Fesko turns tables on USFWS
Burden of proof should be on agency, not citizens, regarding sage grouse habitat.
The Bi-State Local Area Working Group, in collaboration with Mono County and the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), held a Sage Grouse workshop at Memorial Hall in Bridgeport on Tuesday May 27.
The USFWS has proposed to list the Greater Sage Grouse as a threatened species and delineated most of Mono and Inyo Counties as critical habitat under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The workshop was a chance for stakeholders, including BLM, the Forest Service, and private landowners, to talk with USFWS, ask questions, and raise concerns about the proposed listing.
“It was one of the better meetings we’ve had,” Mono County Supervisor Tim Fesko said afterwards. Fesko represents Mono County District 4, which includes all of the agricultural lands in Bridgeport and Antelope Valleys. He has been a strong proponent against the listing. “We put the onus back on [USFWS],” he said.
Steve Abele, from USFWS in Reno, was present at the meeting and led off the discussion by asking those assembled about poorly mapped areas of the proposed critical habitat. However, he needed names attached to pieces of property and strong rationalizations to back up any request to reconsider certain areas.
“Basically the purpose of the [ESA] is to conserve species and the habitats necessary for their survival and that can help with their recovery,” Abele said. “The species are intimately tied to habitat.” Although the mapped area seems daunting, Abele said the real concern is particular habitat conditions (or Primary Constituent Elements PCEs) “If you don’t have them, it’s not a concern,” he said.
Fesko turned Abele’s question around: instead of having landowners argue their case plot by plot, Fesko asked to remove all of the private property from the critical habitat maps. Then, the case for each parcel can be made according to the USFWS arguments for protecting the bird.
“Some of the land may be added back in and I may not be able to argue against it,” Fesko told Abele. “But it creates certainty [for the general public] instead of uncertainty.”
The critical habitat designation of private lands “creates uncertainty for landowners about what they can do on their property, and how difficult it will be to get approval to do it,” said Wendy Sugimura, an Associate Analyst in the County’s Community Development department. “On the County’s side, for discretionary projects (such as use permits, tract maps, specific plans, etc.), California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) would be triggered and a longer environmental analysis phase would follow.”
The concern of the Board of Supervisors is that the confusion and bureaucracy created by the listing is likely to discourage development of private land. Property tax is the largest source of income for the county and the loss of potential revenue is a concern in light of the County’s budgetary shortfalls.
Abele said the service supports the intent of streamlining processes in order to make it easier for landowners to receive passes. “I want healthy landscapes and healthy bird populations,” Abele said. “Believe it or not, I don’t want bureaucracy. That’s my job and I love it, but I don’t want to do it for no good reason.”
“We don’t want violations of ESA to scare you away,” Abele said. “I’d rather have ranches whole than sold to create subdivisions.” Some of the mapped areas don’t currently support sage grouse populations, but potentially could according to USFWS. Abele said he would like to find some sort of middle ground—compatible grazing management with grouse conservation— so the ranchers can stay in business and the sage grouse population can recover.
Fesko argued that certain areas, such as Wiley Ditch, are only being considered as possible Sage Grouse habitat because of man-made irrigation systems. “We’ve showed them how bad their science is,” Fesko said. “[Abele] admitted that they do not have historical data to say this is their habitat.”
The question of access also came up at Tuesday’s meeting. “If recreation is impacting [or] causing degradation, the federal managers have a responsibility to meet our terms and conditions which are legally binding,” Abele said. “I don’t see a major concern but I don’t want to mislead you and say there will never be road closures.” USFWS is concerned about segregating the populations of sage grouse and ensuring connectivity corridors for their habitat.
The Mono County Board of Supervisors has sent comment letters to the USFWS and will report on their research at the sage grouse hearing in Bishop, Thursday May 29. Fesko said the meeting on Tuesday was much more beneficial because it was a place for dialogue and asking questions. “We just aren’t getting the answers,” Fesko said. “To some extent [USFWS] just don’t know yet and that’s scary.”
Fesko said that Abele was “very receptive” to re-valuating the public property in Mono County, only designating those areas that the USFWS truly argues is critical habitat. Fesko said that the county will send Abele a parcel map in order to move forward.
The public comment period for the listing of the sage grouse ends June 9. An economic impact report for the critical habitat designation is expected to be released mid-June and will be followed by an additional 30-day comment period. The USFWS will consider the comments and make their final decision on the listing of the bird sometime after that.
There is a plus side to the proposed listing, according to Sugimura: “Protection and conservation of the sage-grouse highlights Mono County’s natural resources and open space character, which is a draw to visitors and residents alike,” she said. “Most people live here because they love the wildlife and natural setting, and finding a way to coexist would be the best of all possible outcomes.”
