Experience over the last eight years has shown that piping plover populations can increase dramatically in response to intensive protection efforts. These efforts are time-consuming, costly, and sometimes require temporary restrictions on off-road vehicles and/or restrictions on artificial dune building and other coastline stabilization projects, but they are generally highly effective.

Most U.S. Atlantic Coast piping plover management programs have been coordinated by the state wildlife agencies with integral participation from Federal and local agencies, other state agencies, and private organizations and individuals. In North Carolina, where approximately 80% of plover nesting activity currently occurs on Federal lands, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the primary coordinating agency. In some cases, such as Massachusetts, networks of cooperators who implement protection measures have become very large, and forums for discussion of beach management issues are active (see discussion on page 52). It is anticipated that these cooperator networks and meetings of affected groups will continue to play an integral role in the plover recovery effort. While the main focus of coordination efforts is expected to remain at the state level, the need for some planning among "stakeholders" (cooperators and affected parties) at the recovery-unit level is also anticipated.

A summary of current and needed management activities on breeding sites is provided in Appendix C. Piping plover habitat is extremely dynamic and factors affecting breeding success, such as types and numbers of predators, can change quickly, modifying protection needs. It is especially likely that additional protection needs will be identified for sites in New York and North Carolina, and at any site where intensified monitoring to identify limiting factors has been recommended.

Management and protection of piping plovers on Federal lands is especially important. Plover management on Federal lands directly affects breeding success of approximately 32% of the current U.S. Atlantic Coast population. In addition, protection on Federal lands furnishes leadership by example to non-Federal land managers.

In 1991 and 1994, all states and provinces conducted window censuses (see page 20) over a nine-day period in late May and early June. A window census was also conducted in the U.S. in 1995, and all states and provinces are planning a coordinated window census as part of the upcoming 1996 International Piping Plover Breeding Census. Because the window census reduces the probability of double-counting birds that renest during the season, it is the most precise index of population trends. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service recommends that highest priority be given to this census in the future, although "traditional" state censuses should also be continued if resources allow.

Dates for future window censuses are as follows:

1996 - June 1 to June 9
1997 - May 31 to June 8
1998 - May 30 to June 7
1999 - May 29 to June 6
2000 - May 27 to June 4

Every effort should be made to visit all sites occupied by plovers in recent years during the standard census window. If a site cannot be surveyed during the window, it should be surveyed as soon thereafter as possible; counts from sites surveyed after the window should be so noted in the state report. If time permits, sites that have not been occupied in recent years should also be surveyed during the window, with priority on the most suitable habitat.

Where sites are intensively monitored during the window, the highest count of pairs known to be simultaneously active on the site during the window period should be used; if a pair leaves the site early in the window, monitors should communicate with any biologists who intensively monitor adjacent sites to avoid double counts. If hatch dates of pairs that are detected after the window are such that the pair must have been on site during the window, these pairs may also be included in the window count, since they could not have been counted on another site. Data on other pairs recorded on a site before and after the window may be useful for site evaluation purposes, but should not be added to the state or provincial window census total.

While recognizing the constraints on available personnel in Atlantic Canada, the Recovery Team has urged that the window census be conducted annually there, especially in view of the apparent decline in plover numbers between 1991 and 1994. If necessary, the Canadian census window should be expanded and biologists from the U.S. should be recruited to assist with the Canadian census.

The population size criterion of the Atlantic Coast piping plover recovery goal (recovery criterion 1) is based on a count of "breeding pairs." Breeding pairs of piping plovers may be counted towards this goal if good evidence of breeding activity is observed. This may include observations of territoriality and courtship, even if no nests or chicks are located, and may likewise include observations of nests and chicks, even if only one adult is seen. However, unmated territorial adults should not be counted, and care must be exercised to prevent counting incubating adults and their non-tending mates as separate pairs.

For the purposes of measuring productivity, plovers are considered fledged if they attain 25 days of age, or are seen in flight (whichever comes first; see discussion on page 24). Data on chick survival for periods less than 25 days are useful for site management purposes, but should not be included in state averages reported to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Landowners and beach managers must also recognize that many 25-day-old plover chicks are incapable of flight and therefore remain vulnerable to mortality from off-road vehicles (see task 1.32).

• Dates when monitoring began and ended
• Nesting chronology (dates when plovers were first and last seen on the site, nest establishment dates, dates when unfledged chicks are present on the site)
• Locations of nests and brood foraging territories
• Known and suspected causes of nest and chick loss
• Indices of predator abundance
• Locations of commonly used foraging areas during each stage of the breeding cycle
• Available information about use of the site by post-breeding or migrating plovers, other shorebirds, and other rare species

Two Federal agencies, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), manage major programs affecting barrier beach dynamics. The Corps maintains harbors and navigation channels in coastal waters, constructing and maintaining jetties, groins, and breakwaters; suitable material (uncontaminated sand of desirable particle size) dredged during channel and harbor maintenance is also used to nourish nearby beaches. Permits issued by the Corps are also required for dredging and beach nourishment conducted by the States, local governments, or private parties. FEMA provides grants for repair of storm related damage in coastal areas and hazard mitigation in areas vulnerable to flooding, and administers the National Flood Insurance Program. FEMA also provides funds for the restoration of "engineered beaches," constructed and maintained in conformance with certain design criteria. Section 7 of the ESA provides both FEMA and the Corps with opportunities to make major contributions to conservation of plover habitat. In addition, expenditures within units of the Coastal Barriers Resources System by the Corps, FEMA, and other Federal agencies may be restricted by the requirements of the Coastal Barrier Resource Protection Act (see page 48).

Beach development should be discouraged through conservation easements, 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 that subsequent plans to stabilize the shoreline will result in additional habitat degradation and that these impacts may affect evaluation of permits under the jurisdiction of the Corps or State coastal management agencies, and (3) property owners should tailor recreational activity on the beach to minimize disturbance of territorial and nesting plovers, their eggs, and chicks.

Impacts of shoreline developments are often greatly expanded by the attendant concerns for protecting access roads. It may be possible to substantially reduce the overall impacts of shoreline property protection on habitat by rethinking how access is provided. Planners should weigh the economic and environmental costs of maintaining overland access, and compare them with costs and environmental effects of alternative modes of access, including boat services, scheduled ferries, and emergency air evacuation.

Fragmentation and degradation of plover breeding habitat caused by construction of walkways, piers, and other structures should also be avoided.

Inlet stabilization may also contribute to net losses of plover habitat by preventing the formation of new inlets. Cape Lookout National Seashore (CALO) in North Carolina serves as a prime example of an area where existing and relatively recently closed inlets comprise a large proportion of habitat currently occupied by breeding plovers. The natural inlet formation and closure process maintains availability of habitat; as succession of vegetation causes loss of habitat on the oldest former inlets, new habitat is formed at new and recently closed inlets. Stabilization of existing inlets through dredging would perpetuate habitat on the immediately adjacent spits, but is likely to result in a substantial net loss of habitat as currently occupied former inlets become progressively more heavily vegetated. Even on spits adjacent to a maintained inlet channel, a net loss of plover habitat may occur if inlet migration is forestalled, since recently sedimented areas often constitute prime plover nesting and foraging areas (L.K. Gantt, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 1995).

The creation of an "artificial overwash" when the Corps closed Pikes Inlet on Long Island, New York in 1993 appears to have created prime nesting habitat that attracted 14 pairs of piping plovers in 1994, and 19 pairs in 1995. However, biologists have expressed concern that artificial habitat formed in this way may be susceptible to accelerated succession that will decrease its long-term carrying capacity compared to what it might have been if the inlet had been allowed to persist, migrate, and eventually close on its own (Elias-Gerken and Fraser 1994; S.W. Morgan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 1995) .

On-shore disposal of dredged material for beach nourishment is often recognized as an activity with potential to benefit piping plover nesting habitat. However, conditions must be placed on disposal operations to prevent inadvertent impacts to breeding plovers (Melvin et al. 1991). Sand deposition, laying of sand transport pipes, and use of machinery to spread the sand can cause serious disturbance to nesting birds and even direct mortality. Therefore, on-shore activities must be scheduled during seasons when birds are not present. In some cases, beach nourishment can be conducted during the plover breeding season in areas that the birds are not currently using. In addition, dredged material must be clean sand or gravel of appropriate grain size and must be graded to a natural slope. Dozens of informal consultations between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding impacts of appropriately conditioned beach nourishment proposals have culminated in determinations that the proposed projects will not adversely affect piping plovers.

While beach nourishment generally benefits piping plovers in the short term, especially where beaches are seriously eroded, there are situations where nourishment of eroding beaches impedes overwash that would otherwise create and maintain ephemeral pools and bayside mudflats, also preferred plover feeding habitats. See, for example, concerns expressed by Loegering and Fraser (1995), discussed briefly on page 37 of this plan. Individual situations must be evaluated to determine and weigh the probable adverse and beneficial effects of natural erosion on plover habitat suitability. In addition, potential impacts of beach nourishment on other sensitive beach-dwelling species, including seabeach amaranth and northeastern beach tiger beetles, should be carefully considered in areas where these species may be present.

Appendix G contains guidelines for managing recreational activities in piping plover breeding habitat to avoid take under Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. These guidelines, developed by the Northeast Region of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service with assistance from the U.S. Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Recovery Team, represent the Service's best professional advice to beach managers and landowners regarding the management options that will prevent direct mortality, harm, or harassment of piping plovers and their eggs due to recreational activities. However, some Federal land managers have endangered species protection obligations under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act or under Executive Orders 11644 and 11989 that go beyond adherence to these guidelines (see pages 47 and 48). Other land managers can also make valuable contributions to the piping plover recovery effort and protection of the beach ecosystem through voluntary implementation of stronger protection measures than those specified in Appendix G.

Common strategies include limiting the number of access points to the beach, since concentrations of beach-goers tend to occur closest to parking areas. Several land management agencies prohibit boat landings on all or a part of their beaches to prevent disturbance to feeding plovers and other shorebirds and/or to prevent boaters from walking through adjacent nesting areas. These types of protection measures should be determined on a site-by-site basis; factors that should be considered include the configuration of habitat on the site as well as types and amounts of on-going recreational activity. On many national wildlife refuges, where protection of wildlife is the paramount purpose of Federal ownership, complete closures of plover habitat during the breeding season should be continued.

Appendix G indicates that a 50-meter buffer distance around nests is adequate to prevent harassment of the majority of incubating piping plovers. However, data from various sites distributed across the plover's Atlantic Coast range indicate that larger buffers may be needed in some locations (see Table 3). Even in situations where they are not strictly required to avoid take, larger buffers may also contribute to recovery, for example by allowing chicks to spend more uninterrupted time feeding and perhaps fledge sooner and/or gain more weight prior to migration.

On portions of beaches that receive heavy human use in April, May, and June, areas where territorial plovers are observed should be symbolically fenced to prevent disruption of territorial displays and courtship. Since nests can be difficult to locate, especially during egg-laying, this will also prevent accidental crushing of undetected nests. Although not currently recommended as necessary to avoid take, fencing or signing of prime feeding areas to exclude or reduce numbers of pedestrians can also contribute to the survival and well-being of unfledged chicks. This may be especially beneficial at times of unusually hot weather, at times and locations where pedestrian activity is very intense, and/or at times when newly hatched chicks are present.

Pets should be leashed and under control of their owners at all times from April 1 to August 31 on beaches where piping plovers are present or have traditionally nested. Pets should be prohibited on these beaches from April 1 through August 31 if, based on observations and experience, pet owners fail to keep pets leashed and under control. A half-page information sheet entitled "Why Dogs and Plovers Don't Mix" has been prepared by The Nature Conservancy, Rhode Island Office.

In addition to adverse effects from the noise and lights of the pyrotechnics, commercial fireworks displays often draw large crowds that may pose threats to nearby plovers (W. Donato and S.W. Morgan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in litt. 1995). When fireworks displays can be situated to avoid disturbance from the pyrotechnics, careful planning should still 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.

Given plovers' aversion to kites (see page 40), prohibition of kite flying within 200 m of nesting or territorial adult or unfledged juvenile piping plovers between April 1 and August 31 is recommended.

Hazards to plovers from ball-playing are exacerbated by tendencies for stray balls to land in closed areas where they can smash nests and where efforts to remove them can disturb territorial or incubating birds. These sports should be prohibited within hitting and throwing distance of piping plover nesting areas.

Appendix D summarizes the current status of off-road vehicle use on current and potential plover breeding sites along the U.S. Atlantic Coast. Management strategies that substantially reduce off-road vehicle impacts have been implemented at many plover breeding sites since 1986. Threats from inadequate management continue at some U.S. sites, however, and need to be addressed.

In Atlantic Canada, off-road vehicles are prohibited on most beaches, but violations occur in many locations. Communications from the Atlantic Piping Plover Working Group (R. Chiasson, in litt. 1993) have urged the Solicitor General of New Brunswick to increase enforcement of the New Brunswick Trespass Act and requested that the Minister of Environment and Lands, Newfoundland and Labrador, prohibit all-terrain vehicles on beaches occupied by plovers. Continuation and expansion of these efforts is strongly recommended.

A half-page information sheet entitled "Why Vehicles and Plovers Don't Mix" has been prepared by The Nature Conservancy, Rhode Island Office.

Law enforcement agents play a crucial role in educating landowners, user groups, and others about their legal responsibilities with regard to protection of threatened and endangered species. Enforcement personnel are also trained to conduct thorough investigations into potential violations of the Endangered Species Act and other wildlife conservation statutes. The local U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Law Enforcement office should be informed immediately whenever evidence of suspected take of piping plovers is encountered.

An ecosystem approach to reducing impacts of predation would argue in favor of redressing the human-abetted changes in types and numbers of predators, as well as environmental changes (for example in the predators' food sources) that foster unnatural numbers of some predators. Wherever feasible, such approaches are encouraged. However, many highly prolific predators are now so firmly entrenched in and around many plover nesting areas that results from this type of approach may be ineffective and/or temporary.

Some land managers, such as the National Park Service, may need to re-evaluate and clarify their policies on the management of predator populations and/or habitat where predation might be limiting local piping plover populations. In particular, policies that prohibit management of native predator populations even when human-abetted factors have caused substantial increases in their natural abundance may be counter-productive to the overall goal of protecting "natural" ecosystems.

Although most activities to reduce impacts of predation have been implemented by on-site biologists, U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal Damage Control biologists and state wildlife agency furbearer biologists have made important contributions to the planning and, in some cases, implementation of predator management activities. Professional trappers have played a key role in some predator-removal programs.

A discussion of scientific studies recommended to test experimental methods of reducing impacts of predation is included under task 3.4.

Although removal of trash from the beach reduces predation threats, beach-raking should not be conducted during the nesting season. Beach-cleaning machines can crush plover nests and chicks, and they remove the plovers' natural wrackline feeding habitat. Trash should be selectively removed from the beach, but natural materials, including shells and seaweed, should be left intact.

First trials of wire fences to prevent predation of piping plover nests on the Atlantic Coast occurred in 1987, when seven exclosures were used on four sites. Over 70 nests on 14 sites were exclosed in 1988, and in 1989, state plover coordinators reported use of exclosures to protect nests of 141 pairs of plovers along the U.S. Atlantic Coast (USFWS 1989a). By 1993, exclosures were deployed in every state and at least three Canadian provinces in the plovers' Atlantic Coast breeding range.

Rimmer and Deblinger (1990) found that 24 of 26 nests (92%) protected by exclosures hatched at least one egg, while only six of 24 (25%) unexclosed nests hatched at a Massachusetts site over four years. Melvin et al. (1992) reported 90% (26/29) hatching of exclosed nests versus 17% (4/24) for unexclosed nests at six sites on Outer Cape Cod, Massachusetts. Information on 211 exclosures used in eight states and three Canadian provinces in 1990 was evaluated to assess the effectiveness of various designs and construction techniques (Deblinger et al. 1992, Vaske et al. 1994).

Although exclosures are contributing to improved productivity and population increases in some portions of the plover's Atlantic Coast range, problems have been noted in some localities. Loegering (1992) reported loss of six nests in exclosures without tops in Maryland in 1988, but nest loss stopped after string tops were added. Van Schoik (The Nature Conservancy, in litt. 1993) documented loss of 12 nests over just a few days on Jones Beach Island, New York, to common crows (Corvus brachyrhynchos) that entered exclosures covered with parallel rows of string; no further losses occurred when net tops were installed. Cross (1991) found that exclosed nests hatched significantly more often than unexclosed nests over three years on three sites in Virginia, but hatch rates were not significantly improved at all sites or in all years; furthermore, two instances of foxes depredating adult plovers occurred in the vicinity of exclosures. Foxes or coyotes systematically depredated 5-10 exclosures at each of three widely separated sites in 1995 (USFWS files). Several instances of adult plover entanglement in string or net tops, with and without attendant mortality, have been reported (USFWS files). Predator exclosures have been associated with abandonment of snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrinus) nests on California beaches, where fox track patterns suggest that the birds were subjected to intense harassment by foxes (M. Parker, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. comm. 1994). Other potential risks associated with exclosures include vandalism or disturbance of the birds by curiosity seekers. Therefore, exclosures must be carefully constructed, monitored, and evaluated by qualified persons.

Removal of predators should be pursued where feasible and warranted and where trapping can be conducted efficiently. Situations that may especially warrant predator removal include those where non-native predators such as feral cats and Norway rats are present, where predators have been introduced to islands, where range extensions have been human-abetted, or where high rates of chick predation (which cannot be countered with predator exclosures) are occurring.

Herring, great black-backed, and ring-billed gulls pose a special threat to breeding plovers because they not only depredate nests and chicks, but also usurp plover nesting sites. These now numerous gulls have greatly expanded their range and numbers, especially along the U.S. portion of the Atlantic Coast, as a result of human-supplied food sources (primarily dumps and fish offal). Gulls should be prevented from establishing and expanding nesting colonies at plover nesting areas, and existing gull colonies at plover nesting sites should be removed.

If piping plovers or their habitat sustain injury due to oil/chemical spills or leaks, the responsible parties should clean the areas to their original condition or the Federal government (U.S. Coast Guard) should do it as part of the Federal clean-up effort; appropriate claims should also be filed under the Natural Resource Damage Assessment (NRDA) regulations to recover damages and undertake relevant restoration work. Since 1991, restoration costs awarded under the NRDA regulations for piping plovers believed lost as a result of two Atlantic Coast oil spills have been received by Federal and State governments; restoration work to remedy injury from one of these spills is underway.

Development of long-term protection mechanisms may trigger additional opportunities for participation of various stakeholders in discussions of management options. Discussions of tradeoffs among various protection strategies and allocation of responsibilities across available habitat may be appropriate if it appears that a productive recovered population can be maintained with lower levels of protection than that initially required to attain delisting criteria 1 and 3.