Yesterday I voiced some concerns about the use of conservation banks as a means of mitigation for lost burrowing owl habitat, and I didn’t really expect to revisit the topic so soon.  But since I received a call back from a conservation biologist with Wildlands Inc. this morning I thought it pertinent to the discussion.  And from my conversation it sounds as though the biologist shares some of my sentiments that conservation and mitigation banks are useful tools but not a complete solution.  Banks like the Haera Conservation Bank should be used in conjunction with other conservation techniques to ensure that suitable habitat remains available for species such as burrowing owls.  And knowing full well that development is not going to cease, it is important that we do not become reliant upon conservation banks as a means to bring projects to a “less than significant impact.” 

And that’s exactly why my original concerns still stand and I think are worthy of exploration and consideration:

But, that does not mean wildlife agencies should readily dismiss onsite mitigation where owls are already living in favor of having developers purchase credits in a mitigation bank that is 20, 30 or 50 miles or more away.  Especially when what is needed is the preservation of more habitat within the confines of suburbia and city limits.

Do mitigation and conservation banks enable unbridled development?  Perhaps they do.  It seems to be hovering on the brink of a vicious circle as developments are given the green light because mitigation credits have been purchased offsite.  The good news is that preservation of habitat has been secured in perpetuity, but the bad news is that the city or county in which the development occurred has lost habitat in perpetuity (i.e. Antioch).  And does that really mean we are bringing a project/development to a point where its impact is “less than significant?” 

I see more questions than firm answers at this point, but as habitat fragmentation continues to proliferate and burrowing owls continue to decline we definitely need to address the methods by which habitat is conserved.  In regards to the Haera Conservation Bank, I did receive some additional information on this particular site.  According to the biologist, surveys conducted in 2008 resulted in a total of 41 burrowing owl sightings over the year (that’s a culmination of sightings over multiple surveys and not a population count).  Additionally, it does appear wind turbines are located on a portion of the conservation bank and is an interesting factor considering public concerns as addressed in Mitigation Banks: Buying Burrowing Owls on Credit.

I am quite impressed that my phone call to Wildlands, Inc. was returned so quickly and that a conservation biologist was open to discussing the bank, answering further questions, and putting me on a list to tag along on a site visit or burrowing owl survey. And I’m am definitely looking forward to potentially getting an official tour of the Haera Conservation Bank…and continuing efforts for preserving habitat adjacent to areas where habitat was actually lost.

On a Memorial Day whim my wife and I loaded up the dogs and set out to find the elusive Haera Conservation Bank.  It is something I have been meaning to do for quite a while now, and as we had bypassed participation in all common holiday activities the afternoon was open for exploration.   I wasn’t exactly sure what to expect, but after finishing some light reading that included an addendum to an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) finalized in January 2009, I became curious about this type of conservation solution for burrowing owls.  And let’s just say I’m not sold on the idea of mitigation banks for reasons (examples) that will unfold shortly.

But before we go on, maybe it is wise to touch on the notion of mitigation, which in short is an ecological restoration remedy.  The complete idea being that things are put back as they were before an incident occurred.  So with burrowing owls and other protected species that are displaced by development, the idea is to provide suitable replacement habitat for that which was lost. 

Now returning to the story, I discovered that in another instance of a yet to be started community in Antioch, CA, burrowing owls were evicted from their habitat in 2005.  The January 2009 EIR indicated that the eviction of these burrowing owls from their homes was to be ‘mitigated’ by the purchase of credits in a mitigation bank called the Haera Conservation Bank.  And after receiving numerous reports that such banks and habitats for burrowing owls are not always suitably maintained or contain owls, I thought a spur of the moment visit would be worthwhile.

And upon arrival I was actually surprised.  Firstly, I was taken aback to find that mitigation for burrowing owls evicted in the city of Antioch in Contra Costa County was not actually located in the same or adjacent cities nor in the same county for that matter.  The Haera Conservation Bank is situated approximately 20 miles from their former habitat and is located in Alameda County.  Thus, the loss of habitat in Antioch and Contra Costa County is not actually being replaced but simply lost as the sprawl continues to grow.  It’s another chapter in the same old story, yet we have the nerve to scratch our heads in wonderment when burrowing owls disappear.  Aren’t we forgetting the high site fidelity of this species? 

Well, I opened up the topic by indicating our destination was elusive for a reason.  I have yet to precisely pinpoint the bank’s boundaries as it seems to be a semi-guarded secret as far as finding the information quickly on the web.  I am sure with some more digging and phone calls I can identify the exact coordinates, but for now I have an approximate location.  With that said, my second surprise came as  the conservation bank is nestled amongst a wind farm.  And if you are not familiar with this controversy,  it has been a point of contention for quite a while and has been the subject of lawsuit (An action was brought by environmental advocates who alleged that the owners and operators of wind turbine electric generators were killing and injuring raptors and other birds).  According to a KQED documentary, up to 400 burrowing owls are killed each year as a result of wind turbines in the Altamont Pass (Thanks for the video link Janice!).  So is a conservation bank in close proximity to wind turbines really suitable? 

Besides the fact that the conservation bank was a minimum 20 miles from the evicted owls and was adjacent to wind turbines, I am happy to report that the landscape was actually comprised of short grasses and teeming with ground squirrels.  This was by far a much better scenario in terms of flora and fauna than other designated burrowing owl habitats I have come across… and I guess we have the grazing cattle to thank for the maintenance.  But I am left with a nagging question that I think we all know the answer to:  Are mitigation banks designed to service and protect the species in question or are they designed to service developers and lead agencies trying to circumnavigate paperwork and bring projects to a level acceptable under CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act)?

However, that does not mean I do not understand that mitigation banks may not serve a purpose in preserving large swaths of land free of fragmentation.  I see it and it is quite necessary as habitat fragmentation is a huge problem.  But, that does not mean wildlife agencies should readily dismiss onsite mitigation where owls are already living in favor of having developers purchase credits in a mitigation bank that is 20, 30 or 50 miles or more away.  Especially when what is needed is the preservation of more habitat within the confines of suburbia and city limits.  Otherwise we will undoubtedly find ourselves reminiscing about the days when those little burrowing owls were our neighbors.

As an FYI, prior to setting off  I rounded up a little information on this site and earlier this morning I placed a call to the point of contact for Haera in the hopes of retrieving some general details (i.e. number of burrowing owls present, etc.).  Well, I am waiting for a call back in regards to my voicemail, but here are a few details:

“Mitigation banks are large agency-approved properties where wetlands are restored and preserved to provide mitigation for wetland impacts in surrounding areas. Conservation banks for endangered species are wildlife areas that are preserved, managed, and in some cases, restored to protect specific at-risk species.” Wildlands, Inc.

“This bank [Haera Conservation Bank] is approved to sell San Joaquin kit fox credits. It is also approved to sell State of California Dept. of Fish & Game kit fox and burrowing owl credits.  Total Acres: 299 Counties: Portions of Contra Costa, Alameda, San Joaquin and Stanislaus.”  USFWS

Dear Attorney General Brown,

I am formally requesting that an investigation be implemented into the current California Department of Fish & Game’s (CDFG) burrowing owl eviction policies.  As you may be aware, the S.F. Bay Area has become enveloped in an owl eviction controversy because of a CDFG approved eviction plan that is currently underway at the Kiper Homes’ Blue Ridge development in Antioch, CA. 

It has come to my attention that CDFG management in Sacramento, California has been suppressing a report by CDFG biologists and owl experts regarding the conservation of burrowing owls.  The burrowing owl conservation guidleines, dated April 14, 2008:

• Outlines the proper protocol for a passive relocation to minimize “Take”
• Indicates that current mitigation measures will no longer be used because it does not adequately compensate for habitat loss
• Takes advantage of temporary opportunities to conserve burrowing owls while longer-term regional programs and conservation plans are developed
• States that concerted conservation actions are needed to maintain viable burrowing owl populations in California and to help prevent the need to list this species under the state or federal endangered species acts
• Provides guidance that supersedes and augments or clarifies the current Department’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation
• And ubiquitously recognizes that because owls are dependent on burrows for survival and reproduction, excluding them from nesting, roosting, and satellite burrows on a project site may actually lead to direct or indirect take and therefore is a violation of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 (16 U.S.C. 703-711), California Admin. Code, Title. 14, § 251.1, Harassment of Animals, California Fish and Game Code Sections 1801-1802 (2008), CEQA, etc.

Even more disturbing is the likelihood that the CDFG is and has continued to conceal the report over the last two years in an effort to afford developers a free reign in removing burrowing owls from breeding, wintering, and critical California habitat. These actions beg the question as to why CDFG management does not like to ask developers to comply with an agency report designed to conserve an ailing burrowing owl population.  I have also come across information indicating that CDFG management is trying to quickly revise the policy without the input of CDFG burrowing owl experts.  This is a contradiction of the agency’s mission:

The Mission of the Department of Fish and Game is to manage California’s diverse fish, wildlife, and plant resources, and the habitats upon which they depend, for their ecological values and for their use and enjoyment by the public.

Additionally, this information comes on the heels of a 2004 revelation in which documents were made public through a California Public Records Act request.  The August 2003 Petition Evaluation for Western Burrowing Owl revealed that the CDFG covered up a department report recommending that the western burrowing owl be considered for endangered or threatened status under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).  According to the Center for Biological Diversity:

“The improperly withheld report evaluated a formal petition to list the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) submitted by conservation organizations in April of 2003. The California Fish and Game Commission voted 4-0 in December 2003 to reject the burrowing owl petition, based in part on a second contradictory CDFG report blatantly biased against listing and widely criticized by conservationists and owl experts as fraught with inaccuracies and inconsistencies. In contrast, the report CDFG refused to release to the Commission and the public recommended that the owl be immediately protected as a “Candidate” species while a year-long status review was conducted by DFG.”

The CDFG has no authority to authorize the “Take” (defined by CDFG code as hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill) of burrowing owls or other raptors except pursuant to a Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP).  Because existing practices for excluding owls usually employ only portions of the appropriate methods or employ the methods inadequately, there is a higher likelihood that current policies are resulting in direct take or are the proximate cause of take. Thus, the CDFG is actively approving eviction plans that are responsible for decreasing numbers and are in direct violation of California Fish and Game Code.

On the behest of the people of California, I ask you to intervene to protect the State’s natural resources by stopping CDFG’s policy of evicting burrowing owls, a California species of special concern, and hold the CDFG management accountable for suppressing an agency report designed to protect a declining California burrowing owl population.

Sincerely,

Scott W. Artis

[This letter was sent to CA Attorney General Brown and copied to Governor Schwarzenegger, Asst. to AG Brown, and CDFG Director McCamman.  The letter was accompanied by the Kiper Homes Blue Ridge eviction plan approved by the CDFG, the 2003 recommendation to list under the CESA, and the 2008 report for burrowing owl conservation.]

A government cover-up.  Policies established that cater to industry.  A few officials pulling the strings.  Millions of dollars at stake.  And a lone report that trades hands under the cover of night exposing the plot.  We have all seen fictionalized  stories unfold at the movies, and have undoubtedly read actual accounts that now comprise the annals of history  and are so named with the all too famous and fashionable suffix “GATE.”

But this time we have another variable entering the conspiracy equation…burrowing owls.  In a California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)  document recently obtained by JournOwl.com and followed by subsequent conversations held under the condition of anonymity, CDFG management has been sitting on a report designed to “Provide guidance that supersedes and augments or clarifies the Department’s Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation” for the last 2 years.  And during this time burrowing owls have continually been subjected to CDFG approved relocation and eviction plans that are recognized as inadequate and may be contributing to the decline of the species in the Bay Area and California.

The report ubiquitously recognizes that because burrowing owls are dependent on burrows for survival and reproduction, excluding them from nesting, roosting, and satellite burrows on a project site may actually lead to direct or indirect take and therefore is a violation of Federal and State laws.  The report, which would take advantage of temporary opportunities to conserve burrowing owls while longer-term regional programs and conservation plans are developed, recommends a change to standard mitigation developed by CDFG and the Burrowing Owl Consortium in the early to mid 90s because it does not compensate for habitat that is actually lost.

According to sources within the CDFG:

“They are trying to quickly revise it [report] without the input of CDFG burrowing owl experts to allow developers to do what they want to do.”

In essence we are looking at a state agency responsible for species conservation, yet through antiquated policies have aligned themselves with developers and are ignoring conservation actions “needed to maintain viable burrowing owl populations in California and to help prevent the need to list this species under the state or federal endangered species acts.”

CDFG sources have also told JournOwl.com that the report, “…has been held up because management doesn’t seem to like asking developers to do what the report says needs to be done to conserve species.”

However, this is not the first time burrowing owls have been subjected to a CDFG cover-up.  During a 2003 petition to list the burrowing owl under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), a department report that recommended listing was concealed from the public while a new contradictory report was generated.

According to the Center for Biological Diversity in 2004:

“The improperly withheld report evaluated a formal petition to list the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) submitted by conservation organizations in April of 2003. The California Fish and Game Commission voted 4-0 in December 2003 to reject the burrowing owl petition, based in part on a second contradictory CDFG report blatantly biased against listing and widely criticized by conservationists and owl experts as fraught with inaccuracies and inconsistencies. In contrast, the report CDFG refused to release to the Commission and the public recommended that the owl be immediately protected as a “Candidate” species while a year-long status review was conducted by DFG.”

A letter requesting immediate action and intervention, along with copies of the CDFG report,  an eviction plan recently implemented in Antioch, CA, and the buried 2003 petition recommending CESA protection has been registered with Attorney General Brown, Governor Schwarzenegger, and CDFG Director McCamman.  

An inquiry left with the CDFG Deputy Director Kevin Hunting has not been returned.

It might be a bit premature, but I have my New Year’s wish already in place.  Let’s just call it a stay of execution for 11 burrowing owls and who knows how many California ground squirrels.  As reported here on Dec. 15th in Burrowing Owl Mitigation is Eradication and Eviction, I finally received the burrowing owl relocation plan for the Blue Ridge housing development in Antioch, CA.  Contained within the California Department of Fish & Game approved document were instructions that called for passive eviction for the owls and fumigation for the squirrels by February 1st.  I imagined I had a few weeks to formulate a plan of action considering the onset of the Holidays, but my grave miscalculation was evident a mere 4 days later.

Perhaps a coincidence that action occurred just after the paperwork was released, perhaps a need to beat a looming February 1st deadline, perchance it was a ploy to covertly begin eviction under the fog of Holiday cheer when concerned citizens might be distracted, but most likely it was a combination of the latter two scenarios.  In any event, I stumbled upon the first round of evictions by Kiper Homes’ consulting firm way sooner than expected.  As I wandered through the unlocked chain link fence I found a team of 3 actively enlarging the burrows of the owls my wife and I have come to obsess over in terms of their protection.  I continued down the middle of the street looking over burrows marked with flags of orange and red, plexi-glass fitted one-way doors blocking burrows that sheltered a family during breeding season, and adjacent burrows that provided extra cover were now overflowing with soil and rocks.  The eviction of the first section was just about complete and the process continued uninterrupted in the background as I spoke with the principle biologist.  I couldn’t help but glance over his shoulder as the shovels filled in burrows that months earlier I had cleared of garbage and debris.

And as I continued to listen to his attempts to convince me that caring for the owls was top priority, I couldn’t help but take notice that they also had plans to close up burrows just over the property line to ensure conformation to a required buffer zone.  Unfortunately this land is owned by a different developer so permission to passively evict owls that flee to these borderland burrows will be granted.  The border is the only suitable owl habitat as the rest of the property is characterized by taller grasses. Thus, the evicted owls will not even be able to retreat to the burrows on the adjacent undeveloped land and will be forced into trying to locate new burrows while contending with winter temperatures.

Additionally, the biologist recognized the ecosystem contribution of the California ground squirrels and their importance to many species.  He said, “If one species deserves protection it is the California ground squirrel.”  Yet, once a section has been cleared of owls the burrows will be fumigated in order to kill any and all squirrels.  Do you sense the irony?  As I questioned post-eviction survival, it was quite evident that any data pertaining to this topic was lacking.  The eviction process simply functions by ASSUMPTION that displaced owls do fine and is apparently at the behest of the California Department of Fish & Game who no longer requires banding of the evicted.  So again I am left with the feeling that the owls are a Species of Not So Special Concern.

And what about the owls?  Well, Friday’s actions disturbed 2 pairs of owl that successfully reared young in the 2009 breeding season.  Just under 60 squirrel burrows, alternate owl burrow entrances, and potential burrows were blocked, of which 28 were fitted with one-way doors that prevent owls from entering once they leave.  As my wife and I wound our way around the 25 acres on Sunday documenting the effect the first round of eviction has played on the owls, I observed one pair had, as suspected, begun using unblocked burrows in their network while the other pair remained unseen.  All owls were undeniably nervous, which is expected considering the recent disturbance.  I observed the presence of 7 of the 11 resident owls, which is not uncommon even prior to the commencement of the relocation process.  And to make matters even worse (if possible), I discovered that a locked barricade preventing access to off-roaders had been left on the street in a twisted heap of metal and wood.  The fence had been rammed by the invaders and provided admission to a fairly secret muddy playground.  The dirt tracks on the pavement, downed street signs, torn up lots, and scattered beer cans were more than enough evidence to follow their activities long after they had retreated.  I could even see burrows that had been driven over.  So besides fighting to keep their homes, the owls are still being plagued by off-roaders who have no respect for someone else’s property let alone a group of owls.

While shoppers hop from store to store in an effort to finalize any lingering items on their Christmas lists, a network of burrowing owl friends have been working behind the scenes to spread the word, garner help and secure a little protection for this California Species of Special Concern.

Thanks Larry of The Birders Report (Check out his latest post on Burrowing owls and find out who to contact regarding changing current relocation practices), Dee Vieira (Burrowing Owl Activist in Antioch, CA), and Catherine Portman of the Burrowing Owl Preservation Society for all the weekend assistance.

Stay tuned for the latest information on the Blue Ridge Development burrowing owls!

Heather surveying damage and owls

As if the stars were completely aligned and the universe in perfect harmony, a single email to the city yielded a response in less than 2 hours.  And contained within that message were the relocation plan documents I had been waiting for since the onset of my quest to ensure protection for what I now call ‘my’ burrowing owls.  But perhaps I am being too hasty and setting the wrong tone for this post and/or update.  Clearly from the title I have unsuccessfully managed to hide my bias in regards to this situation.

So if you don’t mind I’ll reset the style as the universe simply cannot be in harmony when California Department of Fish & Game approved mitigation methods call for the eviction of burrowing owls and the eradication of California ground squirrels.  As a potential candidate for protection under the California Endangered Species Act and holding a designation as a species of special concern, simply evicting the owls and fumigating a neighboring species appears to be a solution that can only be described as out of sight, out of mind.  Because once the owls are forced from their burrows there is no subsequent tracking or following of the displaced residents to ensure a healthy relocation.  Obviously the Western Burrowing Owl is a California Species of Not So Much Concern.

“Following 14 years of unsuccessful efforts by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium to protect rapidly declining populations in urbanizing areas, the Center and allies petitioned in 2003 to protect the California population of the owl under the California Endangered Species Act. The petition showed that breeding owls were eliminated from almost one-quarter of their former range in California, continue to decline in an additional quarter of their range, and are extremely sparsely distributed over an additional 43 percent.”  Center for Biological Diversity

On November 23, 2009 the California Department of Fish & Game provided the developer with written notice that the eviction can proceed.  However, I do not have a date for the commencement of this event as of yet,  but I will definitely increase my monitoring of the site to ensure no harm comes to the owls.  Additionally, this comes on the heels of a constant need for me to make repairs and modifications to the gates to prevent off-roading access (which I now believe is secure).  Plus, the report highlights the fact that prior to my coverage on the owls zero mitigation for this species was in place on the property.  To be honest I have not completely absorbed the ramifications of this newly released information, but undoubtedly my first action is to inform the masses and my burrowing owl friends action network. 

Without further delay, here is a bit of light reading taken from the approved burrowing owl relocation plan as I decide upon a course of action.  And please continue to check this site or email me for the latest details and my next steps.

Installation of One-Way Doors

M&A biologists will install one-way (passive) eviction doors in occupied burrows using hand tools. M&A will set and monitor 20 eviction doors at a time. Eviction doors will be operated for two full days at each occupied burrow. Upon completing the two day eviction process the burrow will be closed manually. Western burrowing owls will be evicted systematically by sections of the project site so that areas can be deemed cleared prior to moving forward with clearing other sections of the site.  All suitable or occupied burrows will be cleared per this plan.  As eviction doors will have to be moved to new burrows that the owls move to, the schedule for eviction could take several weeks or longer.  Upon clearing a contiguous section of the project site, and keeping in mind that California ground squirrel burrows could be interconnected, ground squirrel control measures would be implemented in each cleared section. 

Collapse and Backfill of the Burrows

After any given one-way door has been installed for 48 hours and once it has been determined that the Western burrowing owls have vacated the burrows, and M&A biologist will remove the door and the burrow will be hand collapsed and backfilled.

Maintenance of the Site

After owls are evicted from the site and have been absent for three days, M&A will begin eliminating California ground squirrels from the site. Removal of the California ground squirrels and thus potential for new burrows will remove the catalyst attracting Western burrowing owls….Accordingly, since Western burrowing owls can only be removed in the Fall/Winter/Spring when grasses are green, in lieu of rodenticide baits, fumigants will be used to remove the ground squirrels from the subject property.  Fumigants would only be used after Western burrowing owls have been cleared from the burrow systems within systematically cleared sections of the project site. Rodenticides may be used to further control California ground squirrels after most herbaceous vegetation (especially grasses) has turned brown on the project site.

*Fumigant: method of pest control that completely fills an area with gaseous pesticides to suffocate or poison the pests within (via Wikipedia)