Habitat Conservation Plan Is No-Win For Kern Farmers
by Willard Thompson

(Article reprinted with permission)

     For at least 13 years the Kern County Farm Bureau (KCFB) and US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) have been arm wrestling over the protection of endangered species in the heart of productive farmland. The focus of this contest is a document called the Valley Floor Habitat Conservation Plan (VFHCP); the referee is the Kern County Planning Department headed by Ted James. Other players include the Bureau of Land Management, the Western States Petroleum Association and the California Dept. of Fish & Game.
     At its core, an HCP attempts to create an illusory "win-win situation." In general, HCPs aim to designate habitat for endangered species while giving human beings protection from incidental takings of those species as they try to earn a living. In the VFHCP the species include currently listed Endangered and Threatened species as well as species that might be so designated in the future; the humans are farmers, ranchers, oil men and urban dwellers in the program area of about two million acres, 70%-75% of which is farm and grazing land. The VFHCP's goal was to include specific strategies for urban development, oil and gas exploration and production, and agriculture.
     Since 1989, when a memo of understanding created a Work Group, the parties have debated how to achieve their "win-win" goal. From Robert Kunde's point of view FWS kept moving the goal line. As chair of the Farm Bureau's Endangered Species Committee for 10 years he says whenever Peter Cross, FWS representative on the Work Group went back to his superiors with KCFB proposals new issues were raised. Cross, who is Special Assistant to the Field Supervisor in the Sacramento Field Office, says, "During the course of the negotiations things would come up that would have to be modified. Over a period of years things do change. There were changes in law, in regulations and also changes of policy that have been rolled into some of our regulations."
     All Kern County Planning Director Ted James will say is "The wildlife agencies have not always been consistent in the information or the approach that has been asked for, that has been frustrating. That's one of the reasons this program has taken so long to develop."
     What Kunde and KCFB wanted, and said so back in 1997, was a blanket incidental take permit for routine farming and ranching activities, and in return would implement sufficient mitigation for such take. FWS would not agree; it wanted each farmer to get an individual permit. KCFB's opposition was simple: asking farmers to sign up was tantamount to requiring a permit to farm; there were other objections, too. Both sides were intransigent.
     So in September 2000, KCFB, over Kunde's signature, sent FWS and California Dept. of Fish and Game what Kunde calls the "fish or cut bait" letter. In the 33-page document including point by point discussion and maps, he requested that both agencies provide "a non-binding, good faith opinion on whether the Ag Strategy has a reasonable chance of acceptance…" If not, he questioned whether it would be worthwhile to go further in the process. "FWS never sent a reply," Kunde says now. "Peter Cross told me that FWS had sent a written reply to this proposal but he has refused to provide us with a copy."
     If a reply was sent no one has a copy of it. A FWS letter was sent to Ted James on October 13, 2000 addressing one of the issues the Farm Bureau had raised, but the letter was in response to a letter James sent Oct. 11, asking FWS to respond to the KCFB letter. The response provided some legal opinions from FWS Assistant Field Supervisor, Cay Goude that Kunde and KCFB criticized.
     On Nov. 1, 2000, James again wrote FWS, this time asking FWS to reconsider its opinion based on the Kern County Counsel's legal analysis of the acceptability of the blanket permitting process for farmers and ranchers. Cross now says that a one paragraph letter was sent to KCFB president Douglas Carter on Oct. 27, 2000, with a copy to Kunde. The Kern County Planning Dept. has no record of receiving such a letter and neither Kunde nor Carter received a copy of it. Kunde says Peter Cross has ignored repeated requests for a copy. Furthermore, a one paragraph response to a 33-page document is insulting, he adds.
     So on Nov. 13, 2000, KCFB notified the VFHCP Work Group that it was withdrawing its support for the Agricultural Strategy, effectively killing it and all but precluding any chance the farming community would be protected for incidental takings.
     Today VFHCP is still limping ahead without an Ag Strategy. Ted James optimistically thinks there could be a final draft next spring; Cross says it will be later than that. But if and when a habitat conservation plan is finalized for the Valley Floor it will not include the farmers and ranchers who work most of the land. Without them, recovery of endangered species will be that much more difficult. Any chance for a win-win solution in Kern County seems to have become a lose-lose for farmers and species. Looking back at the process, Robert Kunde has a sour taste in his mouth when he says "Habitat Conservation Plans take so long, so many resources, that they are a practical impossibility to implement at a meaningful level for agricultural producers."


Willard Thompson writes a weekly E-mail newsletter on western agriculture.
You can email him at willard@rinconpublishing.com or call 800-678-GROW.