|
Petition
Text
(This
is the complete text of the petition submitted by Farm Bureau to the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 1995. No formal finding, required
within 90 days by the Endangered Species Act, has been made by USFWS.)
Submitted by:
Riverside County Farm Bureau, Inc.
21160 Box Springs Road, #102, Moreno Valley, California 92557
Telephone 951/684-6732 - Fax 951/782-0621
April 26, 1995
Submitted to:
Mr. Gail Kobetich, Field Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
2730 Loker Avenue West
Carlsbad, California 92008
Riverside County Farm Bureau, Inc., hereby petitions the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service to delist the Stephens’ kangaroo
rat (Dipodomys stephensi) under the Endangered Species Act of 1973
and its amendments.
The petitioner requests this delisting because of original data
errors in the listing of 1988. Investigation by the Farm Bureau has
revealed a significant amount of scientific evidence that SKR is not
now and never has been in any danger of extinction. Assumptions by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service regarding species range, habitat
requirements, population size, population density, protected
populations, reproductive ability, ability to persist in small
patches, and colonization capability were all substantial
underestimations. Assumptions by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
regarding threats to SKR, including percentage of lost historical
habitat, rate of loss of habitat, impacts from rural development and
agriculture, and urban growth patterns, were all substantial
exaggerations.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service incorrectly stated that many new data
supporting listing became available after SKR was listed as a
candidate species, when in fact the only data to become available
was biological surveys for developments which actually indicated
that SKR was more widespread and abundant than previously thought
and that the habitat was safer from destruction than previously
thought.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service relied on the flawed method of only
returning to sites where SKR was historically found rather than
analyzing the full range of habitat. This method disregarded the
known dynamic characteristics of SKR habitat utilization, and a lack
of any comprehensive search for new inhabited sites represents a
failure to obtain the best scientific information available.
Acreage figures in the proposed rule are questionable based on an
example of a major mathematical error. The proposed rule stated that
small patches of SKR populations are about 40 acres in size or 100
hectares. One of these numbers is incorrect, in that 40 acres equals
about 17 hectares and 100 hectares equals 247 acres. The author
divided 100 hectares by the conversion factor of 2.47, rather than
multiplying. It appears the author sought to minimize the actual
size of small patches, substituting 40 acres for the more correct
figure of 100 hectares or about 250 acres, thereby exaggerating the
threat to the species. It has been proven by current knowledge that
the SKR populations are in much, much larger contiguous patches,
many are measured in the thousands of acres of contiguous occupied
habitat. (RCHCA 10(a) EIR by RECON, Montgomery (Anza, 1992,)
O’Farrell (Lake Henshaw, population known at time of listing), RB
Riggan (Alessandro Heights survey, 1989.)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service misrepresented federal agency
response when it stated in its summary of the final rule that
federal agencies other than the Air Force indicated no opposition to
the listing. In fact, the Air Force was the only federal agency to
provide comment on the listing, filing a statement of opposition
(see comments, included.) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service offered a
patently misleading statement in characterizing non-response by
other federal agencies as “no opposition.”
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service misrepresented all other comments as
“neutral,” when in fact comments by the Vista Irrigation
District, included herein, could hardly be called neutral, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service count breakdown does not make any sense,
and other supporting comments aren’t itemized in the final rule.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to acknowledge the true
situation with regard to the California Department of Fish and Game
and the California Endangered Species Act. While CDFG submitted
comments supporting the SKR listing, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
failed to note or consider the significant fact that CDFG had failed
to persuade its own California Fish and Game Commission that SKR was
endangered and required upgrading from its state “threatened”
status. The Federal Record indicated CDFG provided a copy of a
recent status update, yet U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to
mention that it got almost all of its SKR information for the
listing forwarded to it from just one CDFG employee after the
California Fish and Game Commission voted not to upgrade the species
to endangered.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service clearly disregarded the importance of
definitively delineating the range of the SKR and relied on
inadequate and incomplete research. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
limited consideration to a specific area within the political
jurisdiction of Riverside County while disregarding San Diego County
and failing to discover SKR in Anza, Aguanga, Oceanside, and the
Corona-Norco area. Inadequacy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
research information is underscored by expansion of known occupied
SKR habitat and population in Riverside County study areas, in
Temecula, in Ranchita, (as per Dick Friesen personal communication,
1/93.) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service based its listing decision on
inadequate information about SKR habitat and populations outside its
historic range and lack of knowledge of existence of SKR on public
and private property. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service relied on
flawed and inadequate methods for locating SKR outside of historic
range, discovering the extent and abundance of SKR only after a
development land use activity is planned that requires biological
surveys.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service selectively used scientific
information to support its listing decision and to suppress facts
which would have raised doubts about the need to list SKR as
endangered. Price and Endo 1988 was cited without reference to the
positive aspects of this study, which revealed SKR population could
increase tenfold in just one year of high rainfall.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service again overstated the threat to SKR as
occurring rangewide, when this is clearly not the case, and
disregarded the large amounts of protected SKR habitat on public
lands which were and are safe.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service inaccurately contended that lands
held in public ownership were not sufficient to ensure survival of
SKR, when in fact U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had failed to
correctly assess the extent of occupied and potential habitat
protected on public lands.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service grossly underestimated the viability
of SKR populations on public lands and greatly overestimated the
threat to SKR on those lands by implying that SKR habitat needs
close monitoring and active management. They further implied that
because most of the federal agencies using the land had no such
active management plan, SKR was therefore imperiled. However, this
implication ignored the fact that the land use activity and
disturbances characteristic of the mission of the particular federal
agencies are likely the very reason SKR is present.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service admitted that the activities of the
agencies with occupied SKR habitat are compatible with the species,
yet this was never stated in the proposed rule. It is further
evidence that the species is more abundant and less threatened than
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicated in its proposed rule.
The system of permanent preserves that has been subsequently
proposed by Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency mainly
comprises public lands which were already conserved at the time of
the listing. RECON, the consultant to RCHCA which has developed much
more extensive information about SKR, concluded that public lands
are more than enough to sustain the species. Predictions of SKR
survival have been based in part on a computer model, the Gilpin
Model, which fails to take into account “smart dispersion,” the
ability of SKR to migrate to suitable new habitat, to survive and
expand in a habitat environment that historically is in a constant
state of change. Both U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service projections and
the Gilpin Model are overly pessimistic and contribute to the
underestimation of SKR populations and survival and the
overstatement of the threat to SKR.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service dismissed the issue of compatible
land uses because it failed to obtain complete and accurate
information about SKR habitat requirements and in fact discarded
information about the positive aspects of compatible land uses that
was available in the same reports which U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service used in its proposed rule. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
failed to recognize that land disturbances associated with
compatible land uses caused increases in SKR populations. This is
demonstrated by the decline in suitable habitat by coastal sage
scrub encroachment as a direct result of U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service restrictions on farming, firebreak clearing and other
activities.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service falsely stated that it had determined
from careful review that SKR should be listed as “endangered,”
when in fact the decision was an arbitrary determination arrived at
in a telephone conversation between Karla Kramer, author of the
proposed rule, and Ron Novak of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Office of Endangered Species in Washington in which the two
individuals discussed whether to propose SKR for listing as
“threatened” or “endangered” (phonecon notes, included.)
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service statement that SKR habitat and
range had been greatly reduced is inherently false, because U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service demonstrably lacked complete and available
information about the historic range of the SKR and about the
current range of the SKR. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service lacked
range information necessary to make comparisons to reach a
conclusion that range had been reduced and also failed to
investigate reports of habitat (i.e., the Orange County coastline,)
“rounded off” occurrences on maps and otherwise disregarded
available information which indicated the SKR was more widespread
and not under threat.
The range of the SKR was not known at the time of the listing, and
it is still not precisely determined. This is amply demonstrated by:
discovery of SKR at numerous locations not included within the
“historic range” and the corresponding mitigation fee area in
Riverside County designated by Riverside County Habitat Conservation
Agency, such locations as Anza, Potrero, Diamond Valley, Sage,
Tucalota Valley and the Corona-Norco area; requirements for SKR
biological surveys at locations outside the previously assumed
range, such as at Ontario International Airport in Ontario; local
government concerns about getting permits to take SKR outside the
previously assumed range, such as Beaumont; and, the plainly
observable access to extensive areas of potential habitat adjacent
to known SKR populations, such as north and west from Riverside
County into San Bernardino County, east into the Banning Pass, and
southeast toward Anza-Borrego National Park.
The proposed rule inaccurately described the Stephens’ kangaroo
rat, in part, as having an ear measurement averaging 15mm. After the
listing was finalized, the SKR working group of biologists published
a document through U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service intended to aid in
differentiation of SKR from PKR, that stated SKR had an ear crown of
13mm or less, and the PKR had measurements of 13mm or greater. A
letter dated November 7, 1989, from the field supervisor of the
Carlsbad office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to an SKR
permitee, stated that SKR has a typical ear-crown measurement of
less than 12mm, and PKR generally have a measurement of 13mm or
greater.
The range was described as being limited to the Perris, San Jacinto
Valleys of Riverside County, and the San Luis Rey and Temecula
Valleys of San Diego County. (Note that the Temecula Valley was
incorrectly described as being in San Diego County.) Subsequent
discoveries of the species, both before and after the proposed rule
was published, reveal this statement to be not only inaccurate, but
also misleading. The proposed rule contradicted this statement later
in the text of the rule. At the time the proposed rule was
published, the SKR was also known to be present in the Riverside,
Lake Mathews, Estelle Mountain, and Sycamore Canyon areas, as well
as the Moreno Valley, Canyon Lake, and Lake Skinner areas. U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service was also aware of SKR localities ranging as far
north as the Cajon Pass area in San Bernardino County, to Bautista
Canyon east of Hemet, in the east, and south to Oceanside. A very
large, well-established population that occurs far to the southeast
on the Warner Ranch around Lake Henshaw was ignored in the proposed
rule, (O’Farrell, 1986.)
Populations of SKR, including those at Anza, Potrero, Aguanga,
Tucalota Valley and the Corona-Norco area, have been discovered: in
areas previously thought unoccupied within the presumed historical
range; outside the presumed historical range; and, in
well-established populations in areas that are not only far outside
the presumed historical range but also in areas and at elevations
thought to be uninhabitable for the species, (Montgomery, 1992.)
The proposed rule stated a habitat association of SKR with Artemisia
californica and Erigonium fasciculatum, two brushy plant species
characteristic of coastal sage scrub habitats. However, the SKR
working group later stated, when discussing habitat of the SKR,
“there is a strong correlation between the proportion of annual
forbs to annual grasses with the probability of presence or absence
of the Stephens’ kangaroo rat and the densities found.” While
this statement is more accurate than the rule, discussing the
habitat preference of the species, it is not complete. Current
information indicates SKR inhabits a wide variety of vegetation
types; native and non-native grasslands, sandy washes and drainages,
agricultural fields, disturbed chaparral, dirt roads, and coastal
sage scrub.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to adhere to the Endangered
Species Act because it has failed to initiate a recovery plan for
the SKR.
Species
range
The described range in the proposed rule was incorrect and
incomplete. The known range of the Stephens’ kangaroo rat was
described as being limited to the Perris and San Jacinto Valleys,
and San Luis Rey and Temecula Valleys. This range description cites
only four researchers as sources, when many more sources were
available to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at the time.
A study dated 3 June 1983 by an unknown author, included in the
administrative record, helped to create many false impressions and
perpetuate factual errors concerning SKR. Two key aspects of this
study point to the fallacious logic used to create the argument that
the species required Endangered Species Act protection.
The study cited the work previously done on SKR by researchers who
attempted to perform “range-wide” status reviews of the species.
However, those researchers’ studies were often merely
re-investigations of historical locations where SKR were found, and
seriously lacked in any new investigation or attempts at locating
new SKR sites. Therefore, when a particular researcher looked for
SKR at a site known to harbor SKR some 20, 30, or 60 years before,
and the site had been developed, or for some other unknown reason
the species was absent from the site at the time, it was assumed
that the species would soon be extirpated from all of its known
sites, (Thomas, 1975.) The argument was then made that the species
was threatened and later the argument was given greater urgency by
saying the species was in imminent danger of extinction, due to the
county’s growth.
This type of flawed thinking is exemplified in this statement from
the introduction to the study: “SKR was the topic of three
master’s theses in 1973 that involved review of Grinnell’s sites
(Thomas 1975) and investigation of range limits of rodents (Bleich
1973 & 1974, Bontrager 1973).” Though the introduction does
state that, “the Bleich study resulted in the publication of a
major range extension for the species (Bleich & Schwartz
1974),” the report does not specify where this discovery was
located.
The known range of the Stephens’ kangaroo rat has greatly expanded
since the publishing of the proposed rule. Information now shows
that SKR is endemic to the foothills of the Lake Mathews area,
Estelle Mountain, the areas around Lake Skinner and Bachelor
Mountain, the foothill areas between Lake Elsinore and the Perris
Valley, the Norco Hills and parts of the City of Corona, the Anza
Valley, Lake Henshaw and Warner Springs areas of northern San Diego
County, and the military bases of Camp Pendleton and the Fallbrook
Naval Weapons Station. Recent surveys have shown substantial
populations of SKR in the Tucalota Valley, Sage area, and Diamond
Valley. These latter discoveries were part of a Section 7
consultation and biological surveys for prescribed burning activity
by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.
SKR populations at Camp Pendleton were cited in the final rule
without any explanation as to why they were omitted in the proposed
rule. Omission of these significant SKR populations on federal lands
indicates SKR is more widespread and abundant and the threat to SKR
is less than originally stated.
The statement in the final rule that “Vista Irrigation District,
MWD, and State of California have large blocks of suitable
habitat” was not included in the proposed rule. Omission of these
significant masses of protected habitat is another indication that
the habitat range and abundance of SKR were understated and the
threat to SKR was overstated. The inclusion of new information in
the final rule, indicating less threat to SKR, should have caused a
reexamination of the need to list.
The Anza Valley discovery is an interesting case for discussion. In
1992 SJM Biological Consultants was commissioned to perform a
trapping survey of an approximately 800-acre site of a proposed
country club on the Cahuilla Indian Reservation in the Anza Valley.
This survey found SKR inhabits at least 400 acres of the site.
Montgomery stated, “No attempt was made to determine the
distribution of the species throughout the property.” (Montgomery
22 February 92.) However, he also stated in the report, “Although
all suitable habitats on the site were not searched for kangaroo rat
sign, it is very likely that most or all extant grasslands are
occupied by Stephens’ kangaroo rats.” He estimated 400 acres of
grasslands on the site.
Montgomery went on to state in his report that he believed the Anza
Valley harbors a large population of SKR. “These results verify
that a sizable population of SKR exists in the Anza region, which
suggests further that this species occurs elsewhere in this broad
valley.” (Montgomery ibid.)
This assumption was confirmed by Montgomery and U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service personnel through subsequent investigation. At the
request of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the developer of the
country club retained Montgomery to perform a helicopter survey of
the entire 70,000-acre valley. Montgomery found suitable habitat
and/or evidence of SKR in several locations throughout the valley.
Widespread occupation by the species was also confirmed through
trapping by Montgomery. According to a map of the area given to the
developer by Montgomery after the survey, SKR was confirmed through
trapping at areas as widespread as the source of Coyote Canyon in
the southeast portion of the valley, to near the Ramona Indian
Reservation in the north, and other large areas on the Cahuilla
Reservation in the central portion of the valley. The map has
written in the margin (presumably by Montgomery,) “Potential SKR
habitat is abundant in the area.” In all, Montgomery’s map
(Montgomery, April 92) showed SKR (confirmed through live trapping,)
SKR habitat, or suitable SKR habitat fragments on all or parts of 38
sections of land throughout the Anza Valley. This habitat is on
Indian lands and private range lands, near checkerboard BLM
ownerships and the San Bernardino National Forest.
The subsequent investigation by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
personnel was part and parcel of a Freedom of Information Act
request by the petitioner. The petitioner was verbally told that
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service had surveyed the area, and that “it
didn’t appear there was that much really out there.” (U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service biologist John Bradley personal communication.)
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist John Bradley indicated the
survey consisted solely of driving and walkovers of the flat river
valley only on the Cahuilla Reservation. Notes and diagrams of this
survey were requested in petitioner’s Freedom of Information Act
request, but the petitioner was told they did not exist. When the
petitioner was able to view the SKR file in the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service Carlsbad office, there were notes of a private
meeting on the Anza Valley discovery between U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, BLM, Bureau of Indian Affairs, the Riverside County Habitat
Conservation Agency, and SKR scientific collection permit holders
(including Montgomery.) These notes were requested to be included in
the materials to be forwarded to the petitioner, but they were never
provided to the petitioner by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The species was discovered in 1990 in another location in Riverside
County, northwest of the previously defined range. Before the
discovery of SKR in the Corona and Norco areas, it had not been
found north of Highway 91 (Montgomery 29 September 90.) In this
study, Montgomery found SKR inhabiting 196 acres of a 235-acre
parcel. The researcher captured 33 SKR and 14 Pacific kangaroo rats
(a non-listed species) at the site, in habitat described as “dense
grassland or dense scrub vegetation, on most extremely steep
slopes....” Montgomery estimated one hillside where SKR were
captured at 60% slope. This finding is contrary to the proposed
rule’s statements that SKR only inhabits nearly level to moderate
slopes.
The proposed rule erroneously cited the habitat as limited to level
or low rolling terrain, but both Montgomery and O’Farrell found
SKR on slopes up to 100%.
The statement in the proposed rule that SKR is confined to low
rolling hills and level ridge tops is refuted by current facts of
occupation.
Montgomery also speculated in the same study that SKR may exist in
the additional undeveloped and relatively undisturbed lands to the
north and possibly, the west of this new discovery in Norco.
There is further indication that SKR inhabits large areas around
Norco. In 1992 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist John Bradley
indicated at an Advisory Committee Meeting of the RCHCA that,
“Perhaps the Norco Hills should be added as an additional reserve
study area.”
Overall, an updated range map does not give a complete picture of
the tremendous change in the amount of assumed suitable habitat and
also the amount of actual occupied habitat. A more complete picture
would show that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service apparently assumed in
1987 that the habitat suitable for the species was limited to the
valley floors of the San Jacinto, Perris, Temecula, and San Luis Rey
Valleys and not the entire area contained within the shaded area of
the range map. An accurate, updated range and occupation/habitat map
would include those new areas outlined above, plus areas that were
contained in the original map but assumed unsuitable. This is
evident in the large amount of known occupied habitat in areas that
were previously “holes” of thought-to-be unsuitable habitat in
the map.
In all, SKR is now known to occur in an area much larger than the
717,000 acres stated in the proposed rule. The figure of 717,000
acres was considered by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service at that time
to have been the maximum range historically covered by the species,
even before the arrival of European man.
Habitat
requirements
Habitat of the Stephens’ kangaroo rat was incorrectly identified
in the proposed rule as limited to “level or low rolling terrain.
It is not found on extremely hard or sandy soils.”
We now know that SKR inhabits annual grasslands, sandy washes,
coastal sage scrub to 50% cover, agricultural fields, and a wide
variety of soil types including alkaline soils (Montgomery 1989.)
The proposed rule disproved its own assumption that SKR do not
occupy sandy soils when it stated SKR may be found in “adjoining
sandy washes of Southern California.”
The proposed rule cited Army Corps of Engineers activities in flood
channels “where the species has been found” as a threat to SKR,
conflicting with the other statement that SKR does not inhabit sandy
soils. Sandy soils such as flood control channels were not included
in the list of habitats available to SKR.
There are numerous surveys, by several biologists, that have shown
SKR occupation in such varied habitats as washes and drainages,
sandy soils, in alkali soils, and other types of soils.
Montgomery, in 1990 in Temecula, O’Farrell, Friesen, and other
researchers have found SKR persisting in both hard and sandy soils.
The proposed rule stated that gravel was a common component
necessary to habitat, but findings of SKR in a range of soils and
habitat conditions disprove this.
The habitat requirements for SKR are much more varied than the
proposed rule made them appear. In a report dated April 2, 1992, Dr.
Michael O’Farrell described an area of SKR occupation that
indicates the species’ ability to withstand significant impacts
from urbanization, agriculture and isolation.
In describing the site O’Farrell wrote:
“The ca. 104 acre tract is bordered on the north by citrus
orchard, on the west by Mockingbird Canyon Road and housing, on the
south by Harley John Road and housing, and on the east by Washington
Street and housing and was surveyed for occurrence of SKR in April
1989.”
Apparently the occupation of the site was relatively unchanged from
the earlier study, as O’Farrell indicated in the report summary
where he wrote: “Sign of SKR was found over the majority of the
site similar to that found in the original survey.”
O’Farrell also indicated the site had been heavily impacted by
off-road vehicle activity, something which was cited in the proposed
rule as a factor threatening the SKR. “Although posted, the site
is impacted by off-road vehicle activity which is particularly
concentrated in the eastern portion of the site.” This does not
appear to have had negative affects on SKR because O’Farrell later
wrote that, “Sign of SKR was found over most of the project
site....”
Another O’Farrell study dated 16 July 1989, showed the presence of
SKR at a site nearly surrounded by either housing or other
thought-to-be-unsuitable habitat and land uses. O’Farrell
described the site as follows: “The tract site is bordered on the
north by current housing construction and El Nido and El Mineral
Roads, by citrus orchards on the east and west, and steep relatively
undisturbed hillsides to the south. The entire area is crossed by a
network of dirt roads, including the northern extension of Bull
Canyon Road directly through the middle of the property. Scattered
rural housing is present throughout adjacent lands.”
O’Farrell found SKR occupied areas along and adjacent to dirt
roads on and adjacent to the site. Further, O’Farrell reported,
“A large flat ridge in the western half of the site has been
burned in the past. This area is currently occupied in high
abundance by SKR. The only thing limiting a more widespread
distribution on the site is the current presence of dense shrubs on
most of the property.”
This passage suggests SKR is able to utilize a variety of habitats
in an opportunistic manner, either after disturbances or
manipulation by mechanical, animal or fire changes. The evidence
supporting this is apparent from the surrounding land uses that are
thought to be unsuitable for the species. These include the citrus
groves, the steep hillsides, and housing. This report and others
also indicate the ability for SKR to disperse and colonize new areas
through the use of man-made roads and trails. This characteristic of
SKR is found repeatedly in reports by various researchers.
The ability for SKR to inhabit and colonize both grazed lands and
farmed fields has not only been demonstrated through the increased
research attention focused on the species since the federal listing,
but was even known at the time of the listing. There is also
evidence that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel working on
the listing package knew of the positive effects of grazing on SKR
habitat and the ability for SKR to persist in and around
agricultural fields, yet the rules proposing and listing the species
ignored this data and even implicated grazing as a factor causing
its endangerment. This assumption overlooks the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service surmise that prehistoric herds of deer and antelope
(ungulates) provided habitat for SKR as they grazed in the presumed
historic range.
A comprehensive study by RECON for the Riverside County Habitat
Conservation Agency, published in 1991, focused on the subject of
buffer areas for preserves for SKR. In the study, RECON examined
five sites for the presence of SKR, all of which had development in
close enough proximity to expect impacts on the species.
The researchers attempted to measure the necessary distance to avoid
impacts to SKR by measuring the average distance between development
and the occupied habitat. The result was that SKR was found an
average of 27.3 meters or 89.6 feet from rural residential housing
(defined as lots of one-half acre or more in size).
In 1982 Montgomery found that SKR can persist “next to human
development indefinitely if the ground remains undisturbed.” This
statement was in a study, portions of which were used in the
proposed rule; yet, this favorable statement to the ability to
coexist with development was omitted from the proposed.
In several other surveys, Dr. O’Farrell indicated evidence of the
species’ ability to persist in small, fragmented habitat patches
of linear shape for a period of years. The survey, (O’Farrell
1992, for S.I.C. Corporation) found 17.8 acres of occupied habitat
in a linear fashion, bordering a graded housing tract. The site had
been surveyed by O’Farrell in 1989 with similar results of
occupied acreage, providing evidence of the species’ persistence
over a period of three years. The survey is evidence of the apparent
adaptability of SKR of successfully persisting, even colonizing,
small linear patches of habitat. O’Farrell and other researchers
performed additional work providing further evidence of this
characteristic.
SKR has been found to exist in coastal sage scrub with densities
approaching 50% aerial cover. This statement was made in a U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service letter to the U.S. Forest Service regarding the
possible presence of the species on National Forest lands. The
statement is qualified by explaining that occurrence in coastal sage
scrub of high densities is usually when there is a large component
of Encelia, or brittlebush, in the habitat. Due to Encelia being
deciduous, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service theorized that the habitat
is essentially more open most of the year. This was supported by
observation of Montgomery at a site near Riverside in 1990.
Numerous studies indicate SKR is able to successfully inhabit
coastal sage scrub of various densities. Montgomery found SKR “to
be resident in all open grasslands as well as sage scrub stands
ranging from sparse to (in several areas) moderately dense.”
Subsequent surveys by this biologist found SKR to be present in
coastal sage scrub habitat that was “moderately dense”. He also
observed SKR to inhabit pockets of “denser” sage scrub when it
was near open areas or composed largely of Encelia.
Researchers often prematurely dismissed the possibility of SKR
presence in various densities of coastal sage scrub even when
kangaroo rat sign and burrows were observed. This practice often
occurred when SKR presence was documented in open habitats directly
adjacent to the coastal sage scrub habitat. Many biologists
dismissed the presence of SKR in coastal sage scrub without a
confirming trapping effort to positively determine the species of
kangaroo rat present. These circumstances have unquestionably led to
cases of misidentification of SKR presence as the presence of the
non-listed Pacific kangaroo rat when habitat types overlap. An
underestimation of the amount of available habitat, and the amount
of SKR occupied habitat has occurred throughout the species range.
Population
size
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service obscured and misrepresented the size
of habitat needed for a viable population of SKR. According to
estimates at the time of the listing proposal, “low” abundance
of SKR was less than five individuals per hectare (O’Farrell
phonecon notes w/U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1/28/86.)
The minimum viable population size stated in the final rule would
mean that a small patch of 100 hectares occupied in “low”
abundance would be characterized as viable. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service then made a huge extrapolation, not cited as based on any
biological information, that, because SKR doesn’t use all of its
suitable habitat, it would take several square miles to support a
more viable population. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service did not
indicate whether it is referring to occupied habitat or suitable
habitat. This assumption was purely speculation unsupported by any
scientific information.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service falsely presented a summary of
comments received that failed to report information which had been
provided to U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicating that SKR was
much more widespread and therefore less threatened than U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service indicated. Petitioner found many examples in
materials received from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service under a
Freedom of Information Act request showing that U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service had received information about how widespread SKR
is but U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to include this
information in its summary.
Population
density
The proposed rule cited densities of 20 to 50 SKR per hectare (which
would be 8 to 20 SKR per acre,) when studies at Alessandro Heights (RB
Riggan, 1989) near the City of Riverside showed densities of over 80
SKR per acre (which would be 198 SKR per hectare.) Thus, densities
cited in the proposed rule are about one-tenth of actual known
population densities. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service underestimated
SKR population densities by ten-to-one.
The proposed rule stated that “most of occupied range probably has
low to moderate density populations.” However, this assumption is
entirely unsupported and disregards the high densities found in
numerous locations, during and following years of normal to high
rainfall.
Population densities can fluctuate greatly from year to year
depending on amount and timing of rainfall. Research by Mary Price
in 1984 on the Motte Reserve showed a tenfold increase in
populations of Pacific kangaroo rats (D. agilis) in one year with
high rainfall.
Protected
populations
In proposing the species for listing, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
completely ignored SKR populations protected on federal lands at
Camp Pendleton and failed to document the number of occupied acres
there.
Not only did U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service disregard SKR
populations in numerous areas mentioned above, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service failed to acknowledge protections that were in
place in these areas, where habitat is secure from development
Lake Mathews has been a protected ecological preserve since before
the SKR listing, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service failed to
investigate SKR populations at this Metropolitan Water District land
prior to listing. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service claimed that
agricultural and urban development around Lake Mathews and Estelle
Mountain caused loss of SKR habitat but failed to document how much
habitat was lost, how much remains and how agricultural activity may
have benefited SKR.
Lake Mathews is now an SKR reserve study area and is proposed as a
permanent core preserve.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was entirely incorrect in its
statement that March Air Force Base and Moreno Valley no longer
support viable populations. There have been new populations
discovered, more than 1,000 acres shown to be occupied and a reserve
study area designation on March Air Force Base. Moreno Valley also
supports SKR populations, as numerous biological surveys have
indicated.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service statement that federal lands form
only a small part of the range of the species disregarded the extent
of SKR populations on military reservations and the various
environmental protection policies of the military services,
specifically the Marine Corps at Camp Pendleton, the Navy at
Fallbrook Naval Weapons Station, the Air Force at March Air Force
Base. Protective policies extend even to nonlisted species, such as
the burrowing owl at March Air Force Base. The statement also
disregarded the significance of BLM lands (Montgomery 1989.) While
discounting the importance of federal lands, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service also disregarded other non-federal public agency lands such
as the State Recreation Area at Lake Perris, the San Jacinto
Wildlife Area, Metropolitan Water District land holdings, Vista
Irrigation District lands, and lands held by the City of Riverside
Parks Department.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service was equally incorrect in its
statement that the area from Lake Skinner to Temecula has no viable
population. Occupied habitat was documented throughout the area,
Lake Skinner was designated a reserve study area and enjoyed
protection from development, Temecula required more allocation of
take under the RCHCA 10(a) permit because of additional population
discoveries, and Shipley Ranch is heavily occupied and protected.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service statement in the proposed rule
that SKR was not recorded at Lake Perris since 1973 simply
underscored the inadequacy of pre-listing surveys which did not look
for SKR at Lake Perris or many other locations subsequently found to
be occupied. SKR occupied state park lands at Lake Perris and
habitat in the nearby San Jacinto Wildlife Area, both protected
areas.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service overstated the threat to SKR
populations around Lake Elsinore, disregarding the protections
provided by BLM parcels. The area is characterized by off-road
vehicle use, which O’Farrell, Price (1991) and other researchers
have shown to be beneficial in disturbing the soil and providing
dirt trails to encourage population movement within the habitat.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service incorrectly stated that the
California Fish and Game Commission listed SKR as “endangered,”
when in fact the commission voted not to list the species as
endangered and indicated that the California Department of Fish and
Game did not present enough information to warrant listing SKR as
endangered. California had listed SKR as “rare” in 1971, and by
virtue of the California Endangered Species Act of 1986, rare
designated species were automatically classified as “threatened”
with very little new information and no evaluation of the accuracy
of information used to support the earlier “rare” designation.
SKR remains listed as “threatened” in California.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service stated that California Department of
Fish and Game consultations under the California Endangered Species
Act are inadequate to protect SKR because they result in
preservation of lands in another area while allowing “take” of
SKR. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service indicated this is an
unacceptable situation for preservation of SKR. However, the Section
10(a) permit of the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency
results in the same situation, where land is preserved in another
location while allowing “take” of SKR.
Reproductive
ability
The proposed rule inferred, from statements that pregnant female SKR
were found in Spring, that reproduction is restricted to Spring.
However, Price (post mortem and 1991 report on reproductive rates
after rains,) O’Farrell, and others found that SKR are capable of
producing litters year round.
The reproductive ability of SKR was underestimated. The rules
published for the species indicated that the species was thought to
only reproduce twice each year. Subsequent studies have indicated
that the species will reproduce year round and have documented up to
five litters per year. The same studies showed information
suggesting the frequency and the size of the litters increased with
the amount of rainfall in a given year, and with rainfall that
occurred later in the year. A necropsy by Dr. Patrick A. Kelley (May
2, 1991) found a female, which died in the course of the trapping,
pregnant with five fetuses.
Colonization
capability
Populations of SKR were erroneously considered isolated, but there
was no basis for assuming this.
In stating that SKR does not occupy all suitable habitat, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service discounted the fluid characteristics of SKR
populations, the fact that SKR populations can recover very quickly,
and SKR’s persistence in recolonizing previously unoccupied
habitat.
A 1984 study by University of California, Riverside, graduate
student Narca A. Moore-Craig found SKR recolonizing a field within
eight months after agricultural cultivation had ceased.
The Domenigoni family was restricted from using an 800-acre fallow
field when SKR occupied it within one or two years (depending on the
specific area in the field) after agricultural cultivation had
ceased.
The Domenigoni family was also restricted in their cultivation
activity on another, leased field. Even though a grain crop had been
harvested from the field just five months earlier, SKR were present.
There are numerous other studies showing the colonization capability
of SKR in disturbed areas.
Historical
habitat
The proposed rule assumed that the historic range of the SKR was
717,000 acres, but this figure was just a guess and excludes
“mountain tops,” which are not defined. This statement does not
allow valid comparisons between historical and present population of
SKR because U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service apparently did not
exclude non-level terrain from its historical estimate, and then
later, when calculating the amount of habitat remaining, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service did exclude non-level terrain. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service failed to explain what parameters it used to come
up with its figures and failed to apply consistent parameters.
By limiting the soil types identified as suitable for SKR during
mapping of suitable soil types, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
inaccurately extrapolated a historical habitat that was too
restrictive, incorrectly illustrating the historical habitat as
smaller than it actually is. Numerous examples show that SKR
inhabits many more soil types than Price indicated in her soil type
study, which was cited in the final rule.
The statement that 95% of original SKR habitat is gone was incorrect
and based on incompatible assumptions for historic and present
range. The large number was used as historic habitat in order to
artificially raise the percentage of habitat gone, which, combined
with discounting of present habitat which was incorrectly assumed
unsuitable, resulted in overstatement of the threat to the survival
of the species. There is no supporting information given to explain
or define the “visual” inspection of this former range, if it
was by aerial photos, walkovers, or Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service or other maps.
Human development and agricultural uses were already present in the
early part of this century when the first studies of SKR were done.
Dry-land grain farming and grazing were widespread on the valley
floors since at least the late 1800s. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
has failed to reconcile opposing assumptions, that agricultural
activities which reduce invasive brush are also offensive to SKR but
that SKR are displaced by invasive brush. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service arguments that SKR thrive in open grassland suggests that
grazing and agricultural practices introduced by European man
enhanced SKR habitat. There is inadequate evidence that great herds
of deer and antelope roamed the region’s valleys and curtailed
brush invasion, as the proposed rule surmised. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service wants it both ways, that brush is harmful but
agricultural activities which remove brush and create habitat are
also harmful, ignoring SKR’s ability to utilize a wide range of
habitats.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service referred only to eight general areas
where SKR is concentrated, which are (1) March Air Force Base to
Moreno Valley, (2) Lake Perris to eastern San Jacinto Valley, (3)
Lake Mathews to Estelle Mountain, (4) Lakeview Mountains, (5) Lake
Elsinore, (6) Lake Skinner to Temecula, (7) Fallbrook Naval Weapons
Station to San Luis Rey River, and (8) Lake Henshaw. This list
overlooks other areas where SKR are found, including Corona-Norco,
Temescal Canyon, Sycamore Canyon, Alessandro Heights, Potrero
Canyon, Steele Peak, Camp Pendleton, Oceanside, Aguanga, Bautista
Canyon, Hemet, Murrieta, Winchester, Menifee, and Anza Valley.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service statement that only three of the
referenced areas contain substantial amounts of habitat is proven
grossly inaccurate by current information, with SKR populations
found in abundance in numerous additional areas previously ignored
by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service statement that Lake Henshaw had
12,600 acres of suitable habitat omits the fact that more than
10,000 acres, or nearly all of the acres, is actually occupied, (O’Farrell,
1986.)
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service statement that SKR was extirpated
from 4,940 acres of suitable habitat at Fallbrook Naval Weapons
Station and to the San Luis Rey River is not supported. Montgomery
(1989, Guajome Park,) indicates SKR are present.
Rate
of loss of habitat
The proposed rule assumed that present or threatened destruction,
modification or curtailment of SKR habitat or range poses a threat
to the species, but this cannot be proven or disproven. There is no
knowledge of the historical abundance or range of SKR, and the
errors that are now apparent with today’s information confirm that
the SKR’s range and abundance in 1987 were greatly underestimated.
Impacts
from rural development and agriculture
The ability
for SKR to inhabit and colonize both grazed lands and farmed fields
has not only been demonstrated through the increased research
attention focused on the species since the federal listing, but was
even known at the time of the listing. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service stated that SKR is restricted to insular patches at edges of
plowed fields but offered no citation and ignored evidence that SKR
immediately reoccupies plowed fields.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is entirely inaccurate in its
statement that grazing, off-road vehicle use, and rodent control
programs all reduce habitat suitability. Grazing has been well
documented to improve the open grassland habitat of SKR and in fact
is cited by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as the pre-European-man
basis for SKR survival. Off-road vehicle use has likewise been shown
to promote migration and spread of SKR populations, with SKR
documented to travel distances by way of dirt roads and trails, and
daytime use of ORV trails has little impact on the nocturnal SKR.
Rodent control programs have been reduced and refined to limit the
threat to SKR. Rodent poison would have to be used illegally
(according to current labeling regulations, independent of the
federal Endangered Species Act listing) in most cases to harm the
nocturnal SKR.
There is also evidence that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel
working on the listing package knew of the positive effects of
grazing on SKR habitat and the ability for SKR to persist in and
around agricultural fields. Yet the proposed and final rules ignored
this data and even implicated grazing as a factor causing the
species’ endangerment.
An example of either an unwillingness to look at information
objectively, or an indication of complete misunderstanding of the
facts as presented, is evident in the following passage from
materials in the administrative record:
“An important aspect of SKR habitat is its seral or successional
nature. Most SKR sites are open, somewhat disturbed areas. Grazing,
past agricultural use or infrequent fires keep the habitat at a
state usable by SKR. Succession to denser shrub growth apparently
excludes the small mammal from the site. This relationship of SKR
habitat with vegetation dynamics may explain the local and shifting
nature of SKR populations. Calculation of acres of habitat are,
because of this aspect of changing vegetation, rather ephemeral in
nature. Also, the management of SKR habitat must address the need to
keep the habitat open. The alteration of past management practices
which have kept the habitats open might well result in elimination
of habitat after a brief period of time.”
The telling evidence that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service personnel
ignored or did not understand this crucial bit of information that
did not fit their preconceived notion about the pristine habitat
requirements of a species is the handwritten word “huh?”
appearing in the margin next to the preceding paragraph. The
handwriting appears to be consistent with other notes throughout the
documents used in the listing package for SKR by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service staff person preparing the listing. In any case,
there were no references to this passage made in either the proposed
or final rule on SKR. There are other, similar notes that reveal
this bias on other documents in the listing package.
A bias against any information presented that did not fit the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service position that SKR should be listed as
endangered is also illustrated in another passage contained in the
above referenced study:
“Preservation of what appears to be many hundreds of additional
acres of potential SKR habitat at Lake Henshaw is fairly well
assured since watershed protection, grazing and SKR habitat
preservation are all compatible efforts in this instance.” This
paragraph had a large question mark next to it and was not included
in the proposed rule.
Another study by L.F. LaPre indicated the prevalence of
misinformation about SKR before the increased scrutiny brought about
by the federal listing. In a biological report dated August 31,
1983, LaPre made several comments about the ability for SKR to
recolonize disturbed areas.
The study focused on a parcel of property, portions of which had
recently been disked for agricultural purposes. In a general
assessment of the environmental impact of the cultivation, LaPre
indicated his opinion that the damage done to the SKR habitat was
significant and would require active rehabilitation measures along
with years of regrowth and repair. LaPre wrote, “In my experience,
repopulation of a cultivated area by these rodents requires about
ten years.”
Later in the same study, he made a statement that is on both sides
of the same subject. He stated, “In previously uncultivated areas,
signs of kangaroo rats are abundant, whereas there is virtually no
chance of occurrence of these rodents on lands plowed within the
past five years.” This statement contradicts his earlier assertion
that it would take ten years for SKR to recolonize the site.
The inaccuracy of LaPre’s assertion was revealed in a 1984 study
by University of California, Riverside, graduate student Narca A.
Moore-Craig. Studying a population of SKR on the San Jacinto
Wildlife Area near Lake Perris, Moore-Craig found that, among other
things, SKR will recolonize an agricultural field in as little as
eight months of cessation of cultivation activities.
Moore-Craig found that, “Both one stephensi and three agilis were
captured on the site, within 8 months after cultivation ceased. The
released rats all entered burrows within the disturbed area.”
Another case of the ability for SKR to quickly inhabit agricultural
fields is illustrated by the Domenigoni family’s experience with
SKR occupying a fallow field of more than 800 acres within one to
two years of cessation of cultivation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service restricted the Domenigoni family from farming this property
until November 1993, immediately after the devastating California
Fire. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service biologist John Bradley stated
SKR had left the field prior to the fire because of the overgrowth
of brush and litter, which was a direct result of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service restriction on clearing or cultivation.
SKR has also been shown to inhabit grain fields during the crop
year. The Domenigoni family also leases property where they were
restricted in their cultivation activity on a field that had been
harvested only five months earlier. The Domenigoni family was
ordered to stop their farming activity because of the presence of
SKR within the active grain field.
Statements that SKR were found in abandoned vineyards and citrus
groves recently acquired by Riverside County Habitat Conservation
Agency have also shown the ability of SKR to inhabit more
intensively-farmed agricultural lands.
Encroachment by heavy, weedy undergrowth presents the greatest
threat to SKR as a direct result of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
restrictions on human activities such as agricultural practices and
firebreak clearing.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reference to a State Recreation Area
rodent control program as a threat to SKR disregarded the
opportunity, through government agency cooperation, to manage this
program to minimize risk to SKR through a diurnal treatment
schedule. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service statement suggests that
it was purely a guess.
Consultants’ observation of the unexplained disappearance of SKR
sign and the unsupported hypothesis that this was a result of
rodenticides is unsupported, appears on the face of it to be merely
a guess, has been shown to be incorrect, and appears to be a weak
attempt to convey an over-exaggerated threat to the species.
Subsequent research shows the SKR to be dynamic in its habitat
utilization, and disappearance of SKR sign without other supporting
evidence is inconclusive.
Urban
growth patterns
The proposed rule presumed that rapid urbanization in the range has
resulted in elimination of entire populations of SKR. However, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has failed to show linkage or prove
fragmentation. Despite the rapid urbanization, SKR managed to
survive and thrive in elongated patches and supporting dirt roads,
and they have generally managed to have gene flow over hundreds of
generations and years of this supposed isolation since the presence
of agricultural development occurred before the turn of the century.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service greatly overstated development
pressure in the Lake Mathews area when it argued that SKR is likely
to be extirpated from the entire area because of planned housing and
agricultural development except for the 2,500 acres in the Lake
Mathews ecological preserve. In fact, there has been an expansion of
SKR and new discoveries of occupied habitat in that area.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service concern about infrastructure
development is disproven by the experience with the Devers-Serrano
power line right-of-way, where populations increased around
disturbed areas, and by research by O’Farrell and others showing
linear characteristics of SKR populations throughout history.
The proposed rule made several incorrect assumptions regarding loss
of populations. It wrongly assumed that, because 78 percent of the
sites where SKR had previously been found were now zoned for
“incompatible uses,” 78 percent of the SKR population would be
eliminated. This assumption ignored the fluid characteristic of SKR
habitat occupation. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assumptions about
compatible uses have been disproven.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided no explanation or definition
of compatible and incompatible zoning in the proposed rule.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assumption that zoning can be
changed is an inconclusive proposition. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service always says protective zoning is not a strong enough
indicator of protection of species. By the same argument, land use
agencies have been known to “down-zone” lands in sensitive
areas, providing increased protection of species.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service only cited zoning in Riverside County
to support listing even though approximately 50% of the SKR
populations (RCHCA short-term 10(a) EIR) were already protected.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service statement that Riverside
County’s open space zoning is not adequate is unsupported. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service incorrectly assumed that all human
activities are incompatible with SKR when it stated that “only a
small fraction of the involved land is currently zoned for uses
compatible with the k-rat.”
Conclusions
Petitioner disputes the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service contention
that it assessed the best scientific and commercial information
available, when in fact U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service omitted
numerous specific examples of favorable information, information
that subsequently appeared in files made available to petitioner in
response to a Freedom of Information Act request, (Friesen, TMC, and
O’Farrell, Warner Ranch, and solar facility.)
Petitioner disputes the legitimacy of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service decision to list SKR as endangered, based on “phonecon
notes” of Karla Kramer, principal author of the proposed rule, and
Ron Novak of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service office of Endangered
Species, in which the two persons casually and individually made an
arbitrary and unsupported decision to list SKR as endangered rather
than threatened.
Petitioner disputes U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assumption that
all human activity is detrimental to SKR, when in fact various human
activities have been well documented to be beneficial or to have
negligible effects on SKR. These activities include grazing,
off-road vehicle use, certain agricultural practices including
disking, and some rural development. By assuming all human activity
is detrimental, without defining the type of human activity, U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service has overstated the threat to SKR,
inaccurately analyzed the history of SKR habitat and failed to
demonstrate that SKR population is significantly declining; in fact,
restrictions on human activity imposed by U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service have contributed to a decline in suitable habitat.
Petitioner disputes U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assumptions about
the extent of development activity and the threat which development
poses, when U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has disregarded important
portions of scientific information available to it and has failed to
correctly analyze the impacts of human activity.
Petitioner disputes U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reasons for not
determining critical habitat for SKR, where the issues outlined by
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have been refuted as not being
significant threats. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service assumed land
owner disking would extirpate SKR, when in fact disking has been
shown to maintain suitable habitat against coastal sage scrub
encroachment and to encourage population expansion. No land owners
with SKR-occupied habitat were notified of SKR presence until after
suspected Section 9 violations. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
accepted as fact an unproven hypothesis that rodenticide use was
responsible for disappearance of SKR sign in certain areas while
disregarding known facts about the dynamics of SKR habitat use and
migration.
Petitioner disputes that U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has adhered
to the Endangered Species Act, because U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service has failed to initiate a species recovery plan for SKR.
Petitioner finds that information developed since the original
listing shows there were gross errors on the part of the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in underestimating the population, range, and
persistence of the species.
Petitioner further finds that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
erred in exaggerating the threats to the species’ existence.
Because of the evidence presented herein, Riverside County Farm
Bureau, Inc., submits this petition to delist the Stephens’
kangaroo rat under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 and its
amendments.
By authorization of the Board of Directors:
Robert Eli Perkins
Executive Manager
Secretary
Riverside County Farm Bureau, Inc.
April 26, 1995
|
