Corps Perspective on Interagency Coordination (Mark Harberg, USACE)

ERDC TN-DOER-E17

September 2004

Iowa: Missouri River, at fly ash deposits near power plants.

Kansas: Kansas River, Quivira National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) at the Cimarron River.

Oklahoma: Canadian River, Salt Plains and Optima NWRs.

Texas: Trinity River, Rio Grande reservoirs.

Indiana: Fly ash deposits near power plants.

New Mexico: Bitter Lake NWR.

Colorado: Arkansas River reservoirs.

Non-Corps monitoring efforts are being conducted by state and contractual biologists, universi-

ties, private corporations, non-governmental organizations, volunteers, and other government

agencies. Availability of funding is the most important feature limiting the extent and quality of

the monitoring efforts. Other important issues include coordination of efforts and methods,

accessibility to the sites, impacts of human disturbance on the nesting grounds, and environ-

mental factors influencing quality of counts. Basic counts and distribution data are the most

commonly recorded data; however, some sites do measure productivity. Most surveys are con-

ducted by boat, although nest counts by foot are not uncommon on some sites. The type and

timing of monitoring may vary widely; for example, colonies may be observed at variable dis-

tances or colonies may be counted at different times during the nesting cycle. Furthermore,

inconsistencies exist during data collection regarding habitat conditions and disturbance and pre-

dation impacts. In some cases, this information is not collected at all. Although significant por-

tions of the ILT range are being monitored by Corps and non-Corps entities, the comparability of

counts is questionable (within and outside the Corps) because of the variety of methods used.

Some states practice limited management protection for ILT and may post signs and barriers on

beaches used by nesting ILT colonies. Sometimes electrical fences may be established, and areas

may be monitored by law enforcement. Active habitat management is sometimes practiced, and

may include the construction of islands and beaches (usually by dredged material deposition) and

the use of nesting deterrents and attractants. Most nesting sites are in river systems with altered

hydrology, and vegetative encroachment on nesting sites is a common problem throughout the

range.

Corps Perspective on Interagency Coordination (Mark Harberg, USACE): Conclu-

sions from the meeting of Corps personnel in Tulsa during December 2002 included a recogni-

tion of the necessity of implementing a regional approach to ILT conservation within Corps Dis-

tricts, more interaction among monitoring efforts along different river systems, the sharing of

data and specific data requirements, a need to identify cost-effective conservation measures, a

consistent policy regarding Section 7 consultations, and coordinated efforts among districts for

the recovery of the ILT population. Specific recommended actions from this meeting were

focused on Corps objectives for coordinating ILT conservation efforts throughout the range, and

to develop interagency collaborative agreements to establish research and monitoring needs nec-

essary to successfully recover ILT populations.

USFWS Perspective on Interagency Coordination (Jane Ledwin, USFWS): Although

the USFWS has a Team Leader (Jane Ledwin) for the ILT, no functioning recovery team has

ever been established. Most personnel working on ILT populations are also involved with con-

servation of Piping Plover populations. Also, the original ILT recovery plan is over 10 years old

and out of date. With no designated recovery team in place, and no funding available, this