Air Force Base,

snowy plover monitoring during 1993 at South Beach (where recreational use was

high) and North Beach (where recreational use was low) found the rate of nest

loss caused by humans differed markedly: 24.3 percent of South Beach nests

were lost compared to only 3.0 percent of North Beach nests (Persons 1994). 

Persons and Applegate (1997) reported that “rates of reproductive success,

combined for 1994 through 1997, were substantially higher on North Beach than

on South Beach.” This difference occurred despite the fact that nesting habitat

was posted as off-limits in 1994.

Loss of snowy plover chicks also may occur because of human activities. The

number of young produced per nesting attempt increased from 0.75 in disturbed

habitat to 2.0 for nests free of disturbance at Willapa National Wildlife Refuge,

Washington (Saul 1982). At Vandenberg Air Force Base, the 1997 fledging

success of snowy plovers was 33 to 34 percent on North Beach where recreational

activity is restricted and only 12 percent on South Beach where recreational use is

high (Persons and Applegate 1997). 

Hoopes et al. (1992) quantified human use and disturbance to piping plovers in

Massachusetts during the 1988 and 1989 nesting seasons. They found pedestrians

caused piping plovers to flush or move at an average distance of 23 meters (75

feet). Pedestrians within 50 meters (164 feet) of the birds caused piping plovers

to stop feeding 31 percent of the time. 
56

Flemming et al. (1988) measured the effects of human disturbance on

reproductive success and behavior of piping plovers in Nova Scotia. To assess

human disturbance, they recorded positions of people, pedestrian tracks, and

vehicle tracks, then defined classes based on visits per week. They found

significantly fewer young survived in areas of high versus low disturbance;

humans elicited a significantly higher response level from adult piping plovers

than did predators or nonpredatory species; chicks fed less and were brooded less

when humans were within 160 meters (525 feet); and chick peck rate during

feeding was lower when humans were present. They speculated that because

chicks shifted from feeding and energy conservation activities to vigilance and

cryptic predator avoidance behaviors, their energy reserves would be depleted,

making them more susceptible to predators and inclement weather. They

postulated that a decline in piping plover abundance in Nova Scotia could be

caused by human disturbance altering chick behavior. Fewer chicks survived to

17 days in areas heavily disturbed by humans.

Schulz and Stock (1993) studied the effects of tourism on colonization,

distribution, and hatching success of Kentish plovers (Charadrius alexandrinus

alexandrinus), a Eurasian subspecies of the snowy plover, at the Wadden Sea in

Germany. They measured disturbance intensity by counting and mapping tourists

on 50 days from April to July, during times of peak human activity (1500 to 1600

hours) and in intervals of 30 minutes throughout other days. An index of personhours per area per day was calculated. They found that Kentish plovers did not

colonize heavily-disturbed areas and that resting and sunbathing people were

apparently more disruptive than walking people because the latter generally

followed the high-tide line. Clutch losses were lowest in areas with little

disturbance and highest in areas with heavy disturbance. They indicated that

hatching success in highly disturbed areas, even with optimal habitat, is as low as

in poor habitat with a low level of disturbance.

 ii. Dogs 

Dogs on beaches can pose a serious threat to snowy plovers during both the

breeding and nonbreeding seasons. Unleashed pets, primarily dogs, sometimes

chase snowy plovers and destroy nests. Repeated disturbances by dogs can
57

interrupt brooding, incubating, and foraging behavior of adult plovers and cause

chicks to become separated from their parents. Pet owners frequently allow their

dogs to run off-leash even on beaches where it is clearly signed that dogs are not

permitted or are only permitted if on a leash. Enforcement of pet regulations on

beaches by the managing agencies is often lax or nonexistent.

A number of examples of disruptive ways that dogs affect snowy plovers have

been noted at beaches in Monterey County (Marina State Beach), Santa Cruz

County (Laguna, Scott Creek, and Seabright Beaches) and San Mateo County

(Half Moon Bay and Pacifica Beaches) (D. George pers. comm. 1997). 

Incubating birds have been flushed from nests by dogs, including nests located

inside areas protected by symbolic fencing. Dogs have also displaced adults from

nests with newly-hatched chicks. Roosting and feeding flocks, as well as

individual birds, have been deliberately and persistently pursued by dogs. At

Laguna Creek Beach, California, a three-egg snowy plover nest was trampled and

destroyed by a dog in 1990 (D. George pers. comm. 1997). At Zmudowski State

Beach, a dog stepped on and destroyed two of three eggs in one nest in 1998

(Point Reyes Bird Observatory unpublished data). Also in 1998, two of three eggs

in a nest at Salinas River State Beach were destroyed by dogs (Gary Page pers.

comm. 1998). The latter two instances occurred in areas protected by symbolic

fencing. Feral dogs are suspected to have disturbed snowy plover nests and chicks

on San Francisco Bay salt ponds in 1998 (J. Albertson in litt. 1999).

Even when not deliberately chasing birds, dogs on a beach may disturb snowy

plovers and other shorebirds that are roosting or feeding. Page et al. (1977) found

that snowy plovers flushed more frequently and remained off their nests longer

when a person was accompanied by a dog than when alone. They collected data

during 156 hours of observation at 15 nests at Point Reyes, California, and found

the following distances at which snowy plovers flushed from their nests as a result

of disturbance by people versus people with dogs. At 1 to 50 meters (3 to 164

feet), people alone caused flushing 78 percent of the time, while people with dogs

caused flushing 100 percent of the time. At a distance of 50 to 100 meters (164 to

328 feet), people alone caused flushing 57 percent of the time, while people with

dogs caused flushing 65 percent of the time. At a distance of 100 to 250 meters

(328 to 820 feet), people alone caused flushing 34 percent of the time, while
58

people with dogs caused flushing 52 percent of the time (Page et al. 1977). Fahy

and Woodhouse (1995) found that joggers or walkers with off-leash dogs caused a

significantly greater number of avoidance responses from snowy plovers than 

other types of disturbances at Ocean Beach, Vandenberg Air Force Base,

California. 

At wintering sites such as Ocean Beach in San Francisco, California, off-leash

dogs have caused frequent disturbance and flushing of snowy plovers and other

shorebirds. Off-leash dogs chase wintering snowy plovers at this beach and have

been observed to regularly disturb and harass birds (P. Baye pers. comm. 1997). 

Observations by National Park Service volunteers suggest that unleashed pets

represent the most significant recreational threat to wintering snowy plovers and

migratory shorebirds at Ocean Beach, because of the prolonged and repeated

disturbance created when they chase birds (Hatch 1997). In 1995 and 1996,

during 45 hour-long observations of wintering flocks of snowy plovers at Ocean

Beach, people approaching within 15 meters (50 feet) of snowy plovers caused the

plovers to run, walk, or fly in 56 percent of 185 instances. By comparison,

plovers responded by moving in 73 percent of 74 instances when dogs with or

without people approached to within 15 meters (50 feet) (Golden Gate National

Recreation Area unpublished data). When shorebirds are flushed, they must spend

more energy on vigilance and avoidance behaviors at the expense of foraging and

resting activity (Burger 1993, Hatch 1997). Disruption of foraging and roosting

may result in decreased accumulation of energy reserves necessary for shorebirds

to complete the migration cycle and successfully breed (Burger 1986, Pfister et al.

1992). Dog disturbance at wintering and staging sites, therefore, may adversely

affect individual survivorship and fecundity, thereby affecting the species at the

population level. 

On the East coast of the United States, dogs are also known to chase piping

plovers as well as kill chicks. During a study conducted on Cape Cod, Hoopes et

al. (1992) found that the average distance at which piping plovers were disturbed

by pets was 46 meters (151 feet), compared to 23 meters (75 feet) for pedestrians. 

Furthermore, the birds reacted to the pets by moving an average of 57 meters (187

feet), compared to 25 meters (82 feet) when the birds were reacting to a

pedestrian. The duration of the disturbance behavior stimulated by pets (53
59

seconds) was also significantly greater than that caused by pedestrians (29

seconds). Pets within 50 meters (164 feet) of the birds caused piping plovers to

stop feeding 52 percent of the time (Hoopes et al. 1992). In 1994, a dog that was

removed from its leash after passing piping plover chicks within an area marked

by symbolic fencing swiftly returned to the fenced area and killed a plover chick

(Melvin in litt. 1997).

 iii. Motorized Vehicles

Unrestricted use of motorized vehicles on beaches is a threat to snowy plovers and

their habitat. Motorized vehicles may affect remote stretches of beach where

human disturbance would be slight if access were limited to pedestrians. The

magnitude of this threat is variable, depending on level of use and type of terrain

covered. Use of motor vehicles on coastal dunes may also be destructive to dune

vegetation, especially sensitive dune plant species.

Driving vehicles in breeding habitat may cause destruction of eggs, chicks, and

adults, abandonment of nests, and considerable stress and harassment to plover

family groups. In California and Oregon, vehicle tracks have been found near

nests at a number of beaches and there have been some instances of vehicles

crushing nests, chicks, and adults. In the Monterey Bay area, two male snowy

plovers were run over while incubating eggs (G. Page pers. comm. 1997, J. P.

Myers in litt. 1988). At McGrath State Beach (Mandalay Bay/Santa Clara River

mouth), two snowy plover chicks were found to have been crushed by vehicles

(J.B. Price in litt. 1992). In addition to recreational vehicles, vehicles used for

military activities have also incurred snowy plover mortality. Eggs at Coronado

Naval Amphibious Base were run over by a vehicle, and another nest was

destroyed by an air-cushioned landing craft at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps

Base (Powell et al. 1995, 1997). A snowy plover chick may have died of

exhaustion at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base after trying to escape

disturbance by climbing over deep ruts left by amphibious tracked vehicles

(Powell et al. 1997). At Vandenberg Air Force Base, two snowy plovers (one

adult and one chick) were killed when run over by a security vehicle (Persons

1994). Off-road vehicles at Coos Bay North Spit, Oregon, ran over one clutch 

and scattered broods from other nests (Stern et al. 1990b). Although vehicle
60

traffic was prohibited on the beach west of Floras Lake, Oregon, all-terrain

vehicle tracks were observed only 15 centimeters (6 inches) away from

unprotected nests with eggs on two occasions during the 1993 breeding season;

regular violations of the closure to vehicle traffic at the Tenmile estuary were also

noted (Casler et al. 1993). In Washington, vehicle tracks have been noted in

nesting areas at Leadbetter Point and Midway Beach (S. Richardson pers. comm.

1998). Widrig (1980) reported that, in 1978, human disturbance at Willapa

National Wildlife Refuge, Leadbetter Point, was heavy at times, primarily from

motorcycles and four-wheel drive vehicles. The nesting area was closed during

the 1979 nesting season. The number of young fledged per nesting pair increased

from 0.3 in 1978 to 1.2 in 1979. 

Driving motor vehicles at night seems to be particularly hazardous to snowy

plovers. Drivers of all-terrain vehicles at night have run over and killed snowy

plover adults at Vandenberg Air Force Base, and State park ranger patrol vehicles

have crushed snowy plover chicks at Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation

Area during night patrols (R. Mesta in litt. 1998).

Snowy plover adults and chicks have been observed using tire tracks and human

footprints for loafing at Camp Pendleton and the Naval Air Base at Coronado

(Powell and Collier 1994). This behavior increases their chances of being run

over. Snowy plover chicks also may have difficulty getting out of tire ruts,

thereby increasing their likelihood of being run over. Their cryptic coloring and

habit of crouching in depressions like tire tracks makes snowy plover chicks

especially vulnerable to vehicular traffic. In Massachusetts, between 1989 and

1997, a total of 25 piping plover chicks and 2 adults were found dead in off-road

vehicle tire ruts on the upper beach between the mean high tide line and the

foredune (U.S. District Court of Massachusetts 1998).

Buick and Paton (1989) assessed the impact of off-road vehicles on nest

attentiveness and nesting success of hooded plovers (Charadrius rubricollis), a

similar plover species in south Australia. They patrolled 71 kilometers (44 miles)

of beach using four-wheel-drive vehicles or motorbikes every 3 to 4 or 8 to 10

days (depending on the beach) and recorded hooded plover numbers and odometer

readings. Density of vehicle tracks was determined from positions and widths of
61

tracks on random transects, primarily “to estimate the proportion of the beach that

had been run over at least once.” Based on the density of vehicle tracks observed,

they found an 81 percent probability that hooded plover nests would be run over

during incubation. 

Hoopes et al. (1992) found off-road vehicles caused piping plovers to flush or

move at an average distance of 40 meters (131 feet). Off-road vehicles within 50

meters (164 feet) of the birds caused piping plovers to stop feeding 77 percent of

the time. While most responses by piping plovers to off-road vehicles resulted in

movement by the birds, they observed three instances where the plovers “froze” in

response to the off-road vehicles. Both types of responses have a negative impact

on plovers through either disturbance, interruption of feeding behavior, or

increasing the risk that piping plovers will be hit or crushed by vehicles.

Flemming et al. (1988) found that adult piping plover behavior in Nova Scotia

was not appreciably altered by vehicles. However, the primary focus of their

study was the effects of pedestrian disturbance on reproductive success and

behavior of piping plovers.

At wintering sites, disturbance from motorized vehicles may harass snowy plovers

and disrupt their foraging and roosting activities, thereby decreasing energy

reserves needed for migration and reproduction. When motorcycles, most of

which were in the wet sand zone, were driven at high speed along Ocean Beach in

San Francisco, Hatch (1997) observed that snowy plovers and other shorebirds

were continually disturbed and often took flight. 

 iv. Beach Cleaning

Removal of human-created trash on the beach is desirable to reduce predation

threats by eliminating food for predators of snowy plovers; however, the

indiscriminate nature of mechanized beach-cleaning adversely affects snowy

plovers and their habitat. Mechanized beach cleaning can be dangerous to plovers

by crushing their clutches and chicks or causing prolonged disturbance from the

machine’s noise. Also, this method of beach cleaning removes the birds’ natural

wrackline (area of beach containing seaweed and other natural wave-cast organic
62

debris) feeding habitat, reducing the availability of food. Kelp and driftwood,

with their associated invertebrates, are regularly removed and the upper layer of

sand is disturbed. Beach grooming also alters beach topography, removes objects

associated with snowy plover nesting, and prevents the establishment of native

beach vegetation (J. Watkins in litt. 1999). In all of Los Angeles County and parts

of Ventura, Santa Barbara, and Orange Counties, California, entire beaches are

raked on a daily to weekly basis. Large rakes, with tines 5 to 15 centimeters (2 to

6 inches) apart, are dragged behind motorized vehicles from the waterline to

pavement or to the low retaining wall bordering the beaches (Stenzel et al. 1981). 

Even if human activity was low on these beaches, grooming activities completely

preclude the possibility of successful snowy plover nesting (Powell 1996).

 v. Equestrian Traffic

Horseback riders on the beach sometimes enter coastal dunes or upper beach areas

(see Figure 7), where they may crush clutches or disturb plovers. The following

clutch losses in Monterey Bay were attributed to trampling by horses: one each in

1984, 1987, 1989, and 1991; two in 1986; and three in 1993 (Point Reyes Bird

Observatory unpublished data). Equestrians were suspected of being the cause of

no nesting at Wilder Beach in 1988 (Page 1988). During the 1994 breeding

season, frequent noncompliance by equestrians was observed within the linear

closure area of snowy plover nesting habitat at Vandenberg Air Force Base

(Persons 1995). During Memorial Day weekend at Baker Beach, Oregon,

Woolington (1985) observed that most of the horseback riders stayed on the hardpacked sand near the edge of the surf; however, she observed three riders who

rode through snowy plover nesting habitat within the dune hollows. At New

River, Oregon, Craig et al. (1992) observed a snowy plover nest that was almost

destroyed by a pair of horseback riders before the plover surveyors had time to

construct an exclosure around the nest. Unleashed dogs have also been associated

with equestrians.
63

Figure 7. Equestrians on beach (photo by U.S. Forest Service, with

permission). 

 vi. Fishing

Impacts on snowy plover nesting may be associated with surf fishing and shellfish

harvesting in and near plover habitat. The improper disposal of offal (waste parts

of a butchered animals, e.g. fish), bait, and other litter attracts crows, ravens, and

gulls, which are predators of plover eggs and chicks. Also, plovers may become

entangled in discarded fishing lines (G. Page pers. comm. 1998). Persons and

Applegate (1997) noted that flocks of gulls were often seen near parties of surf

fishermen at Surf Beach, Vandenberg Air Force Base. Gull tracks were traced to

trash discarded by anglers and other recreationists. They suspected that many of

the snowy plover nests destroyed by gulls during 1997 were discovered while the

gulls were scavenging. Fahy and Woodhouse (1995) found that stationary visitors

and surf fishermen kept incubating snowy plovers off their nests longer than other

types of disturbance at Ocean Beach, Vandenberg Air Force Base, probably

because of the longer duration of these stationary disturbances. They also found

that stationary visitors and surf fishermen were more frequently in noncompliance

with the Linear Restriction than people engaged in other recreational activities. 

Anglers and other recreationists use dunes as toilets, attracting scavengers into

nesting areas at Vandenberg Air Force Base even though the dunes are signed as

closed to the public (R. Mesta in litt. 1998).
64

Surf fishing is a commercial enterprise in many coastal locations, including the

ocean smelt fishery in northern California (C. Moulton in litt. 1997). Recreational

surf fishing occurs throughout the California coast. In Humboldt County,

California, Redwood National and State Parks have proposed allowing beach

vehicle use, by annual permit, for commercial fishing and tribal fishing/gathering

on Gold Bluffs Beach, Freshwater Spit, and Crescent Beach (J. Watkins in litt.

1999). In the State of Washington, the most popular season for surf fishing is

April through July (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1995). At

present, demand for surf perch fishing is relatively low in Oregon. However, the

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife is promoting a surf perch fishery to

lessen the demand for anadromous fishing. This fishery would increase vehicle

driving to remote and relatively undisturbed sites used by snowy plovers (K.

Palermo in litt. 1998a).

Because the earliest snowy plover clutches in Washington are laid between midApril and mid-May, harvesting of razor clams during the mid-March to mid-May

clamming season may have adverse impacts on prospecting or nesting snowy

plovers. Clammers near nesting areas may disturb adults and chicks; human

activity in feeding areas may restrict plover foraging activity, and increased

motorized traffic may increase the risk of nest and chick loss (Washington

Department of Fish and Wildlife 1995). However, observations of snowy plover

and human activities during the spring 1995 razor clam season showed clamming

had no visible impact on plovers where clamming intensity was low (Kloempken

and Richardson 1995). Instances of trespassing into the snowy plover protection

area were noted; however, movement of the snowy plover protection area

boundary about 327 meters (1,073 feet) west of its previous location seemed to

benefit the birds by providing more space between them and pedestrian and

vehicular disturbances.

 vii. Fireworks

Fireworks are highly disturbing to snowy plovers. At Del Monte Beach,

California, a snowy plover chick hatched on July 4, 1996, within an area

demarcated by symbolic fencing and was abandoned by its parents after a

fireworks display. Disturbance from the noise of the pyrotechnics is exacerbated
65

by disturbance caused by large crowds attracted to fireworks events. California

Department of Parks and Recreation staff estimated that 6,000 people visited Del

Monte Beach on that day. Because of the extensive disturbance, the adult plovers

left the nest site with two chicks, abandoned the third chick, and were not seen

again (K. Neumann pers. comm. 1997). During July 4, 1992, observations of

piping plovers that nest on the Breezy Point Cooperative and adjacent beaches of

Gateway National Recreation Area in Queens, New York, the birds were

disturbed by fireworks displays (Howard et al. 1993). Management

recommendations for this area included prohibition of fireworks in or near the

fenced and posted nesting and brood-rearing areas (Howard et al. 1993).

 viii. Falconry, Kite Flying, and Model Airplanes

The sport of training falcons for hunting could result in losses of snowy plovers

when it introduces predators to snowy plover habitats.

Biologists believe plovers perceive kites as potential avian predators. The

reaction of snowy plovers to kites at Ocean Beach in San Francisco, California,

“ranged from increased vigilance while roosting in close proximity to the kite

flying, to walking or running approximately 10 to 25 meters (33 to 82 feet) away

and resting again while remaining alert” (Hatch 1997). It is expected that stuntkites would cause a greater response from plovers than traditional, more stationary

kites. Stunt kites include soaring-type, two-string kites with noisy, fluttering tails,

which often exhibit rapid, erratic movements. 

Hoopes et al. (1992) found that piping plovers are intolerant of kites. Compared

to other human disturbances (i.e., pedestrian, off-road vehicle, and dog/pet), kites

caused piping plovers to flush or move at a greater distance from the disturbance,

to move the longest distance away from the disturbance, and the duration of the

movement was the longest. Piping plovers responded to kites at an average

distance of 85 meters (279 feet); moved an average distance of over 100 meters

(328 feet); and the average duration of the response was 70 seconds.

It is expected that model airplanes would also have a detrimental impact to snowy

plovers because plovers may perceive them as potential predators (Hatch 1997).
66

ix. Aircraft Overflights

Low-flying aircraft (e.g., within 152 meters (500 feet) of the ground) can cause

disturbances to breeding and wintering snowy plovers. Hatch (1997) found that

all types of low-flying aircraft may potentially be perceived by plovers as

predators. She also found that the general response of roosting snowy plovers to

low-flying aircraft at Ocean Beach, San Francisco, California, was to increase

vigilance and crouch in depressions on the beach, whereas foraging plovers

frequently took flight. Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 91, General Operating

and Flight Rules, require that over open water, aircraft may not be operated closer

than 152 meters (500 feet) to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. However,

helicopters may be operated at less than 152 meters (500 feet) if the operation is

conducted without hazard to people or property on the surface (U.S. Department

of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration, 1977). Emergency

operations, including those by Coast Guard helicopters, are exempted from these

rules. 

Helicopters can cause excessive noise, which can also disturb plovers, even at an

altitude of 152 meters (500 feet). Fish and Wildlife Service and Vandenberg Air

Force Base personnel have observed helicopters flush incubating snowy plovers

during pre-launch security sweeps at Vandenberg Air Force Base; these helicopter

flights were directed not to overfly nesting habitat, and were to be at least 152

meters (500 feet) above mean sea level (J. Watkins in litt. 1999). During

observations of piping plovers that nest on the Breezy Point Cooperative and

adjacent beaches of Gateway National Recreation Area in Queens, New York,

small fixed-wing aircraft, and especially helicopters, often caused foraging piping

plovers to stop feeding and crouch or run (Howard et al. 1992). At Camp

Pendleton Marine Corps Base, California, military training aircraft (including

helicopters) are only required to fly at a minimum altitude of 91 meters (300 feet)

above ground level during the period April 15 to August 31, in areas that support

snowy plover and California least tern habitat (D. Stadtlander pers. comm. 1999). 
67

 x. Special Events

Special events, including media events, sporting events, and beach clean-ups,

which attract large crowds, have a potential for significant adverse impacts when

held in or near snowy plover habitat. An example is the National Marine Debris

Monitoring Program, implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

in conjunction with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,

National Park Service, and the U.S. Coast Guard. This year-round program uses

volunteers (including high school students) to document and collect trash and

marine debris on coastal transects within snowy plover nesting and wintering

habitat. Potential threats from crowds of people attracted to special events are

similar to those previously identified for pedestrians, including direct mortality

and harassment of snowy plovers.

 xi. Coastal Access

Expanding public access to the coast (e.g., State Coastal Trails) for recreation

(e.g., walking, hiking, biking) may adversely affect snowy plovers and their

breeding or wintering habitat. Expanded coastal access brings significantly

greater numbers of people to the beach and other coastal habitats, exacerbating

potential conflicts between human recreational activities and plover habitat needs

(see Pedestrian section). Expanded coastal access may exceed the threshold of

beach visitors that public resource agencies (e.g., State Parks and National Park

Service) can effectively manage while also meeting their responsibilities to protect

natural resources. 

Bicycles are known to adversely affect snowy plovers nesting on levees and roads

near San Francisco Bay salt ponds within the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay

National Wildlife Refuge. Many of these levees are closed to human access, but

some bicyclists trespass onto closed levees. In 1998, one snowy plover nest,

located on the main access road to the Refuge, was run over by a bicycle as

biologists were putting up a barrier to protect it (J. Albertson in litt. 1999). 
68

 xii. Livestock Grazing

Snowy plover nests have been trampled by cattle. On Santa Rosa Island,

California, 4 nests were trampled by cattle and 1 nest was trampled by horses,

resulting in the loss of at least 10 eggs during a 2-year study conducted by the

National Park Service in 1992 to 1993. In addition to direct mortality from

livestock, incubating snowy plovers were observed to flush from nests when cattle

passed within 15 meters (49 feet). On one occasion, the adult bird was off the

nest for over 28 minutes when a steer laid down next to the nest. Livestock on

Santa Rosa Island also frequently use a lagoon in the Skunk Point area that is an

important feeding area for pre-fledged snowy plover chicks. Fouling the water

and trampling its adjacent shoreline may adversely affect snowy plover foraging

habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in litt. 1995). On Santa Cruz Island, feral

pigs may trample snowy plover habitat and disturb nesting plovers (R. Klinger

pers comm. 1998). 

c. Oil Spills

Oil spills threaten snowy plovers throughout their life cycle. Snowy plovers

forage along the shoreline and in sea wrack (seaweed and other natural wave-cast

organic debris) at the high-tide line and thereby risk exposure to oil during spills. 

Often, plovers get oil on their feet and transfer it to their feathers when they draw

their feet into their plumage while roosting (G. Page pers. comm. 1997). Oil spills

may result in contamination of snowy plover food sources when oiled wrack is

left on the beach. Adverse impacts to plovers may also occur during oil clean-up

and remediation activities if response teams are not careful when driving heavy

equipment and vehicles or traversing on foot through plover habitat. 

The loss of thermal insulation is acknowledged to be the primary cause of

mortality in oiled birds (National Research Council 1985, Leighton 1991). Oiled

feathers lose their ability to keep body heat in and cold water out, causing reduced

insulation, increased metabolic rate, and hypothermia. Swallowing small amounts

of preened oil may lead to physiological changes in birds, including pathological

effects on the alimentary tract, blood, adrenal glands, kidneys, liver, and other

organs. Reproductive performance may also be impaired. There is evidence that
69

ingested oil causes delayed maturation of ovaries, altered hormone levels,

thinning of eggshells, reduced survival of eggs and chicks, reduced chick growth,

and abandonment of nests by adults (Burger and Fry 1993). Oil transferred to

eggs from plumage or feet of incubating birds can kill embryos (Albers 1977,

Albers and Szaro 1978, King and Lefever 1979). Oil or other chemicals washed

onto mudflats or sand beaches may also result in reduction of the availability of

invertebrate prey (Kindinger 1981). Evans and Keijl (1993) found that following

the Gulf War, 44 percent of 522 Kentish plovers (Charadrius alexandrinus

alexandrinus) within areas of the Saudi Arabian coast affected by the 1991 spill

were heavily oiled (i.e., more than 10 percent of plumage oiled). Heavily-oiled

wading birds were found to be significantly lighter in weight than unoiled waders,

and it was suspected they were unlikely to migrate successfully or breed during

that year because of losses in energy reserves.

Surveys of beached birds have shown that small-volume, chronic oil pollution is

an ongoing source of avian mortality in coastal regions (Burger and Fry 1993). 

Crude oil is transported from offshore platforms along the California coast. 

Potential adverse effects to snowy plovers could occur from the oil globs

commonly found on Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo county beaches. Also,

risks may be compounded or higher in these areas due to both chronic natural oil

seeps and potential spills from oil platforms in these areas.

Between 1988 and 1999, at least six oil spills in California and one in Oregon

resulted in adverse impacts to snowy plovers. One of these spills (or series of

spills) occurred at Unocal’s Guadalupe Oil Field in San Luis Obispo, California. 

During Unocal’s 34-year period of operation, numerous spills of crude oil and

diluent, a diesel-like product, occurred throughout the oil field. Over 190 separate

spills were recorded between July 1984 and July 1990. We and other natural

resource trustees have estimated that between 8 and 12 million gallons of diluent

have been released into the soil, ground water, and marine environment. Between

the period January 1988 and October 1998, natural resource trustees documented

eight hydrocarbon releases into the marine environment at Unocal’s Guadalupe

Oil Field. These spills had adverse effects on plovers by contaminating their

habitat and prey base. Remediation and monitoring of this contamination

continue to result in the disturbance or harassment of nesting plovers. On
70

December 25, 1993, oil spilled from a ruptured oil transfer line into McGrath

Lake, and then flowed out into the ocean. Approximately 2,000 barrels of oil

were spilled, affecting 0.53 kilometer (0.33 mile) of riparian woodland area along

a creek, McGrath Lake, and 11.2 kilometers (7 miles) of sandy beaches. Plover

habitat and prey were contaminated with oil and wintering plovers were displaced

during the cleanup activities (S. Henry in litt. 1998). In Washington, the 1988

Nestucca oil spill and the 1991 Tenyo Maru oil spill may also have affected

snowy plovers.

Between 1996 to 1998, three oil spills in snowy plover habitat on National Park

Service lands along the California coast resulted in oiled plovers. Affected areas

were Ocean Beach, San Francisco, and Point Reyes National Seashore (on two

separate occasions between 1997 and 1998). Snowy plovers were found oiled on

Ocean Beach in November 1996. Staff of the Point Reyes Bird Observatory and

the National Park Service trapped and banded eight of the birds, and there were

two additional banded birds in the area. Oil was observed on the plumage or feet

of all but one of these banded birds. Point Reyes Bird Observatory staff compared

the survival of the birds from the oiled location to those from adjacent areas not

affected by spilled oil through January 1997. There was no difference in the

survival rate between the two groups of birds. However, the two Ocean Beach

birds with the most oil on their plumage were the only two birds from Ocean

Beach that disappeared prior to the end of January 1997. They were not seen

again and presumably died (Point Reyes Bird Observatory unpublished data). In

November 1997, at least 22 snowy plovers were observed at Limantour Estero,

Marin County, with oil on their plumage during a spill that also affected other

species of birds. Two of the oiled snowy plovers were banded. Neither

apparently survived the winter (Point Reyes Bird Observatory unpublished data).

In September 1997, an oil spill caused by the rupture of a sub-sea pipeline

occurred in Santa Barbara County near Pedernales Point, resulting in oiled snowy

plovers. After this spill, Persons and Applegate (1997) observed lightly- to

moderately-oiled snowy plovers at Surf Beach, Vandenberg Air Force Base. A

sick plover was seen with a glob of heavy crude oil on its upper mandible. The

authors expressed concern that had this spill occurred during the plover breeding
71

season, both the oil and cleanup effort would have had severe adverse effects on

plover nests and chicks.

On February 4, 1999, the New Carissa, a 195-meter (639-foot) freighter ship

designed to carry wood chips, went aground about 5 kilometers (3.1 miles) north

of the North Jetty of Coos Bay, Oregon. The New Carissa grounded in shallow

water a few hundred yards off lands managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land

Management on the North Spit of Coos Bay. Attempts to burn fuel oil present on

board the New Carissa resulted in the vessel being fractured into two pieces. On

March 2, 1999, the 134-meter (440-foot) bow section of the ship was pulled away

from the North Spit, with the intent of dumping it at sea. It broke free of the tow

vessel later that day and landed on the beach at Governor Patterson Memorial

State Park on March 3, 1999. This location was near Waldport, Oregon, about

129 kilometers (80 miles) north of the spot where the vessel first became

grounded.

On March 8, the bow section of the New Carissa was successfully pulled off the

beach at Governor Patterson Memorial State Park and taken out to sea where it

was sunk on March 11, 1999, about 515 kilometers (320 miles) off the Oregon

coast. The 61-meter (200-foot) stern section of the New Carissa is still present,

just offshore of the North Spit of Coos Bay. Oil has leaked from the stern section

on repeated occasions since the sinking of the bow section and resulted in a major

operation between the ship’s representatives and the U.S. Coast Guard to remove

oil from it.

The U.S. Coast Guard has estimated that about 265,000 liters (70,000 gallons) of

oil were released into marine waters during the Coos Bay phase of the New

Carissa incident. Additionally, they estimated that another 7,600 liters (2,000

gallons) were released into the marine environmental during the Waldport phase

of the grounding event.

Many species of birds, including the snowy plover, were soiled with oil as a result

of the incident, and there were numerous mortalities. It is estimated that at least

40 to 50 snowy plovers were oiled during the incident, representing about 50

percent or more of the Oregon wintering population. One snowy plover was
72

found dead with oil on it, and another two that had been seen during the incident

with heavy oiling, were never seen again. 

d. Contaminants 

Because snowy plovers are primarily insectivorous, feeding both on aquatic and

terrestrial insects, the bioaccumulation of environmental contaminants on their

nesting and wintering grounds may adversely affect their health and reproduction

(Powell and Hothem 1997). Organochlorines have been known to cause reduced

avian egg production, aberrant incubation behavior, delayed ovulation,

embryotoxicosis, and mortality of chicks and adults (Blus 1982). Selenium has

caused decreased hatchability of avian eggs, developmental abnormalities, altered

nesting behavior, and embryotoxicosis in birds in field and laboratory studies 

(Ohlendorf et al. 1986, Heintz et al. 1987). Mercury is known to cause decreased

hatchability of avian eggs (Connors et al. 1975). Boron has been shown to reduce

hatchability of waterfowl eggs in laboratory experiments; arsenic may also

adversely affect avian reproduction (Hothem and Welsh 1994).

Powell and Hothem (1997) analyzed 23 snowy plover eggs collected in southern

California from 1994 to 1996 for metals and trace elements, and 20 eggs for

organochlorine pesticides and metabolites. All eggs were either abandoned or

failed to hatch. They were collected from five sites: Camp Pendleton Marine

Corps Base, Batiquitos Lagoon, Naval Air Base Coronado, Sweetwater Marsh

National Wildlife Refuge, and Tijuana Estuary. Organochlorines including

dieldrin, o,p’-DDD, o,p’-DDE, o,p’-DDT, p,p’-DDD, p,p’-DDE, p,p’-DDT,

oxychlordane, and trans-nonachlor were found above the detection limits in

snowy plover eggs. Median DDE and PCB concentrations were less than those

normally associated with deformities or other detrimental effects on birds. 

Twelve metals and trace elements (As, B, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Mg, Mn, Ni, Se, Sr, and

Zn) were detected in at least 90 percent of the samples, but generally at

background levels. Mean concentrations of all contaminants were below those

that would adversely affect reproduction. 

Ten snowy plover eggs collected near Lake Abert, Oregon, were analyzed for

organochlorine insecticides and total polychlorinated biphenyls. Concentrations
73

were less than 0.05 parts per million (level of detection) for all analyses except

DDE, which was found in seven of the eggs at concentrations ranging from 0.05

to 0.19 parts per million, wet weight (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service unpublished

data). These DDE concentrations are less than those associated with poor

reproductive success, including eggshell thinning, in other avian species (T.

Buerger in litt. 1998).

e. Litter, Garbage, and Debris

Placement of litter, garbage, and debris in the coastal ecosystem can result in

direct harm to snowy plovers and degradation of their habitats. Litter and garbage

feed predators and encourage their habitation at higher levels than would

otherwise occur along the coast, making predators a greater threat to plovers.

Marine debris and contaminated materials on the beach also adversely affect

snowy plovers. Marine debris is attributed to both ocean and shoreline sources. 

Ocean sources of marine debris and contamination include fishing boats, ships,

and cruise lines. Cruise line debris may include small plastic shampoo,

conditioner, hand lotion, and shoe polish containers, plastic cups, and balloons

(Center for Marine Conservation 1995). Shoreline debris is usually from land

sources. Plovers may become entangled in discarded fishing line, fishing nets,

six-pack rings, and other materials on the beach. Containers of contaminated

materials (e.g., motor oil, cleaning fluid, and syringes) can introduce toxic

chemicals to the beach. The National Marine Debris Monitoring Program, headed

by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was established to clean and track

sources of marine debris in coastal areas. This monitoring program, while

beneficial to snowy plovers in the long-term, could potentially adversely affect

nesting plovers since the program is conducted year-round.

f. Water Quality and Urban Run-off

Many coastal beaches used as habitat by snowy plovers contain channelized

streams or outfalls receiving run-off from urban, industrial, and agricultural areas. 

Nonpoint sources of water pollution (including hydrocarbons, heavy metals, and

household chemicals) could end up at coastal beaches used as plover foraging
74

areas. In 1995, three dead male plovers (all banded and local breeders) were

found in an area containing local outfalls, including an outfall connected to a

sewage treatment plant at Monterey Bay. By the beginning of the next breeding

season, it was discovered that another male snowy plover from this area

disappeared and possibly died. One of the birds was analyzed through necropsy

and found to have an enlarged liver, but it could not be determined whether there

was a relationship between the mortality and the outfall (Point Reyes Bird

Observatory unpublished data).

g. Management for Other Special Status Species

Snowy plover chicks die when they become entrapped within the mesh of some

fences used to enclose California least tern colonies (Powell and Collier 1995). 

These fences also impede plover chicks from following their parents to feeding

areas. Chicks may die of exposure and starvation if they cannot join their parents

because of separations caused by least tern fencing. During the 1995 breeding

season, six instances of chick mortality were attributed to entanglement in least

tern chick fencing at Camp Pendleton, and three other chicks were found dead just

outside the fenced tern colonies (Powell et al. 1995). During the 1996 breeding

season, Powell et al. (1996) observed a plover family that was apparently caught

in the corridor used by amphibious-tracked and other four-wheel drive vehicles at

Camp Pendleton while attempting to get to a pond approximately 300 meters (984

feet) from their nesting area. Because of the small mesh size, they were unable to

get through the fencing erected to keep least tern chicks from wandering into

vehicular traffic, and were seen running back and forth across the corridor as

vehicles drove through. 

At the Channel Islands and other lands managed by the National Park Service, a

decline of snowy plovers may be caused by habitat loss resulting from the large

increase in numbers of marine mammals on beaches (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service in litt. 1995). Breeding pinnipeds, including northern elephant seals

(Mirounga angustirostris) and California sea lions (Zalophus californianus) at

San Miguel Island, have occupied snowy plover nesting habitat. Beach-cast dead

whales have, on occasion, posed threats to nesting snowy plovers. At Point Reyes

beaches, large, whole carcasses have washed ashore and other agencies such as
75

the National Marine Fisheries Service have sought to collect them for scientific

purposes. They also attract people who are curious about whales. These activities

could potentially cause direct mortality and disturbance to snowy plovers. In

addition, mammal carcasses attract scavengers such as gulls and ravens that are

potential predators to snowy plovers. 

E. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE COASTAL BEACH-DUNE ECOSYSTEM

The western snowy plover lives in an ecosystem that has been significantly

degraded. Environmental stressors (i.e., development, human recreation, water

quality degradation, etc.) have adversely affected the biological diversity of the

coastal dune ecosystem. Many of the characteristics that attract people to coastal

areas make these areas prime habitat for fish and wildlife resources. Although

they comprise less than 10 percent of the Nation, coastal ecosystems are home to

over one-third of the United States human population, nearly two-thirds of the

Nation’s fisheries, half of the migratory songbirds, and one-third of our wetlands

and wintering waterfowl (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995a). The coasts also

provide habitat for 45 percent of all threatened and endangered species, including

three-fourths of the federally-listed birds and mammals (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1995a). Proper stewardship of this unique ecosystem is needed to

maintain its ecological integrity while meeting its human demands.

1. Description of Coastal Beach-Dune Ecosystem

The coastal beach-dune ecosystem may include several features such as beaches,

foredunes, deflation plains, blow-outs, and reardunes. The beach includes the

expanse of sandy substrate between the tide line and the foredune or, in the

absence of a foredune, to the furthest inland reach of storm waves. Beach

steepness, height, and width are affected by wave height, tidal range, sand grain

size, and sand supply. The beach has high exposure to salt spray and sand blast

and contains a shifting, sandy substrate with low water-holding capacity and low

organic matter content. Dunes include sandy, open habitat, extending from the

foredune to typically inland vegetation on stabilized substrate. Major differences

occur between beach and dune in salt spray, soil salinity, and air and soil

temperatures (Barbour and Major 1990).
76

Coastal dunes generally consist of three primary zones (Powell 1981). The

foredunes are the line of dunes paralleling the beach behind the high tide line. 

Foredunes are characterized by unstabilized sand and a simple community of lowgrowing native dune plant species, such as American dunegrass (Leymus mollis). 

Foredunes also support a rich community of sand-burrowing insects (Powell

1981). Behind the foredunes is the deflation plain, which is at or near the water

table and is characterized by a mixture of water tolerant plants and dune species. 

Deflation plains are also called dune hollows and can be invaded by hydrophilic

(having a strong affinity for water) trees, shrubs, or herbs (e.g., species of Carex,

Juncus, Salix, Scirpus) (Barbour and Major 1990). The inner zone of coastal

dunes consists of stabilized dunes, which are dominated by woody perennial

plants (Powell 1981). Beach flora can also colonize inland dune areas, where the

sand is actively moving (Barbour and Major 1990).

Barren dunes, receiving sand from the beach and losing it to wind erosion, are

mobile. Older, more inland dunes are stabilized by a nearly continuous plant

cover; these dunes are referred to as stable dunes or fixed dunes. Localized

openings in the plant cover, which permit wind erosion, are called blowouts, but

they are not deep enough to allow invasion by mesophytes (plants growing in

moderately moist environments). The innermost ridge of sand is generally high

and is called a precipitation ridge; sand is blown over the ridge and down the

slipface, continuing the process of dune advance (Barbour and Major 1990). The

conditions necessary for dune growth at the coast are partly climatic, but more

important is the occurrence of strong onshore winds, abundant sand supply, and

vegetation that traps sand. Low, near-shore slopes with a large tidal range

providing wide expanses of sand that dries at low tide are ideal for dune growth

(Pethick 1984).

Very few coastal dunes are “natural,” because they have been extensively altered

over time by humans for agriculture, mineral extraction, military training, and

both active and passive recreation (Carter 1988). Before the introduction of

beachgrass foredunes were low and rose gradually, and a large number of native

species shared this habitat. They were composed of a series of dunes alternating

with swales oriented perpendicular to the coast and aligned with prevailing
77

onshore winds. Since the introduction of European beachgrass, most systems

have been replaced by a steep foredune that gives way inland to a 

series of dunes and swales oriented parallel to the coast (Barbour and Major

1990). 

Snowy plovers use the beach and mobile dunes as nesting habitat. Other habitat

features that occur within or adjacent to the coastal beach-dune ecosystem, and

serve as important foraging habitat for the western snowy plover, include river,

stream, and creek mouths, river bars, lagoons, and tidal and brackish-water

wetlands. 

2. Sensitive Species of the Coastal Beach-Dune Ecosystem

Along with the western snowy plover, many other sensitive species inhabit the

coastal beach-dune ecosystem and adjacent habitats. Appendix E contains a list

of, and brief species accounts for, sensitive species associated with this ecosystem

and adjacent habitats. These fish and wildlife species are recognized by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service as endangered, threatened, candidate species, or species

of concern. This list includes a number of sensitive species recognized by the

states of California, Oregon, and Washington. This appendix also describes

several marine mammals associated with the coastal beach-dune ecosystem and

protected under the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361-

1407), as amended. 

Some of these sensitive species have many threats in common with the western

snowy plover. Habitat loss and degradation from shoreline development and

beach stabilization, invasion of exotic species, and crushing by off-road vehicles

are cited as major factors contributing to the status and listing of these species. In

addition to the snowy plover, European beachgrass is a current or potential threat

to six federally-listed endangered plants that occur in coastal dunes of California: 

beach layia (Layia carnosa), Howell’s spineflower (Chorizanthe howellii),

Monterey spineflower (Chorizanthe pungens var. pungens), Menzies’ wallflower

(Erysimum menziesii), Monterey gilia (Gilia tenuiflora ssp. arenaria), and

Tidestrom’s lupine (Lupinus tidestromii) (Pickart 1997). European beachgrass is

also a current and potential threat to native and sensitive plants in Washington and
78

Oregon, including the pink sand-verbena (Abronia umbellata ssp. breviflora),

which is classified as endangered in the State of Oregon. Equestrian use has also

been identified as a threat to several endangered plant species, including the

endangered Howell’s spineflower, Menzies’ wallflower, Monterey gilia, and the

coastal dunes milk vetch (Astragalus tener var. titi). Off-road vehicles are cited

as threats to several sensitive plant and animal species, including the endangered

beach layia, Menzies’ wallflower, Monterey gilia, Tidestrom’s lupine, Hoffman’s

slender-flowered gilia (Gilia tenuiflora var. hoffmanii), and Smith’s blue butterfly

(Euphilotes enoptes smithi); the federally-proposed endangered La Graciosa

thistle (Cirsium longholepis), and the following species considered to be of

Federal concern: beach spectacle pod (Dithyrea maritima) and Morro blue

butterfly (Icaricia icarioides morroensis).

The precarious status of these species is a symptom of a highly stressed

ecosystem. Remedial efforts aimed at restoration of the natural processes that

maintain this ecosystem, rather than single-species “fixes,” are likely to have the

greatest and most successful long-term benefits. Important components of

ecologically-sound coastal beach-dune ecosystem management include (1)

removal of exotic, invasive vegetation; (2) management of human recreation to

prevent or minimize adverse impacts on dune formation, vegetation, invertebrate

and vertebrate fauna; and (3) efforts to counter the effects of human-induced

changes in the types, distribution, numbers, and activity patterns of predators. 

Implementation of more ecosystem-oriented approaches to snowy plover

protection would provide important benefits to other sensitive species within the

coastal dune ecosystem and merits serious consideration.

Snowy plover recovery efforts implemented to date (e.g., removal of European

beachgrass) support the natural functions of the coastal dune ecosystem. 

Furthermore, many protection efforts for snowy plovers should benefit other

sensitive beach species, such as California least terns and vice versa. Many of the

same predators that take snowy plover eggs also prey on California least tern eggs. 

The relatively low rate of predation of snowy plover nests in San Diego County

has been attributed to the predator control program by the U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Wildlife Services Branch, for the management of California least

terns (Powell et al. 1995). Opportunities may also exist for reestablishment of
79

special status plant species that occur in coastal dunes, including Menzies’

wallflower, beach spectacle pod, Tidestrom’s lupine, beach layia, and pink sand

verbena.

At the same time, however, conflicts have occurred in management of snowy

plovers and California least terns in southern California. These conflicts include

losses of snowy plover chicks due to entanglement in the mesh of California least

tern fencing. Efforts are needed to better coordinate and implement management

measures to meet the habitat needs of both snowy plovers and California least

terns. Potential conflicts also exist between native dune restoration and snowy

plover habitat. Revegetation efforts could result in too much cover, thereby

reducing the amount of suitable breeding habitat available for plovers. 

Conflicting habitat requirements for snowy plovers and pinnipeds have also

occurred on lands where marine mammals haul out or breed on beaches that

would otherwise be suitable for nesting plovers. Where this conflict occurs, it

may be necessary to discourage use by breeding pinnipeds during the plover

nesting season. 

Although some management measures may benefit a broad array of sensitive

species within the coastal dune ecosystem (i.e., control of Ammophila, access

restrictions, and integrated predator management programs), some single-species

protection measures for the snowy plover, such as exclosures, are needed. 

Exclosures are currently the most effective and efficient way to protect nests

against heavy recreational use and prolific, well-established predators, especially

where reductions in predator numbers would otherwise be temporary and difficult

to achieve. 

F. CONSERVATION EFFORTS

Snowy plover recovery efforts have accelerated since this species was federally

listed as a threatened species in 1993. Current breeding and wintering site

protection efforts are documented in Appendix C (Summary of Current and

Additional Needed Management Activities). The most common management

strategies include protection of nests with predator exclosures; signing and
80

symbolic fencing of nesting areas; restrictions on motorized vehicles in the

vicinity of plover nests and broods; restrictions on dogs (even though enforcement

of dogs on-leash has been problematic); closure of nesting areas to the public; and

public information and outreach. These strategies represent effective means of

improving snowy plover reproductive success in return for efforts expended. 

1. Conservation Planning on Federal and State Lands

The direction of land management on Federal lands is often outlined in

management plans or agency regulations that provide objectives and guidelines

for snowy plovers. These plans include the Oregon Dunes National Recreation

Area Management Plan (U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, 1994),

the Coos Bay Shorelands Final Management Plan (U.S. Department of the

Interior, U.S. Bureau of Land Management 1995a), The New River Area of

Critical Concern Management Plan (U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Bureau

of Land Management 1995b), the Draft Snowy Plover Management Plan for

Ocean Beach, Golden Gate National Recreation Area (Hatch 1997), and the Draft

Western Snowy Plover Management Plan for the Point Reyes National Seashore

(White and Allen in prep.).

Wildlife protection, especially the preservation, restoration, and enhancement of

threatened and endangered species and migratory birds, is the primary goal of

national wildlife refuges (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1982). Snowy plover

habitat on national wildlife refuges has been accorded intensive protection,

including (1) integrated predator management and (2) closures during the nesting

season where appropriate, to minimize adverse effects of disturbance. Consistent

with requirements of the National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of

1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee) and Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended

(16 U.S.C. 460k-460k-4) regarding compatibility of refuge activities, plover

nesting areas within some national wildlife refuges are closed to public use during

the breeding season.

The Washington State recovery plan for the snowy plover recommends strategies

to recover this species, including protection of the population, evaluation, and
81

management of habitat, and initiation of research and education programs

(Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife 1995).

The State of Oregon’s Conservation Program for the coastal population of the

western snowy plover, required by the Oregon Endangered Species Act and

adopted by the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission (Oregon Revised Statutes

496.171 through 496.192), requires a variety of actions to protect this subspecies. 

These actions include: (a) protecting all existing snowy plover sites from negative

impacts; (b) monitoring impacts and responding on damaging activities (e.g.,

urban development and recreation disturbance) to minimize or eliminate their

effects to snowy plovers; (c) maintaining a long-term monitoring program to track

numbers, distribution, and nesting success; (d) habitat management, such as local

control of European beachgrass and maintaining predator protection measures to

maximize breeding success for as long as deemed necessary; (e) conducting

additional research to maintain and recover snowy plovers; and (f) enhancing

information availability, education, and awareness of western snowy plovers and

their requirements for survival and recovery (Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife 1994). 

The California Public Resources Code (Section 5019.71) allows designation of

natural preserves, the most protective designation given to a part of any State park

system unit. The purpose of natural preserves is to preserve such features as rare

or endangered plant and animal species and their supporting ecosystems, and

representative examples of plant or animal communities existing in California

prior to the impact of civilization. The Pajaro Rivermouth Natural Preserve,

Wilder Creek Natural Preserve, and Salinas Rivermouth Natural Preserve were

designated by the California State Park and Recreation Commission in recognition

of the need to protect snowy plovers. In addition, Section 5019.62 of the

California Resources Code allows the designation of State seashores. The

purpose for designation of State seashores is to “preserve outstanding natural,

scenic, cultural, ecological, and recreational values of the California coastline as

an ecological region and to make possible the enjoyment of coastline and related

recreational activities which are consistent with the preservation of the principal

values and which contribute to the public enjoyment, appreciation, and

understanding of those values.” Within the state of California, the following State
82

seashores that contain snowy plover habitats have been established: Del Norte

State Seashore; Clem Miller State Seashore; Sonoma Coast State Seashore; Año

Nuevo State Seashore; Monterey Bay State Seashore; San Luis Obispo State

Seashore; Point Mugu State Seashore; Capistrano Coast State Seashore; and San

Diego Coast State Seashore. Under the California Public Resources Code, the

California Department of Parks and Recreation has the authority to identify

additional lands appropriate for inclusion in State seashores and recommend land

acquisition for these purposes.

Special management actions for snowy plovers are conducted within the portions

of State seashores that are owned by the California Department of Parks and

Recreation. An example is the Monterey State Seashore, where the California

Department of Parks and Recreation has conducted intensive management

activities for snowy plovers since 1991. Strategies include resource management,

interpretation, law enforcement, and park operations. Resource management

actions include monitoring, predator trapping, and use of exclosures, symbolic

fences, and signage. Interpretative efforts include informational signage at nesting

areas, information brochures, small handout cards with photographs and

information on snowy plovers, and several annual public outreach programs (e.g.,

slide programs and field trips), actions to engage community support for the

snowy plover guardian program (i.e., recruitment, training, and scheduling for

volunteer presence in sensitive habitat). Enforcement actions include verbal

warnings, written warnings, citations, and arrest as necessary. Key enforcement

concerns include dogs off-leash and off-road vehicles, which are prohibited on all

beaches. Operational management includes a permit process that screens special

events to avoid the nesting season in sensitive areas, and regulation of recreational

use of beaches to avoid sensitive areas (i.e., kite flying, hang gliding, fishing,

etc.). Other management actions on California Department of Parks and

Recreation property within some other State seashores are shown in Appendix C. 
83

2. Conservation Efforts on Federal And State Lands

a. Exclosures, Symbolic Fencing, and Signs

Since 1991, one of the primary techniques to protect nesting snowy plovers has

been the use of exclosures (see Appendix F). Exclosures are small circular,

square, or triangular metal fences that can be quickly assembled and are designed

to keep predators out of nests (Figure 8). 

Figure 8. Erecting snowy plover exclosure (photo by Sue Powell, with

permission). 

After only 1 year of exclosure use on Point Reyes National Seashore beaches, the

breeding population doubled resulting in 25 snowy plovers breeding during the

1997 season (White and Hickey 1997). Use of nest exclosures at Coos Bay North

Spit in Oregon (OR-15 in Appendix B) during the 1991 breeding season resulted

in 69 percent nesting success, compared to only 9 percent nesting success for

unprotected nests (Stern et al. 1991b). During the 1992 breeding season, nest

success at southern Oregon locations was significantly higher (84 percent versus 5

percent) for nests protected with exclosures compared to unprotected nests (Craig

et al. 1992). At some locations in Oregon and California, exclosures are designed

with tops consisting of parallel lengths of nylon seine lines spaced approximately

15 centimeters (6 inches) apart, designed to discourage entry by avian predators. 
84

Although exclosures are contributing to improved productivity and population

increases in some portions of the snowy plover’s Pacific coast range, problems

have been noted in some localities. Potential risks associated with exclosures

include vandalism or disturbance of the birds by curiosity seekers and use of

exclosures as predator perches. Also, predator exclosures may be impractical

where snowy plovers nest within California least tern colonies.

Symbolic fencing is also used to protect snowy plover nests, eggs, and chicks. 

This fencing consists of one or two strands of light-weight string or cable, tied

between posts to delineate areas where pedestrians and vehicles should not enter

(Figure 9). 

It is placed around areas where there are nests or unfledged chicks, and is intended

to prevent accidental crushing of eggs, flushing of incubating adults, and to

provide an area where chicks can rest and seek shelter when large numbers of

people are on the beach.

Directional signs (regarding closed areas, nesting sites, etc.) are also used within

snowy plover habitats and near protective fencing to alert the public of the

sensitivity of snowy plover nesting and wintering areas. 

Figure 9. Symbolic fencing on beach at Monterey Bay, California (photo by

Ruth Pratt, with permission). 
85

b. Law Enforcement

Management agencies recognize that law enforcement is needed for protection

measures to be effective. Though a majority of beach visitors respect restrictions

to protect snowy plovers, there will always be a certain percentage who do not. 

Enforcement of plover area restrictions shows that managers are serious about

compliance. In Oregon, biologists have established a working relationship with a

variety of law enforcement agencies who have jurisdiction in snowy plover

habitat. Their goal is to increase awareness, gain advice, increase communication

and coordination to alleviate jurisdictional conflicts, and train officers on how to

minimize disturbance while patrolling snowy plover habitat. Conflicting priorities

and personnel turnover require perseverance to maintain effective working

relationships across law enforcement jurisdictions.

c. Predation Control

At the south spoils area of Coos Bay, North Spit, the U.S. Bureau of Land

Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife have fenced 8 hectares (20 acres) of snowy plover nesting habitat. This

5-centimeter by 5-centimeter (2-inch by 2-inch) square wire mesh fence was

installed to exclude mammalian predators, especially skunks, and to discourage

human disturbance from off-highway vehicle use. The original fence that was

constructed in 1991 suffered from the effects of weathering with areas of rust and

numerous holes. It continued to deter vehicles but was no longer an effective

barrier to predators. In February and March 1998, the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers and U.S. Bureau of Land Management jointly constructed a new fence. 

The new fence matched the design of the 1991 fence (5-centimeter by 5-

centimeter (2-inch by 2-inch) mesh fence material with an effective fence height

of about 1.2 meters (4 feet) after burial of the bottom). However, the new fence

has increased the protected area from 8 hectares (20 acres) to 28.4 hectares (71

acres), and includes both the south spoils area and the 1994 Habitat Restoration

Area (E.Y. Zielinski and R.W. Williams in litt. 1999). 
86

At the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, fences are

constructed across salt pond levees to block access by predators (J. Albertson in

litt. 1999). 

Exclosures are much more effective when used in conjunction with an integrated

predator management program that includes removal of predators. Otherwise,

they may promote better hatching success, but not fledging success if predators

such as red fox focus on adults protecting the nest or newly-hatched chicks that

leave the exclosure to feed. These measures are also much more effective where

combined with other access restrictions to increase survival of clutches and

broods. 

Lethal and nonlethal means of predator control have been used with mixed

success to protect snowy plovers on Pacific Coast beaches. Trapping the

nonnative red fox has been credited with substantially increased plover abundance

and productivity at Salinas River National Wildlife Refuge (E. Fernandez pers.

comm. 1998). At the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge,

losses of snowy plover nests from predation by red foxes have decreased as a

result of the use of exclosures combined with predator management (J. Albertson

in litt. 1999). 

The U.S. Air Force has used electric fencing around the California least tern

colony at Purisima Point, Vandenberg Air Force Base, California, where snowy

plovers also nest and winter. The electrified portion of this fence is approximately

273 meters (300 yards) long and 1.2 meters (4 feet) high. The electric fence

contains six strands of electrified wire placed approximately 10.2 centimeters (4

inches) apart. This fence is generally effective at keeping out mammalian

predators of California least terns. It has also incidentally protected a small

population of snowy plovers by deterring plover predators. Because some coyotes

are still able to get through the fence, supplemental predator control of coyotes is

still necessary (N. Read pers. comm. 1999). 

Aversive techniques have also been used with some success on predators of

piping plovers. Electric fencing around nest exclosures has been successfully

used on “smart” predators, such as foxes, that have figured out how to dig under,
87

climb, or jump over exclosures to reach piping plover eggs. The Maine Audubon

Society has used a single strand of electrified wire around an exclosed nest where

foxes were present. The single-strand electric wire, which is placed

approximately 23 centimeters (9 inches) from the bottom of the exclosure, gives

the fox an electric shock. The fox becomes conditioned to the associated shock

with the exclosure and, as a result, avoids the exclosure. Fox tracks found at one

of these electrically-wired nest exclosures indicated that the fox ran away from the

exclosure. Subsequently, the exclosed and also the unprotected nests at the site

were not disturbed (A. Hecht in litt. 1998). 

Proposals have been developed to test a conditioned taste aversion technique on

predators of piping plovers (i.e., red fox) by using quail eggs treated with the

chemical emetine (McIvor 1991). The purpose of this technique is to condition

foxes to avoid eating plover eggs, expecting that if foxes eat treated quail eggs

prior to the nesting season and become sick, they might develop a conditioned

aversion to eating plover eggs. This technique requires that the predator

consumes the needed dose that will produce short-term illness but no mortality. 

Implementation of proposals to test conditioned taste aversion techniques on

predators of piping plovers on the east coast have not been implemented due to

difficulties obtaining permission to field test emetine (A. Hecht pers. comm.

1996). 

Avery et al. (1995) found that deployment of quail eggs treated with the chemical

methiocarb might be a useful means of reducing predation of California least terns

by ravens and crows. In this study, conducted from April to June 1992 at Camp

Pendleton, California, methiocarb-treated eggs were used under an experimental

pesticide use permit issued by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation. 

The authors found this technique was potentially useful for reducing nest

predation, provided the eggs are placed at the target site 2 to 3 weeks prior to egglaying by terns, and the territorial ravens exposed to treated eggs near the tern

colonies are allowed to remain to defend the area from untrained raven intruders. 

However, one raven was found dead and necropsy substantiated that it obtained a

lethal dose of methiocarb by ingesting two entire treated eggs. Because some

ravens may swallow whole treated eggs, there is potential for inadvertent

mortality, which would defeat the purpose of this technique. 
88

Care must be taken to design and conduct taste aversion experiments in a way that

will avoid detrimental impacts to sensitive species. In 1995, another aversive

conditioning study was conducted at Camp Pendleton, California. The taste

aversion experiment, conducted by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife

Services Branch, involved placing quail eggs along a transect through the

California least tern colony. At least one snowy plover nest was lost to ravens at

Camp Pendleton in 1995. Raven tracks were observed following the line-transect

of quail eggs put out as part of the taste aversion experiment, and the tracks

stopped at a plover nest located within 5 meters (16 feet) of the transect (Powell

and Collier 1995). 

With proper research, techniques that have been used to deter predators of other

wildlife species may prove beneficial to snowy plovers. At Vandenberg Air Force

Base, strategic placement of crow and gull carcasses around the perimeter of a

California least tern colony has been fairly successful. Persons and Applegate

(1996) reported that gulls, suspected of being predators of snowy plovers at the

Purisima Beach, Vandenberg Air Force Base, left the site after gull carcasses were

used as deterrents. Plovers may have benefitted from this effort incidentally (N.

Read pers. comm. 1998). 

d. European Beachgrass Control

 

Experiments to find cost-effective methods to control or eradicate European

beachgrass are ongoing. Various methods have been used, including manual

digging, mechanical removal, salting, burning, cutting, and use of herbicides. 

Since 1993, there have been multiple projects on the North Spit of Coos Bay,

Oregon, to control beachgrass on old dredged material disposal sites and to clear

and maintain adjacent areas. The U.S. Bureau of Land Management has cleared

over 60 hectares (150 acres) of vegetation dominated by European beachgrass,

shore pine, Sitka spruce, and Scotch broom. The objective is to remove predator

cover, remove encroaching beachgrass, and expand the existing habitat. The goal

is to create an area for plovers to nest that is large enough to lessen possible

detection of nests and chicks by predators. Many of the cleared areas were used

almost immediately by nesting plovers or for brood rearing activities. 
89

Habitat restoration work not only benefits snowy plovers, but other species as

well. Wetland loss has accelerated on the North Spit as beachgrass has become

better established. A project objective is to retain and enhance existing sedge

wetland features present on the east part, thereby providing habitat for other

shorebirds and wildlife species that will benefit from this effort. Pink sandverbena has also been reintroduced to some of the sites.

Control methods employed at various times and places have included hand

pulling, spraying of herbicide, hummock removal with front-end loaders,

subsoiling with a winged subsoiler (essentially a heavy duty three-point plow),

discing with a standard farm tractor and disk, burning, and saltwater irrigation. 

Areas containing heavy growth of European beachgrass and woody vegetation are

prescribed-burned prior to using heavy equipment. Areas are leveled to allow

discing for maintenance. In some areas, oyster shell hash provided by a local

oyster grower has been distributed after vegetation has been removed. 

Effectiveness of the various control methods varies, though maintenance will

always be required.

At the Coos Bay North Spit, an inmate crew from the Shutter Correctional

Facility, hired by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management, hand pulled European

beachgrass on approximately 6 hectares (15 acres) of the south spoil area. The 

4-month project was completed with 1,700 inmate-hours of labor and required

approximately 280 inmate-hours per hectare cleared (113 inmate-hours per acre). 

The total cost of the project was $11,200; most of these costs covered the crew

supervisor’s salary and transport vehicle charges. Pitchforks seemed to be the

most effective tool used; shovels tended to cut the roots and garden trowels

typically broke during the work. The project revealed that sturdy hand trowels

would be a valuable tool for hand pulling treatments (Oregon Department of Fish

and Wildlife 1996). Another European beachgrass removal project around the

south spoil areas of the Coos Bay North Spit, included burning European

beachgrass, followed by scarification using a bulldozer in March 1994. By

August, most of the area had resprouted; but the grass was relatively easy to

remove by hand (Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife 1996). 
90

At the Coos Bay North Spit, eradication of European beachgrass using 91.4

centimeters (36 inches) of sprayed seawater was attempted in 1996. The saltwater

application was not effective because desiccated sand layers did not allow

seawater penetration to the grass’s root zone. Future experimentation using

wetting agents to achieve water penetration on small-scale applications could

demonstrate potential applicability of this technique (G. Dorsey pers. comm.

1997). 

In Oregon, the New River Spit is another key nesting area for the snowy plover

that is managed by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management. In October 1998, using

a front-end loader equipped with a 2.7 cubic meter (3.5 cubic yard) bucket, the

U.S. Bureau of Land Management opened up and widened the front of four

overwashes, removing much of the European beachgrass and built-up sand within

the overwash with the intention of allowing ocean wave action/surge to enter the

overwash areas during winter storms, thus scouring out some of the remaining

grass, sand, and debris that were not removed. Also, because the overwashes are

adjacent to one another, and there is some connection between them, water and

sand movement may occur from one overwash into the next, possibly creating

additional pockets of suitable habitat for nesting snowy plovers, and for

movement of plover broods. Operation of the loader created approximately 0.4

hectare (1 acre) of open sand habitat in each of the four overwashes, for a total of

1.6 hectares (4 acres). The use of a front-end loader has its limitations, such as

with the removal of some of the taller hummocks. A model D-6/7 or 8 Caterpillar

would be more effective in taking hummocks down, and with a bucket

attachment, larger loads could possibly be removed more quickly and deposited in

the beach surf zone. Both machines have the ability, through back-blading, to

smooth and recontour the work area. The total cost of the project was

approximately $10,000 (E.Y. Zielinski and R.W. Williams in litt. 1999).

At the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, the U.S. Forest Service employs a

combination of mechanical, manual, an herbicide treatments to control European

beachgrass. The National Recreation Area contains about 2,400 hectares

(6,000 acres) of European beachgrass and now has few remaining examples of

intact native plant communities (Pickart 1997). Heavy equipment is used in

combination with manual and chemical control. Mechanical treatment consists of
91

scalping off the top 1 meter (3 feet) of beachgrass and then burying it in an

adjacent trench with a minimum covering of l meter (3 feet) of sand. Moderate to

heavy resprouting occurs with this method, requiring manual or chemical followup treatment. Other mechanical treatments have consisted of placement of

dredged material on the beachgrass and scalping the top half of foredunes to

remove beachgrass and allow for inland sand movement and tidal action to

maintain open dunes (K. Palermo in litt. 1998b).

At the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, herbicide treatments have been

conducted as a primary control method and as follow-up to mechanical control. In

recent years, from 2 to 26 hectares (5 to 65 acres) of beachgrass were sprayed with

an herbicide treatment of 8 percent Rodeo and nonionic surfactant (spray-to-wet)

at three locations. Employees found that a follow-up application within 2 weeks

of the first application was critical to obtain optimum coverage and initial die-off

rates (90 percent). Additionally, herbicide treatments were most effective when

conducted consecutively over 2 to 3 years depending on density. Beachgrass

control at the Oregon Dunes is still considered experimental. Preliminary results

suggest that maintenance will always be necessary (K. Palermo in litt. 1998b). 

Work at Lanphere-Christensen Dune Preserve in Humboldt County, California,

showed that hand pulling can eliminate European beachgrass, but 3 years of

multiple maintenance treatments were required (Pickart and Sawyer 1998). Use

of heavy equipment (e.g., “V” ripper) and herbicides may be more cost-effective;

however, resprouting of the grass occurs, necessitating follow-up, manual pulling

for long-term beachgrass removal (A. Pickart pers. comm. 1997). 

The effective strategy used by the California Department of Parks and Recreation

to remove beachgrass at Marina Dunes and Salinas River State Beaches, Monterey

Bay, included multiple herbicide applications of 10 percent Round-Up. 

Approximately 25 patches of beachgrass covering a total approximately 0.5

hectare (1.3 acres) have been treated along a 6.4-kilometer (4-mile) section of

beach. Each patch of beachgrass was sprayed every 3 months over a 3-year

period. All treated sites were marked so that they could be easily located and

monitored for regrowth and spread. Current plans include beachgrass removal on
92

approximately 30 hectares (75 acres) at Zmudowski State Beach at the Pajaro

River mouth (D. Dixon in litt. 1998).

Pickart (1997) suggested that chemical treatment of European beachgrass is likely

to be the most cost-effective method used to date. Herbicides that have been used

for this purpose are glyphosates (trade names Rodeo and Round-Up). The most

effective period for herbicide treatment of beachgrass is during its flowering stage

(Wiedemann 1987); plants should be treated during periods of active growth

(Pickart 1997). However, potential adverse biological impacts to other native

plants and animals must be considered when using herbicides, and selective

spraying may be difficult in some areas. Chemical treatment in active snowy

plover nesting areas may need to be limited to the period outside the breeding

season in certain areas to avoid disturbing nesting plovers.

Additional management options for beach and dune erosion control are needed. 

Beachgrass continues to be used because it has been tried successfully in the past,

nursery stock is available, and field planting technology is well known. However,

negative aspects of its monoculture are recognized. Proper planting and

management of a mixture of native vegetation, together with the provision of

walkways for pedestrian traffic and the elimination of horse traffic, cattle grazing,

and off-road vehicles, may result in stabilization every bit as effective as

beachgrass, yet there has been minimal experimentation with this technique

(Barbour and Major 1990). 

e. Off-Road Vehicle Restrictions and Management

Management strategies to reduce off-road and other vehicle impacts have been

implemented at some snowy plover breeding sites. At Pismo/Oceano Dunes State

Vehicular Recreation Area, California, management strategies include fenced-off

nesting areas; placement of exclosures around nests; restrictions on vehicle speed

and access areas; and requirements that car campers remove all trash. At

Pismo/Oceano Dunes State Vehicle Recreation Area, a management plan is being

developed as an interim measure by the California Department of Parks and

Recreation, Off-Road Vehicle Division, to address what effects current

management measures have on hatching and fledging rates, as well as recruitment
93

into the snowy plover population (D. Noda in litt. 1996). However, as a result of

a violation under section 9 of the Endangered Species Act involving a portion of

the park not covered by the Fish and Wildlife Service biological opinion and the

required habitat management plan, the Off-Road Vehicle Division of the

California Department of Parks and Recreation is now funding the development

of a habitat conservation plan (in anticipation of applying for a section 10(a)(1)(B)

permit under the Endangered Species Act) for the Pismo/Oceano Dunes State

Vehicular Recreation Area and other State parks within the San Luis Obispo

District of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. We hope that the

San Simeon District will also seek coverage under this habitat conservation plan. 

The conservation issues for western snowy plovers and California least terns at

the Pismo/Oceano Dunes State Vehicular Recreation Area are directing the

development of the habitat conservation plan, but it is likely that other species will

be covered. The California Department of Parks and Recreation is currently

considering what species they want covered under the habitat conservation plan. 

This plan will evaluate the effects that recreation and park management activities

are having on the covered species. Successful development of this Plan will

provide a template for other districts of the California Department of Parks and

Recreation to follow for coastal conservation issues on State parks throughout

California.

On the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, part of the

main access road (Marshlands Road) is closed to motorized vehicles from April 1

to August 31, to protect snowy plovers nesting near the roadway. Highway traffic

cones and ribbons are installed to discourage vehicle access to nesting areas on

roads and levees (J. Albertson in litt. 1999).

In 1995, after the Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area completed its

management plan, the U.S. Forest Service petitioned the Oregon Parks and

Recreation Department to close several kilometers of beach that had been open to

vehicles. Resulting closures reduced conflicts between off-highway vehicles and

nonmotorized recreationists, snowy plovers, and other wildlife (E.Y. Zielinski and

R.W. Williams in litt. 1999). 
94

On some beaches at Willapa National Wildlife Refuge, where off-road vehicles

are prohibited, violations still occur. During the mid-March to mid-September

snowy plover nesting season, off-road vehicles are prohibited at Willapa National

Wildlife Refuge, covering Leadbetter Point and Gunpowder Sands, Willapa Bay,

Washington. However, a rash of night-time intrusions onto the beach occurred in

late May and early June 1995 (Williamson 1995). Because of such violations,

diligent surveillance and enforcement by applicable agencies is extremely

important.

f. Population Monitoring

The Point Reyes Bird Observatory has been monitoring the distribution and

breeding success of snowy plovers since 1977. The Point Reyes Bird Observatory

is a nonprofit organization devoted to biological research for avian conservation. 

The current monitoring of breeding snowy plovers in Marin, Monterey, and Santa

Cruz Counties, and at Vandenberg Air Force Base, is conducted by Point Reyes

Bird Observatory contractors and staff. These monitoring efforts were funded in

part by the National Park Service. The U.S. Geological Survey, Biological

Resources Division, has monitored snowy plovers in San Diego County since

1994. These monitoring efforts were funded in part by the U.S. Marine Corps

(monitoring at Camp Pendleton Marine Corps Base) and U.S. Navy, Southwest

Division (monitoring at Naval Air Station, North Island, and San Clemente Island

in 1997). Additional funding for surveys in Orange, Los Angeles, and San Diego

Counties was obtained from the California Department of Fish and Game in 1995. 

The Oregon Natural Heritage Program and The Nature Conservancy have

conducted snowy plover monitoring since 1990; this work has been supported by

the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, the U.S. Bureau of Land

Management, the U.S. Forest Service, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Some public land managers conduct varying degrees of plover population

monitoring. The California Department of Parks and Recreation, Off-Road

Vehicle Division, conducts annual monitoring at the Pismo/Oceano Dunes State

Vehicular Recreation Area (J. Didion in litt. 1999).

Monitoring efforts by the Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Oregon Natural Heritage

Program, and U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division, also
95

include banding of snowy plovers at some locations (see Figure 10). Banding

provides important additional data, including information on snowy plover

survival and plover migration patterns.

Figure 10. Banding a snowy plover chick (photo by Bonnie Peterson with

permission)

g. Salt Pond Management

Intensive management at the Moss Landing Wildlife Area has made a major

contribution to snowy plover breeding success in the Monterey Bay area. 

Management by Point Reyes Bird Observatory staff, in coordination with the

California Department of Fish and Game, has been ongoing since 1995. 

Management activities include draw-down of water levels in part of the salt ponds

at the beginning of the nesting season to provide dry sites for nests, and flooding

of remnant wet areas twice per month through the nesting season to maintain

foraging habitat for adults and their young. Predator control is conducted by the

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services Branch.

The Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge manages a former

salt pond called the “Crescent Pond” (within CA-36 in Appendix B) for snowy

plovers by reducing the water levels during the breeding season. In the future, the
96

Refuge anticipates that it may have to reduce vegetation in this area to increase

habitat quality for plovers. 

h. Habitat Acquisition

Acquisition and management of key sites is an important conservation effort. In

October 1998, The Nature Conservancy transferred the approximately 193-hectare

(483-acre) Lanphere-Christensen Dunes Preserve (part of Mad River Mouth and

Beach, California, CA-7) to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for conservation

purposes. The area will be managed by the Humboldt Bay National Wildlife

Refuge for natural resources, including the snowy plover. In October 1998, the

Port of San Diego announced an agreement enabling approximately 560 hectares

(1,400 acres) of Western Salt Company land (CA-131) to be managed by the San

Diego National Wildlife Refuge. The salt ponds are a snowy plover nesting and

wintering area.

i. Use of Volunteers 

Volunteers contribute to the conservation of snowy plovers and their habitat at

many beach locations, including Morro Bay and Oceano Dunes State Vehicular

Recreation Area. Volunteers and docents assist public land managers in many

ways (see Appendix K), including informing park visitors about threats to the

snowy plover, reducing human and pet disturbances, and assisting with direct

habitat enhancement (e.g., manual removal of European beachgrass; Figure 11). 

In 1998, the Western Snowy Plover Guardian Program was developed to assist the

conservation and recovery of snowy plovers in Monterey Bay. This program is

mainly a volunteer effort by local citizens who assist in protecting snowy plovers

through monitoring, reporting, and educational activities (D. Dixon in litt. 1998). 

Similar opportunities to coordinate volunteers for snowy plover conservation

could be realized through the Coast Watch Program sponsored by the National

Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and local Adopt-a-Beach programs.
97

Figure 11. High School students removing European beachgrass (photo by

Kerrie Palermo, with permission). 

j. Public Outreach and Education

Public land managers and private conservation organizations have produced

public educational materials, including brochures, posters, flyers, and

informational/interpretative signs regarding snowy plovers (see Appendix K).

 Environmental education/interpretation is recognized by land management

agencies as an important tool that supports their mission of resource stewardship. 

Increased understanding and appreciation of natural resources (specifically

threatened and endangered species) often results in increased public support. This

support is not easily measured and when the audience is children, results may not

be seen until they reach adulthood. However, those agencies conducting snowy

plover education to date have found a positive response by individuals. In

Oregon, on-site monitors of the U.S. Forest Service (Oregon Dunes National

Recreation Area) and U.S. Bureau of Land Management report a willingness of

the majority of contacted individuals to comply with restrictions after better

understanding the reasons for them.
98

The La Purisima Audubon Society, Santa Barbara County, produced an

educational video about the snowy plover in 1999.. It was distributed to public

schools and museums within Santa Barbara County in 2000.

k. Section 6 Cooperative Agreements

Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act allows the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service to enter into cooperative agreements with states that establish and

maintain active programs for the conservation of listed species. Through funding

under section 6, those states assist the recovery of endangered and threatened

species and monitor their status. Recent projects funded by the California

Department of Fish and Game, using section 6 funds, include (1) control of

excessive predation of snowy plovers and California least terns by American

peregrine falcons (funded in fiscal year 1998 for $15,000) and (2) development of

a corvid management plan to benefit snowy plovers, California least terns, and

marbled murrelets (funded in fiscal year 1998 for $20,000). In the State of

Washington, section 6 funds have been used for funding purchase and installation

of signs for protection of nesting areas, enforcement of closures, and conducting

nest surveys and monitoring. Current proposals include funding these activities

on an expanded basis and identifying areas to improve plover habitat suitability

through experimental beachgrass control. Future proposals may include predator

exclosures, should predation prove to be a limiting factor, and signing and

monitoring of newly-established habitat. In Oregon, section 6 funds have been

used for nest exclosures for snowy plovers, monitoring nesting success,

population monitoring, and habitat management (i.e., European beachgrass

control). 

 

3. Conservation Efforts on Private Lands

Private landowners interested in conservation efforts for snowy plovers and

coastal dune habitats have made important contributions to recovery efforts for

coastal dune species. At Ormond Beach, California, Southern California Edison

has enhanced approximately 60 hectares (150 acres) of degraded wetlands and

coastal dune habitat for several special status species, including the snowy plover

and California least tern (D. Pearson pers. comm. 1996).
99

4. Federal Regulatory Program

a. Critical Habitat

We proposed designation of critical habitat for the snowy plover in March 1995

(U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1995b). It is important to understand what critical

habitat means, the status of the proposal, and how it differs from this recovery

plan. 

Section 3 of the Endangered Species Act defines critical habitat to mean: (i) the

specific areas within the geographical area occupied by the species at the time it is

listed on which are found those physical or biological features (I) essential to the

conservation of the species and (II) which may require special management

considerations or protection; and (ii) specific areas outside the geographical area

occupied by the species at the time it is listed, upon determination that such areas

are essential for the conservation of the species. The term “conservation” means

“to use and the use of all methods and procedures which are necessary to bring

any endangered species or threatened species to the point at which the measures

provided pursuant to this Act are no longer necessary.” Therefore, critical habitat

is to include biologically suitable areas necessary to recovery of the species. 

On March 2, 1995, we published a proposed rule to designate critical habitat at 28

areas along the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1995b). At that time, critical habitat was proposed to fulfill an

outstanding requirement under section 4 of the Endangered Species Act to

highlight important habitat areas on which activities that require Federal actions

need to be evaluated under section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. A funding

moratorium by the U.S. Department of the Interior for listing actions was in place

during the period April 1995 to April 1996. We have subsequently acknowledged

a serious backlog of listing actions and the need to prioritize them (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1996b). Hence, we developed guidance for assigning relative

priorities to listing actions conducted under section 4 of the Endangered Species

Act during fiscal years 1998 and 1999 (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). 

Designation of critical habitat was placed in the lowest priority (Tier 3). Under

this guidance, we placed higher priority on listing imperiled species that currently
100

have limited or no protection under the Endangered Species Act than on devoting

limited resources to the process of designating critical habitat for currently-listed

species. In addition, we found that because the protection afforded by critical

habitat designation applies only to Federal actions, such designation provides little

or no additional protection beyond the “jeopardy” prohibition of section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act, which also applies only to Federal actions (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service 1998). Critical habitat is most likely to be useful as a tool for

conserving snowy plovers where habitat is not currently occupied and it is

difficult to demonstrate that an action will result in take of plovers using the site.

In December 1995, legal challenges by the Environmental Defense Center, Santa

Barbara, California, against the U.S. Department of the Interior to finalize

designation of critical habitat for the snowy plover were overruled by the

California District Court (U.S. District Court, Central District of California 1995). 

At that time, the Court’s order was based on its decision that lack of funding

prevented the Secretary of the Interior from taking final action on proposals for

designating critical habitat. However, on November 10, 1998, the U.S. District

Court for the Central District of California ruled that the Secretary of the Interior

must publish a final designation of critical habitat for the snowy plover before

December 1, 1999 (U.S. District Court, Central District of California 1998). The

final rule designating critical habitat was published on December 7, 1999 (U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service 1999).

Critical habitat requires Federal agencies to evaluate the effects that any activities

they fund, authorize, or carry out may have on listed species. Agencies are

required to ensure that such activities are not likely to jeopardize the survival of a

listed species or adversely modify (e.g., damage or destroy) its critical habitat. By

consulting with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under section 7 of the

Endangered Species Act, Federal agencies can usually minimize or avoid any

potential conflicts; activities have almost always been allowed to proceed in some

form (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993c). Because our issuance of permits

under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act constitutes a Federal

action or connection and is subject to an internal section 7 consultation, habitat

conservation plans developed for actions on private lands must also analyze the

potential for adverse modification of critical habitat. 
101

Critical habitat designation does not create a wilderness area, preserve, or wildlife

refuge, nor does it close an area to human access or use. It applies only to

activities sponsored at least in part by Federal agencies. Such federally-permitted

land uses as grazing and recreation may take place if they do not adversely modify

critical habitat. Designation of critical habitat does not constitute a land

management plan, nor does it signal any intent of the government to acquire or

control the land. Therefore, if there is no Federal involvement (e.g., Federal

permit, funding, or license), activities of a private landowner, such as farming,

grazing, or constructing a home, generally are not affected by a critical habitat

designation, even if the landowner’s property is within the geographical

boundaries of critical habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1993c). Without a

Federal connection to a proposed action, designation of critical habitat does not

require that landowners of State or other non-Federal lands do anything more than

they would otherwise do to avoid take under provisions of sections 9 and 10 of the

Endangered Species Act.

Critical habitat designation is not necessarily intended to encompass a species’

entire current range. Recovery plans, however, address all areas determined to be

important for recovery of listed species and identify needed management

measures to achieve recovery. The recovery units described in this recovery plan

include but are not restricted to the 28 areas designated as critical habitat: Damon

Point, Leadbetter Point, Bayocean Spit, Heceta Head-Sutton Creek, Siltcoos River

North, Siltcoos River-Threemile Creek, Umpqua River-Horsfall Beach, Horsfall

Beach-Coos Bay, and Bandon Park-Floras Lake in Recovery Unit 1; Humboldt

Coast-Lagoon Beaches and Eel River Beaches in Recovery Unit 2; Bodega Bay,

Dillon Beach, Half Moon Bay Beaches, Santa Cruz Coast Beaches, Monterey Bay

Beaches, and Point Sur Beach in Recovery Unit 4; Arroyo Hondo Creek Beach,

Arroyo Laguna Creek Beach, Morro Bay Beaches, Pismo Beach/Nipomo Dunes,

Point Sal-Point Conception, Santa Barbara Coast Beaches, Oxnard Lowlands, and

San Nicolas Island Beaches in Recovery Unit 5; and Malibu Lagoon, Mission

Beach and Bay, and South San Diego Coast Beaches in Recovery Unit 6. As part

of our efforts to conserve snowy plovers in these recovery units, we will consult

with federal agencies under section 7 to ensure federally funded or permitted

actions do not adversely modify critical habitat. However, implementation of the
102

recovery tasks in this plan (e.g., monitoring, habitat improvement, nest protection,

recreation management) will not be limited to designated critical habitat areas.

b. Section 9 Take Prohibitions

Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, prohibits any

person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States from taking (i.e., harassing,

harming, pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or

collecting) listed wildlife species. It is also unlawful to attempt such acts, solicit

another to commit such acts, or cause such acts to be committed. Regulations

implementing the Endangered Species Act (50 CFR 17.3) further define “harm” to

include significant habitat modification or degradation that results in the killing or

injury of wildlife by significantly impairing essential behavioral patterns including

breeding, feeding, or sheltering. “Harass” means an intentional or negligent act or

omission that creates the likelihood of injury to wildlife by annoying it to such an

extent as to significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns, which include, but

are not limited to, breeding, feeding, or sheltering.

As an example under the authority of section 9 of the Endangered Species Act, on

May 15, 1998, we received preliminary injunctive relief against the Town of

Plymouth, Massachusetts, because their beach management failed to prevent take

(killing) of a piping plover chick by an off-road vehicle (U.S. District Court for

Massachusetts 1998). The judge’s order prohibited off-road vehicle traffic

through the piping plover’s nesting season unless the town implemented specific

management measures to preclude take, including twice-daily monitoring of nests

and a 400-meter (1,148-foot) buffer of protected habitat for newly-hatched chicks. 

c. Section 10 Permits

Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act and related regulations provide for

permits that may be granted to authorize activities otherwise prohibited under

section 9, for scientific purposes or to enhance the propagation or survival of a

listed species (i.e., section 10(a)(1)(A) permits). These permits have been granted

to certain biologists of conservation organizations (e.g., Point Reyes Bird

Observatory and Oregon Natural Heritage Program) and Federal and State
103

agencies to conduct snowy plover population monitoring and banding studies and

construct predator exclosures. It is also legal for employees or designated agents

of certain Federal or State agencies to take listed species without a permit if the

action is necessary to aid sick, injured, or orphaned animals or to salvage or

dispose of a dead specimen.

Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act also allows permits to be

issued for take of endangered and threatened species that is “incidental to, and not

the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity” if we determine that

certain conditions have been met. An applicant for an incidental take permit must

prepare a habitat conservation plan that specifies the impacts of the take, the steps

the applicant will take to minimize and mitigate the impacts, funding that will be

available to implement these steps, alternative actions to the take that the

applicant considered, and the reasons why such alternatives are not being utilized. 

Conditions that we must meet include a determination: (1) whether the taking

will be incidental, (2) whether the applicant will minimize and mitigate the

impacts of such taking to the maximum extent possible, (3) that adequate funding

for the plan will be provided, (4) that the taking will not appreciably reduce the

likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild, and (5) of any

other measures that we may require as being necessary or appropriate for the plan. 

Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Endangered Species Act provides for permits that have

the potential to contribute to conservation of listed species. Such permits are

intended to reduce conflicts between the conservation of listed species and

economic activities, and to develop partnerships between the public and private

sectors. 

d. Section 7 Requirements and Consultations

Section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act requires all Federal agencies “to

utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of the Endangered Species

Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered and threatened

species listed under the Act”. Hence, Federal agencies have a greater obligation

than do other parties, and are required to be pro-active in the conservation of

listed species regardless of their requirements under section 7(a)(2) of the Act. 

Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires Federal agencies to
104

consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to authorizing, funding, or

carrying out activities that may affect listed species. Section 7 obligations have

caused Federal land management agencies to implement western snowy plover

protection measures that go beyond those required to avoid take; for example,

eradicating European beachgrass and conducting research on threats to western

snowy plovers. Other examples of Federal activities that may affect snowy

plovers along the Pacific coast, thereby triggering a section 7 consultation, include

permits for sand management activities on Federal lands (National Park Service,

U.S. Department of the Interior); disposal of dredged materials (U.S. Army Corps

of Engineers); and funding to public agencies for projects to repair beach

facilities, such as public access paths (Federal Emergency Management Agency). 

e. Other Federal Regulations, Executive Orders, and Agreements

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376), as amended, and

section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899 (33 U.S.C. 403) are the primary

Federal laws that could provide some protection of nesting and wintering habitat

of the western snowy plover that is determined by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (Corps) to be wetlands or historic navigable waters of the United

States. Excavation or placement of any fill material (including sand) below the

high tide line, as defined under 33 CFR, Section 328.3(d), Definition of Waters of

the United States, also requires a permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 

In September 1994, 14 Federal agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service, U.S. Forest

Service, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, National Marine

Fisheries Service, and Department of Defense, signed a Memorandum of

Understanding affirming their commitments to carry out programs for the

conservation of species listed under the Endangered Species Act and the

ecosystems upon which they depend, including implementing appropriate

recovery actions that are identified in recovery plans (U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service 1994). Compliance with this Memorandum of Understanding would

advance recovery of the snowy plover by promoting improved management of

snowy plovers on Federal lands and leadership by Federal agencies in recovery

unit working groups.
105

Executive Order 11644, Use of Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands, and

Executive Order 11989, Off-Road Vehicles on Public Lands, pertain to lands

under custody of the Secretaries of Agriculture, Defense, and Interior (except for

Native American Tribal lands). Executive Order 11644 requires administrative

designation of areas and trails where off-road vehicles may be permitted. 

Executive Order 11989 states that “... the respective agency head shall, whenever

he determines that the use of off-road vehicles will cause or is causing

considerable adverse effects on the soil, vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat ...

immediately close such areas or trails to the type of off-road vehicles causing such

effects, until such time as he determines that such effects have been eliminated

and that measures have been implemented to prevent future recurrence” (emphasis

added). Compliance with this executive order would promote prohibitions or

restrictions on off-road vehicles so that they are not allowed to adversely affect

sensitive habitats used by snowy plovers.

Executive Order 11988, Floodplain Management, and Executive Order 11990,

Protection of Wetlands, provide protective policies that apply to snowy plover

habitats. Executive Order 11988 mandates that all Federal agencies avoid direct

or indirect support of floodplain development wherever there is a practicable

alternative. Executive Order 11990 mandates that all Federal agencies shall

“provide leadership and shall take action to minimize the destruction, loss or

degradation of wetlands, and to preserve and enhance the natural and beneficial

values of wetlands...” Compliance with Executive Order 11988 would promote

protection of beach and dune habitats through restrictions on development within

floodplains. Application of Executive Order 11990 would promote protection of

wetland habitats used by snowy plovers. 

Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species, directs Federal agencies to prevent the

introduction of invasive species; control their populations in a cost-effective and

environmentally sound manner; monitor invasive species; restore native species

and habitat conditions in ecosystems that have been invaded; conduct research and

develop technologies to prevent their introduction; and promote public education

on invasive species and the means to address them. This executive order also

requires that a Federal agency “not authorize, fund, or carry out actions that it

believes are likely to cause or promote the introduction or spread of invasive
106

species...” Compliance with this executive order would enhance snowy plover

habitats through (1) avoidance of use, approval, or funding the planting of

invasive species like European beachgrass; and (2) active programs to remove this

invasive species and restore coastal dune habitats with native plant species. 

The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), as amended,

requires that whenever a proposed public or private development is subject to

Federal permit, funding, or license, the conservation of fish and wildlife resources

shall be given equal consideration. This Act also requires that project proponents

shall consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the State agency

responsible for fish and wildlife resources. Compliance with the Fish and

Wildlife Coordination Act highlights the importance of considering and providing

for the habitat needs of fish and wildlife resources when reviewing projects that

would adversely affect these resources. 

The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, (42 U.S.C. 4321-4347), as

amended, requires that each Federal agency prepare an environmental impact

statement on the potential environmental consequences of major actions under

their jurisdiction. Environmental impact statements must include the impacts on

ecological systems, any direct or indirect consequences that may result from the

action, less environmentally damaging alternatives, cumulative long-term effects

of the proposed action, and any irreversible or irretrievable commitment of

resources that might result from the action. Compliance with the National

Environmental Policy Act highlights the need to disclose, minimize, and mitigate

impacts to biological resources, including snowy plovers. 

The Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1451-1464), as amended,

established a program for states to voluntarily develop comprehensive programs

to protect and manage coastal resources. To receive Federal approval and funding

under this Act, states must demonstrate that they have programs and enforceable

policies that are sufficiently comprehensive and specific to regulate land uses,

water uses, and coastal development, and must have authorities to implement

enforceable policies. Local coastal plans, local comprehensive plans, and

implementing measures by coastal planning jurisdictions pursuant to the Coastal
107

Zone Management Act should be developed, updated, and implemented with

protective measures for snowy plovers. 

Snowy plovers are protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16

U.S.C. 703-712), as amended. Under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, prohibited

acts include pursuing, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, or

collecting any migratory bird, nest, or eggs without a permit from the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service. 

5. State Regulatory Protection, Policies, and Agreements

In Washington, Oregon, and California, each state holds title to, and has

regulatory jurisdiction over, the coastal intertidal zone. In Washington, the area

between mean high tide to extreme low tide is the seashore conservation area

under the authority of the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. 

In California, the California State Lands Commission has regulatory authority to

the mean high tide line along the California coast. 

In Oregon, the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department administers the State

beach for the ocean shore recreation area, which is defined as the area between the

line of extreme low water and the statutory vegetation line, which is a line

surveyed to the approximate line of vegetation that existed in 1969 (Oregon

Revised Statutes 390.770). The Oregon Division of State Lands also has 

jurisdiction over waters of the state along the Pacific coast to the line of highest

tide or the line of established vegetation, whichever is higher. Therefore, the

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department has direct jurisdiction, authority, and

responsibility for management of snowy plover habitats in the State of Oregon,

which owns not only to the mean high tide line, which is snowy plover foraging

habitat, but also into the vegetation line, which is essentially the dry sand area

used by snowy plovers for nesting. 

State coastal planning and regulatory agencies, such as the California Coastal

Commission, require preparation of local coastal zone management plans by local

coastal municipalities. These local coastal zone management plans must comply

with the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 regarding protection of coastal
108

resources, including natural resources. Under the California Coastal Management

Program, coastal resources are managed and cumulative impacts addressed

through: (1) coastal permits and appeals; (2) planning and implementation of

local coastal programs; and (3) Federal consistency review. However, effective

management of cumulative impacts is difficult under the existing management

framework because multiple jurisdictions have varying policies and standards in

different geographic areas (California Coastal Commission 1995). Through the

Coastal Commission’s regional cumulative assessment program, cumulative

impacts to coastal resources can be addressed through the periodic review of local

coastal programs. In California, most local coastal programs and general plans

were completed prior to 1993 (when we listed the snowy plover as a threatened

species); therefore, many do not reflect protective measures specifically for the

plover. 

The Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development is the designated

coastal zone management agency for the State of Oregon. The state of Oregon's

land use planning system has several elements that are related to conservation of

western snowy plovers and their habitats. In Oregon, local jurisdictions (cities

and counties), service districts, and State agencies are required to develop Local

Comprehensive Plans and Implementing Measures, such as zoning and land

division ordinances, to effect these plans. Each plan must satisfy a set of 19 goals

established through Oregon land use law and policy. Plans must be reviewed by

the Land Conservation and Development Commission for consistency with these

goals before they can be put into effect. Several of the planning goals have

application to, or should be considered during, planning for plover conservation

and recovery. These goals include: Goal 5 - Open Spaces, Scenic and Historic

Areas, and Natural Resources; Goal 7 - Areas Subject to Natural Disasters and

Hazards; Goal 8 - Recreational Needs; Goal 16 - Estuarine Resources; Goal 17 -

Coastal Shorelands; and Goal 18 - Beaches and Dunes.

Taken in aggregate, the elements of these goals that can contribute to snowy

plover recovery include:

 several requirements for protection of wildlife habitat;
109

 requiring protection of estuarine ecosystems including habitats, diversity,

and other natural values;

 establishing that uses of beaches and dunes shall be based on factors

including the need to protect areas of critical environmental concern and

significant wildlife habitat;

 requiring that coastal plans provide for uses of beaches and dunes that are

consistent with their ecological values and natural limitations;

 requiring an evaluation of the beneficial effects to natural resources from

allowing continuation of natural events that are hazardous to human

developments (such as erosion and ocean flooding);

 establishing a preference for nonstructural solutions to erosion and

flooding of coastal shorelands over structural approaches (such as seawalls

and rip-rap);

 requiring that development of destination resorts be compatible with

adjacent land uses and maintain important natural features such as

threatened and endangered species habitats;

 encouraging coordination among State, Federal, and local governmental

agencies while developing recreation plans, and discouraging development

of recreation plans that exceed the carrying capacity of the landscape;

 encouraging planning for Open Space, Scenic and Historic Areas, and

Natural Resources (Goal 5), Recreational Needs (Goal 8), and Coastal

Shorelands (Goal 17) in close coordination; and

 allowing dune stabilization programs only when in conformance with the

overall comprehensive plan and after assessment of the potential impacts.

Some aspects of these planning goals could be interpreted to be contrary to snowy

plover conservation and recovery when viewed in isolation. However, when

viewed in the context of the entire goal or all the planning goals, these elements

should be compatible with plover conservation and carefully-planned habitat

restoration activities. Two such elements are the directive to increase recreational

access to coastal shorelands and the restrictions placed on dune grading and

removal of vegetation. Goal 17 - Coastal Shorelands directs local governments

and the Oregon Parks and Recreation Department to develop a program to

increase public access. In many areas, recreational use of plover habitat during

the nesting season is detrimental to or incompatible with plover conservation. 
110

However, this goal also recognizes that many shorelands have unique or

exceptional natural area values, includes the objective of reducing adverse impacts

associated with use of coastal shorelands to fish and wildlife habitat, clearly

establishes that significant wildlife habitat shall be protected, establishes that uses

of such habitat areas shall be consistent with protection of natural values, and

directs recreation plans to provide for "appropriate" public access and recreational

use. Goal 18 - Beaches and Dunes directs local governments and State and

Federal agencies to regulate actions in beach and dune areas to minimize any

resulting erosion and only allows foredune breaching to replenish interdune areas

or in the case of an emergency. Plover habitat restoration efforts in areas that

have been overtaken by European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria) may involve

foredune breaching, vegetation removal, dune grading, and other actions that will

remove the European beachgrass and restore the natural beach and dune processes

of sand movement, including erosion and deposition. However, this goal also

recognizes the need to protect areas of critical environmental concern, areas of

biological importance, and areas with significant habitat value, specifically

identifies removal of "desirable" vegetation as an action requiring minimization of

erosion, and requires that any foredune breaching be consistent with sound

principles of conservation.

The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission administers the

Seashore Conservation Act of 1988 in accordance with the Revised Code of

Washington and the Washington Administrative Code. The Seashore

Conservation Area (Revised Code of Washington 43.51) emphasizes the

importance of beaches to the public for recreational activities. In designating

beach areas to be reserved for pedestrian use, it considers natural resources,

including protection of shorebird and marine mammal habitats, preservation of

native beach vegetation, and protection of sand dune topography. Chapter 352-37

(Ocean Beaches) of the Washington Administrative Code requires local

governments within the Seashore Conservation Area to prepare recreation

management plans that designate at least 40 percent of the ocean beach for use by

pedestrians and nonmotorized vehicles from April 15 to the day after Labor Day. 

These regulations also identify restrictions on certain uses within ocean beaches,

including motor vehicles, equestrian traffic, speed limits, aircraft, wind/sand

sailers, parasails, hovercraft, group recreation events, and beach parking and
111

camping. In 1989, an interagency agreement was signed by the Washington

Department of Natural Resources, Washington State Parks and Recreation

Commission, Washington Department of Wildlife, and City of Ocean Shores

regarding management of mixed uses at Damon Point. The intent of the

agreement was to protect snowy plovers while allowing recreation. 

State regulations, policies, and goals for the States of California, Oregon, and

Washington provide many protective measures for snowy plovers. However,

because they frequently emphasize public uses of beach habitat, there is potential

for conflicts between human uses of the coastal zone and needed management

measures for recovery of the snowy plover. To minimize these conflicts, this

recovery plan recommends that the California Coastal Commission, Oregon

Department of Land Conservation and Development, State of Washington Parks

and Recreation Commission, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department,

California Department of Parks and Recreation, and Oregon Department of Fish

and Wildlife (regarding the Oregon Endangered Species Act) review their local

coastal programs, regulations, policies, and goals for consistency with this

recovery plan and implement any necessary revisions (see Task 3.1.7). 

6. Consultations, Habitat Conservation Plans, and Other Regulatory Actions

Through consultations with Federal agencies under section 7 of the Endangered

Species Act and through the development of habitat conservation plans with non

Federal agencies developed under section 10 of the Endangered Species Act, we

provide nondiscretionary terms and conditions that minimize (sections 7 and 10)

and mitigate (section 10) the impacts of covered activities on listed species and

their habitat. Several major consultations and habitat conservation planning

efforts to benefit the snowy plover have been completed or are currently under

way.

In November 1995, our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office completed formal

consultation with the National Park Service, Golden Gate National Recreation

Area, on the effects of their management of Ocean Beach, San Francisco, on the

snowy plover. Ocean Beach experiences tremendous visitor use year-round

because of its proximity to San Francisco, yet it supports high numbers of
112

nonbreeding plovers, which may be present from May through July. The

consultation covered actions and policies the National Park Service had taken that

resulted in unnecessary harassment of nonbreeding plovers. Most significant of

these measures was their policy not to enforce regulations requiring pets to be

leashed and under control by their owners on all National Park Service lands. 

Data collected by the National Park Service clearly identified that unleashed dogs

were the most significant disturbance factor of the many sources of disturbance to

snowy plovers on Ocean Beach. As a result of the consultation, the National Park

Service began to enforce their “leash law” along 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) of beach

utilized by plovers. The National Park Service implemented this policy despite

vocal and persistent opposition by the San Francisco Society for the Prevention of

Cruelty to Animals and other local advocacy groups, including the “Rovers for

Plovers”, which organized themselves to challenge the National Park Service’s

leash law. These groups were successful in advocating their position in numerous

television news stories and articles in local newspapers. At the height of this

discourse, the local public radio station held a round-table discussion between the

National Park Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and Society for the

Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and solicited audience members to call in and

identify their viewpoint. The overwhelming majority of callers supported leash

law restrictions that would minimize harassment of plovers. 

Our Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office is informally consulting with gravel operators

on the Eel River, California. Gravel mining operations are subject to permits

from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers under Section 404 of the Clean Water

Act. The snowy plover breeds on the Eel River gravel beds. Impacts to snowy

plover associated with gravel mining operations will be assessed based on nesting

surveys, and may require take authorization through formal consultation. The

Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office is also working with Humboldt County, the

California Department of Fish and Game, and the California Department of Parks

and Recreation to implement additional protections for nesting plovers at

MacKerricher State Park, Clam Beach and the Eel River Wildlife Area. These

measures include installation of nest exclosures, signing, and development of

educational material for kiosks. We are also providing technical assistance to

Redwood National Park and MacKerricher State Park on exotic vegetation

management programs (J. Watkins in litt. 1999, J. Watkins pers. comm. 2001). 
113

Our Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office is attempting to initiate a regional approach

to habitat conservation planning for snowy plovers and other listed species along

Monterey Bay in Monterey County, California. Currently, there are several

proposed development projects within the cities of Marina and Sand City and each

of these cities is preparing a “city wide” habitat conservation plan for their

respective jurisdictions. We have expressed concerns about these projects being

presented in a piecemeal fashion, which does not allow an adequate assessment of

their cumulative effects, and we have recommended a regional approach through

preparation of a regional habitat conservation plan. This plan would provide

greater conservation benefits to the snowy plover. In addition to the adverse

effects of development on snowy plovers and their habitat, recreation on the

extensive public lands along Monterey Bay is also adversely affecting snowy

plovers. Therefore, public land managers, including our Refuges Division, the

California Department of Parks and Recreation, the California Department of Fish

and Game, and the Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District, need to be

involved in planning efforts along Monterey Bay.

In January 2001 the Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office released a draft biological

opinion on Vandenberg Air Force Base’s proposed beach management plan for

the snowy plover, concluding that the plan would "likely jeopardize the continued

existence of the western snowy plover and adversely modify its critical habitat." 

The Air Force's beach plan would have allowed twice as much nesting habitat to

be open to public recreation as was allowed during the 2000 breeding season, and

it would have reduced the time the Air Force spends patrolling the beaches by

about 80 percent. The Air Force subsequently reinitiated consultation on a

modified version of the beach management plan, including commitments to

signage, information kiosk, and enforcement patrols. The Ventura Fish and

Wildlife Office issued a non-jeopardy biological opinion on the modified action in

March 2001; as of early April, opening of the beach and full implementation of

conservation measures had not yet taken place (S. Henry pers. comm. 2001).

The Ventura Fish and Wildlife Office is also involved with the development of a

habitat conservation plan being funded by the Off-Road Vehicle Division of the

California Department of Parks and Recreation for the Pismo/Oceano Dunes State

Vehicular Recreation Area and other State parks within the San Luis Obispo
114

District of the California Department of Parks and Recreation. The habitat

conservation plan will evaluate the effects that recreation and park management

activities are having on the covered species, including the snowy plover.

In the past, several instances were documented of snowy plover nests being

trampled by cattle belonging to the Vail and Vickers Company on Santa Rosa

Island within the Channel Islands National Park, owned and managed by the

National Park Service. In 1996, a lawsuit to remove cattle from Santa Rosa Island

was initiated by the Environmental Defense Center, Santa Barbara, on behalf of

the National Park Conservation Association. It was initiated under the authority

of the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, based on concerns about

management of livestock by the National Park Service and associated impacts to

water quality and sensitive plant and animal species. As a result of a lawsuit

settlement, all cattle were removed from Santa Rosa Island in early 1998. 

Through the years, reproductive success for snowy plovers has been poor on Santa

Rosa Island. Ravens occurred regularly in the area associated with the cattle

operation. It remains to be seen whether removal of cattle will change this trend. 

Deer and elk, occasional users of snowy plover nesting beaches, will remain on

the island until 2011.

7. Regulatory Protection and Policies of Local Governments

Local governments regulate municipal land uses through development of local

land use plans, general plans, comprehensive plans, and zoning policies. On April

21, 1998, we requested that county and coastal city planners within the states of

Washington, Oregon, and California complete land-use management surveys

regarding the snowy plover. We sent surveys to 91 State, county, or coastal city

planners and received responses from 37 percent of the recipients. Approximately

50 percent of the respondents were aware that snowy plover habitats occur within

their jurisdictions. However, only about one-third knew whether sandy beach and

other habitats within their jurisdictions provided breeding and/or wintering habitat

for plovers. Many general plans, coastal zone programs, and comprehensive plans

prepared by local governments contain land use designations that are protective of

snowy plover habitats (e.g., parkland, open space, and conservation designations

for sandy beach). However, allowable uses in or adjacent to these zones, such as
115

development (e.g., seawalls, recreational facilities, single-family homes),

recreation and public access, could cause direct or indirect threats to breeding or

wintering plovers.

Whereas 43 percent of the respondents include regulatory policies that protect

snowy plover habitat (e.g., sandy beach) in their general plans, local coastal

programs or comprehensive plans, only 3 of the 34 respondents (8 percent), have

developed regulatory policies specifically to protect the plover. These

respondents included the City of Half Moon Bay, California, and Coos and Curry

Counties, Oregon. Only 8 of the 34 respondents (23 percent) specifically explain

the threatened status of the snowy plover, identify plover breeding/wintering

locations, or specify shorebird nesting/roosting habitats as environmentally

sensitive habitat areas in their jurisdictions. About 50 percent of the respondents

indicated they either (1) have approved development within or adjacent to sandy

beach or other habitats used by the snowy plover, or (2) did not know whether

such development had been approved by their agency. About half of these same

respondents could provide some information on the number of permits authorized,

area or linear distance affected, percentage of development types (e.g., housing,

recreational) permitted, and permit conditions. 

Based on these responses, it seems that specific locations of, and protective

measures for, snowy plover breeding and/or wintering locations are not included

in most of the existing general plans, comprehensive plans, local coastal

programs, or their implementing ordinances. Also, to better assess cumulative

impacts, these responses indicate a need for a better tracking method regarding

development projects approved within and adjacent to snowy plover habitat.

8. Interagency Coordination 

Since 1992, the Western Snowy Plover Working Team for Oregon has been

meeting at least twice a year to coordinate plover recovery efforts. This working

group has provided a forum for the participation of affected Federal and State

agencies, conservation organizations, user groups, and environmental groups in

discussion, implementation, and adjustment of recovery efforts in Oregon. Items

addressed include monitoring needs, predator control, signage, exclosures,
116

nonnative vegetation removal, and public outreach and education. This group

also facilitates funding partnerships for monitoring and management programs,

thus promoting the best use and leveraging of limited funds. It also acts as the

main forum for discussing and tracking the status and trends of the

Oregon/Washington snowy plover subpopulation.

In 1998, an interagency effort in Oregon produced a slide show and portable

display to educate beach visitors about snowy plover conservation. Outdoor

education specialists and/or plover biologists from the U.S. Bureau of Land

Management, U.S. Forest Service, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife,

Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

participated in this effort. The show provides basic information about the plover,

the reasons for its decline, and actions needed for its recovery, emphasizing the

contribution that beach visitors can make. 

In California, biannual plover coordination meetings are held among Federal and

State agencies and Point Reyes Bird Observatory staff to track the breeding

population of plovers in the Monterey Bay area. Meetings of this working group

have been ongoing since 1991. Management needs such as exclosures, symbolic

fencing, predator control, removal of exotic vegetation, and acquisition of key

sites are considered and planned through this forum. 
117

II. RECOVERY

A. RECOVERY OBJECTIVE

The objective of this recovery plan is to ensure the long-term viability of the U.S.

Pacific coast western snowy plover population so that this population can be

removed from the Federal list of endangered and threatened species.

B. RECOVERY CRITERIA

The Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover will be considered for

delisting when the following criteria have been met:

Criterion 1. Maintain for 10 years an average of 3,000 breeding adults

distributed among 6 recovery units as specified below:

Recovery Unit Subpopulation Size

1. Washington and Oregon 250 breeding adults

2. Del Norte to Mendocino 150 breeding adults

 Counties, California 

3. San Francisco Bay, California 500 breeding adults

4. Sonoma to Monterey Counties, 400 breeding adults

 California

5. San Luis Obispo to Ventura 1,200 breeding adults

 Counties, California

6. Los Angeles to San Diego Counties, 500 breeding adults

 California

Subpopulation sizes represent the best professional judgment of the western

snowy plover recovery team’s technical subteam. Numbers are based on a siteby-site evaluation of historical records, recent surveys, and future potential

(assuming dedicated, proactive management at breeding and wintering locations). 

Collectively, these numbers represent an approximately 50 percent increase in the

Pacific coast population size. They are about 15 percent below the “Management
118

Goal Breeding Numbers” identified in Appendices B and C, which represent

target populations under an intensive management scheme. The recovery criteria

for population size and distribution for the U.S. Pacific Coast population of the

western snowy plover represents only a portion of its historical abundance and

distribution. 

To reach these subpopulation sizes will require proactive management to attain a

level of productivity that will allow the population to grow. The population

viability analysis (Appendix D) suggests that reproductive success between 1.2 to

1.3 fledglings per male per year, with adult survival of 76 percent and juvenile

survival of 50 percent, provides a 57 to 82 percent probability of reaching a

population of 3,000 snowy plovers within 25 years. Enhancing productivity is

critical to population growth. Once the population size criterion is met, a lower

rate of productivity can sustain the population. This criterion is primarily

connected to improvement in listing factor 1 (the present or threatened

destruction, modification, or curtailment of their habitat or range), and secondarily

to listing factors 3 (disease and predation) and 5 (other natural or manmade factors

affecting their continued existence).

Criterion 2. Maintain a 5-year average productivity of at least one fledged

chick per male in each recovery unit in the last 5 years prior to delisting. 

From currently available data, it is estimated that males must average one fledged

young annually for population equilibrium (see Appendix D). This criterion is

primarily connected to improvement in listing factors 3 (disease and predation)

and 5 (other natural or manmade factors affecting their continued existence), and

secondarily to listing factor 2 (overutilization for commercial, recreational,

scientific, or educational purposes).

Criterion 3. Have in place participation plans among cooperating agencies,

landowners, and conservation organizations to assure protection and

management of breeding, wintering, and migration areas listed in Appendix

B to maintain the subpopulation sizes and average productivity specified in

criteria 1 and 2. 
119

Development of participation plans is listed under Task 3.1.2. (Table 6) at the end

of this chapter, which outlines the recovery actions recommended to meet these

recovery criteria, and in the stepdown narrative section, which describes each

action in detail. The stepdown narrative lists all subtasks necessary to fulfill the

main recovery task. It also represents a prioritization of measures to be

implemented. This criterion is primarily connected to improvement in listing

factor 4 (the inadequacy of existing regulatory mechanisms).

C. RECOVERY STRATEGY

1. Principles for Recovery

The following principles will guide future recovery efforts for the U.S. Pacific

coast population of the western snowy plover.

a. Population increases should be distributed throughout the snowy plover’s

Pacific coast range. 

Dispersal of the population across its breeding range helps to counterbalance

catastrophes, such as extreme climatic events, oil spills, or disease that might

depress regional survival and/or productivity. Maintaining robust, welldistributed subpopulations should reduce variance in survival and productivity of

the Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover as a whole, facilitate

interchange of genetic material between subpopulations, and promote

recolonization of any sites that experience declines or local extirpations due to

low productivity and/or temporary habitat loss.

This recovery plan and the population viability analysis (Appendix D) consider

the U.S. Pacific Coast population of the snowy plover to be a single management

entity, and population goals and objectives are based on that premise. The

recovery team recommends that no state, geographic region, or subpopulation of

the Pacific coast population of the snowy plover be considered for delisting

separately from the others. 
120

b. Intensive, ongoing management of snowy plovers and their habitats is essential

for recovery, and mechanisms to continue this management after delisting to

prevent a reversal of population increases following delisting under the

Endangered Species Act. 

c. Annual monitoring of snowy plover populations and reproductive success is

essential for adaptive management and to determine the success of recovery

efforts.

2. Roles of Federal, State, Local, and Private Sectors

a. Role of Federal Lands

Federal lands administered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park

Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, U.S. Marine

Corps, and the U.S. Departments of the Army (including Corps of Engineers),

Navy, and Air Force are extremely important to the conservation of the snowy

plover. As of 1988, approximately 34 percent of the breeding plover population

in California occurred on Federal lands (J.P. Myers in litt. 1988). Within San

Diego County, 72 to 87 percent of snowy plover nests were located on Federal

properties from 1994 to 1997; the majority were located on military bases (Powell

et al. 1997). In 1988, at least 50 percent of the plover’s breeding habitat was

under Federal agency jurisdiction in Oregon (J.P. Myers in litt. 1988). However,

the State of Oregon also has jurisdiction over much of this area (from mean high

tide to the vegetation line) through a recreational easement (E.Y. Zielinski and

R.W. Williams in litt. 1999). In Washington, the breeding site at Leadbetter Point

is within a national wildlife refuge. 

Under section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act, Federal agencies are

required to actively promote the conservation of listed species. The snowy plover

cannot be recovered simply through general habitat protection or complying with

required section 7 consultations. The snowy plover must be actively monitored

and managed for the full purposes of recovery or its population size will continue

to decline. Federal agencies alone cannot assure recovery of the snowy plover,

but they need to significantly increase their current monitoring and management
121

efforts now to assure survival and recovery of this species. Reasons why Federal

agencies should take this lead role include the following: (1) some Federal

agencies, including military agencies, do not have a recreational mandate and,

thus, may have fewer competing uses to their conservation responsibilities; (2)

some Federal lands contain large areas of contiguous habitat, including adjacent

inland areas that are easier to manage for conservation of natural resources than

fragmented, linear strips of land that may be owned by states, counties, cities, and

private landowners; and (3) in general, Federal agencies have larger budgets and

more resources to allocate for monitoring, management, research, and other

programs that could benefit plovers and their habitat. Protection of snowy plovers

and their habitat on Federal lands is important not only because of the direct

benefits to plovers that use these areas, but also because plover protection

programs on Federal lands frequently utilize state-of-the art management

measures (e.g., exclosures) and therefore serve as examples to non-Federal

landowners. The Federal Government also should take the lead in addressing the

sensitive issue of predator control.

b. Role of State Lands

State lands administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation,

California Department of Fish and Game, Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, Washington Department of

Fish and Wildlife, Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, and

Washington Department of Natural Resources play an important role in

conservation of snowy plovers and their habitats. Intensive management for

snowy plovers occurs at a number of state-owned plover habitat areas. The snowy

plover cannot be preserved simply through general habitat protection. Snowy

plovers must be actively monitored and managed to achieve recovery goals on

State lands or their population size will continue to decline. 

c. Roles of State and Local Governments

State and local government agencies, including State planning agencies and city

and county planning and community resources departments, have the primary

responsibility for overseeing land uses within their jurisdictions. Therefore, their
122

involvement in future recovery planning processes is critical. All Appendix B

locations should be identified as environmentally sensitive habitat areas requiring

protective measures for the plover in State and local planning documents and

zoning designations. Local coastal programs should be amended to include these

areas. To facilitate this effort, Federal and State agencies managing snowy plover

habitat should provide technical assistance and information to local governments

(see Tasks 3.1.6, 3.1.7 and 5.2). We can provide detailed maps of current snowy

plover breeding and/or wintering locations; these maps will be updated

periodically as needed.

d. Role of Municipal Lands 

Regional, county, and city lands, including regional and municipal park districts,

also serve a role in conserving breeding and wintering habitats for snowy plovers. 

Because these areas frequently receive heavy pedestrian and recreational use, local

jurisdictions with active public outreach programs can reach a large segment of

the coastal community regarding the plover’s status and habitat needs. 

e. Role of Private Lands

Conservation efforts on private lands are needed for the survival and recovery of

many listed and other sensitive species. Private landowners can also make

important contributions to snowy plover conservation through facilitating or

allowing the monitoring of snowy plover populations on their land and

implementing protective measures.

3. Conservation Tools and Strategies 

There are numerous conservation tools and strategies available to Federal, State,

municipal, and private landowners interested in snowy plover protection and

recovery. Appendix H includes a summary of conservation tools and strategies

available to landowners, nonprofit organizations, and regulatory agencies that may

be adopted to protect snowy plover habitat. 
123

4. Funding Sources 

Grants under section 6 of the Endangered Species Act provide states with

resources to implement a wide array of recovery activities that include population

monitoring and habitat restoration. Appendix I includes a summary of some other

potential sources of funds for implementation of recovery actions for the snowy

plover. Appendix I includes only a partial list of potential funding sources. Other

funding opportunities may be possible.

An essential mechanism for recovery of the snowy plover is the development and

implementation of participation plans for each of the six recovery units (see Task

3.1.2). A key element of these participation plans is the long-term commitment

by participating agencies to seek annual, ongoing funding for snowy plover

management and monitoring activities so that funding within agency budgets can

be secured. 

In many areas a significant portion of snowy plover conservation resources are

expended in efforts to minimize the adverse impacts of recreation. Often, the

primary objective of signs, ropes, on-site interpretation, and enforcement is to

manage the behavior of beach-goers such that impacts to plovers are reduced as

much as possible. In areas that have suffered extensive habitat loss or

degradation, such recreation management activities are an extremely high priority

in order to protect the plovers using the limited habitat that remains. For some

beach managers, much of the funding and staff time expended on recreation

management in and near plover habitat comes from resources targeted for

threatened and endangered species recovery. In absence of the need to coordinate

and pay for recreation management activities, more of these limited conservation

dollars and staff resources could be directed toward plover management actions

such as biological monitoring, habitat restoration, and predation control.

This situation is unique in the experience of many resource biologists. More

typically, avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures are integral

components of projects or programs that entail adverse impacts to sensitive

resources, and the costs of these activities are regarded to be part of the overall

cost of the project or program. Applying this traditional construct to recreation
124

projects and programs could significantly promote snowy plover recovery in

several ways. First, it would require impacts to plovers to be considered up front

when planning beach access or other recreation projects. Second, it would

encourage impact avoidance and minimization since such measures are often less

expensive than mitigation. Third, it would promote involvement of recreation

professionals in designing and implementing recreation management measures. 

And fourth, it would eliminate or reduce the diversion of biological resource

management funds toward recreation management activities, thus enabling more

of those dollars to be spent on snowy plover recovery actions.

5. Coordination, Participation, and Working Groups

We strongly believe that a collaborative stewardship approach to the proactive

management of listed species involving government agencies (Federal, State, and

local) and the private sector is critical to achieving the ultimate goal of recovery of

listed species under the Endangered Species Act. An essential mechanism to

achieve recovery of the snowy plover is the formation of working groups for each

of the six recovery units (see Appendix A), covering the following areas: (1)

Oregon and Washington; (2) Northern California (Del Norte, Humboldt, and

Mendocino Counties); (3) San Francisco Bay (locations within Counties of Napa,

Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo); (4) Monterey Bay (including coastal areas

along Counties of Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin, and

Sonoma); (5) San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties; and (6) Los

Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties (see Task 3.1.1). Representation from

the full contingency of Federal, State, local, and private landowners and other

parties who have a stake in snowy plover conservation within each of these six

recovery units will be needed to advance the recovery actions recommended in

this recovery plan. The Monterey and Oregon working groups should be

expanded and used as models for establishing new working groups. Working

group membership should include land managers, environmental groups, user

groups, and groups involved in conservation projects (including local chapters of

the National Audubon Society, Sierra Club, Native Plants Society, Americorps,

California Conservation Corps, Boy Scouts, Surfrider Foundation, and other

recreational use groups). These groups could provide large networks of

volunteers who could be mobilized to assist public resource agencies in the
125

implementation of management measures for protection and recovery of the

snowy plover.

It is expected that many agencies and individuals on the recovery team will

continue to participate in the working groups, which are ongoing or will be

developed for the six recovery units. Through evaluation, communication, and

coordination, members of each of the six working groups should manage the

snowy plover population and monitor progress towards recovery. They should

produce annual reports on population monitoring and the effectiveness of

management activities for the working group and the recovery leader within our

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. Each of the six working groups should

prepare a participation plan, thereby formalizing recovery implementation efforts

and the intentions of responsible agencies to seek ongoing, annual funding for

recovery implementation. The recovery leader should coordinate and

communicate with each recovery unit to support recovery efforts and assure

implementation of the recovery plan (see Tasks 3.1.1 through 3.1.4, 6, and 7). A

coordinated international conservation program with Mexico should also be

established to protect snowy plover populations and their habitat in that country

(see Task 8). 
126

Table 6. Recovery Task Outline

1 Monitor and manage breeding habitat of the Pacific coast population of

western snowy plovers to maximize survival and productivity.

1.1 Monitor the snowy plover breeding population.

 

1.1.1 Annually monitor population size and distribution at breeding

locations in each recovery unit. 

1.1.2 Monitor productivity. 

1.1.3 Monitor annual survival. 

1.1.4 Monitor snowy plover breeding activities at all breeding sites to

identify factors limiting abundance of breeding birds, clutch

hatching success, and chick fledging success.

1.1.5 Develop training and certification programs for snowy plover

survey coordinators.

1.1.6 Improve submittal system for monitoring data.

1.1.7 Evaluate and update lists of important breeding areas as data

become available.

1.1.8 Coordinate monitoring of snowy plovers and California least terns. 

1.2 Maintain natural coastal processes that perpetuate high quality

breeding habitat.

1.2.1 Avoid development that will destroy or degrade snowy plover

breeding habitat.
127

1.2.2 Avoid interference with natural processes of inlet formation,

migration, and closure.

1.2.3 Avoid interference with natural processes of erosion and deposition

of sand dunes.

1.2.4 Avoid beach stabilization projects. 

1.2.5 Remediate and compensate the disruption of natural processes by

creating and enhancing existing and potential breeding habitat. 

1.2.5.1 Remove nonnative and other invasive vegetation from

existing and potential breeding sites.

1.2.5.2 Deposit dredged material to enhance or create nesting 

habitat, and evaluate impacts from beach nourishment

activities.

1.2.5.3 Create, manage, and enhance coastal ponds and playas for

breeding habitat.

1.3 Prevent disturbance of breeding snowy plovers by people and domestic

animals.

1.3.1 Prevent pedestrian disturbance.

1.3.1.1 Seasonally close, fence, post, use exclosures, monitor, and

enforce regulations in areas used by breeding snowy

plovers as appropriate.

1.3.1.2 Develop and implement necessary State and local

ordinances, administrative rules, and regulations to enforce

closed areas on beaches used as breeding habitat.
128

1.3.1.3 Locate access points and trails well away from snowy 

 plover nesting habitat.

1.3.1.4 Implement and enforce pet restrictions.

1.3.1.5 Prevent disturbance from disruptive recreational activities 

 where breeding snowy plovers are present.

1.3.1.6 Prevent driftwood removal.

1.3.1.7 Implement and enforce anti-littering regulations.

1.3.2 Prevent disturbance, mortality, and habitat degradation by off-road

vehicles, including beach-raking machines.

1.3.3 Implement and enforce restrictions on horseback riding in nesting

areas.

1.3.4 Provide wardens, agents, or officers to enforce protective measures

in breeding habitat.

1.3.5 Develop and implement training programs for enforcement

personnel and others who work in snowy plover breeding habitat.

1.3.6 Ensure that enforcement efforts do not endanger snowy plovers,

their nests, eggs, or chicks.

1.4 Prevent excessive predation of snowy plovers.

1.4.1 Remove litter and garbage from beaches manually, not by raking

machines.

1.4.2 Remove predator perches and unnatural habitats.
129

1.4.3 Erect predator exclosures to reduce snowy plover egg predation

where appropriate. 

1.4.4 Remove predators where warranted and feasible.

1.4.5 Remove bird and mammal carcasses in snowy plover nesting areas.

1.5 Protect snowy plovers and their breeding habitat from oil or chemical

spills.

1.6 Replace exotic dune plants with native dune vegetation where it is

likely to improve breeding habitat for snowy plovers.

1.7 Compensate the loss of snowy plover breeding habitat associated with

recovery efforts for other sensitive species, including those within the

San Francisco Bay recovery unit.

1.8 Discourage pinnipeds from usurping snowy plover nesting areas.

2 Monitor and manage wintering and migration areas to maximize snowy 

plover population survival. 

2.1 Monitor known and potential wintering locations.

2.1.1 Monitor snowy plover abundance and distribution at wintering

locations in each recovery unit.

2.1.2 Identify factors limiting the quality of wintering locations.

2.1.3 Quantify wintering habitat needs of snowy plovers along the 

Pacific coast.

2.1.4 Evaluate and update lists of important wintering areas as data

become available.
130

2.2 Prevent human degradation and disturbance of snowy plover wintering

habitat. 

2.2.1 Protect wintering habitat from impacts of water

diversion/impoundment and shoreline stabilization, navigation, and

development projects. 

2.2.2 Protect wintering habitat from disturbance by people and domestic

animals.

 

2.2.3 Develop and implement necessary State and local ordinances,

administrative rules, and regulations to enforce closed areas on

beaches used as snowy plover wintering habitat.

2.2.4 Provide trained wardens, agents, or officers to enforce protective

measures in snowy plover wintering habitat.

2.2.5 Protect snowy plover wintering habitat from degradation due to oil

or chemical spills.

2.2.6 Protect wintering habitat from degradation by removing litter

manually instead of using raking machines.

2.3 Compensate loss of snowy plover wintering habitat associated with

recovery efforts for other sensitive species.

2.4 Protect snowy plovers during migration.

2.4.1 Identify important migration stop-over habitat.

2.4.2 Identify and mitigate any factors that may be adversely affecting

migratory stop-over habitat for snowy plovers. 

3 Develop mechanisms for long-term management and protection of snowy

plovers and their breeding and wintering habitat.
131

3.1 Develop and implement regional cooperative participation networks

and programs.

3.1.1 Establish snowy plover working groups for each of the six recovery

units.

3.1.2 Develop and implement regional participation plans for each of the

six recovery units.

3.1.3 Provide intensive management and protection of snowy plovers on

all Federal and State lands.

3.1.4 Develop and implement management plans for all Federal and

State lands.

3.1.4.1 Develop and implement management plans for Federal 

lands.

3.1.4.2 Develop and implement habitat conservation plans on 

State wildlife areas, State ecological reserves, and State

beaches.

3.1.5 Encourage and assist local governments and appropriate private

landowners to develop and implement habitat conservation plans.

3.1.6 Assist local governments in developing and implementing local

land use protection measures.

3.1.7 Encourage the California State Coastal Commission, the Oregon

Department of Land Conservation and Development, the

Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, the Oregon

Parks and Recreation Department, the California Department of

Parks and Recreation, and the Oregon Department of Fish and
132

Wildlife to review local coastal programs and policies for

consistency with the snowy plover recovery plan.

3.1.8 Obtain long-term agreements with private landowners.

3.1.9 Identify snowy plover habitat for acquisition.

3.1.10 Ensure that any section 10(a)(1)(B) and section 7(a)(2) permits

contribute to Pacific coast western snowy plover conservation.

4 Undertake scientific investigations that facilitate recovery efforts.

4.1 Investigate effective and cost-efficient methods for habitat restoration

by removal of introduced beachgrass.

4.2 Develop and test new predator management techniques to protect

snowy plover nests and chicks.

4.2.1 Develop higher-efficiency nest exclosures.

4.2.2 Develop California least tern enclosures that prevent harm to

snowy plovers.

4.2.3 Investigate ecology of native predators.

4.2.4 Investigate predator management at the landscape level.

4.2.5 Investigate techniques for identifying predators.

4.2.6 Investigate aversive methods to discourage snowy plover predators.

4.3 Improve methods of monitoring population size and reproductive

success of snowy plovers. 

4.3.1 Improve methods of monitoring snowy plover population size.
133

4.3.2 Develop sampling methods for annually estimating reproductive

success.

4.3.3 Monitor snowy plover survival rates.

4.4 Identify snowy plover brood habitat and map brood home ranges.

4.5 Identify components of high-quality snowy plover brood rearing

habitat. 

4.6 Determine causes of adult snowy plover mortality.

4.7 Improve techniques for banding snowy plovers. 

4.8 Identify effects of oil spills on snowy plovers.

4.9 Monitor levels of environmental contaminants in snowy plovers. 

5 Undertake public information and education programs.

5.1 Develop and implement public information and education programs.

5.2 Inform the Federal, State, and local resource/regulatory agencies and 

local planning departments of threats to breeding and wintering snowy

plovers and their habitats.

5.3 Develop and maintain updated information and education materials on

snowy plovers.

5.4 Alert landowners and beach-goers about access restrictions within

snowy plover habitats.

5.5 Provide trained personnel to facilitate protective measures, provide

public education, and respond to emergency situations.
134

5.6 Develop protocols for handling sick, dislocated, injured, oiled, and

dead birds or salvaged eggs.

5.7 Establish a distribution system and repository for information and

education materials.

5.8 Establish a reporting and distribution system for annual monitoring

data.

6 Review progress towards recovery annually and revise recovery efforts as

appropriate.

7 Dedicate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff and funding for the

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office to coordinate recovery

implementation.

8 Establish an international conservation program with the government of

Mexico to protect snowy plovers and their breeding and wintering

locations in Mexico.

8.1 Develop a joint effort between the United States and Mexico to protect

snowy plover populations and their habitats.

8.2 Encourage research and monitoring of breeding and wintering plovers

in Baja California, Mexico, by universities and authorities of Mexico.

8.3 Encourage development and implementation of public information and

conservation education in Mexico for snowy plovers.
135

III. STEPDOWN NARRATIVE OF RECOVERY ACTIONS

1 Monitor and manage breeding habitat of the Pacific coast population of

the western snowy plover to maximize survival and productivity. To assure

the long-term viability of snowy plover populations, their breeding habitat should

be monitored and managed in a systematic, ongoing fashion. This effort may be

time-consuming, costly, and sometimes require intensive management. Western

snowy plover breeding habitat is extremely dynamic and factors affecting

breeding success, such as types and numbers of predators, can change quickly;

therefore, managers should be prepared to modify protection as needed. 

Management and protection of western snowy plovers on Federal and State lands

are especially important. In addition, protection on Federal and State lands

furnishes leadership by example to local land managers. Land managers should

recognize that components of breeding habitat include: areas where plovers

prospect for nesting sites, make scrapes, lay eggs, feed, rest, and rear broods. 

Breeding habitat also includes travel corridors between nesting, resting, broodrearing, and foraging areas. A summary of current and needed management

activities on breeding and wintering locations is provided in Appendix C.

1.1 Monitor the snowy plover breeding population. Systematic, ongoing

monitoring of breeding birds should be undertaken at the recovery-unit level

to measure progress towards recovery and identify management and protection

efforts that are needed. 

1.1.1 Annually monitor population size and distribution at breeding

locations in each recovery unit. Comprehensive range-wide window

surveys of breeding locations (listed in Appendix B) should be conducted

annually to determine population trends and fluctuations. The window

survey described in Appendix J (Monitoring Guidelines) should be

employed as the primary index of population size to minimize the

probability of double-counting birds nesting at multiple locations during

the same season. Window survey correction factors should be estimated

(Task 4.3.1) to improve the accuracy and utility of population indices. 

This correction may require some banding at sites where there are

currently no marked birds on which to base correction factors.
136

1.1.2 Monitor productivity. Key productivity data for understanding

population trends (i.e., young fledged per adult male) have been obtained

for the coast of Oregon since 1993, the shoreline of Monterey Bay since

1984, and the coast of San Diego County, California, since 1995. These

areas encompass the majority of individuals in the northernmost, most

central, and southernmost outer coast recovery units, and collection of

comparable data should continue annually at these locations. Productivity,

expressed as young fledged per male, should also be collected from all

other recovery units; however, to minimize the banding of birds (because

there are insufficient band combinations for the entire population),

methods to sample productivity across the breeding range should be

developed as an alternative to marking all individuals at all sites (Task

4.3.2).

1.1.3 Monitor annual survival. Useful information on the survival rates

of adult and juvenile snowy plovers have been obtained for the coast of

Oregon since 1991, the Monterey Bay area since 1984, and the San Diego

County coast since 1994. This monitoring samples the snowy plover’s

range within these areas and collection of comparable data should continue

annually. Monitoring annual survival rates at other selected sites within

each recovery unit should also be done (Task 4.3.3). 

1.1.4 Monitor snowy plover breeding activities at all breeding sites to

identify factors limiting abundance of breeding birds, clutch hatching

success, and chick fledging success. Monitoring numbers and

reproductive success of breeding birds is necessary to identify factors

detrimental to plovers and needed management adaptations. See

Appendix J (Monitoring Guidelines). 

1.1.5 Develop training and certification programs for snowy plover

survey coordinators. Classroom and field training are required for

observers who survey for snowy plovers, and before we can issue a section

10(a)(1)(A) permit. Instruction programs and materials should be

developed for comparable training to occur throughout the snowy plover
137

range. Classroom topics should include, but not be limited to: (1)

biology, ecology, and behavior of breeding snowy plovers; (2)

identification of adult plovers, their young, and their eggs; (3) threats to

plovers and their habitats; (4) survey objectives, protocols, and techniques;

(5) regulations governing the salvage of carcasses or eggs; (6) special

conditions of the existing recovery permit; and (7) other activities (e.g.,

banding). 

Field training should include, as appropriate: (1) locating, identifying, and

monitoring nests; (2) handling eggs and capturing and handling adults or

chicks; (3) specifics on the target activity for which a recovery permit is to

be issued, or under which an observer will work; (4) practical field

exercises; and (5) field review of appropriate classroom topics.

1.1.6 Improve submittal system for monitoring data. Initially, rangewide survey data will be limited to results from two annual window

surveys. As population and demographic monitoring guidelines evolve

(Tasks 4.2.1, 4.2.2, and 4.2.3), a more sophisticated reporting and

compiling system will be necessary. Our lead office should coordinate

with researchers involved with monitoring to ensure that data collection,

submittal, and entry systems remain current.

Sightings of banded snowy plovers provide information on the wintering

sites of breeding birds, use of multiple sites by breeding and wintering

plovers, and survival and dispersal of juveniles. In accordance with

procedures of the U.S. Geological Survey, Bird Banding Laboratory, the

Point Reyes Bird Observatory should continue to act as the color band

coordinator for the Pacific coast population to avoid use of duplicate color

banding schemes among researchers.

1.1.7 Evaluate and update lists of important breeding areas as data

become available. As new breeding areas are discovered, the current list

of important breeding habitats should be expanded or refined as

appropriate.
138

1.1.8 Coordinate monitoring of snowy plovers and California least

terns. Coordination with least tern monitors and managers is needed in all

areas where snowy plovers share breeding sites with California least terns. 

Protocols for monitoring California least terns should be revised so that

snowy plovers are not detrimentally affected. Human activities within

some least tern colonies in southern California include monitoring by one

to four people several days per week; maintenance of tern fences; predator

management; site preparation; and banding/observation efforts. Human

activities associated with tern monitoring must be recognized as additional

disturbance to snowy plovers. Section 10(a)(1)(A) permits, issued under

the authority of the Endangered Species Act for snowy plovers and least

terns, should include both species where applicable. Monitoring efforts

for both species should be kept separate because of differences in

monitoring techniques and species’ behaviors. Monitors of least terns and

snowy plovers need to be aware of species’ differences in nest spacing,

brood-rearing, foraging behavior, time of breeding, vulnerability to

disturbance, and monitoring and banding techniques. 

Snowy plovers generally begin nesting 1 month before the arrival of

breeding least terns; thus, tern management often begins well after snowy

plovers have initiated nests. Site preparation (vegetation removal and

fence construction) should be coordinated to minimize disturbance to

nesting snowy plovers, and if possible to enhance breeding success for

both species. Predator management should also be coordinated to benefit

both species.

1.2 Maintain natural coastal processes that perpetuate high quality

breeding habitat. The dynamic nature of beach strand habitats as stormmaintained ecosystems should be recognized and maintained. 

1.2.1 Avoid development that will destroy or degrade snowy plover

breeding habitat. Conflicts between sensitive species and property

protection should be avoided by constructing houses, resorts, parking lots,

access roads, bike paths, and other facilities in areas of low vulnerability to

flooding and erosion and as far away from snowy plover breeding habitat
139

as possible. This site selection will in turn avert the need to stabilize

shorelines to protect property. 

Planners should weigh the economic and environmental costs of

maintaining beach access in sensitive areas such as breeding habitats, and

compare them with costs and environmental effects of alternative access

points in less sensitive areas. Fragmentation and degradation of snowy

plover breeding habitat caused by construction of walkways, piers, and

other structures should also be avoided.

Beach development should be avoided through establishment of

conservation easements, fee title acquisition, zoning, and other means. 

When beach development cannot be avoided, the following protections

should be implemented: (1) construction should take place outside the

nesting season, (2) developers and others should be forewarned during

planning stages that stabilization of shorelines will result in additional

habitat degradation and that these impacts may affect evaluation and

issuance of permits under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers or State coastal management agencies, (3) property owners (e.g.,

hotel or resort owners) should tailor recreational activity on the beach and

dunes to prevent disturbance or destruction of nesting plovers, their eggs,

and chicks, (4) lights for parking areas and other facilities should not shine

on plover habitat (5) sources of noise that would disturb snowy plovers

should be avoided, and (6) the establishment of predator perches and

nesting sites should be avoided when designing facilities.

1.2.2 Avoid interference with natural processes of inlet formation,

migration, and closure. Construction of rock jetties should be avoided

when it would result in eroded beaches and sandspits. Inlet stabilization

and breaches of beach or dune habitat should also be discouraged if these

actions would interfere with natural inlet formation, closure, and migration

processes that maintain availability of snowy plover habitat. 

1.2.3 Avoid interference with natural processes of erosion and

deposition of sand dunes. Sand removal and dredging should be avoided
140

when they would alter the natural patterns of erosion and deposition of

coastal dunes. Water diversion and impoundment of creeks and rivers

should be avoided when they would reduce sand delivery to beaches or

interfere with maintenance of open habitat at river and creek mouths.

1.2.4 Avoid beach stabilization projects. The natural processes of

overwash and blowouts that perpetuate characteristics of preferred

breeding habitat should be allowed to continue unimpeded. Construction

of seawalls should be avoided. Plantings of introduced beachgrass

(Ammophila spp.), iceplant (Mesembryanthemum sp. and Carpobrotus

sp.), and other nonnative vegetation for beach stabilization should be

avoided.

1.2.5 Remediate and compensate the disruption of natural processes

by creating and enhancing existing and potential breeding habitat.

Adverse impacts to snowy plover breeding habitat from artificial beach

stabilization projects should be remediated and compensated by

maintaining natural long-shore sand budgets and minimizing interference

with natural patterns of sand accretion and depletion. When these types of

projects are planned, complex natural sand movement patterns should be

taken into account. Beach management policies should recognize that

many current erosion and sedimentation problems are the result of past

property and/or inlet "protection" efforts. Habitat restoration projects in

historic or potential breeding sites, where feasible, is encouraged. 

Emphasize creation of habitat in areas that would preclude or reduce

recreational impacts. 

1.2.5.1 Remove nonnative and other invasive vegetation from

existing and potential breeding sites. Land managers should

implement remedial efforts to remove or reduce vegetation that is

encroaching on western snowy plover breeding habitat or obstructing

movement of chicks from oceanside nesting areas to bayside feeding

flats. Particular attention should be given to the eradication of

introduced beachgrass (Ammophila spp.) within coastal dunes. 

Prioritized removal and control strategies for introduced beachgrass
141

are needed for each recovery unit. These strategies should include

early intervention to prevent expansion into breeding areas where it

has not yet spread or is in early stages of spreading. Attention should

also be given to the removal of giant reed, Scotch broom, gorse,

iceplant, and shore pine. Remove/manage vegetation on salt ponds,

including levees. Schedule/coordinate removal efforts to avoid

disturbing nesting snowy plovers.

1.2.5.2 Deposit dredged material to enhance or create nesting

habitat, and evaluate impacts from beach nourishment activities.

Near-shore (littoral drift) and on-shore disposal of dredged material

seems to be beneficial for perpetuating high quality snowy plover

nesting habitat and should be encouraged. However, monitoring of

habitat characteristics before, during, and after projects is needed,

particularly in cases of large operations occurring on sites where

snowy plovers nest or are deemed likely to nest following the disposal

operation. On-shore disposal of dredged material should be scheduled

outside the nesting season and, where possible, during seasons when

birds are not present. In addition, dredged material must be clean sand

or gravel of appropriate grain size and must be graded to a natural

slope. 

Beach nourishment activities should be carefully evaluated to weigh

the probable adverse and beneficial effects on plovers and on other

sensitive coastal dune species. Pre- and post-deposition beach profiles

and faunal studies (including invertebrates) should be conducted to

determine effects on habitat suitability for snowy plovers. 

Consideration should be given to whether the projected long-term

benefits are likely to occur.

1.2.5.3 Create, manage, and enhance coastal ponds and playas

for breeding habitat. Coastal ponds and playas, including salt ponds,

should be enhanced and created to improve breeding habitat. 

Significant opportunities for management of nesting plovers currently

exist within San Francisco Bay salt ponds, Moss Landing Wildlife
142

Area, Bolsa Chica wetlands, and south San Diego Bay salt ponds. 

However, salt ponds should only be created or enhanced at existing

salt pond habitat; they should not be used for mitigation or

compensation of coastal beach-dune or other snowy plover habitats. 

Emphasize creation of habitat in areas that would preclude or reduce

recreational impacts. 

1.3 Prevent disturbance of breeding snowy plovers by people and

domestic animals. Disturbance by humans and domestic animals causes

significant adverse impacts to breeding snowy plovers. Management

techniques described below can reduce impacts of beach recreation on snowy

plovers, but they must be implemented annually as long as the demand for

beach recreation continues. Land managers should evaluate whether

recreational activities pose a threat to snowy plovers and implement

appropriate enforcement measures. As information is gathered, it should be

incorporated into conservation efforts. Because human disturbance is a

primary factor affecting snowy plover reproductive success, land managers

should give the highest priority to implementation of these management

techniques. Management plans (Tasks 3.1.4.1, 3.1.4.2, and 3.1.5) should

include appropriate human access and domestic animal restrictions to prevent

disturbance of snowy plover breeding areas. 

1.3.1 Prevent pedestrian disturbance. Management measures to

protect snowy plovers should be determined on a site-by-site basis; factors

to consider include the configuration of habitat as well as types and

amounts of on-going pedestrian activity. 

On national wildlife refuges and State natural preserves within the

California State Parks system, where protection of wildlife is the

paramount purpose of Federal and State ownership, snowy plover habitat

should be closed during the breeding season. Other areas should also be

closed when necessary to adequately protect breeding snowy plovers. 

1.3.1.1 Seasonally close, fence, post, use exclosures, monitor, and

enforce regulations in areas used by breeding snowy plovers as

appropriate. Unless a beach is closed to public entry or use is
143

minimal, posting and/or fencing of nesting areas is recommended to

encourage use of the area for plover courtship and prenest site

selection, to prevent obliteration of scrapes, crushing of eggs or chicks,

and repeated flushing of incubating adults. Fencing to keep people and

beach activities out of nesting/brood rearing areas should not hinder

chick movements, unless fencing is specifically meant to keep chicks

from being harmed. Areas with a pattern of nesting activity in

previous year(s) should be fenced or posted before plovers begin nestsite selection. Dates of seasonal closures/restrictions should be based

on the best data available, and be coordinated by geographic region for

consistency in communicating with the public. To provide broods

with access to foraging areas, closures should cover the area down to

and including the water line, where practical. 

The use of exclosures (small circular, square, or triangular metal

fences that can be quickly assembled) to deter predator and human

intrusion is recommended as one of the most effective management

tools to protect nests (see Appendix F for exclosure protocols, and

Task 1.4.3). However, it should be recognized that exclosures provide

nest protection, but survival of chicks to flying age cannot be ensured

without prohibition of disturbance by humans and domestic animals. 

Symbolic fences (one or two strands of light-weight string tied

between posts) with signs identifying restricted areas substantially

improve compliance of beach-goers and decrease people's confusion

about where entry is prohibited.

On portions of beaches that receive heavy human use during the

breeding season, fencing or posting of prime brood-rearing areas to

exclude or reduce numbers of pedestrians should also be implemented

to contribute to the survival and well-being of unfledged chicks. Areas

where territorial plovers are observed should also be closed or

symbolically fenced to prevent disruption of territorial displays and

courtship. Because nests can be difficult to locate, especially during

egg-laying, closure of these areas will also prevent accidental crushing

of undetected nests. 
144

Land managers should monitor and enforce violations within all closed

and restricted areas, with particular attention to areas where nests or

broods are present.

1.3.1.2 Develop and implement necessary State and local

ordinances, administrative rules, and regulations to enforce closed

areas on beaches used as breeding habitat. For areas where beach

closures are necessary in breeding habitat, appropriate ordinances,

administrative rules, and regulations should be developed by State and

local governments to enable law enforcement officers to conduct

necessary enforcement actions. Local courts should uphold citations

of violations of these local ordinances. Often, snowy plover habitats

extend across administrative boundaries. In such cases, area law

enforcement agencies are encouraged to coordinate procedures and

authorities to most effectively ensure compliance. Closed areas should

be posted with signs designating the State or municipal law, ordinance,

or other regulation governing the closed area. 

1.3.1.3 Locate access points and trails well away from snowy

plover nesting habitat. Recreational users such as campers,

clammers, anglers, equestrians, collectors, etc., should be encouraged

to consistently use designated access points and avoid restricted areas. 

Roads, trails, designated routes, and facilities should be located as far

away from snowy plover habitat as possible.

 

1.3.1.4 Implement and enforce pet restrictions. It is preferable that

land managers prohibit pets on beaches and other habitats where

snowy plovers are present, or traditionally nest or winter, because any

noncompliance with leash laws can cause serious adverse impacts to

snowy plovers. If pets are not prohibited, they should be leashed and

under manual control of their owners at all times. Pets should be

prohibited on beaches and other snowy plover habitats if, based on

observations and experience, pet owners fail to keep pets leashed and

under full control. 
145

Land managers should document the type and frequency of infractions

of rules and regulations requiring pets on leash. This information,

including the number of verbal warnings, written warnings, and

notices to appear (citations), should be documented so that

comparisons can be made between locations. This documentation

could help ensure that adequate effort is being made to enforce pet

regulations. 

1.3.1.5 Prevent disturbance from disruptive recreational activities

where breeding snowy plovers are present. Fireworks should be

prohibited on beaches where plovers nest. When fireworks displays

are situated to avoid disturbance to snowy plovers, careful planning

should also be conducted to assure that spectators will not walk

through and throw objects into plover nesting and brood-rearing areas. 

Sufficient personnel must also be on-site during these events to enforce

plover protection measures and prevent use of illegal fireworks in the

vicinity of the birds. 

Falconry and flying of kites and model airplanes should be prohibited

in areas where nesting plovers are present. Sports such as ball- and

frisbee-throwing should be prohibited within hitting and throwing

distance of snowy plover nesting areas because of tendencies for stray

balls and frisbees to land in closed areas where they can smash nests

and where efforts to remove them can disturb territorial or incubating

birds. 

Camping and beach fires should be prohibited in snowy plover nesting

areas during the nesting season.

Special events, including sporting events, media events, and beach

clean-ups, attract large crowds and require special attention. Special

events targeted for snowy plover nesting areas should not be held

during the plover nesting season. Early planning and coordination

with local resource agencies should be emphasized.
146

Land managers should report suspected violations of aviation

regulations in snowy plover nesting areas during the breeding season. 

Suspected violations and the aircraft’s registration number should be

reported to law enforcement officers and, if appropriate, the Federal

Aviation Administration. If not in violation of aviation regulations

(e.g., helicopters), a description of the helicopter should be reported to

law enforcement officers so they can notify the operator of the

potential for take of snowy plovers in nesting areas. Aircraft

operations within snowy plover habitat should require a minimum

altitude of 152 meters (500 feet) for aircraft and a higher altitude for

helicopters. Aircraft operations that have already established

guidelines allowing aircraft to fly under the 152-meter (500-foot)

threshold should raise the limits to this minimum threshold or higher

as needed.

1.3.1.6 Prevent driftwood removal. Driftwood removal should not

be allowed unless needed to create sufficient open habitat to induce

nesting activities. In such cases, driftwood removal should occur

outside of the breeding season. 

 1.3.1.7 Implement and enforce anti-littering regulations.

Litter should be removed from snowy plover breeding areas to

avoid attracting predators. Littering ordinances should be

enforced year-round. Tasks 1.4.1 and 2.2.6 emphasize the need

to remove litter and garbage from beaches manually (not by

raking machines) year-round to protect breeding and wintering

snowy plovers. Task 1.4.1 also emphasizes that land managers

should supply covered or scavenger-proof trash receptacles at

access points and away from snowy plover habitat, and that

receptacles should be routinely emptied. Land managers

should also provide toilets at access points and away from

snowy plover habitat to encourage people from using the

dunes. 
147

1.3.2 Prevent disturbance, mortality, and habitat degradation by

off-road vehicles, including beach-raking machines. Recreational

off-road vehicles should be prohibited or restricted at snowy plover

breeding areas, as appropriate. Violations associated with

unauthorized entry of recreational off-road vehicles into closed or

fenced nesting areas should be strictly enforced. During the

nonbreeding season, enforcement of violations regarding recreational

off-road vehicle use should continue where snowy plover use of

beaches occurs year-round. 

Essential vehicles within snowy plover nesting areas should: (1) travel

on sections of beaches where unfledged chicks are present only if

absolutely necessary; (2) when possible, travel through chick habitats

only during daylight hours; (3) travel at less than 8 kilometers (5

miles) per hour; (4) use a guide familiar with snowy plovers; (5) use

open four-wheel motorized off-highway vehicles or nonmotorized allterrain bicycles to improve visibility; (6) avoid driving on the wrack

(marine vegetation) line and during high-tide periods; (7) travel below

the high tide mark and as close to the water line as is feasible and safe;

and (8) avoid previous tracks on the return trip.

Because of potential habitat degradation caused by mechanized beach

cleaning, alternatives to this type of beach cleaning are recommended,

including manual beach cleaning by agency staff and volunteers

knowledgeable about the need to maintain coastal dune habitat

characteristics and to protect snowy plovers. Task 1.4.1 emphasizes

the need to remove litter and garbage from beaches manually (not by

raking machines) during the nesting season, that land managers should

supply covered or scavenger-proof trash receptacles at access points

and away from snowy plover habitat, and that receptacles should be

routinely emptied. Retain plover habitat components such as kelp and

driftwood (see Task 1.3.1.6).

1.3.3 Implement and enforce restrictions on horseback riding in

nesting areas. Strategies to reduce adverse impacts to nests from
148

commercial and private equestrian use of snowy plover habitat should

include: (1) use of designated trail systems or, when absent, use of the

wet sand area in areas not closed to the water line; (2) advance

coordination with local resource agencies regarding locations of nests

and broods; (3) compliance with closed or restricted areas; and (4)

informing riders of the need for restrictions to protect habitats used by

snowy plovers and other sensitive coastal dune species. Avoid hightide periods. Violations regarding unauthorized entry into closed or

restricted breeding areas by equestrians should be strictly enforced. 

 

1.3.4 Provide wardens, agents, or officers to enforce protective

measures in breeding habitat. Wardens are especially needed on

heavily-used beaches during the peak recreational season, which

coincides with the snowy plover breeding season in many locations. 

Federal, State, and local authorities should provide a coordinated law

enforcement effort to eliminate activities that may adversely impact

snowy plovers, such as illegally-parked vehicles, trespassing off-road

vehicles, pedestrians, pets in restricted areas, falconry, illegal or

unauthorized activities (e.g., fireworks, beach fires), pets off leash, and

littering. Patrols and enforcement are needed to ensure compliance

(e.g., Vandenberg Air Force Base linear restriction) and to make sure

restrictive measures are successful. Specific actions to be

implemented include patrols in protected areas (see Task 1.3.6) and car

patrols to prevent illegal driving and parking. 

1.3.5 Develop and implement training programs for enforcement

personnel and others who work in snowy plover breeding habitat.

Federal, State, and local enforcement personnel and others who work

in plover habitat should be trained to conduct thorough investigations

into potential violations of the Endangered Species Act and other

wildlife conservation statutes. Training should be coordinated with the

local Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement office. It is essential

that wardens, whether professional or volunteers, be thoroughly trained

in procedures for conducting patrols in a manner that minimizes risk to

plovers; have at least rudimentary knowledge of snowy plovers for
149

public education purposes; and be trained to handle potentially

confrontational situations. In cases involving take of listed species, it

is essential that investigations be conducted only by trained, certified,

and professional law enforcement agents. Our local Law Enforcement

office should be informed immediately whenever evidence of

suspected take of snowy plovers is encountered.

1.3.6 Ensure that enforcement efforts do not endanger snowy

plovers, their nests, eggs, or chicks. Where the extent of habitat to

be protected is large, making foot patrols infeasible, horses, four-wheel

all-terrain vehicles/off-road vehicles, or nonmotorized all-terrain

bicycles, are preferred over trucks, automobiles, etc., because they

afford improved visibility for operators. Except during emergencies,

vehicle speed should not exceed 8 kilometers (5 miles) per hour and

horses should be ridden at a walk only. In addition to providing

maximum visibility for operators, horse and foot patrols by uniformed

personnel have the added advantage of providing

informational/educational interactions with beach visitors to promote

compliance with plover protection measures.

Enforcement and emergency response personnel (such as search and

rescue, and fire) should be well aware of potential snowy plover

locations. These locations should be named as avoidance areas as a

part of their plans and training exercises.

Enforcement patrols should use the same access trails as beach

visitors; if additional access points are needed, they should be the

minimum necessary and as far away from nesting plovers as possible. 

1.4 Prevent excessive predation for snowy plovers. Land managers should

employ an integrated approach to predator management that considers a full

range of management techniques. Managers may need to reevaluate and

clarify their policies on the management of predator populations and/or habitat

where predation might be limiting local snowy plover populations. In

particular, policies that prohibit management of native predator populations,
150

even when human-abetted factors have caused substantial increases in their

abundance, may be counter-productive to the overall goal of protecting

"natural" ecosystems.

In addition to predator management activities by on-site biologists, assistance

from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (Wildlife Services Branch)

biologists, State wildlife agency furbearer biologists, biologists specializing in

avian predators, and professional trappers should be sought and used as

needed and appropriate. Federal, State, and local agencies and the general

public should be cognizant of the adverse consequences to listed species if

needed predator control measures are prohibited or restricted. 

1.4.1 Remove litter and garbage from beaches manually, not by

raking machines. Beachgoers should be discouraged from leaving or

burying trash or food scraps on the beach. Trash cans should not be

located on the beach unless there is no other recourse to prevent littering. 

If trash cans have to be placed on the beach, predator-proof trash

containers should be used. Until predator-proof trash containers can be

installed, existing trash cans should be emptied frequently to reduce

attractiveness and availability of their contents to scavenging predators. 

Emptying cans in the evening instead of leaving them overnight is

preferable. Fish-cleaning stations should be located well away from

plover breeding areas.

Although removal of trash from the beach reduces predation threats,

beach-raking should be avoided year-round to protect breeding and

wintering snowy plovers. Trash should be selectively removed from the

beach manually, but natural materials, including shells, seaweed, and

driftwood, should be left intact. 

In areas where large amounts of nonnative woody debris, such as giant

reed (Arundo donax), has washed onto beaches and significantly reduced

the amount of nesting habitat, a large portion of the debris (but not all)

should be removed. However, this removal should not be done during the

nesting season.
151

1.4.2 Remove predator perches and unnatural habitats. Planners

should not allow unnatural habitats to be placed near snowy plover nesting

locations. Where feasible, land managers should remove from plover

breeding locations any exotic vegetation, perches, and other features that

attract avian and mammalian predators. Where signs and fences are

necessary as part of management to protect plover breeding areas, attempts

should be made to design them in a way that will deter their use by

predators (e.g., install spikes on fence posts).

1.4.3 Erect predator exclosures to reduce snowy plover egg predation

where appropriate. Current guidelines for the use of predator exclosures

to protect nesting snowy plovers are contained in Appendix F. Exclosures

are a valuable tool for countering human-abetted predation threats to

snowy plover eggs, but they are not appropriate for use in all situations,

nor do they provide any protection for mobile plover chicks, which

generally leave the exclosure within 1 day of hatching and move

extensively along the beach to feed. Exclosures should be used in

conjunction with an integrated predator management program. Also,

exclosures must be carefully constructed, monitored, and evaluated by

qualified persons. String (twine) may be needed on top of exclosures to

deter avian predators.

1.4.4 Remove predators where warranted and feasible. Removal of

predators should be pursued where it is feasible, warranted, humanely

conducted, and useful. Situations that may especially warrant predator

removal include those where nonnative predators such as red fox (Vulpes

vulpes regalis), feral cats, and Norway rats (Rattus norvegicus) are

present, where predators have been introduced to islands, where predator

range extensions have been human-abetted, or where high rates of snowy

plover adult, chick, or egg predation (which cannot be countered with

predator exclosures) are occurring. Nonnative predators should be

eliminated in all instances from plover nesting habitat. Native predators

should be removed or controlled by nonlethal means whenever possible. 
152

Federal and State permits must be obtained to legally capture, kill, or hold

and release birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and State

laws. Also, individuals responsible for capturing such birds and the

holding facility must have the proper Federal and State permits, and

Federal land managers must document that such activities are in

compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. Biological

considerations for determining whether removal of avian predators is

appropriate include the time of year (to assess whether the predator is

caring for young or is a fledgling itself), whether the predatory bird is a

resident or migrating through snowy plover nesting habitat, and whether

the predatory bird is a sensitive species or listed under the Endangered

Species Act. Because of the potential for swift and significant losses of

plovers by avian predators, land managers should plan in advance to

complete the necessary procedures and secure needed permits to

effectively deal with cases of high negative impact on plovers. Removal

of native predators should focus on problem individuals rather than

populations. State permits must also be obtained to capture and relocate

mammals (e.g., raccoons, skunks, and opossums). 

Gulls should be discouraged from establishing and expanding nesting

colonies at snowy plover nesting areas, and land managers should

determine whether existing gull colonies warrant removal. At some sites,

placement of crow and gull carcasses around plover nest site perimeters

may discourage these predators. Therefore, attempts should be made to try

scare gulls (i.e., gull carcasses for deterrents) prior to removal of gulls. If

removal is not warranted, exclosures around plover nests should be used to

prevent large flocks of roosting gulls from trampling plover nests.

1.4.5 Remove bird and mammal carcasses in snowy plover nesting

areas. Where practical and not disturbing to snowy plovers, dead birds

and mammals that wash up on the beach in close proximity to plover nests

should be removed to reduce the attraction of predators to plover nests. 

Removal of carcasses of marine mammals and species listed under the

Endangered Species Act should be coordinated with the National Marine

Fisheries Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 
153

1.5 Protect snowy plovers and their breeding habitat from oil or

chemical spills. Land managers should develop oil/chemical spill emergency

response plans that provide for protection of known plover breeding areas. 

The U.S. Coast Guard should update their emergency response measures to

include protective measures for the snowy plover. In the event of a spill in the

vicinity of a snowy plover nesting or feeding area, efforts should be made to

prevent oil/chemicals from reaching these beaches. Clean-up operations

should be prompt, but agencies should exercise special care during

remediation efforts and coordinate closely with us to prevent accidental

destruction of nests and/or excessive disturbance of breeding adults, nests, or

chicks. Response plans should include applicable recommendations contained

in this recovery plan (e.g., Task 1.3.2 regarding essential vehicles). 

If snowy plovers or their habitat sustain injury due to oil/chemical spills, the

responsible parties should restore the areas to their original condition or the

Federal Government (U.S. Coast Guard) should lead the clean-up effort;

appropriate claims should also be filed under the Natural Resource Damage

Assessment regulations to recover damages and undertake relevant restoration

work. Assessment of natural resource damages is facilitated by availability of

baseline data on pre-spill conditions. Therefore, whenever possible, agencies

that own or manage snowy plover habitat should collect baseline data on

behavior, reproduction, distribution, abundance, and habitat use. The baseline

information on plover distribution and habitat use should also be supplied to

the Area Committees that develop and update regional spill contingency plans

so that this information can be incorporated into pre-spill planning efforts for

protection of sensitive environments and species.

Oil spill emergency response personnel should be well aware of potential

plover locations. These locations should be named as avoidance areas as a

part of their training exercises. 

1.6 Replace exotic dune plants with native dune vegetation where it is

likely to improve breeding habitat for snowy plovers. Land managers

should make special efforts to reestablish native dune plants in snowy plover

nesting habitat, while concentrating on removal of nonnative vegetation. 
154

Native dune vegetation includes American dunegrass (Leymus mollis), beach

morning glory (Calystegia soldanella), pink sand-verbena (Abronia

umbellata), yellow sand verbena (Abronia latifolia), beach bursage (Ambrosia

chamissonis), grey beach pea (Lathyrus littoralis), whiteleaf saltbush (Atriplex

leucophylla), and California saltbush (Atriplex californica). These efforts

should be targeted for coastal dune sites that currently support nonnative

vegetation species such as introduced beachgrass (Ammophila spp), and

should be combined with removal of this invasive plant (see Task 1.2.5.1). 

Seeds of local native dune plants collected within approximately 32 kilometers

(20 miles) of the site to be planted should be used as replacement plant stock. 

Revegetation efforts should be monitored to make sure they that the amount of

vegetative cover is compatible with suitable breeding habitat for plovers. 

1.7 Compensate the loss of snowy plover breeding habitat associated

with recovery efforts for other sensitive species, including those within

the San Francisco Bay Recovery Unit. When snowy plover breeding habitat

will be adversely affected by management and recovery actions for other

sensitive species, all efforts should be made to conserve snowy plover habitat. 

Where this is not possible, any loss of snowy plover habitat values should be

fully compensated. Within coastal beach-dune habitats in Washington,

Oregon, and California, compensation efforts should emphasize the removal

of beachgrass (Ammophila spp.) for lost snowy plover breeding habitat

resulting from management for other sensitive species.

To compensate for the loss of existing snowy plover breeding habitat values in

San Francisco Bay from planned conversion to tidal marsh, appropriate salt

ponds should be designated for protection and enhancement as snowy plover

breeding habitat. Currently, most snowy plover breeding habitat occurs on

levee roads, margins of active salt ponds, and pond bottoms of inactive salt

ponds. Roads and levees provide lower quality habitat because of disturbance

and ease of predator access. Any losses of snowy plover breeding habitat

should be replaced with habitat that provides similar or higher values (i.e., salt

ponds or salt pans) in concert with recovery actions implemented from the

Central and Northern California Coast Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan (U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service in prep.). Habitat enhancement for snowy plovers should
155

be phased in with scheduled tidal marsh restoration for other listed species. 

During this interim period, land owners should make all efforts to achieve the

recovery criteria of 500 breeding adults within the San Francisco Bay

Recovery Unit by intensively managing existing snowy plover breeding

habitat. 

Replacement of snowy plover breeding habitat in San Francisco Bay should

concentrate on areas where the necessary components of plover breeding

habitat can be created. These areas include locations where unvegetated salt

pans, salt ponds, islets and levees, and tidal mudflats/sandflats can be created

or enhanced. Also, attempts should be made to avoid areas that are adjacent to

landfills or other high concentrations of potential predators. Unless it is

shown to be infeasible, creation and enhancement of snowy plover breeding

habitat should be emphasized in areas that currently support high numbers of

breeding plovers and/or are not conducive to salt marsh restoration, including

the Oliver Brothers salt ponds (north and south of Highway 92), Alviso salt

ponds, other salt pond systems between the San Mateo Bridge and Redwood

Creek, Napa salt ponds, and the Redwood City and Napa crystallizers. The

area to be managed for plovers should be sufficient to support a population of

500 breeding birds, estimated at 809 hectares (2,000 acres) of managed salt

ponds. Most of these managed salt ponds should be located in South San

Francisco Bay, which supports most of the existing snowy plover population;

however, some should also be located in the North Bay. Created or enhanced

salt ponds should be intensively managed, similar to the Moss Landing

Wildlife Area salt ponds. Management measures practiced at these salt ponds

include maintenance of water control structures to maintain desired water

levels, removal of excessive vegetation, and predator control. 

 

1.8 Discourage pinnipeds from usurping snowy plover nesting areas.

Land managers should monitor pinniped colonies adjacent to snowy plover

breeding habitat and seek to keep breeding pinnipeds from occupying snowy

plover nesting areas during the plover breeding season. Where conflicts

occur, breeding pinnipeds should be discouraged from hauling out at plover

breeding areas or be relocated, if feasible. Implementation of this task should

be coordinated with the National Marine Fisheries Service to ensure
156

compliance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and the Marine

Mammal Protection Act of 1972 (16 U.S.C. 1361-1407). 

2 Monitor and manage wintering and migration areas to maximize snowy

plover population survival. Wintering and migration habitats should be

monitored and managed to maximize survival and recruitment of snowy plovers

into the breeding population. 

2.1 Monitor known and potential wintering locations. All known

wintering locations (listed in Appendix B of this plan) are considered currently

important to snowy plover conservation. These sites include both wintering

locations that currently support breeding birds and locations that may

potentially support nesting birds in the future. These locations may also

support migrating snowy plovers. There is a need for better information about

wintering sites, including spatial and temporal use patterns, feeding areas,

habitat trends, and threats.

2.1.1 Monitor snowy plover abundance and distribution at wintering

locations in each recovery unit. Comprehensive range-wide window

surveys of wintering locations listed in Appendix B should be conducted

annually to determine population trends and fluctuations (Appendix J,

Monitoring Guidelines). 

2.1.2 Identify factors limiting the quality of wintering locations. 

Land managers should monitor the response of snowy plovers to

potentially adverse factors at wintering locations (listed in Appendix B),

including natural coastal formation processes, dredging, and other channel

maintenance projects. Opportunities to incorporate monitoring into

Federal activities subject to section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, such

as dredging and discharges regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers, should be sought. Impacts of recreational use by humans and

their pets should also be monitored.

2.1.3 Quantify wintering habitat needs of snowy plovers along the

Pacific coast. The amount of habitat needed to support wintering snowy
157

plovers along the Pacific coast should be determined. This effort should

include estimating the numbers of snowy plovers that can be supported at

wintering locations listed in Appendix B and identifying important site

characteristics. This task will require consideration of wintering habitat

capacity along the Pacific coast of the United States and Mexico, and

quantifying the combined interior and coastal populations. 

2.1.4 Evaluate and update lists of important wintering areas as data

become available. As new snowy plover wintering areas are discovered

and data needed to assess the carrying capacity, essential characters, and

juxtaposition of wintering habitats become available, the current list of 

important wintering locations should be expanded or refined as

appropriate. 

2.2 Prevent human degradation and disturbance of wintering habitat. 

The Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover is sensitive to

changes in adult and juvenile survival rates (see Appendix D). Furthermore,

recovery of this species is contingent on availability of wintering habitat for

more than the current number of snowy plovers (see recovery criteria). 

2.2.1 Protect wintering habitat from impacts of water

diversion/impoundment and shoreline stabilization, navigation, and

development projects. Coastal development, beach stabilization,

resource extraction, and water diversion and/or impoundment projects

should be carefully assessed for impacts to wintering snowy plovers. 

Recommendations from Fish and Wildlife Service offices (under the

Endangered Species Act and Clean Water Act) and/or State agencies

should focus on avoiding or minimizing adverse impacts to wintering

habitat. Where adverse effects cannot be avoided, agencies should

document impacts so that cumulative effects on this species' habitat can be

assessed and compensated.

2.2.2 Protect wintering habitat from disturbance by people and

domestic animals. Snowy plover wintering sites are highly variable in

their amount of recreational activity. Land managers should conduct site-
158

specific evaluations to determine whether recreational activities, domestic

animals, and off-road vehicles pose a threat to plovers. Appropriate

protection and enforcement measures should be incorporated into

conservation efforts. Management plans (Tasks 3.1.4.1, 3.1.4.2, and

3.1.5) should include appropriate human/domestic animal access

restrictions to prevent disturbance of snowy plovers. 

2.2.3 Develop and implement necessary State and local ordinances,

administrative rules, and regulations to enforce closed areas on

beaches used as snowy plover wintering habitat. For areas where beach

closures are necessary in wintering habitat, appropriate ordinances,

administrative rules, and regulations should be developed by State and

local governments to enable law enforcement officers to conduct necessary

enforcement actions. Often, snowy plover wintering habitat extends

across administrative boundaries. In such cases, area law enforcement

agencies are encouraged to coordinate procedures and authorities to most

effectively ensure compliance. Closed areas should be posted with signs

designating the State or municipal law, ordinance, or other regulation that

is being violated. 

2.2.4 Provide trained wardens, agents, or officers to enforce

protective measures in snowy plover wintering habitat. Wardens

should be used to enforce protective measures on snowy plover wintering

habitat. Enforcement personnel and others who work in plover habitat

should be trained to conduct thorough investigations into potential

violations of the Endangered Species Act and other wildlife conservation

statutes.

2.2.5 Protect snowy plover wintering habitat from degradation due

to oil or chemical spills. Efforts must be made to minimize the likelihood

of oil or chemical spills in plover wintering areas. Land managers should

develop oil/chemical spill emergency response plans that provide for

protection of known plover wintering areas. The U.S. Coast Guard should

update their emergency response measures to include protective measures

for the snowy plover. Shorebird or coastal ecosystem protection plans
159

developed by State or local agencies to address oil/chemical spills should

also include protection measures for snowy plovers. In the event of a spill

in a known snowy plover wintering area, efforts should be made to prevent

oil/chemicals from impacting plovers and unavoidable impacts should be

documented. Restoration efforts should begin expeditiously, but agencies

should exercise special care and coordinate closely with us to prevent

excessive disturbance to wintering snowy plovers. 

If snowy plovers or their habitats sustain injury due to oil/chemical spills,

the responsible parties should restore the areas to their original condition

or the Federal Government (U.S. Coast Guard) should lead the clean-up

effort; appropriate claims should also be filed under the Natural Resource

Damage Assessment regulations to recover damages and undertake

relevant restoration work. Assessment of natural resource damages is

facilitated by availability of baseline data on pre-spill conditions;

therefore, whenever possible, agencies that own or manage snowy plover

habitat should collect baseline data on behavior, distribution, abundance,

and habitat use by plovers. The baseline data should also be supplied to

the area committees that develop and update regional spill contingency

plans so that this information can be incorporated into pre-spill planning

efforts for protection of sensitive environments and species.

2.2.6 Protect wintering habitat from degradation by removing litter

from beaches manually, instead of using raking machines. Beachraking of snowy plover wintering habitat should be avoided because it

removes plover food sources. Trash should be selectively removed from

the beach manually, but natural materials, including shells, seaweed, and

driftwood, should be left intact. 

2.3 Compensate the loss of snowy plover wintering habitat associated

with recovery efforts for other sensitive species. When snowy plover

wintering habitat will be adversely affected by management and recovery

actions for other sensitive species, all efforts should be made to conserve

snowy plover habitat. Where conservation of habitat is not possible, any loss

of snowy plover habitat should be fully compensated. 
160

2.4 Protect snowy plovers during migration. Additional information on

snowy plover migration patterns is needed because migration involves

expenditure of energy that may affect survival or productivity. Although

monitoring and protection of breeding and wintering locations are currently

higher priorities than protection of migration sites, further investigations of,

and protective measures for, migration sites should be undertaken when

feasible.

2.4.1 Identify important migration stop-over habitat. Identify any

important migration stop-over areas used by migrating but not by breeding

or wintering snowy plovers.

2.4.2 Identify and mitigate any factors that may be adversely

affecting migratory stop-over habitat for snowy plovers. Further

investigations of factors that may affect the well-being of snowy plovers

during migratory stop-overs should be investigated and mitigated,

particularly at sites that receive heavy use or face threats to their suitability

as stop-over habitat. 

3 Develop mechanisms for long-term management and protection of snowy

plovers and their breeding and wintering habitat. Long-term management and

protection will be needed on Federal and nonFederal lands. Development of longterm protection mechanisms should include opportunities for participation of

various stakeholders in development of management options. 

3.1 Develop and implement regional cooperative participation networks

and programs. Development of regional cooperative networks and programs,

coordinating local public and private land use planning with State and Federal

land use planning, recovery planning, and biodiversity conservation is needed. 

From these networks and programs, participation plans (see Task 3.1.2)

should be developed and implemented to expedite and increase the chances of

recovery for the western snowy plover (see Figure 12, flow chart of recovery

planning and implementation efforts).
161

Figure 12. Flow chart of recovery planning and implementation efforts.

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Implement Recovery

Coordinate and distribute monitoring data and educational materials (Task 7)

Compile and distribute annual status updates (Task 7)

Unit Working Groups (6)

Establish cooperative networks (Task 3.1)

Develop participation plans (Task 3.1.2)

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Facilitate formation of plover working groups for each recovery unit (Task 3.1.1)

Assist local governments and private landowners in developing

Habitat Conservation Plans (Task 3.1.5)

Assist local governments in developing local land-use protection measures (Task 3.1.6)

Private Landowners

Develop and implement Habitat Conservation Plans (Task 3.1.5)

Federal Agencies

Develop and implement management plans for Federal lands (Task 3.1.4.1)

State Agencies

Develop and implement Habitat Conservation Plans (Task 3.1.4.2)

Local Governments

Develop and implement Habitat Conservation Plans (Task 3.1.5)

Develop and implement land-use protection measures (Task 3.1.6)
162

3.1.1 Establish snowy plover working groups for each of the six

recovery units. To facilitate regional cooperative programs, working

groups should be established for each of the six recovery units, covering

the following areas: (1) Oregon and Washington; (2) northern California

(Del Norte, Humboldt, and Mendocino Counties); (3) San Francisco Bay

(locations within the counties of Napa, Alameda, Santa Clara, and San

Mateo); (4) Monterey Bay (including coastal areas along the counties of

Monterey, Santa Cruz, San Mateo, San Francisco, Marin, and Sonoma);

(5) San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, and Ventura Counties; and (6) Los

Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties. Working groups should be

patterned after the Western Snowy Plover Working Teams for Oregon and

Monterey Bay. The Teams should be composed of representatives from

the Federal, State, local, and private sectors; and meet regularly to assess

snowy plover population trends and coordinate plover recovery efforts. 

Each of the six working groups should use this recovery plan as a guide,

but members will prioritize what management measures need to be

implemented in their recovery unit because they have on-the-ground, dayto-day, experience about what is currently being done in these areas. 

Public outreach should also be a major focus of the working groups. An

interchange of ideas between all six working groups should also occur on

an on-going basis.

The following U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service field offices should facilitate

the formation of new working groups and exchange of information among

working groups: (1) Western Washington Fish and Wildlife Office,

Lacey, Washington; (2) Newport Fish and Wildlife Office, Newport,

Oregon; (3) Arcata Fish and Wildlife Office, Arcata, California; (4)

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California; (5) Ventura

Fish and Wildlife Office, Ventura, California; and (6) Carlsbad Fish and

Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California. 

3.1.2 Develop and implement regional participation plans for each of

the six recovery units. Participation plans should be developed by each

of the six recovery unit working groups to implement recovery actions and
163

maintain the snowy plover populations, after delisting. Plans should

identify and prioritize specific recovery activities for each location

identified in Appendix B, while considering the needs of the entire Pacific

coast population. They should include, but not be limited to: (1)

endorsements by responsible agencies of their intent to seek economic

resources for ongoing recovery actions; (2) outreach efforts to enhance the

public’s understanding of the snowy plover’s habitat needs (including an

information and education strategy specific to area demographics and

recreational activities); (3) economic incentives for conservation of snowy

plovers on private lands; and (4) all actions necessary to maintain snowy

plover productivity after delisting. Participation plans may also identify

ways in which recovery actions for snowy plovers will be covered as part

of coastal ecosystem plans or other conservation measures. 

3.1.3 Provide intensive management and protection of snowy plovers

on all Federal and State lands. Federal and State land managers should

protect and intensively manage all breeding and wintering locations (listed

in Appendix B) that occur on Federal and State lands. Intensive

management programs for snowy plovers at national wildlife refuges

should be implemented and annually evaluated to ensure they provide

sufficient plover protection. Intensive management programs should also

be implemented and periodically evaluated on lands administered by the

National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land

Management, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and Federal military bases,

State wildlife areas, State ecological reserves, and State park lands

(including State natural preserves and State seashores). 

3.1.4 Develop and implement management plans for all Federal and

State lands. Federal and State land managers should develop and

implement management plans for all breeding and wintering locations

(listed in Appendix B).

3.1.4.1 Develop and implement management plans for Federal

lands. Federal agencies should develop or update, as appropriate, site-
164

specific management plans that address threats to snowy plovers, and

adopt management measures for habitat protection and enhancement

on Federal lands. Management plans should be implemented on an

ongoing basis. Federal agencies should also review their proposed

actions under the requirements of sections 7 and 10 of the Endangered

Species Act prior to implementing the management plans because they

may require authorization under section 7(a)(2) or 10(a)(1)(A). 

3.1.4.2 Develop and implement habitat conservation plans on

State wildlife areas, State ecological reserves, and State beaches. 

State agencies that manage State beaches, wildlife areas, or ecological

reserves should develop and implement site-specific habitat

conservation plans to minimize and mitigate impacts to snowy plovers,

and management measures for habitat protection and enhancement on

State lands. State agencies should coordinate the development of

habitat conservation plans with us and apply for section 10(a)(1)(B)

permits under the Endangered Species Act if their management actions

and allowed uses are resulting in incidental take of snowy plovers. 

3.1.5 Encourage and assist local governments and appropriate

private landowners to develop and implement habitat conservation

plans. We should provide assistance in the development of habitat

conservation plans to: (1) county and city governments that manage

snowy plover habitats; (2) private resource managers; and (3) owners of

large amounts of private natural land. Habitat conservation plans are only

required if an incidental take permit under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the

Endangered Species Act is desired or required. 

3.1.6 Assist local governments in developing and implementing local

land use protection measures. Federal and State agencies should assist

local governments in developing snowy plover protection policies as part

of new or revised local general plans, zoning policies, implementing

measures, land use plans, comprehensive plans, and local coastal

programs. Technical assistance such as maps of snowy plover habitats,
165

identification of local threats, and recommended site-specific protective

measures should be provided to coastal planners. 

3.1.7 Encourage the California State Coastal Commission, the

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, the

Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission, the Oregon

Parks and Recreation Department, the California Department of

Parks and Recreation, and the Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife to review local coastal programs and policies for consistency

with the snowy plover recovery plan. We should encourage the

California State Coastal Commission, Oregon Department of Land

Conservation and Development, Washington State Parks and Recreation

Commission, Oregon Parks and Recreation Department, California

Department of Parks and Recreation, and Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife to review local coastal programs and policies for consistency with

the snowy plover recovery plan. This review should include protection of

snowy plover habitats, cumulative impacts to snowy plovers, and policies

or restrictive measures recommended in this recovery plan. 

We should encourage and assist the California Coastal Commission and

Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development to ensure that

Local Coastal Plans, Local Comprehensive Plans, and Implementing

Measures for coastal planning jurisdictions are updated, through periodic

review or plan amendment, to reflect the recovery plan. Encourage the

California Coastal Commission to implement its Regional 

Cumulative Assessment Program. We should also work with the Oregon

Parks and Recreation Department to ensure coordination between Local

Comprehensive Plans and that agency’s management of the ocean shore

and to evaluate and account for cumulative impacts across planning

jurisdictions. 

We should coordinate with the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

during their periodic statutory review of the Oregon Endangered Species

Act, to assure consistency with this recovery plan. 
166

3.1.8 Obtain long-term agreements with private landowners.

 Agreements between Federal and State agencies and private landowners

interested in snowy plover conservation should be developed and

implemented. Landowners should be apprised of the significance of

plover populations on their lands and be provided with information about

available conservation mechanisms, such as agreements and incentive

programs. For private lands with potential occurrences of snowy plovers,

permission should be sought from landowners to conduct on-site surveys. 

If surveys identify plover populations, landowners should be apprised of

their significance and offered incentives to continue current land uses that

support species habitat. 

3.1.9 Identify snowy plover habitat for acquisition. Federal, State, and

private conservation organizations should acquire snowy plover habitat as

it becomes available, through fee title or conservation easement, etc. We

and other organizations should identify sites that may become available for

acquisition, and we should continue to evaluate excess Federal lands for

snowy plover habitat and apply to acquire them as they become available. 

Each recovery unit working group should develop a list of priority

properties for acquisition, and Federal, State, and nongovernmental

organizations should work with land conservancy groups to implement

land trades and acquisitions.

3.1.10 Ensure that section 10(a)(1)(B) and section 7(a)(2) permits

contribute to Pacific coast western snowy plover conservation. 

Recommendations contained in this recovery plan should guide the

preparation of habitat conservation plans under section 10(a)(1)(B) of the

Endangered Species Act for snowy plovers on the Pacific coast by providing

information to: (1) guide potential applicants in developing plans that

minimize and mitigate the impacts of take and (2) assist us in evaluating the

impacts of any proposed conservation plans on the recovery of the Pacific

coast snowy plover population. The recovery plan should also guide the

evaluation of impacts to snowy plovers under section 7(a)(2) permits issued

pursuant to the Endangered Species Act. In evaluating these impacts, we and

other Federal agencies should consider each of the breeding and wintering
167

locations listed in Appendix B as important for recovery, and should also refer

to the management goal breeding numbers for applicable locations and

determine how the proposed project will affect those goals. No short-term or

long-term losses to plover habitats should be allowed. The section 10(a)(1)(B)

permit process may be a valuable mechanism for developing the long-term

protection agreements called for in Tasks 3.1.4.2 and 3.1.5, especially where

significant population growth has already occurred and productivity exceeds

l.0 fledged chick per male. 

4 Undertake scientific investigations that facilitate recovery efforts. Major

gaps remain in our understanding of useful protection measures and conservation

efforts. 

4.1 Investigate effective and cost-efficient methods for habitat

restoration by removal of introduced beachgrass. Land managers should

summarize methods used to date for removal of introduced beachgrass. They

should also pursue field studies to determine the most effective and costefficient methods for habitat restoration through removal of introduced

beachgrass. Controlled studies with improved monitoring would provide

needed direction for management decisions. 

4.2 Develop and test new predator management techniques to protect

snowy plover nests and chicks. Because many of the techniques currently

used to reduce predation have disadvantages or limitations in effectiveness,

new predator management techniques should be investigated. Assistance from

the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services Branch, from State

wildlife agency furbearer biologists, and other predatory bird and mammal

specialists should be sought on these matters.

4.2.1 Develop higher-efficiency nest exclosures. Because exclosures

must be deployed quickly, and currently-designed exclosures are heavy

and labor- and time-intensive to erect, new exclosure designs should be

tested. Prototypes should include lightweight materials that are easier to

transport and a design that is easy to assemble and install. 
168

4.2.2 Develop California least tern enclosures that prevent harm to

snowy plovers. Resource managers should investigate modified designs

for California least tern enclosures to minimize snowy plover mortality. 

These modifications should include mesh sizes that do not ensnare plover

chicks and allow them to move freely in and out of fenced areas. Fences

must be erected prior to the snowy plover nesting season.

4.2.3 Investigate ecology of native predators. The ecology of

problematic avian predators (e.g., ravens and shrikes) and native mammals

(e.g., coyotes and gray foxes) should be investigated to gain an

understanding of how to control their impact on snowy plover nesting

areas during the plover breeding season.

4.2.4 Investigate predator management at the landscape level. 

Resource managers should investigate landscape-level management of

predators in the vicinity of snowy plover nesting areas. This management

could include removal of predator nest sites on lands surrounding snowy

plover breeding areas.

4.2.5 Investigate techniques for identifying predators. Techniques

should be developed to identify predators so that appropriate management

measures can be applied. Such techniques could include installation of a

remote video camera to monitor snowy plover nests and exclosures and

identify problematical predators.

4.2.6 Investigate aversive methods to discourage snowy plover

predators. Information is needed on the applicability and usefulness of

aversive techniques for conditioning predators not to prey on snowy plover

eggs, chicks, or adults. Aversive techniques may include taste aversions,

displaying predator carcasses, or installing electric fences. Effective

modifications of signs and fencing to prevent their use as predator perches

also requires investigation. While there seem to be obstacles to

development of effective aversion techniques that can be efficiently

applied in the field, there are substantial potential advantages to be

realized from aversive techniques that can reduce predation with minimum
169

disruption to native predator populations that are important to overall

ecosystem balance, and that might be conducted at times when plovers are

not present.

4.3 Improve methods of monitoring population size and reproductive

success of snowy plovers. Methods used to monitor snowy plover

populations have differed over time and from site to site. To measure progress

toward recovery reliably, standard monitoring guidelines have been developed

(Appendix J). Logistical and financial constraints likely will preclude

complete coverage of all areas, so sampling methods should be developed.

4.3.1 Improve methods of monitoring snowy plover population size. 

Not all plovers at a given location are detected during a single survey, such

as the annual breeding-season window survey. Consequently, correction

factors are necessary to extrapolate population size from window surveys. 

Correction factors are determined on a site-specific basis. Intensive

monitoring and/or color banding make it possible to know the number of

plovers present at a site. When a window survey is completed, the ratio of

the total number of plovers to the number of plovers counted provides a

correction factor that may be used for future window surveys of the site

and for other sites with window surveys but without intensive monitoring. 

Site-specific correction factors should be obtained for all major nesting

locations. When correction factors have been determined for many sites,

patterns may emerge that allow correction factors to be applied more

broadly. 

4.3.2 Develop sampling methods for annually estimating

reproductive success. While it is extremely valuable to monitor clutch

hatching success and chick fledging success at each site as a measure of

habitat quality, it is critical to determine the number of young fledged per

male for each recovery unit to measure the potential for population

stability and growth. Measuring the number of young fledged per male

requires intensive monitoring, and at sites with large numbers of birds,

some method of identifying individual males. Extensive color banding of

adults and their young, enabling determination of young fledged per male,
170

has been undertaken in large portions of coastal Oregon, the shoreline of

Monterey Bay, and coastal San Diego County for the past several years. 

These efforts should continue. Since there are insufficient color band

combinations to monitor all individuals in every recovery unit, sampling

procedures should be developed to color band adequate samples of males,

and if necessary their chicks, in the other recovery units to obtain estimates

of the number of young fledged per male. Color banding for measuring

reproductive success should be integrated with banding for estimating

population size. 

4.3.3 Monitor snowy plover survival rates. Extensive color banding of

adult plovers and their young in coastal Oregon, the shoreline of Monterey

Bay, and coastal San Diego County has enabled survival rates of adults

and young to be calculated for several years (see Population Status and

Trends and Survival sections). These efforts should continue. Information

on survival rates of birds from other recovery units can be derived from

birds banded for monitoring reproductive success or estimating population

size. 

4.4 Identify snowy plover brood habitat and map brood home ranges.

Brood movements should be mapped and distances quantified to identify how

large an area must be protected for broods. Traditionally-used brood habitat

should be identified and protected. Determine home ranges of snowy plovers

through radio telemetry studies. 

4.5 Identify components of high-quality snowy plover brood rearing

habitat. The elements of high-quality brood habitat should be determined to

facilitate creation and enhancement of suitable characteristics at other

breeding locations. 

4.6 Determine causes of adult snowy plover mortality. Determine causes

of mortality and the stage in the annual cycle (e.g., post-breeding, migration,

winter, pre-breeding, breeding) at which mortality occurs for each sex and age

class. This assessment can be done through intensive, bi-weekly monitoring
171

to determine relative health and potential for disease. Monitoring could

include fat content and weight related to the season.

4.7 Improve techniques for banding snowy plovers. Improve the

technique for banding birds to reduce injuries. Because plover injuries are

usually associated with Federal metal bands but not with plastic bands,

removal of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lettering from the inside of the

metal band should be investigated. Eliminating use of the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service metal band should also be considered. Experimentation with

new techniques must be conducted cautiously and may need to include pretesting on nonlisted surrogate species.

4.8 Identify effects of oil spills on snowy plovers. Research should be

conducted on the direct and indirect effects of oil spills on snowy plovers,

including, but not limited to: (1) how oil spills affect the plover’s prey base;

(2) chronic effects of oiling; (3) transmission of oil on partially-oiled birds

from the breast to the egg; (4) at what stage oiled plovers need to be captured

or re-captured; (5) preferable methods to remove oil from soiled birds; and (6)

impacts to plovers during oil clean-up and remediation activities. 

4.9 Monitor levels of environmental contaminants in snowy plovers.

When abandoned eggs and/or dead chicks that are not needed for law

enforcement investigations become available, they should be collected for

potential contaminants assessment. Egg removal and salvage of dead chicks

should only be done by individuals possessing proper Federal and State

authorizations. Chemical analysis of salvaged specimens should be

coordinated through our Division of Environmental Contaminants. All

salvaged eggs should be analyzed for organochlorine pesticides, total

polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB’s), selenium, mercury, and boron. 

All sampling should be opportunistic, based on availability of eggs that are

known to be abandoned. Eggs should never be removed from the beach as

long as there is any realistic chance that they might hatch. In the case of

unhatched eggs from a partially hatched clutch, eggs should not be collected

until at least 36 hours after the known hatch date of the other eggs. Full
172

clutches should not be collected unless it is known that 35 or more days have

elapsed since the last egg was laid. 

5 Undertake public information and education programs. Expanded efforts

are needed to increase public awareness of the needs of snowy plovers, other rare

beach species, and the beach and dune ecosystem. Public outreach efforts should

be a major focus of each of the working groups for the six recovery units. 

5.1 Develop and implement public information and education programs. 

Millions of beach recreationists come in contact with snowy plover nesting

and wintering areas each year. Disregard to signs, symbolic fencing, and leash

laws by beach users can directly affect the productivity and health of snowy

plovers on those beaches. Public information and education efforts play a key

role in obtaining compliance of beach recreationists with plover protection

measures that, in turn, affect the birds' recovery. Central messages to the

beach-going public include: (1) respect areas fenced or posted for protection

of plovers and other rare beach species; (2) do not approach or linger near

snowy plovers or their nests; (3) if pets are permitted on beaches used by

plovers, keep the pets leashed; (4) don't leave or bury trash or food scraps on

beaches, as garbage attracts predators that may prey upon plover eggs or

chicks; and (5) do not build wood structures that can be used as predator

perches.

Because of the importance of information and education for the snowy plover

recovery effort, as part of this recovery plan, we developed an Information and

Education Plan for the Western Snowy Plover, Pacific coast Population

(Appendix K). 

5.2 Inform Federal, State, and local resource/regulatory agencies and

local planning departments of threats to breeding and wintering snowy

plovers and their habitats. Periodic meetings and/or workshops should be

held to inform Federal, State, and local resource management and regulatory

agencies, and city and county planning departments about threats, research,

and management needs for plovers. A network of public agency staff from

each of the six recovery unit working groups should develop a coordinated
173

approach to present this information to these agencies periodically, or as

needed. 

5.3 Develop and maintain updated information and education materials

on snowy plovers. Members of the six recovery unit working groups should

develop new snowy plover information and education materials for target

audiences to stimulate public interest and awareness. In addition, all materials

should be kept reasonably current regarding the status of the species and

protection efforts. These materials should also explain the need for

conservation of the beach and dune ecosystem and the plight of other rare

beach-dwelling species. Videos detailing needed snowy plover recovery

actions by location and recovery unit should be developed, and might be

efficiently produced in conjunction with updated public service

advertisements. 

5.4 Alert landowners and beach-goers about access restrictions within

snowy plover habitats. Land managers should begin providing informational

and educational outreach at least 2 weeks prior to the onset of the nesting

season to provide beach-goers and interested landowners with advance notice

of impending restrictions on publicly-owned snowy plover breeding habitats. 

This outreach is particularly important for the first year of restrictions. If

necessary, follow-up publicity that includes information on citations issued to

violators should be implemented to help reinforce the message.

5.5 Provide trained personnel to facilitate protective measures, provide

public education, and respond to emergency situations. Biologists,

docents, volunteers, and other personnel should be trained to patrol snowy

plover nesting areas to monitor birds, distribute educational materials, respond

to emergency situations, and ensure that beach-goers stay out of fenced areas

and adhere to other plover protection measures. Biologists engaged in

monitoring, management, or research activities should also advance the

public’s understanding of plover management needs. 

5.6 Develop protocols for handling sick, dislocated, injured, oiled, and

dead birds or salvaged eggs. Land managers within each recovery unit
174

should develop protocols for all trained personnel identifying who should be

contacted when injured, dead, oiled, or dislocated birds are found, and who is

permitted to handle these birds. Federal and State salvage permits are

necessary for the disposal of dead birds and the transportation of injured birds. 

Federal and State endangered species permits are necessary for wildlife

rehabilitators to accept and care for injured and sick birds. Coordination with

biologists that are monitoring and banding snowy plovers is essential for

capture and release of injured/rehabilitated birds. Live chicks that are found

should not be moved or taken for rehabilitation as these chicks are often not

abandoned, even though plover adults may not be obvious at the time the

chicks are seen. Protocols should also be developed on how to collect and

preserve salvaged eggs used for contaminants analysis. 

5.7 Establish a distribution system and repository for information and

education materials. Land managers must distribute information and

education materials to target audiences. To reach the large population of

potential beach-goers within a few hours’ drive of many major metropolitan

areas, broad-scale information and education mechanisms should be

implemented, including distribution by mass media such as newspapers, radio

and television announcements, and internet web sites. Land managers should

also focus their information and education efforts on user groups at beach

parking lot entry stations and kiosks, visitor centers, marinas, beach-front

housing developments, equestrian and angler access points, and locations

providing off-road vehicle permits. Public outreach efforts should be directed

to groups within the geographical location of the managed beaches (e.g., to

private and commercial equestrian users) and to groups outside of the area

who use the beaches on a regular or seasonal basis (e.g., to off-road vehicle

associations from out-of-state or inland locations). Land managers, with the

help of docents and volunteers, should coordinate with local school teachers to

develop and present environmental education lesson plans and participatory

activities for elementary and middle school groups. 

We will act as a central repository for current and new information and

education materials received; upon request, we will make these materials

available to recovery unit working groups and the general public. We will
175

also maintain information on snowy plovers at our website (www.rl.fws.gov). 

Major distributional efforts should also continue by Federal, State, and local

agencies, and private conservation organizations.

5.8 Establish a reporting and distribution system for annual monitoring

data. Our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office should coordinate and

produce an annual report of submitted breeding and wintering monitoring data

and distribute it to recovery unit working groups. This report should describe

results of monitoring throughout the snowy plover population’s range.

 

6 Review progress towards recovery annually and revise recovery efforts as

appropriate. Communication, evaluation, and coordination play a major role in

snowy plover recovery efforts. Land managers within each of the six recovery

unit working groups should review the effectiveness of their management

activities in coordination with other members of their working group, and revise

management measures as appropriate. They should also provide results of annual

population monitoring and the effectiveness of management activities to their

working group and to our Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office. 

7 Dedicate U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service staff and funding for the

Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office to coordinate snowy plover recovery

implementation. We should assure the availability of long-term funding for a

staff position in the Sacramento Field and Wildlife Office, the lead field office

responsible for preparation and implementation of this recovery plan. The

primary responsibility of this staff position is implementation of the snowy plover

recovery plan. Duties should include coordination and distribution of monitoring

information and educational materials; transmission of copies of annual

population monitoring results to our field offices that are responsible for snowy

plover issues; compilation and distribution of annual population status updates to

all working groups; coordination with our other field offices in Region 1

regarding snowy plover conservation actions, consultations, habitat conservation

plans, and permits; facilitating establishment of, and coordination among, the

working groups created for the six recovery units; and fund raising to support

recovery implementation actions. 
176

8 Establish an international conservation program with the government of

Mexico to protect snowy plovers and their breeding and wintering locations

in Mexico. Meeting the recovery goals outlined in this recovery plan is dependent

only on actions recommended for implementation along the Pacific coast of the

United States. However, other tasks are identified for Mexico to complement

conservation efforts in the United States. Efforts should be made to establish an

international conservation program between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

and Mexico’s National Institute of Ecology, Ministry of Environment, Natural

Resources and Fisheries. Programs to facilitate implementation of this

conservation program should include Partners in Flight, North American

Waterfowl Management Plan, and the Borderlands Initiative. 

8.1 Develop a joint effort between the United States and Mexico to

protect snowy plover populations and their habitat. Joint efforts should be

implemented to determine important habitat in Mexico and protect these

breeding and wintering locations from human disturbance. 

8.2 Encourage research and monitoring of breeding and wintering

snowy plovers in Baja California, Mexico, by universities and authorities

of Mexico. Joint efforts should be made to develop and implement a longterm monitoring program for snowy plover populations of Mexico. They

should include developing methods for consistent monitoring, coordination of

banding and color-marking with banders from the United States, assessment

of the population status of breeding and wintering birds, and assessment of

environmental impacts that may adversely affect plover populations.

8.3 Encourage development and implementation of public information

and conservation education in Mexico for snowy plovers. Public

information and educational efforts should be coordinated and implemented

by the United States and Mexico. They should include development of

bilingual pamphlets for distribution to anglers, tourists, and local

communities, and construction and placement of bilingual signs alerting them

of the presence of nesting snowy plovers.
177

IV. IMPLEMENTATION

The following Implementation Schedule outlines actions needed and responsible

parties for the recovery program in the United States portion of the Pacific coast

population of the western snowy plover over the next 5 years and over the

estimated 25-year period needed for its recovery. Considering the recovery

criteria, results of the population viability analysis (Appendix D), and fulfillment

of the recommendations contained in the recovery plan, recovery of the snowy

plover could occur in 20 to 35 years. With dedicated, proactive efforts toward

improvements in snowy plover management in the near-term, and subsequent

management at a maintenance level commensurate with fulfillment of the

recovery criteria, the recovery team estimates recovery would occur in

approximately 25 years. 

Total costs that could be projected are $28,588,000, representing the recovery

team’s best estimate of funds needed to implement certain tasks over a 25-year

period. However, these costs only represent a portion of the overall costs because

the cost of many other tasks cannot be estimated at this time. For example, costs

associated with the key and costly task requiring intensive protection and

management on Federal and State lands (Task 3.1.3) should be determined by

members of each of the six recovery unit working groups. 

It should be recognized that expenditure of funds for recovery of the snowy plover

will provide far-reaching benefits beyond those gained for a single species. 

Allocation of these funds will also benefit many other sensitive fish and wildlife

species, the coastal beach-dune ecosystem, public appreciation for natural

habitats, and aesthetics. These estimated costs do not reflect a cost/benefit

analysis that incorporates other values or economic effects with implementation of

the recommendations contained in this recovery plan. 

We believe that protection and management costs could be substantially reduced

by selecting protection strategies that are more restrictive of other beach uses. 

While we believe that it is neither feasible nor desirable to completely eliminate

beach recreation in most snowy plover habitat, it also recognizes that management

strategies that protect plovers on beaches where public use is also maintained

require a continuing commitment of person-power, and are inherently expensive.
178

The Implementation Schedule lists and ranks tasks that should be undertaken

within the next 5 years. This schedule will be reviewed annually until the

recovery objective is met, and priorities and tasks will be subject to revision. 

Tasks of higher priority are presented first.

Referenced tasks in the “Comments/Notes” column are explained in the Stepdown

Narrative section.
179

Key to Acronyms used in the

Implementation Schedule

Definition of task priorities:

Priority 1 - An action that must be taken to prevent extinction or prevent the

species from declining irreversibly in the foreseeable future.

Priority 2 - An action that must be taken to prevent a significant decline in

species population or habitat quality, or some other significant negative impact

short of extinction.

Priority 3 - All other actions necessary to provide for full recovery of the species.

Definition of task durations and costs:

Annual - A task that will be implemented each year.

Continual - A task that will be implemented on a routine basis once begun.

Ongoing - A task that is currently being implemented and will continue until

action is no longer necessary.

As needed - A task that will be implemented on an “as needed” basis.

Unknown - Either task duration or associated costs are not known at this time.

To Be Determined (TBD): Costs to be determined at a later date.
180

Responsible parties*: 

ARMY U.S. Army

BLM U.S. Bureau of Land Management

CCC California State Coastal Commission

CDFG California Department of Fish and Game

CDPR California Department of Parks and Recreation

CE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

CI Cities 

CO Counties

EBRPD East Bay Regional Park District

ES U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Ecological Services

(includes Endangered Species and Contaminants)

FAA U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration

HARD Hayward Area Recreation and Park District

IA U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of International Affairs

LE U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Law Enforcement

LMAO Land Management Agencies and Organizations and other Cooperators. 

 This category includes Federal and local land management

agencies listed above, private organizations and individuals that

own and manage snowy plover breeding and wintering habitat, and

private conservation groups that provide on-site protection of lands

owned by others. 

MPOSD Mid-Peninsula Open Space District

MPRPD Monterey Peninsula Regional Park District

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration-Ames Research

Center

NAVY U.S. Navy

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service

NPS National Park Service

ODFW Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife

ODLCD Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development

OPRD Oregon Parks and Recreation Department

P Private landowners (except HARD, MPOSD, and TNC)

PA U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Public Affairs

PGH Port of Grays Harbor

PO Port of Oakland
181

PRBO Point Reyes Bird Observatory

PSL Port of San Luis Harbor District

RSCH Research institutions and agencies

RW U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Division of Refuges and Wildlife

(includes Realty)

SDRPJPA San Dieguito River Park Joint Powers Authority

TNC The Nature Conservancy

TPL Trust for Public Land

USAF U.S. Air Force

USCG U.S. Coast Guard

USFS U.S. Forest Service

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

BBL U.S. Geological Survey, Bird Banding Laboratory

BRD U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division

USMC U.S. Marine Corps

WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

WDNR Washington Department of Natural Resources

WS U.S. Department of Agriculture, Wildlife Services Branch

WSPRC Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission

* All responsible parties listed for tasks in Implementation Schedule are

considered lead agencies for those tasks.
 IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE 

Western Snowy Plover Pacific Coast Population Recovery Plan

 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

1 Annually monitor

population size and distribution atbreeding locations ineach recovery unit.

1.1.1 annual LMAO, 

CO, CI 

1,000 40 40 40 40 40 

1 Monitor productivity. 1.1.2 annual LMAO, 

CO, CI

See 

Task 

1.1.4

1 Monitor snowy plover

breeding activities atall breeding sites toidentify factorslimiting abundance ofbreeding birds, clutchhatching success andchick fledgingsuccess.

1.1.4 annual LMAO 16,000 640 640 640 640 640 

182
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

1 Avoid development

that will destroy ordegrade ploverbreeding habitat. 

1.2.1 ongoing ES, LMAO, 

CO, CI

Unknown 

1 Avoid interference

with natural processesof inlet formation,migration, andclosure.

1.2.2 ongoing ES, CE, 

LMAO

Unknown 

1 Avoid interference

with natural processesof erosion anddeposition of sanddunes.

1.2.3 ongoing ES, CE, 

LMAO

Unknown 

1 Avoid beach

stabilization projects.

1.2.4 ongoing ES, CE, 

LMAO

Unknown 

1 Remove nonnative

vegetation fromexisting and potentialbreeding sites. 

1.2.5.1 continual LMAO TBD 

183
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

1 Create, manage and

enhance coastal pondsand playas forbreeding habitat.

1.2.5.3 ongoing ES, RW, 

CE, CDFG, 

NASA, HARD, 

LMAO

TBD 

1 Seasonally close,

fence, post, useexclosures, monitorand enforceregulations in areasused by breedingsnowy plovers asappropriate.

1.3.1.1 annual LMAO, 

CO, CI 

TBD 

1 Develop and

implement necessaryState and localordinances,administrative rulesand regulations toenforce closed areason beaches used asbreeding habitat.

1.3.1.2 continual ES, LE, 

LMAO, CCC,

CDFG, CDPR,

ODFW,

ODLCD,

OPRD,

WDFW,

WDNR,

WSPRC, 

CO, CI

TBD 

184
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

1 Locate access points

and trails well awayfrom plover nestinghabitat.

1.3.1.3 continual LMAO, 

CO, CI 

TBD 

1 Prevent disturbance

from disruptiverecreational activitieswhere breedingsnowy plovers arepresent.

1.3.1.5 annual LMAO, 

CO, CI, 

FAA

TBD 

1 Prevent disturbance,

mortality, and habitatdegradation by offroad vehicles,including beachraking machines.

1.3.2 annual LMAO, 

CO, CI

TBD 

1 Provide wardens,

agents or officers toenforce protectivemeasures in breedinghabitat.

1.3.4 continual LE, LMAO, 

CO, CI 

TBD 

185
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

1 Erect predator

exclosures to reduceegg predation whereappropriate.

1.4.3 continual LMAO, 

CO, CI 

TBD 

1 Remove predators

where warranted andfeasible.

1.4.4 as needed LMAO, 

CO, CI, 

WS, CDFG

2,500 100 100 100 100 100 

1 Protect snowy plovers

and their breedinghabitat from oil orchemical spills.

1.5 as needed LMAO, 

CO, CI, 

USCG

Unknown 

1 Protect wintering

habitat fromdegradation due to oilor chemical spills.

2.2.5 as needed ES, USCG, 

LMAO

Unknown 

186
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

1 Establish snowy

plover workinggroups for each of thesix recovery units.

3.1.1 continual ES, LMAO, 

CO, C I, P

2,285 96 96 91 91 91 

1 Provide protection

and intensivemanagement of allbreeding andwintering locations onFederal and Statelands.

3.1.3 continual RW, ARMY, 

BLM, CE,

NASA, 

NAVY, NPS, 

USAF, USFS, 

USMC, CDFG,

CDPR, ODFW,

OPRD, 

WDFW,

WDNR, 

WSPRC

TBD 

1 Dedicate U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Servicestaff and funding forthe Sacramento Fishand Wildlife Office tocoordinate recoveryimplementation.

7 continual ES 2,000 80 80 80 80 80

187
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

2 Ensure that

enforcement effortsdo not endangersnowy plovers, theirnests, eggs or chicks.

1.3.6 continual LE, LMAO, 

CO, CI 

See Task

1.3.5

2 Replace exotic dune

plants with nativedune vegetationwhere it is likely toimprove breedinghabitat for snowyplovers.

1.6 continual LMAO, 

CO, CI 

TBD 

2 Compensate the loss

of plover breedinghabitat associatedwith recovery effortsfor other sensitivespecies, includingthose within the SanFrancisco Bayrecovery unit.

1.7 ongoing ES, RW, CE, 

LMAO

TBD 

188
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

2 Protect wintering

habitat from impactsof water diversion/impoundment andshorelinestabilization,navigation, anddevelopment projects.

2.2.1 ongoing ES, CE, 

LMAO, CCC,

CDFG, CDPR,

ODFW,

ODLCD,

OPRD,

WDFW,

WDNR,

WSPRC 

CO, CI

Unknown 

2 Compensate the loss

of plover winteringhabitat associatedwith recovery effortsfor other sensitivespecies.

2.3 ongoing ES, RW, 

CE, LMAO

TBD

2 Develop and

implement regionalparticipation plans foreach of the sixrecovery units.

3.1.2 continual ES, LMAO TBD 

189
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

2 Assist local

governments indeveloping andimplementing localland use protectionmeasures.

3.1.6 ongoing ES, 

CCC, CDFG,

CDPR, ODFW,

ODLCD,

OPRD,WDNR, 

WDFW,

WSPRC, 

CO, CI

TBD

2 Investigate effective

and cost-efficientmethods for habitatrestoration byremoval of introducedbeachgrass.

4.1 continual ES, LMAO, 

RSCH

TBD

2 Develop higherefficiency nest

exclosures.

4.2.1 ongoing ES, LMAO, 

RSCH

20 10 5 3 2 0 

2 Develop California

least tern enclosuresthat prevent harm tosnowy plovers.

4.2.2 as needed ES, USMC, 

CDFG, CDPR, 

LMAO, RSCH

TBD 

190
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

2 Improve methods of

monitoring populationsize. 

4.3.1 continual ES, LMAO, 

RSCH

TBD 

2 Develop sampling

methods for annuallyestimatingreproductive success.

4.3.2 as needed ES, RSCH 30 5 25 0 0 0

2 Develop and

implement publicinformation andeducation programs.

5.1 ongoing ES, PA, 

LMAO

TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD TBD 

191
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

2 Review progress

towards recoveryannually and reviserecovery efforts asappropriate.

6 continual ES, RW,

ARMY, 

BLM, CE,

NASA, NAVY,

NPS, USAF,

USFS, USMC,

CDFG, CDPR,

ODFW, 

ODPR,

WDFW,

WDNR,

WSPRC,

LMAO

1,150 46 46 46 46 46 

3 Monitor annual

survival. 

1.1.3 continual LMAO, RSCH TBD 

3 Develop training and

certification programsfor snowy ploversurvey coordinators.

1.1.5 continual ES, LMAO, 

RSCH

TBD

3 Improve submittal

system for monitoringdata.

1.1.6 continual ES, LMAO,

BBL, PRBO

575 23 23 23 23 23 

192
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

3 Evaluate and update

lists of importantbreeding areas as databecome available. 

1.1.7 continual LMAO TBD

3 Coordinate

monitoring of snowyplovers and Californialeast terns. 

1.1.8 annual ES, RW,

NAVY, USMC,

USAF, CDFG,

CDPR, WS,

BRD

450 18 18 18 18 18 

3 Deposit dredged

material to enhance orcreate nesting habitat,and evaluate impactsfrom beachnourishmentactivities.

1.2.5.2 as needed ES, CE, LMAO TBD

3 Implement and

enforce petrestrictions. 

1.3.1.4 annual LMAO, CO, CI TBD 

3 Prevent driftwood

removal.

1.3.1.6 annual LMAO, CO, CI TBD 

193
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

3 Implement and

enforce anti-litteringregulations.

1.3.1.7 annual LMAO, CO, CI TBD 

3 Implement and

enforce restrictions onhorseback riding innesting areas.

1.3.3 annual LMAO, CO, CI TBD 

3 Develop and

implement trainingprograms for enforcementpersonnel and otherswho work in ploverbreeding habitat.

1.3.5 continual LE, LMAO,

 CO, CI 

200 8 8 8 8 8 

3 Remove litter and

garbage from beachesmanually, not byraking machines.

1.4.1 continual LMAO, CO, CI TBD 

3 Remove predator

perches and unnaturalhabitats.

1.4.2 continual LMAO, CO, CI TBD 

194
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

3 Remove bird and

mammal carcasses insnowy plover nestingareas.

1.4.5 as needed LMAO, CO, CI TBD 

3 Discourage pinnipeds

from usurping snowyplover nesting areas.

1.8 as needed NPS, LMAO,

NMFS

TBD 

3 Monitor snowy plover

abundance anddistribution atwintering locations ineach recovery unit.

2.1.1 annual LMAO, 

CO, CI 

575 23 23 23 23 23 

3 Identify factors

limiting the quality ofwintering locations.

2.1.2 continual LMAO, 

CO, CI 

TBD 

3 Quantify wintering

habitat needs ofsnowy plovers alongthe Pacific coast.

2.1.3 continual LMAO, 

RSCH

TBD 

195
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

3 Evaluate and update

lists of importantwintering areas asdata becomesavailable.

2.1.4 continual ES, LMAO TBD 

3 Protect wintering

habitat fromdisturbance by peopleand domestic animals.

2.2.2 continual LMAO, 

CO, CI

TBD 

3 Develop and

implement necessaryState and localordinances,administrative rulesand regulations toenforce closed areason beaches used aswintering habitat.

2.2.3 annual ES, LMAO,

CCC, CDFG,

CDPR, ODFW,

ODLCD,

OPRD,

WDFW,

WDNR,

WSPRC,

CO, CI

TBD 

196
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

3 Provide wardens,

agents or officers toenforce protectivemeasures in winteringhabitat.

2.2.4 continual LE, LMAO,

CO, CI 

100 4 4 4 4 4 

3 Protect wintering

habitat fromdegradation byremoving litter frombeaches manually, notby raking machines. 

2.2.6 annual LMAO, 

CO, CI

TBD 

3 Identify important

migration stop-overhabitat.

2.4.1 continual ES, LMAO TBD 

3 Identify and mitigate

any factors that maybe adversely affectingmigratory stop-overhabitat for snowyplovers.

2.4.2 continual ES, LMAO,

RSCH

TBD 

197
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

3 Develop and

implementmanagement plans forFederal lands.

3.1.4.1 ongoing RW, ARMY,

BLMCE,

NASA, NAVY,

NPS, USAF,

USMC, USFS

TBD

3 Develop and

implement HabitatConservation Plans onState wildlife areas,State ecologicalreserves, and Statebeaches.

3.1.4.2 continual CDFG, CDPR,

ODFW, OPRD, 

WDFW,

WDNR, 

WSPRC

TBD

3 Encourage and assist

local governmentsand appropriateprivate landowners todevelop andimplement HabitatConservation Plans.

3.1.5 ongoing ES, CO, CI, P,

EBRPD,

HARD,

MPOSD,

MPRPD, PGH,

PO, SL, 

TNC,

SDRPJPA

TBD

198
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

3 Encourage the

California StateCoastal Commission,the OregonDepartment of LandConservation andDevelopment, theWashington StateParks and RecreationCommission, theOregon Parks andRecreationDepartment, theCalifornia Departmentof Parks andRecreation, and theOregon Departmentof Fish and Wildlifeto review local coastalprograms and policiesfor consistency withsnowy ploverrecovery plan.

3.1.7 as needed ES, CCC,

ODLCD,

ODFW, OPRD,

CDPR,

WSPRC

TBD

199
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

3 Obtain long-term

agreements withprivate landowners.

3.1.8 as needed ES, CDFG,

CDPR, ODFW,

OPRD,

WDFW,

WSPRC,

LMAO, P

TBD

3 Identify habitat for

acquisition.

3.1.9 ongoing ES, RW,

LMAO

TBD

3 Ensure that any

section 10(a)(1)(B)and section 7(a)(2)permits contribute toPacific coast westernsnowy ploverconservation. 

3.1.10 ongoing ES, 

Federal

agencies

TBD

3 Investigate ecology of

native predators.

4.2.3 as needed ES, RW, 

LMAO, WS,

CDFG, RSCH,

CO, CI, P

150 

200
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

3 Investigate predator

management at thelandscape level.

4.2.4 as needed ES, RW, 

LMAO, WS,

RSCH, 

CO, CI, 

P

150 

3 Investigate techniques

for identifyingpredators.

4.2.5 continual LMAO, 

RSCH

TBD 

3 Investigate methods

to deter predatorsfrom using signs andfencing as predatorperches. 

4.1.7 as needed LMAO, 

RSCH

TBD

3 Investigate aversive

methods to discouragesnowy ploverpredators.

4.2.6 as needed ES, 

LMAO, 

RSCH

TBD

3 Monitor plover

survival rates.

4.3.3 continual ES, 

LMAO, 

RSCH

TBD 

201
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

3 Identify brood habitat

and map brood homeranges.

4.4 continual ES, 

LMAO, 

RSCH, 

CO, CI, 

P

See Task

1.1.4

3 Identify components

of high-quality broodrearing habitat.

4.5 continual ES, 

LMAO, 

RSCH, 

CO, CI, 

P

900 

3 Determine causes of

adult snowy plovermortality.

4.6 ongoing LMAO, 

RSCH

See

Task

1.1.4

3 Improve techniques

for banding snowyplovers.

4.7 ongoing RSCH, 

PRBO, 

BRD, 

BBL

3 

3 Identify effects of oil

spills on snowyplovers.

4.8 as needed RSCH, 

BRD, 

LMAO

TBD

202
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

3 Monitor levels of

environmentalcontaminants insnowy plovers.

4.9 as needed ES, 

RSCH, 

BRD

TBD 

3 Apprise Federal, State

and local resource/regulatory agenciesand local planningdepartments of threatsto breeding andwintering snowyplovers and theirhabitats.

5.2 continual ES, 

LMAO, CCC,

CDFG, CDPR,

ODFW,

ODLCD,

OPRD,

WDFW,

WDNR,

WSPRC, 

CO/CI

TBD

3 Develop and maintain

updated informationand educationmaterials on snowyplovers.

5.3 ongoing ES, 

PA, 

LMAO, 

CO, CI

TBD 

203
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

3 Alert landowners and

beach-goers aboutaccess restrictionswithin snowy ploverhabitats.

5.4 ongoing ES, 

PA, 

LMAO, 

CO, CI

TBD 

3 Provide trained

personnel to facilitateprotective measures,provide publiceducation, andrespond to emergencysituations.

5.5 continual LMAO, CO, CI TBD 

3 Develop protocols for

handling sick,dislocated, injured,oiled, and dead birdsor salvaged eggs.

5.6 as needed LMAO, 

CO, CI 

TBD 

3 Establish a

distribution systemand repository forinformation andeducation materials.

5.7 continual ES, LMAO, 

CO, CI

TBD 

204
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

3 Establish a reporting

and distributionsystem for annualmonitoring data.

5.8 annual ES 500 20 20 20 20 20

3 Develop a joint

United States andMexico effort toprotect snowy ploverpopulations and theirhabitat.

8.1 continual ES, IA TBD

3 Encourage research

and monitoring ofbreeding andwintering snowyplovers in BajaCalifornia, Mexico byuniversities andauthorities of Mexico.

8.2 continual ES, IA, RSCH,

BRD

TBD

205
 Cost Estimate (in $1,000 units) 

Priority

No. Task

 Description

Task

Number

Task

Duration

 Responsible Parties

Total 

Costs FY1 FY2 FY3 FY4 FY5 

3 Encourage

development andimplementation ofpublic informationand conservationeducation in Mexico.

8.3 continual ES, IA, PA TBD

Total Cost of Recovery through 2025: $28,588,000 plus additional costs that cannot be estimated at this t

206
207

V. REFERENCES

A. Literature Cited

Albers, P.H. 1977. Effects of external applications of fuel oil on hatchability of

mallard eggs. Pages 158-163 in D. A. Wolfe, editor. Fate and effects of

petroleum hydrocarbons in marine organisms and ecosystems. Pergamon

Press, New York, N.Y.

Albers, P.H. and R.C. Szaro. 1978. Effects of No. 2 fuel oil on common eider

eggs. Marine Pollution Bulletin 9:138-139.

American Ornithologists' Union. 1957. The A.O.U. checklist of North American

birds. Fifth edition. 168 pp.

Anthony, J.L. 1985. A report on the distribution, numbers and human

disturbance of snowy plovers at Damon Point, Washington. Report to the

Washington Dept. of Game. Evergreen State College, WA. 24 pp.

Anthony, J.L. 1987. The snowy plover and biopolitics at Damon Point,

Washington. M.E.S. Thesis, The Evergreen State College, Olympia, WA. 

106 pp. 

Avery, M.L., M. A. Pavelka, D. L. Bergman, D. G. Decker, C. E. Knittle, and

G. M. Linz. 1995. Aversive conditioning to reduce raven predation on

California least tern eggs. Colonial Waterbirds 18(2):131-138.

Barbour, M.G. and J. Major. 1990. Terrestrial vegetation of California. 

California Native Plant Society. Special Publication Number 9, University of

Davis, CA. 1028 pp.

Binford, L.C. 1989. A distributional survey of the birds of the Mexican State of

Oaxaca. Ornithological Monographs 43. 418 pp.
208

Blus, L.J. 1982. Further interpretation of the relation of organochlorine residues

in brown pelican eggs to reproductive success. Environmental Pollution

(Series A) 28:15-33.

Brittell, J.D., J.M. Brown, and R.L. Eaton. 1976. Marine shoreline fauna of

Washington, Vol. II. Washington Dept. of Game and Ecology, Olympia. 

341 pp.

Buick, A.M. and D.C. Paton. 1989. Impact of off-road vehicles on the nesting

success of hooded plovers (Charadrius rubricollis) in the Coorong region of

South Australia. Emu 89:159-172.

Burger, J. 1986. The effect of human activity on shorebirds in two coastal bays

in the northeastern United States. Environmental Conservation 13:123-130.

Burger, J. 1993. Shorebird squeeze. Natural History 102(5):8-14.

Burger, A.E. and D.M. Fry. 1993. Effects of oil pollution on seabirds in the

northeast Pacific. Pages 254-263 in K. Vermeer, K.T. Briggs, K.H. Morgan,

and D. Siegel-Causey, eds. The status, ecology, and conservation of marine

birds of the North Pacific. Canadian Wildlife Service Special Publication,

Ottawa.

Cairns, W.E. and I.A. MacLaren. 1980. Status of the piping plover on the east

coast of North America. American Birds 34(2):206-208.

California Coastal Commission. 1995. Regional cumulative assessment project. 

ReCAP pilot project, findings and recommendations: Monterey Bay Region. 

162 pp. plus appendices.

California Department of Fish and Game. Undated [1994]. Managing non-native

species in California: The red fox. The Resources Agency, California

Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 8 pp.
209

California Natural Diversity Database. 2001. Special Animals. California

Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. 

January 2001. 52 pp. 

Carter, R.W.G. 1988. Coastal environments, an introduction to the physical,

ecological and cultural systems of coastlines. 617 pp.

Casler, B.R., C.E. Hallett, M.A. Stern, and G.A. Rosenberg. 1993. Unpublished

report submitted to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife; Coos Bay

District, Bureau of Land Management; and Oregon Dunes National Recreation

Area, Suislaw National Forest. 26 pp.

Center for Marine Conservation. 1995. National Marine Debris Monitoring

Program. Volunteer Handbook. 12 pp.

Chestnut, J. 1997. The distribution of rare species and the distribution and trend

of invasive weeds on the Mobil Coastal preserve, Guadalupe-Nipomo Dunes,

California. Unpublished document, The Nature Conservancy, San Francisco,

CA. 135 pp. 

Connors, P.G., V.C. Anderlini, R.W. Risebrough, M. Gilbertson, and H. Hays. 

1975. Investigations of heavy metals in common tern populations. The

Canadian Field-Naturalist 89:157-162.

Cooch, E., R. Pradel and N. Nur. 1996. A practical guide to capture/recapture

analysis using SURGE. CNRS, Montpellier, France. Approx. 130 pages.

Craig, D.P., M.A. Stern, K.A. Mingo, D.M. Craig, and G.A. Rosenberg. 1992. 

Reproductive ecology of the western snowy plover on the south coast of

Oregon. Submitted to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Roseburg,

OR, and Coos Bay District, Bureau of Land Management, North Bend, OR. 

13 pp plus tables and maps.

Davis, W.A. and S.M. Russell. 1984. Birds in southeastern Arizona. Tucson

Audubon Society, Tucson, AZ. 169 pp.
210

Evans, M.I. and G.O. Keijl. 1993. Impact of Gulf War oil spills on the wader

populations of the Saudi Arabian Gulf Coast. Sandgrouse 15:85-105.

Fancher, J., R. Zembal, L. Hays, and P. Knapp. 1998. Western snowy plover

nesting at Bolsa Chica, Orange County, California, 1998. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Carlsbad Office, October 1998.

Fahy, K.A. and C.D. Woodhouse. 1995. 1995 snowy plover linear restriction

monitoring project, Vandenberg Air Force Base. Prepared for Natural

Resources, Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA. 37 pp.

Feeney, L.R. and W.A. Maffei. 1991. Snowy plovers and their habitat at the

Baumberg area and Oliver salt ponds, Hayward, California, March 1989

through May 1990. City of Hayward, Hayward, CA. 162 pp.

Flemming, S.P., R.D. Chiasson, P.C. Smith, P.J. Austin-Smith, and R.P. Bancroft. 

1988. Piping plover status in Nova Scotia related to its reproductive and

behavioral responses to human disturbance. Journal of Field Ornithology

59(4):321-330.

Fox, R. 1990. Snowy plover distribution and nesting success and human activity

during summer, 1990, on Damon Point, Washington. Unpublished report.,

Washington Department of Wildlife, Olympia, WA. 9 pp.

George, D.E. 1997. Nesting success of snowy plovers at Wilder, Laguna, Scott

Creek and Waddell Beaches, Santa Cruz County, California, in 1997. Report

of Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. 12 pp.

Golightly, R.T., Jr., M.R. Faulhaber, K.L. Sallee, and J.C. Lewis. 1994. Food

habits and management of introduced red fox in southern California. Pages

15-20 in Halverson, W.S., and A. C. Crabb, Eds. Proceedings of the 16th

Vertebrate Pest Conference. Published at University of California, Davis.
211

Grinnell, J., H.D. Bryant, and T.I. Storer. 1918. The game birds of California. 

University of California Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, Berkeley, CA. pp.

473-478.

Guinon, M. 1988. Dune restoration at Spanish Bay. Fremontia. October 1988. 

pp. 8-11.

Hallett, C.E., B.R. Casler, M.A. Platt, and M.A. Stern. 1995. Snowy plover

distribution and reproductive success along the Oregon coast. Submitted to

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR; Coos Bay District,

Bureau of Land Management, North Bend, OR; and Oregon Dunes National

Recreation Area, Reedsport, OR. 40 pp.

Harding, E.K., D.F. Doak, J. Albertson, and J.E. Takekawa. 1998. Predator

management in San Francisco Bay wetlands: past trends and future strategies. 

Prepared for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. 41 pp.

Hatch, D. 1997. Draft snowy plover management plan for Ocean Beach, Golden

Gate National Recreation Area. 58 pp. plus tables and appendices.

Hayman, P., J. Marchant, and T. Prater. 1986. Shorebirds: an identification

guide to the waders of the world. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 412 pp.

Heintz, G.H., D.J. Hoffman, A.J. Krynitsky, and D.M.G. Weller. 1987. 

Reproduction in mallards fed selenium. Environmental Toxicology and

Chemistry 6:423-433.

Hickey, C.M., G.W. Page, and K. Wilson. 1995. Nesting success of snowy

plovers at Point Reyes National Seashore in 1995. Report of Point Reyes Bird

Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. 10 pp.

Hoopes, E.M., C.R. Griffin, and S.M. Melvin. 1992. Relationships between

human recreation and piping plover foraging ecology and chick survival. 

Unpublished report. University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA. 77 pp.
212

Hothem, R.L. and D. Welsh. 1994. Contaminants in eggs of aquatic birds from

the grasslands of Central California. Archives of Environmental

Contamination and Toxicology 27:180-185. 

Howard, J.M., R.J. Safran, and S.M. Melvin. 1993. Biology and conservation of

piping plovers at Breezy Point, New York. Unpublished report. Department

of Forestry and Wildlife Management, University of Massachusetts, Amherst. 

34 pp.

Hutchinson, E.S., G.W. Page, and P.E. Persons. 1987. The nesting of snowy

plovers on Morro Bay sand spit during and after the 1987 maintenance

dredging of Morro Bay harbor. Report of Point Reyes Bird Observatory,

Stinson Beach, CA. 16 pp.

Jacobs, R.A. 1986. Snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus). Section 4.4.1,

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wildlife Resources Management Manual,

Technical Report EL-86-54, Portland, OR. 25 pp.

Jurek, R.M. 1992. Non-native red foxes in California. California Department of

Fish and Game, Wildlife Management Division, Nongame Bird and Mammal

Section Report 92-04. Sacramento, CA. 16 pp.

 

Kelly, P. and J. Rotenberry. 1996/1997. Buffer zones for ecological reserves in

California: replacing guesswork with science. Native Species Network. 

Winter 1996/97.

Kindinger, M.E. 1981. Impact of the Ixtoc I oil spill on the community structure

of intertidal and subtidal infauna along south Texas beaches. M.S. Thesis,

Corpus Christi State University, Corpus Christi, TX. 91 pp.

King, K.A. and C.A. Lefever. 1979. Effects of oil transferred from incubating

gulls to their eggs. Marine Pollution Bulletin 10:319-321.

Kloempken, D. and S.A. Richardson. 1995. Snowy plovers and human activity at

Leadbetter Point in April 1995. 8 pp. plus survey form.
213

Lebreton, J.-D., K.P. Burnham, J. Clobert, and D.R. Anderson. 1992. Modeling

survival and testing biological hypotheses using marked animals: a unified

approach with case studies. Ecological Monographs 62:67-118.

Leighton, F.A. 1991. The toxicity of petroleum oils to seabirds: an overview. 

Pages 43-57 in White, J. (Ed.). The effects of oil on wildlife. Sheridan Press,

Hanover, PA.

Lewis, J.C., R.T. Golightly, and R.M. Jurek. 1995. Introduction of non-native

red foxes in California: Implications for the Sierra Nevada red fox. 

Transactions of the Western Section of the Wildlife Society 31:29-32.

Lewis, J.C., K.L. Sallee, and R.T. Golightly. 1993. Introduced red fox in

California. California Department of Fish and Game, Nongame Bird and

Mammal Section Report 93-10. Sacramento, CA. 56 pp plus appendices.

 

McIvor, L.H. 1991. Research proposal: Conditioned taste aversion: A technique

to reduce red fox predation at piping plover nests on Assateague Island

National Seashore. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis,

MD. 8 pp.

Monson, G. and A.R. Phillips. 1981. Annotated checklist of the birds of Arizona,

2d ed. University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 240 pp.

National Research Council. 1985. Oil in the sea: inputs, fates and effects. 

National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 601 pp. 

Ohlendorf, H.M., R.L. Hothem, C.M. Bunck, T.W. Aldrich, and J.F. Moore. 

1986. Relationships between selenium concentrations and avian reproduction. 

Transactions of the Fifty-first North American Wildlife and Natural Resources

Conference 51:330-342.

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1994. Final Draft. Oregon conservation

program for the western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus). 

Portland, OR. 56 pp.
214

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1996. Snowy plover habitat restoration

on the Coos Bay North Spit using inmate labor. 21 pp.

Page, G.W. 1988. Nesting success of snowy plovers in central coastal California

in 1988. Report of the Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. 

7 pp.

Page, G.W. 1990. Nesting success of snowy plovers in central coastal California

in 1989 and 1990. Report of the Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson

Beach, CA. 13 pp.

Page, G.W. and P.E. Persons. 1995. The snowy plover at Vandenberg Air Force

Base: population size, reproductive success, and management. Point Reyes

Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. 24 pp. plus appendices.

Page, G.W. and L.E. Stenzel (eds.). 1981. The breeding status of the snowy

plover in California. Western Birds 12(1):1-40.

Page, G.W., J.S. Warriner, and L.E. Stenzel. 1997. Nesting success of snowy

plovers on Monterey Bay in 1997. Unpublished report of Point Reyes Bird

Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. 10 pp.

Page, G.W., F.C. Bidstrup, R.J. Ramer, and L.E. Stenzel. 1986. Distribution of

wintering snowy plovers in California and adjacent states. Western Birds

17(4):145-170.

Page, G.W., L.E. Stenzel, W.D. Shuford, and C.R. Bruce. 1991. Distribution and

abundance of the snowy plover on its western North American breeding

grounds. Journal of Field Ornithology 62(2):245-255.

Page, G.W., L.E. Stenzel, D.W. Winkler, and C.W. Swarth. 1983. Spacing out at

Mono Lake: breeding success, nest density, and predation in the snowy

plover. The Auk 100:13-24.
215

Page, G.W., J.S. Warriner, J.C. Warriner, and R.M. Halbeisen. 1977. Status of

the snowy plover on the northern California coast. Part I: Reproductive

timing and success. California Department of Fish and Game Nongame

Wildlife Investigations, Sacramento, CA. 6 pp.

Page, G.W., J.S. Warriner, J.C. Warriner, and P.W.C. Paton. 1995a. Snowy

plover (Charadrius alexandrinus). In The Birds of North America, No. 154

(A. Poole and F. Gill, eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia,

PA, and The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 24 pp. 

Page, G.W., M.A. Stern, and P.W. Paton. 1995b. Differences in wintering areas

of snowy plovers from inland breeding sites in western North America. The

Condor 97:258-262.

Page, G.W., J.S. Warriner, J.C. Warriner, D.E. George, and L.E. Stenzel. 1997. 

Nesting success of snowy plovers at Monterey Bay and northern Santa Cruz

County pocket beaches in 1996. Report of Point Reyes Bird Observatory,

Stinson Beach, CA. 12 pp.

Page, G.W., D. Dixon, C. Eyster, D.E. George, K. Neumann, L.E. Stenzel, J.C.

Warriner, and J.S. Warriner. 1998. Reproduction of snowy plovers at

Monterey Bay and pocket beaches of northern Santa Cruz County in 1998. 

Unpubl. report of Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. 12 pp.

Palacios, E.P., L. Alfaro, and G.W. Page. 1994. Distribution and abundance of

breeding snowy plovers on the Pacific coast of Baja California. Journal of

Field Ornithology 65(4):490- 497.

Paton, P.W. 1994. Survival estimates for snowy plovers breeding at Great Salt

Lake, Utah. Condor 96:1106-1109.

Persons, P.E. 1994. Western snowy plover monitoring in 1993 at Vandenberg

Air Force Base, California. Unpublished report of U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Ventura, CA. 22 pp.
216

Persons, P.E. 1995. Western snowy plover population size and nesting success in

1994 at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. A monitoring report prepared

for U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, CA. 21 pp.

Persons, P.E. and T.E. Applegate. 1996. Western snowy plover population size

and reproductive success in 1996 at Vandenberg Air Force Base, California. 

Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. 35 pp. plus maps. 

Persons, P.E. and T.E. Applegate. 1997. Monitoring of the western snowy plover

at Vandenberg Air Force Base in 1997: population size, reproductive success,

and management. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. 30 pp.

plus map.

Pethick, J. 1984. An introduction to coastal geomorphology. 260 pp.

Pfister, C., B. Harington, and M. Lavine. 1992. The impact of human disturbance

on shorebirds at a migration staging area. Biological Conservation 60:115-

126.

Pickart, A.J. 1997. Control of European beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria) on

the west coast of the United States. Proceedings, 1997, California Exotic

Plant Council Annual Meeting, Concord, CA. 13 pp.

Pickart, A.J. and J.O. Sawyer. 1998. Ecology and restoration of northern

California coastal dunes. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 

172 pp.

Powell, A.N. 1996. Western snowy plover use of state-managed lands in

southern California, 1995. California Department of Fish and Game, Wildlife

Management Division, Bird and Mammal Conservation Program Report 96-

103, Sacramento, CA. 14 pp.

Powell, J.A. 1981. Endangered habitats for insects: California coastal sand

dunes. Atala 6:41-55.
217

Powell, A.N. and C.L. Collier. 1994. The status of western snowy plovers

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) in San Diego County, 1994. Report to

California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA, and U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 28 pp.

Powell, A.N. and C.L. Collier. 1995. The status of western snowy plovers

(Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) at Camp Pendleton, 1995. Annual

breeding season interim summary report to the Assistant Chief of Staff,

Environmental Security, Marine Corps Base, Camp Pendleton, CA. 32 pp.

Powell, A.N. and R.L. Hothem. 1997. Contaminants in western snowy plover

and California least tern eggs: Is there a link to population decline? Abstract,

4th Annual Conference, The Wildlife Society, Snowmass, CO. 14 pp.

Powell, A.N., B.L. Peterson, and J.M. Terp. 1996. The status of western snowy

plovers (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) in San Diego County, 1996. 

Report to the California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA, and

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, CA, and Portland, OR. 25 pp.

Powell, A.N., J.M. Terp, C.L. Collier, and B.L. Peterson. 1995. The status of

western snowy plovers (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) in San Diego

County, 1995. Report to the California Department of Fish and Game,

Sacramento, CA, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, CA, and

Portland, OR. 24 pp.

Powell, A.N., J.M. Terp, C.L. Collier, and B.L. Peterson. 1997. The status of

western snowy plovers (Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus) in San Diego

County, 1997. Report to the California Department of Fish and Game,

Sacramento, CA, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, CA, and

Portland, OR. 34 pp.

Remsen, J.V., Jr. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California. California

Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 54 pp.
218

Richardson, S.A., W.A. Michaelis, H.M. Zahn, P.J. Doran, and C. SundstromBagley. In prep. A new snowy plover nesting area in Washington: Midway

Beach. 

Ryan, T.P. and J.L. Parkin. 1998. The western snowy plover (Charadrius

alexandrinus nivosus) in southern San Francisco Bay. Summary of detections

made during colonial waterbird monitoring surveys from 1981 to 1997. 

Prepared for Santa Clara Valley Water District, San Jose, CA. 19 pp.

Saul, S.M. 1982. Clam diggers and snowy plovers. Washington Wildlife

32(1):28-30.

Schultz, R. and M. Stock. 1993. Kentish plovers and tourists: competitors on

sandy coasts? Wader Study Group Bulletin 68:83-91.

Seabloom, E.W. and A.M. Wiedemann. 1994. Distribution and effects of

Ammophila breviligulata Fern. (American beachgrass) on the foredunes of the

Washington coast. Journal of Coastal Research 10(2):178-188.

Shuford, W.D., G.W. Page, and C.M. Hickey. 1995. Distribution and abundance

of snowy plovers wintering in the interior of California and adjacent states. 

Western Birds 26:82-98.

Sibley, C.G. and B. L. Monroe, Jr. 1990. Distribution and taxonomy of birds of

the world. Yale University Press, New Haven and London. 1111 pp.

Slobodchikoff, C.N. and J.T. Doyen. 1977. Effects of Ammophila arenaria on

sand dune arthropod communities. Ecology 58:1171-1175.

Stein, R. 1993. Population size and reproductive success of snowy plovers at

Skunk Point, Santa Rosa Island. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson

Beach, CA. 38 pp. 
219

Stenzel, L.E., S.C. Peaslee, and G.W. Page. 1981. II. Mainland Coast. Pages 6-

16 in Page, G.W. and L.E. Stenzel, (eds.). The breeding status of the snowy

plover in California. Western Birds 12(1):1-40.

Stenzel, L.E., J.C. Warriner, J.S. Warriner, K.S. Wilson, F.C. Bidstrup, and G.W.

Page. 1994. Long-distance breeding dispersal of snowy plovers in western

North America. Journal of Animal Ecology 63:887-902.

Stern, M.A., K.A. Kristensen, and J.F. Morawski. 1990a. Investigations of

snowy plovers at Abert Lake, Lake Co., Oregon. Oregon Natural Heritage

Data Program, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Nongame Program. 

18 pp. plus appendices.

Stern, M.A., J.S. McIver, and G.A. Rosenberg. 1990b. Investigations of the

western snowy plover at the Coos Bay North Spit and adjacent sites in Coos

and Curry Counties, Oregon, 1990. Report to Oregon Department of Fish and

Wildlife Nongame Program. 33 pp.

Stern, M.A., J.F. Morawski, V. Marr and F.C. Bidstrup. 1991a. Distribution,

abundance and movements of snowy plovers in southeast Oregon. Final

Report to Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Lakeview District,

Bureau of Land Management. 25 pp.

Stern, M.A., J.S. McIver, and G.A. Rosenberg. 1991b. Nesting and reproductive

success of snowy plovers along the south Oregon coast, 1991. Report to

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife-Nongame, Roseburg, OR, and Coos

Bay District, Bureau of Land Management, North Bend, OR. 18 pp.

Tucker, M.A. and A.N. Powell. 1999. Snowy plover diets in 1995 at a coastal

southern California breeding site. Western Birds 30:44-48.

Tuttle, D.C., R. Stein, and G. Lester. 1997. Snowy plover nesting on Eel River

gravel bars, Humboldt County. Western Birds 28:174-176.
220

U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Region. 1994. 

Management Plan, Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area, Siuslaw National

Forest. 157 pp.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1995a. Coos Bay

Shorelands, Final Management Plan. 25 pp. plus map.

U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management. 1995b. The New

River Area of Critical Concern Management Plan. 149 pp

U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Aviation Administration. 1997. 

Federal Aviation Regulations, Part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules.

U.S. District Court, Central District of California. 1995. Order. Environmental

Defense Center, Plaintiff, v. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior, et al.,

Defendants. No. CV 94-5561 ER (Shx). 2 pp.

U.S. District Court, Central District of California. 1998. Order and Judgment. 

Environmental Defense Center et al., Plaintiffs, v. Babbitt, et al., Defendants. 

Case No. CV 94-5561 ER (Shx). 4 pp.

U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts. 1998. Memorandum and Order. 

United States of America, plaintiff, v. Town of Plymouth, Massachusetts,

defendant. Civil Action No. 98-10566-PBS. 29 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1982. Refuge manual. Washington, D.C.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. Light-footed clapper rail recovery plan,

Portland, OR. 121 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Status and trends report on wildlife of the

San Francisco Estuary. San Francisco Estuary Project. 315 pp.
221

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; determination of threatened status for the Pacific coast population of

the western snowy plover; final rule. Federal Register 58(42):12864-12874.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993b. Intra-Service Formal Consultation on

take of the threatened Pacific coast population of the western snowy plover for

scientific purposes and/or enhancement of propagation or survival. Portland,

Oregon. 9 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993c. Endangered Species Technical Bulletin,

Vol. XVIII, No. 2, pp. 7-9.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants: Notice of interagency cooperative policy for the ecosystem approach

to the Endangered Species Act. Federal Register 59(126):34272-34273.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995a. Endangered Species Bulletin, Vol. XX,

No. 5. 28 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; proposed designation of critical habitat for the Pacific coast population

of the western snowy plover; proposed rule. Federal Register 60(41):11768-

11809.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996a. Piping Plover (Charadrius melodus),

Atlantic Coast Population, Revised Recovery Plan. Hadley, Massachusetts.

258 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996b. Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; final listing priority guidance for fiscal year 1997; final rule. Federal

Register 61:64475-64481.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; proposed listing priority guidance for fiscal years 1998 and 1999;

proposed rule. Federal Register 63:10931-10935.
222

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Endangered and threatened wildlife and

plants; Designation of critical habitat for the Pacific coast population of the

western snowy plover; final rule. Federal Register 64:68508-68544.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In prep. Central and Northern California Coast

Tidal Marsh Recovery Plan.

Warriner, J.S., J.C. Warriner, G.W. Page, and L.E. Stenzel. 1986. Mating system

and reproductive success of a small population of polygamous snowy plovers. 

Wilson Bulletin 98(1):15-37.

Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 1995. Washington State recovery

plan for the snowy plover. Olympia, WA. 87 pp.

White, J.D., and S.G. Allen. In prep. Draft western snowy plover management

plan, Point Reyes National Seashore, Point Reyes, CA. 

White, J.D., and C.M. Hickey. 1997. Distribution, protection and nest success of

snowy plovers at Point Reyes National Seashore. A report of Point Reyes

Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. 11 pp.

Widrig, R.S. 1980. Snowy plovers at Leadbetter Point: An opportunity for

wildlife management? Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

Willapa NWR, Ilwaco, WA. 14 pp.

Widrig, R.S. 1981. Snowy plovers at Leadbetter Point. Prepared for the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service, Willapa NWR, Ilwaco, WA. 13 pp.

Wiedemann, A.M. 1987. The ecology of European beachgrass (Ammophila

arenaria (L.) Link). A review of the literature. Oregon Department of Fish

and Wildlife Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report #87-1-01. 18 pp. 

Wiedemann, A.M., L.J. Dennis, and F.H. Smith. 1969. Plants of the Oregon

coastal dunes. Department of Botany, Oregon State University. Oregon State

University Book Stores, Inc., Corvallis, OR. 117 pp.
223

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. 1988. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge,

1988 annual narrative report. Ilwaco, WA. 46 pp.

Williamson, D.A. 1995. Snowy plovers at Willapa Bay, Washington, 1995. 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Ilwaco, WA. 13pp.

Williamson, D.A. 1996. Snowy plovers at Willapa Bay, Washington, 1996. 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Ilwaco, WA. 13 pp.

Williamson, D.A. 1997. Snowy plovers at Willapa Bay, Washington, 1997. 

Willapa National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Ilwaco, WA. 15 pp.

Wilson, R.A. 1980. Snowy plover nesting ecology on the Oregon coast. MS

Thesis, Oregon State University, Corvallis. 41 pp.

Wilson-Jacobs, R., and G.L. Dorsey. 1985. Snowy plover use of Coos Bay north

spit, Oregon. Murrelet 66(3):75-81.

Wilson-Jacobs, R., and E.C. Meslow. 1984. Distribution, abundance, and nesting

characteristics of snowy plovers on the Oregon coast. Northwest Science

58(1):40-48.

Woolington, M.C. 1985. A preliminary investigation of the effect of recreational

use on nesting snowy plovers at Sutton and Siltcoos beach areas, Oregon. 

Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife Nongame program. 37 pp.
224

B. Personal Communications

Applegate, T. Bioresources, Los Osos, CA.

Baye, P. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA.

Bruce, C. Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, Portland, OR.

Dorsey, G. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR.

Fernandez, E. Don Edwards-San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge,

Newark, CA.

George, D. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA.

Hecht, A. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Hadbury, MA.

Henry, S. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, CA.

Jurek, R. California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.

Klinger, R. The Nature Conservancy, Santa Barbara, CA.

LeValley, R. Mad River Biologists, Arcata, CA.

Neumann, K. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Monterey, CA.

Page, G. Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA.

Palermo, K. U.S. Forest Service, Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area,

Siuslaw National Forest, Reedsport, OR.

Pearson, D. Southern California Edison, Rosemead, CA.

Pickart, A. The Nature Conservancy, Arcata, CA.
225

Powell, A.N. U.S. Geological Survey, Biological Resources Division,

Fayetteville, AR.

Read, N. U.S. Air Force, Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA.

Stadtlander, D. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, CA.

Richardson, S. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, Olympia, WA.

Stern, M. The Nature Conservancy, Oregon Natural Heritage Program, Portland,

OR.

Walton, B. Predatory Bird Research Group, University of California at Santa

Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA. 

Watkins, J. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata, California.
226

C. In Litt. References

Albertson, J., Don Edwards-San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge, U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Newark, California. 1999. Electronic message to

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, on working draft of the

Western Snowy Plover Recovery Plan. 4 pp.

 

Buerger, T., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. Electronic message to

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. 1 p. 

Didion, J., California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, CA. 

1999. Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, on working

draft of the Western Snowy Plover Recovery Plan. 6 pp. 

Dixon, D., California Department of Parks and Recreation, Monterey, CA. 1998. 

Information provided to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA,

regarding European beachgrass control and snowy plover guardian program. 5

pp.

Hecht, A., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sudbury, MA. 1998. Information

provided to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, regarding

electric fencing for protection of piping plovers. 1 p.

Henry, S., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, CA. 1998. Electronic

message to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. 2 pp. 

Melvin, S., Massachusetts Division of Fisheries and Wildlife, Westboro, MA. 

1997. Letter to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. 2 pp.

Mesta, R., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, CA. 1998. Comments

provided to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, on the working

draft of the Western Snowy Plover Recovery Plan. 3 pp. 

Moulton, C., Manager, Eureka Fisheries, Inc., Fields Landing, CA. 1997. Letter

to Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA. 2 pp.
227

Myers, J.P., Senior Vice President, Science and Sanctuaries, National Audubon

Society, New York, N.Y. 1988. Letter to Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Washington, D.C. 19 pp. 

Noda, D.K., Field Supervisor, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ventura, CA. 

1996. Letter to David J. Castanon, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los

Angeles, CA. 20 pp.

Page, G.W., Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. 1988. Letter to

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 1 p. 

Page, G.W., Point Reyes Bird Observatory, Stinson Beach, CA. 1989. Letter to

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 3 pp.

Palermo, K., U.S. Forest Service, Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area,

Siuslaw National Forest, Reedsport, OR. 1998a. Letter to U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, on the working draft of the Western Snowy

Plover Recovery Plan. 2 pp.

Palermo, K., U.S. Forest Service, Oregon Dunes National Recreation Area,

Siuslaw National Forest, Reedsport, OR. 1998b. Electronic message to U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, on European beachgrass control. 

1 p.

Pickart, A., The Nature Conservancy, Arcata, CA. 1996. Information provided

to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, regarding the status of

European beachgrass in California. 2 pp. 

Price, J.B., Chief Ranger, Department of Parks and Recreation, Ventura, CA. 

1992. Memorandum to Oxnard Police Department et al. 1 p.

Read, N., Vandenberg Air Force Base, CA. 1998. Electronic message to U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, on the working draft of the

Western Snowy Plover Recovery Plan. 2 pp.

 
228

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. Memorandum from Acting Field

Supervisor, Ventura Field Office, Ecological Services, Ventura, CA, to

Superintendent, Channel Islands National Park, National Park Service,

Ventura, CA. 26 pp.

Watkins, J., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Arcata, CA. 1999. Electronic

message to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, on the working

draft of the Western Snowy Plover Recovery Plan. 11 pp.

Zielinski, E.Y., U.S. Bureau of Land Management, Portland, OR, and R.W.

Williams, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, OR. 1999. Letter to U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, Sacramento, CA, on the working draft of the Western Snowy

Plover Recovery Plan. 15 pp. plus enclosures.