Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sage Grouse topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Mono County renews support for 2025 Bi‑State sage‑grouse action plan after update
Summary
Mono County supervisors heard an update on the Bi‑State Sage Grouse 2025 Action Plan and voted unanimously to renew the county's commitment to participate in implementation and Local Area Working Group activities. Presenters highlighted multi‑decade monitoring and $45 million in partner investments since 2012.
Wendy Sugimura, Mono County community development staff, and Tracy, the Bi‑State coordinator, told the Board the updated 2025 Bi‑State Sage Grouse Action Plan keeps the adaptive, science‑based priorities of earlier plans while adding broader ecosystem actions and more stakeholder input.
The presenters summarized two population management units in Mono County (Bodie Hills and South Mono/Long Valley), recounted that partners committed roughly $45 million in 2014 to implement the 2012 plan, and said monitoring and on‑the‑ground work have produced measurable results. “The combined impacts of conservation actions on sage grouse over time are positive,” Tracy said, citing a modeled 4.4% annual increase in abundance that the group links to targeted habitat work.
The draft 2025 plan extends collaboration across federal, state, local and tribal agencies, landowners and nonprofits and lists actions that specifically involve Mono County: incorporating sage‑grouse guidance into applicable county policies and plans, coordinating on development siting and mitigation near Parker Meadows and Long Valley, and working with LADWP and Caltrans on habitat‑sensitive infrastructure and recreation management. Presenters emphasized adaptive monitoring, conifer removal and private‑land easements among successful strategies implemented locally.
Supervisors asked for clarification about staff time and budgets; Wendy Sugimura said much of the county's work has been folded into routine permitting and CEQA practice and estimated Mono County staff time directly attributable to the Bi‑State effort at under 50 hours per year for the department, with periodic additional time for plan updates. Sherry (Bi‑State/agency partner) described federal and NRCS funding streams and county partner contributions.
Action and next step: Supervisor (Speaker 10) moved and Supervisor (Speaker 9) seconded a motion to renew Mono County's commitment to implement the 2025 Bi‑State Action Plan and participate in the Local Area Working Group, technical advisory and executive oversight committees. The motion passed unanimously (5–0). The Board requested continued updates and to be consulted on actions that have county implications.
What happens next: Staff will continue to coordinate with Bi‑State partners on plan implementation and identify county impacts of any future management actions. The Board will receive further briefings as the action plan proceeds to finalization.
