US Army Corps of Engineers BUILDING STRONG ® Section 7(a)(1) of the Endangered Species Act—Supporting the Mission through Proactive Conservation Planning and Endangered Species Recovery Richard A. Fischer, Ph.D. U.S. Army Engineer R&D Center, Vicksburg, MS Casey A. Lott American Bird Conservancy, The Plains, VA Paul D. Hartfield U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, MS

BUILDING STRONG ® ESA SECTION 7 INTERAGENCY COOPERATION (a) FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIONS AND CONSULTATIONS.- (1)...All...Federal agencies shall, in consultation with and with the assistance of the Secretary, utilize their authorities in furtherance of the purposes of this Act by carrying out programs for the conservation of endangered species and threatened species...

BUILDING STRONG ® SECTION 7(a)(2) Each Federal agency shall … insure that any action … is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered species or threatened species...or result in destruction…of (critical) habitat…

BUILDING STRONG ®  Occur when actions of a FEDERAL agency (funded, or permitted by) may adversely affect a listed species  For example, training by the DoD may affect Red- cockaded woodpecker or Golden-cheeked Warbler  Action agency (DoD) writes Biological Assessment ► If FWS determines that action is “likely to adversely affect…”  FWS writes Biological Opinion (issues IT statement) ► Jeopardy analysis (do actions jeopardize continued existence?) ► If no, reasonable and prudent measures, terms and conditions ► If yes, reasonable and prudent alternatives (jeopardy only) Section 7(a)(2) consultations

BUILDING STRONG ® History Forty years of using ESA Formal Consultation through Section 7(a)(2) Adversarial Confrontational Dictatorial Costly Little Flexibility Unpredictable Little or no control Losing process for the species

BUILDING STRONG ® PURPOSE OF SECTION 7(a)(1) To address the conservation (recovery) needs of listed species relative to Federal Program impacts. ► Section 7(a)(1) conservation programs are to improve listed species baselines within the scope of Federal action agency authorities.

BUILDING STRONG ® Conservation Benefits “Section 7a1 allows FWS or NMFS to work continuously with a Federal agency to develop a program of species conservation that uses all the agency’s authorities, is at the agency’s disposal at all times, and does not depend on the presence of a particular project for implementation.” (Ruhl 1995)

BUILDING STRONG ® New Approach Section 7 (a)(1) Allows DoD to be proactive in consultation and conservation processes rather than reactionary Reduces surprises and conflicts We commit to actions we would be predisposed to undertake anyway under 7 (a)(2) Reduce future 7 (a)(2) consultations Actions contingent upon availability of funds providing budget predictability Improves likelihood of species recovery

BUILDING STRONG ® Challenges to 7(a)(1) Conservation  Lack of guidance for 7(a)(1) conservation  Lack of knowledge or understanding of the purpose, benefits, potential value, and other ramifications of section 7(a)(1) planning  Often a lack of information on the status and trends of the listed species, or habitat and ecological data for informed decisions  Historic cultures of “winning or losing/them vs. us”

BUILDING STRONG ® Conservation Management Agreements  Explicit plan for specific management actions  Formal agreement enables long-term management ► Any combination of agencies and organizations ► Partners must have legal authority for management ► Agreement must contain funding mechanisms ► Agreement must be legally enforceable De-listing possible (protections of ESA not needed)

BUILDING STRONG ® Recovery of the Interior Least Tern A fresh approach to Species Recovery through ESA Section 7(a)(1)

BUILDING STRONG ®  Any Least Tern nesting > 50 mi. from the Gulf of Mexico (USFWS 1985)  Long lived (>20 years)  Highly mobile  Highly adaptable What is an Interior Least Tern? BACKGROUND

BUILDING STRONG ® Historical Distribution (Hardy 1957)

BUILDING STRONG ® Abundance and Distribution When Listed (Ducey 1981) 1,970 (1985)

BUILDING STRONG ® USFWS (1990) versus today USFWS (1990) did not account for several areas where ILT occur now: 1.Lake Oahe and Sakakawea, Missouri 2.Elkhorn and Middle Loup sand pits 3.Kansas River 4.Ohio River and Wabash River 5.Mississippi past Vicksburg, MS 6.Portions of Arkansas Navigation sys km of Red above Texoma 8.Red below Texoma 9.Trinity River 10.Reservoirs in Texas/New Mexico

BUILDING STRONG ® RECOVERY STATUS Recovery Criteria (1990)  Protect habitat, establish management plans, increase ILT population to 7,000 birds range-wide and maintain for 10 years. ► Missouri River > 2,100 ► Lower Mississippi River = 2,500 ► Arkansas River > 1,600 ► Red River > 300 ► Rio Grande River = 500

BUILDING STRONG ® RECOVERY STATUS Recovery Criteria (1990)  Protect habitat, establish management plans, increase ILT population to 7,000 birds range-wide and maintain for 10 years.  2005 Range-Wide Total: 17,859 (Lott 2006) ► Missouri River > 2,100 (2,044) ► Lower Mississippi River = 2,500 (10,960) ► Arkansas River > 1,600 (2,119) ► Red River > 300 (1,821) ► Rio Grande River = 500 (366)

BUILDING STRONG ® Current Abundance and Distribution 16 discrete ILT populations (96 km) 47 subpopulations (26 km) 4 main populations account for 97.8% adults, 95.4% sites 34 subpopulations within 4 main pops. Upper Missouri- North Niobrara, Platte, Upper Missouri- South Mississippi, Arkansas Red and Trinity 17,859 (2005)

BUILDING STRONG ® SPECIES STATUS SUMMARY  Range-wide numerical criteria have been exceeded for 20 years.  Range has >doubled since Recovery Criteria were identified (1990); however,  There has been no range-wide evaluation of multiple chronic threats relative to alternative management strategies  Until 2013, no viable management strategy or plan has been successfully developed and implemented on a regional or range-wide scale.

BUILDING STRONG ®  Range and population size of ILT significantly exceeds recovery criteria.  USFWS Recommended Delisting to due Recovery  However, Recovery and long-term persistence requires: ► management programs and conservation management agreements between USACE and USFWS that ensure long- term security of habitat quantity and quality to support ILT. ► Successful development of a rangewide metapopulation model ► Develop a range-wide post-listing monitoring plan 2013 Five-Year Status Review

BUILDING STRONG ®  Range and population size of ILT significantly exceeds recovery criteria.  Recovery and long-term persistence requires: ► management programs and conservation management agreements between USACE and USFWS that ensure long- term security of habitat quantity and quality to support ILT Five-Year Status Review

BUILDING STRONG ® MS River Habitat Conservation Plan - In 2001, USACE Mississippi Valley Division initiated consultation with FWS Southeast Region under section 7(a)(1) of the ESA. - This consultation culminated in a 2013 USACE conservation program that transformed the primary threats (channel engineering) to three endangered species, into the primary conservation tools for their recovery.

BUILDING STRONG ® Section 7 (a)(1) on the Lower Mississippi Dikes notched to remove connection to bank Reduces predator access, vegetation encroachment ($175,000 over 11.5 miles)- small % project expense

BUILDING STRONG ®  Range and population size of ILT significantly exceeds recovery criteria.  Recovery requires: ► management programs and conservation management agreements between USACE and USFWS that ensure long- term security of habitat quantity and quality to support ILT. ► Successful development of a rangewide metapopulation model 2013 Five-Year Status Review

BUILDING STRONG ® ILT Metapopulation Modeling  Collaborative effort among USACE, American Bird Conservancy, USFWS, and USGS  Goal – Develop a model that will facilitate understanding of underlying ecological processes for ILT so managers can evaluate consequences of management actions and how they affect long-term conservation of the ILT

BUILDING STRONG ® Range-wide Metapopulation Modeling for Interior Population of the Least Tern Objectives –evaluate population persistence across a range of scenarios –Compare the expected performance of alternative management strategies for increasing ILT reproductive success (including no action) –Inform decisions about management of threats to ILT populations

BUILDING STRONG ®  Range and population size of ILT significantly exceeds recovery criteria.  Recovery requires: ► management programs and conservation management agreements between USACE and USFWS that ensure long- term security of habitat quantity and quality to support ILT. ► Successful development of a rangewide metapopulation model ► Develop a range-wide post-listing monitoring plan 2013 Five-Year Status Review

BUILDING STRONG ®  Plan currently is in development  The current “rapid” method of counting often produces unreliable results.  Plan will recommend standardizing survey methods at small colonies and using an “intensive” survey method at large colonies  Because the intensive counts will require more time, and the Monitoring Plan should not increase the total cost of surveys, we are investigating a survey design in which one third of the population “units” are surveyed each year.  That design has nearly 100% power to detect a 50% decline occurring in 21 years and will reduce costs of the ILT survey by 50%. Post-listing Monitoring

BUILDING STRONG ®  For DoD, how can we use 7(a)(1) Conservation Planning to effect: ► Species recovery? ► Reduced mission impacts? ► Cost-savings and Return-on- Investment?  How can we determine where to start?  Are there existing (or needed) assessments that would provide DoD guidance? 7(a)(1) and DoD

BUILDING STRONG ® QUESTIONS?