Transcript PRESENTATION TITLE

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
US Army Corps of Engineers
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®
Section 7(a)(2) consultations
 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 Redcockaded 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)
►
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®
BACKGROUND
What is an Interior Least Tern?
 Any Least Tern
nesting > 50
mi. from the
Gulf of Mexico
(USFWS 1985)



Long lived (>20 years)
Highly mobile
Highly adaptable
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.
7. 250km 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
Upper MissouriNorth
17,859 (2005)
Niobrara, Platte, Upper
Missouri- South
Mississippi,
Arkansas
• 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.
Red and Trinity
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®
2013 Five-Year Status Review
 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 longterm security of habitat quantity and quality to support ILT.
► Successful
development of a rangewide metapopulation
model
► Develop
a range-wide post-listing monitoring plan
BUILDING STRONG®
2013 Five-Year Status Review
 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 longterm security of habitat quantity and quality to support
ILT.
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®
2013 Five-Year Status Review
 Range and population size of ILT significantly
exceeds recovery criteria.
 Recovery requires:
► management
programs and conservation management
agreements between USACE and USFWS that ensure longterm security of habitat quantity and quality to support
ILT.
► Successful
development of a rangewide metapopulation
model
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®
2013 Five-Year Status Review
 Range and population size of ILT significantly
exceeds recovery criteria.
 Recovery requires:
► management
programs and conservation management
agreements between USACE and USFWS that ensure longterm security of habitat quantity and quality to support
ILT.
► Successful
development of a rangewide metapopulation
model
► Develop
a range-wide post-listing monitoring plan
BUILDING STRONG®
Post-listing Monitoring
 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%.
BUILDING STRONG®
7(a)(1) and DoD
 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?
BUILDING STRONG®
QUESTIONS?
BUILDING STRONG®