U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Draft

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

and Environmental Assessment

June 2004

Kern and Pixley

National Wildlife Refuges
CCPs provide long term guidance for management decisions and set forth goals, objectives, and strategies needed to 

accomplish refuge purposes and identify the Service’s best estimate of future needs. These plans detail program 

planning levels that are sometimes substantially above current budget allocations and, as such, are primarily for 

Service strategic planning and program prioritization purposes. The plans do not constitute a commitment for 

staffing increases, operational and maintenance increases, or funding for future land acquisition. 
Kern and Pixley

National Wildlife Refuges

Comprehensive Conservation Plan

Prepared by:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Region 1

California/Nevada Refuge Planning Office

2800 Cottage Way, W-1916

Sacramento, CA 95825

Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex

10811 Corcoran Road

Delano, CA 93215

Approved: ____________________________________________ Date: _____________________________

 California Nevada Operations Manager

Implementation of this Comprehensive Conservation Plan and alternative management actions/programs have been

assessed consistent with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 USC 4321 et seq.).

Table of Contents 

Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................... 1

Refuge Overview...........................................................................................2

Special Designations ....................................................................................7

Partnerships..................................................................................................7

Management History ...................................................................................9

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals............................11

Other Landscape-Level Goals ..................................................................11

Refuge Purposes.........................................................................................12

Refuge Vision Statements.........................................................................12

Legal and Policy Guidance........................................................................13

Chapter 2. Planning Process ................................................................... 17

Planning Process, Planning Time Frame, and Future Revision .........17

Planning Issues...........................................................................................18

Chapter 3. Refuge and Resource Descriptions .................................... 21

Geographic and Ecological Setting ..........................................................21

Soils...............................................................................................................23

Water............................................................................................................26

Air Quality ...................................................................................................30

Plant Communities.....................................................................................31

Wildlife .........................................................................................................39

Special Status Species................................................................................44

Diseases and Toxins ...................................................................................56

Cultural Resources.....................................................................................58

Visitor Services ...........................................................................................61

Socioeconomics............................................................................................65

Chapter 4. Problems and Opportunities................................................. 69

Historic Habitat Destruction and Modification......................................69

Nonnative Plant Species............................................................................69

Contaminants ..............................................................................................70

Water Supply ..............................................................................................71

Lack of Information ...................................................................................72

Chapter 5. Refuge Management Direction: Goals Objectives and 

Strategies ..................................................................................................... 75

Kern Refuge ................................................................................................75

Pixley Refuge ..............................................................................................92

Chapter 6. Plan Implementation............................................................ 101

Funding and Staffing ...............................................................................101

Step-Down Management Plans ..............................................................102

Compliance Requirements ......................................................................102

Partnership Opportunities ......................................................................103

Adaptive Management.............................................................................103

Plan Amendment and Revision ..............................................................103
Figures

Figure 1. Watershed / Ecosystem Setting.................................................... 3 

Figure 2. Location Map ................................................................................... 4 

Figure 3. Land Status - Kern National Wildlife Refuge............................. 5 

Figure 4. Land Status - Pixley National Wildlife Refuge........................... 8 

Figure 5. Comprehensive Conservation Planning Process ...................... 17 

Figure 6. Map of the Southern San Joaquin Valley by Lieut. G. H. 

Derby, 1850......................................................................................... 22 

Figure 7. Regional Land Cover.................................................................... 24 

Figure 8. Land Cover - Kern National Wildlife Refuge ........................... 33 

Figure 9. Land Cover - Pixley National Wildlife Refuge ......................... 37 

Figure 10. Existing Public Use Facilities ................................................... 60 

Figure 11. Average Annual Duck Harvest per Hunter Visit: 1995 

to 2002 ................................................................................................. 64 

Figure 12. Proposed Habitat Management - Kern Refuge...................... 76 

Figure 13. Proposed Visitor Services Plan - Kern Refuge....................... 77 

Figure 14. Proposed Habitat Management and Visitor Services Plans - 

Pixley Refuge ..................................................................................... 78 

Tables

Table 1. Proposed New Step-Down Plans ............................................... 102 

Appendices

Appendix A. Environmental Assessment 

Appendix B. Wilderness Review 

Appendix C. Landscape Level Goals 

Appendix D. Compatibility Determinations 

Appendix E. Species Lists 

Appendix F. Budget Proposal 

Appendix G. References 

Appendix H. Glossary 

Appendix I. List of Preparers 

Appendix J. Updated Land Protection Plan: Pixley Refuge 

Appendix K. Fire Management Plan 

ii
Chapter 1. Introduction 

This document is a Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) designed to 

guide management at Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex (Refuge 

Complex) for the next 15 years. This Refuge Complex has two refuges, 

the Kern National Wildlife Refuge (Kern Refuge) and the Pixley 

National Wildlife Refuge (Pixley Refuge). The purposes of this CCP are: 

 To provide a clear statement of direction for the future management 

of Kern and Pixley Refuges (Refuges); 

 To provide long-term continuity in Refuge Complex management; 

 To communicate the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (Service) 

management priorities for the Refuges to their neighbors, visitors, 

and the general public; 

 To provide an opportunity for the public to help shape the future 

management of the Refuges; 

 To ensure that management programs on the Refuges are consistent 

with the mandates of the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge 

System) and the purposes for which the Refuges were established; 

 To ensure that the management of the Refuges is consistent with 

Federal, State, and local plans; and 

 To provide a basis for budget requests to support the Refuge’s needs 

for staffing, operations, maintenance, and capital improvements. 

This CCP describes the desired future conditions and provides longrange guidance to accomplish the purposes for which the Refuges were 

established. The CCP and environmental assessment (EA) address 

Service legal mandates, policies, goals, and National Environmental 

Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. A range of administrative, habitat 

management and visitor services alternatives that consider issues and 

opportunities on the Refuges are presented in the accompanying EA 

(Appendix A). The Service’s initial proposal for future management of 

the Refuges is presented in this document. The final CCP will be 

developed through modifications made during the internal and public 

review processes. 

Northern pintail. Dave Menke photo. 
Chapter 1 

2 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

Major issues to be addressed during the CCP process include: habitat 

protection and enhancement; endangered species management; wetland 

restoration and management; nonnative vegetation control; visitor 

services management including hunting, wildlife observation, 

photography, interpretation and environmental education, and 

recreation; visitor services facilities; law enforcement; and visitor 

services compatibility. 

As a management tool for the Refuge Complex staff to use, this CCP 

would guide management decisions, and describe strategies for 

achieving Refuge goals and objectives within its 15-year life. The CCP is 

divided into six chapters: Chapter 1, Introduction; Chapter 2, Planning 

Process; Chapter 3, Refuge and Resources Descriptions; Chapter 4, 

Problems and Opportunities; Chapter 5, Refuge Management Direction: 

Goals, Objectives and Strategies; and Chapter 6, Plan Implementation. 

Refuge Overview

Introduction to Kern and Pixley Refuges 

Kern and Pixley Refuges are part of a network of 15 national wildlife 

refuges and wildlife management areas in California’s Central Valley 

and San Francisco Bay region that provide wintering habitat for 

migratory waterfowl and other waterbirds in the Pacific Flyway (Figure 

1). The Refuges are located in the southern end of California’s San 

Joaquin Valley (Figure 2). Chapter 4 presents a detailed description of 

the natural resources on Kern and Pixley Refuges. 

Refuge Establishment and Acquisition History 

Kern Refuge. When the area and number of wetlands and private duck 

clubs decreased during the 1930s and 1940s, Kern County sportsmen 

became alarmed. During this same time, the Service was actively 

pursuing suitable land for establishing wildlife refuges in Kern, Kings, 

and Tulare Counties. In 1957, the Service began negotiating with the 

Allison Honer Company for the purchase of 16 sections of land in 

northwest Kern County. 

On March 11, 1958, the Migratory Bird Conservation Commission, under 

the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, approved the 

purchase of lands to create the Mariposa National Wildlife Refuge, 

known today as the Kern National Wildlife Refuge. 

On November 18, 1960, the Service purchased 10,544 acres from the 

Allison Honer Company. On September 16, 1963, an additional 74 acres 

were purchased from Miller and Lux. to obtain the remaining acreage 

within the approved and current 10,618-acre Kern Refuge boundary 

(Figure 3). 

Justification for establishing the Kern Refuge included: 

 Construction of Lake Isabella Reservoir reduced the areas available 

for waterfowl use in this ancestral wintering ground of the birds of the 

Pacific Flyway. 
Introduction 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 3

Figure 1. Watershed / Ecosystem Setting 

Kern National

Wildlife Refuge

Fresno

San Diego

Sacramento

Los Angeles

San Francisco

Pixley National

Wildlife Refuge

Redding

Bakersfield

Modesto

tu101

tu101

|}ÿ99

§ ̈¦5

§ ̈¦80

§ ̈¦580

|}ÿ99

§ ̈¦5

Oregon

N

e

v

a

d

a

C

a

l

i

f

o

r

n

i

a

P

a

c

i

f

i

c

O

c

e

a

n

SACRAMENTO

RIVER NWR

SAN LUIS

NWR

BITTER

CREEK

NWR

STONE

LAKES

NWR

SAN

PABLO

BAY

NWR

DON EDWARDS

SAN FRANCISCO

BAY NWR

SACRAMENTO

NWR

MODOC

NWR

SUTTER

NWR

BLUE

RIDGE

NWR

MARIN

ISLANDS

NWR

ANTIOCH

DUNES

NWR

SAN JOAQUIN

RIVER NWR

BUTTE SINK

WMA

DELEVAN

NWR

COLUSA

NWR

MERCED

NWR

GRASSLANDS

WMA

NORTH CENTRAL VALLEY

WMA

WILLOW CREEKLURLINE WMA

CA/NV Refuge Planning Office - Feb 2004

Pacific

Flyway

Area

Enlarged

Figure 1. Watershed / Ecosystem Setting

50 0 50 25

Miles

I

National Wildlife Refuges

Kern and Pixley

Tulare Lake Watershed

Central Valley-San Francisco Bay Ecoregion
Chapter 1 

4 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 2. Location Map 
Introduction 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 5

Figure 3. Land Status: Kern National Wildlife Refuge 
Chapter 1 

6 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

 Agricultural and other development have reduced waterfowl wintering 

habitat (feeding and resting areas) until the lack of such habitat has 

become the principal limiting factor in the maintenance of the 

waterfowl resource in the Pacific Flyway. It is essential that 

additional habitat be provided for the maintenance of the resource. 

 The Kern site would obtain better distribution of the waterfowl 

throughout the wintering grounds, thereby alleviating the present 

trend toward increasingly heavy concentrations farther north. 

 Would provide opportunity for public hunting in the area. 

 Establishing and developing the refuge would replace part of the 

waterfowl habitat lost to agricultural and other development in a 

region formerly used heavily by migrating and wintering birds.

Restoring this habitat would attract and hold large numbers of 

waterfowl, thereby improving hunting opportunities in the general 

area and, by obtaining wider distribution of the wintering population, 

reduce waterfowl depredations to crops in the lower San Joaquin 

Valley (MBCC 1958, Service 1961). 

A number of entities hold easements on portions of Kern Refuge. Kern 

County was granted 30-foot wide easements on the east, west, and south 

boundaries for public roads. There are also two 10-foot wide gas pipeline 

easements, a 25-foot wide electric power line easement, and a 15,000 

square-foot easement for a gas dehydration station. A perpetual water 

distribution easement on the Goose Lake Canal may now be terminated. 

The Service claims that a five-year period of non-use reverts control of 

the four-mile stretch to the Refuge. This claim has yet to be legally 

determined.

Pixley Refuge. In the 1920s and 1930s, title to large areas of former 

homestead tracks near Pixley, California reverted to the United States 

government. These lands, which were considered marginal for farming, 

were administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

under the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act. 

On November 6, 1958, Executive Order 10787 transferred more than two 

million acres of USDA lands, including approximately 4,350 acres in 

Tulare County, to the U.S. Department of Interior. On November 17, 

1959, the land in Tulare County was transferred to the Service under the 

Secretary of the Interior Order 2843. This action created Pixley Refuge, 

which was to be administered under the Migratory Bird Conservation 

Act for migratory birds and other wildlife. 

From 1964 through 1966, the under the authority of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act, the Service exchanged approximately 607 acres of 

land at Pixley Refuge for approximately 410 acres of land. This action 

was done primarily to acquire inholdings within the Refuge boundary. 

On January 7, 1980, under the authority of the Endangered Species Act 

of 1973, the Service Director approved an expanded boundary for Pixley 

Refuge. This action identified approximately 4,600 acres of land that 

could be acquired for the protection of the endangered blunt-nosed 

leopard lizard. The Refuge boundary was expanded again in the 1985 
Introduction 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 7

Master Plan. The current approved refuge boundary contains 

approximately 10,300 acres, of which the Service owns approximately 

6,385 acres in fee; and 4.5 acres are under easement with a private 

landowner for access purposes (Figure 4). The remaining 3,911 acres 

are privately owned. 

Many of the 27 parcels that the Service owns at Pixley Refuge have 

easements, rights-of-way, and outstanding mineral rights held by other 

entities. The most significant of these are the access easements to the 

Deer Creek Channel and County Road 88, which run through the 

Refuge.

Special Designations. In 1974, the San Joaquin Desert Research 

Natural Area (RNA) was established at Kern Refuge to preserve 2,260 

acres of native upland. The RNA originally included all Refuge lands 

west of Goose Lake Canal in units 11 and 12 and the northern third of 

unit 14. In 1995, the northern third of unit 14 was removed from the 

RNA and unit 10 was added. In accordance with the Service’s refuge 

planning policy, a wilderness review of Kern and Pixley Refuges was 

conducted during the CCP process (see Appendix B). Neither refuge 

was found suitable for wilderness designation. 

Partnerships. Partnerships with various organizations and agencies 

have greatly expanded opportunities for both Kern and Pixley Refuges 

to achieve goals and objectives by implementing habitat improvement, 

biological monitoring, and public use projects. Both Ducks Unlimited 

and California Waterfowl Association have secured and implemented 

grants for habitat improvement projects on Kern Refuge that essentially 

doubled the quantity of moist soil habitat and significantly improved 

water management capabilities throughout the Refuge. Agreements 

with the Endangered Species Recovery Program operating from 

California State University Stanislaus permit their biologists to monitor 

refuge populations of endangered species, greatly supplementing the 

data gathering efforts of Refuge staff.

Tulare County Audubon (TCA) obtained a matching fund grant from the 

National Fish and Wildlife Foundation to construct a self-guided 

interpretive trail on Pixley Refuge. The Service then funded an 

observation platform that was constructed at the terminus of the trail 

primarily with volunteer labor provided by TCA members. This was the 

first time that any portion of Pixley Refuge has been open to 

unsupervised use by the public. 

The longest standing cooperative association for the Refuge Complex is 

with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Operating 

continuously since 1973 through this agreement, the public hunting 

program on Kern Refuge is administered by the CDFG. In addition to 

the hunt program, CDFG also works cooperatively with the Service to 

monitor and when necessary, manage waterfowl disease outbreaks in the 

southern San Joaquin Valley. 

Without the cooperative efforts of these and other organizations and 

agencies, the scope and depth of Refuge programs would be significantly 

reduced.
Chapter 1 

8 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 4. Land Status: Pixley National Wildlife Refuge
Introduction 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 9

Management History

Kern Refuge 

Prior to establishment of Kern Refuge, much of the land that is now part 

of units 13 and 14 were actively farmed by the Allison Horner Company 

for a variety of small grain crops. To allow for cultivation of these fields, 

much of the area was partially leveled and numerous levees and canals 

were constructed throughout the area to facilitate water distribution and 

drainage. Approximately 1,400 acres west of Goose Lake Canal were 

manipulated in this way. 

Historic management of the area east of Goose Lake Canal consisted 

primarily of grazing by both cattle and sheep. While this area did not 

consistently contain wetlands, the area was characterized by uplands 

that supported perennial grasses and scrub vegetation interspersed with 

swales that contained water during years of normal or higher 

precipitation. 

Early development of the Refuge focused primarily on the area east of 

Goose Lake Canal with an emphasis on creating wetlands. This included 

drilling 10 deep water wells, construction or renovation of 35 miles of 

levees, excavation of 7 miles of water distribution ditches, and placement 

of numerous water control structures. Additionally, an extensive system 

of levee supported roads was developed and used for water management, 

public access, and all weather access to critical areas of the Refuge. 

While much of the developed area consisted of seasonal marsh, 

approximately 1,200 acres within units 4, 5, and 6 were leveled to allow 

maximum use of the limited water supplies available to the Refuge, and 

managed as moist soil units. 

During the initial development of the Refuge, water to support the newly 

developed wetlands was to be supplied from wells drilled on the east half 

of the Refuge. When this source became cost prohibitive and the well 

output was insufficient to meet Refuge needs, the purchase of surface 

water was pursued. Due to Refuge budget constraints, water sufficient 

to flood only approximately 2,500 acres, was normally available. The 

passage of the Central Valley Project Improvement Act in 1992 provided 

the Refuge with a more reliable and abundant water supply. Now that 

full development (Level 4) water supplies are being obtained by the 

Bureau of Reclamation, approximately 6,400 acres of wetlands can be 

flooded and maintained on the Refuge. For a more detailed description 

of water development and management on Kern Refuge see the Water 

section in Chapter 3 (page 26). 

This dramatic increase in water availability has changed the overall 

management and appearance of the Refuge. The Service now manages a 

greater quantity and variety of wetland habitats on the Refuge 

including: summer water for colonial nesting species such as great blue 

herons and white-faced ibis; late summer waterfowl habitat for early 

migrant ducks; greatly expanded opportunities to provide moist soil 

habitat; and greater flexibility in irrigation schedules of marsh 

vegetation.
Chapter 1 

10 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

Pixley Refuge 

Historic records indicate that the western portion of the Pixley Refuge 

had been extensively cultivated while the eastern areas were used 

primarily as grazing land. For some undocumented reason, possibly 

increased soil salinity, farming on the lands that eventually became the 

Refuge was abandoned. At the time of Refuge establishment, no 

farming was being conducted. Areas in the Center Field Unit still show 

evidence of cultivation and the existence of irrigation or drainage ditches 

and small reservoirs.

Beginning in 1963 and continuing into the following year, initial 

development of the Refuge included the creation of a series of wetland 

impoundments in Sections 19, 20 and 21 that totaled 797 acres. In an 

effort to supply the water needs of the Refuge, an irrigation well was 

drilled in 1962 but failed to produce the necessary quantity of water. 

With inadequate wells, water supplies for the Refuge were limited to 

seasonal runoff from the Deer Creek watershed and were only available 

in years of high precipitation and normally occurred late in the winter or 

early spring. Due to this sporadic nature of the wetlands on the Refuge, 

only limited use of the area by waterfowl occurred until development of a 

high production water well in 1992. 

With the advent of a reliable well, active management of approximately 

one-half of the wetlands began in earnest when a moist soil management 

program was initiated in 1992. The response by waterfowl and 

waterbirds to the availability of wetlands in the Tulare Lake basin was 

excellent.

During the initial acquisition of lands for the Pixley Refuge, 

approximately 3,180 acres of uplands were acquired. With passage of 

the Endangered Species Act in 1973, management of these uplands for 

the benefit of listed species, took on additional importance. Between 

1981 and 1994, an additional 2,230 acres of uplands were acquired for the 

management of threatened and endangered species. 

Blunt-nosed leopard lizard. Fish & Wildlife Service photo. 
Introduction 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 11

In an effort to improve the annual grasslands on the Refuge for the 

benefit of the listed species present, a closely monitored grazing 

program utilizing cattle supplied by Refuge permittees was initiated. To 

facilitate this program, a stock water well was drilled in the Center Field 

Unit in 1972. This is the only active program currently in place to 

effectively manage the uplands of the Refuge. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission and Goals

Established in 1903 by President Theodore Roosevelt, the 94-millionacre Refuge System now includes over 540 National Wildlife Refuges, 

thousands of small wetlands, and other special management areas in 50 

states and several territories. Most National Wildlife Refuges are 

strategically located along the major bird migration corridors, 

ensuring that ducks, geese, and songbirds have rest stops on their 

annual migrations. Many refuges were established to protect 

endangered or threatened species or key sensitive habitats, such as 

offshore nesting seabird colonies. 

The mission of the Refuge System is to administer a national network 

of lands and waters for the conservation, management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the fish, wildlife, and plant resources and 

their habitats within the United States for the benefit of present and 

future generations of Americans (National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997).

The goals of the Refuge System are: 

 To preserve, restore, and enhance in their natural ecosystems (when 

practicable) all species of animals and plants that are endangered or 

threatened with becoming endangered; 

 To perpetuate the migratory bird resource; 

 To preserve a natural diversity and abundance of fauna and flora on 

refuge lands; 

 To provide an understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife 

ecology and the human’s role in the environment; and 

 To provide refuge visitors with high-quality, safe, wholesome, and 

enjoyable wildlife-oriented recreational experiences, to the extent that 

these activities are compatible with the purposes for which the refuge 

was established. 

Other Landscape-Level Goals 

Several different landscape-level plans and programs have goals that are 

applicable to Kern and Pixley Refuges, including: 

 CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program; 

 Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture Implementation Plan; 

 Riparian Bird Conservation Plan (California Partners in Flight and 

the Riparian Habitat Joint Venture); 

 Pacific Flyway Management Plan: Western Management Unit 

Mourning Dove; 

 Southern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Plan; 

 Kern County General Plan; 

 Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, 

California; and 

Refuge System Mission: 

“ . . . to administer a national 

network of lands and waters 

for the conservation, 

management, and where 

appropriate, restoration of the 

fish, wildlife, and plant 

resources and their habitats 

within the United States for 

the benefit of present and 

future generations of 

Americans” 
Chapter 1 

12 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

 Service/California Department of Fish and Game Tricolored 

Blackbird Status Update and Management Guidelines. 

The relevant goals from each of these plans are listed in Appendix C. 

Refuge Purposes 

The Service acquires Refuge System lands under a variety of legislative 

acts and administrative orders. The transfer and acquisition authorities, 

used to obtain the lands, usually have one or more purposes for which 

land can be transferred or acquired. These purposes, along with the 

Refuge System mission, form the basis from which and the standard by 

which the Service determines if refuge uses are compatible. 

Kern Refuge was established under the authority of the Migratory Bird 

Conservation Act for use “. . . as an inviolate sanctuary, or for any other 

management purpose, for migratory birds” (16 U.S.C. § 715d). 

Pixley Refuge was established to provide wintering habitat for 

migratory birds and protect habitat for the endangered blunt-nosed 

leopard lizard. The authorities and corresponding purposes for which 

Pixley Refuge was established are: (1) Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant 

Act “. . . a land-conservation and land-utilization program . . .” 7 U.S.C. § 

1011; (2) Secretarial Order 2843, dated Nov. 17, 1959 “. . . for migratory 

birds and other wildlife . . .”; and (3) Endangered Species Act of 1973 

“. . . to conserve (A) fish or wildlife which are listed as endangered 

species or threatened species . . . or (B) plants . . .” 16 U.S.C. § 1534. 

Refuge Vision Statements 

A vision statement is a concise statement of what a refuge should be, 

based primarily on the Refuge System mission, specific refuge purposes, 

and other mandates. A vision statement helps articulate the direction 

the refuge should be heading. Vision statements for Kern and Pixley 

Refuges follow: 

Kern Refuge 

Kern Refuge is representative of a once extensive complex of native 

wetlands and uplands and currently is the largest wetland complex 

managed for wildlife in the southern San Joaquin Valley. With a secure 

water supply, Kern Refuge will provide reliable, high-quality wetland 

habitat to meet the needs of wintering and migrating waterfowl and 

waterbirds. The Refuge’s riparian corridors and seasonal wetlands will 

support a rich diversity of migratory songbirds, colonial nesting species, 

and raptors. Remnant valley-floor uplands will be preserved and 

restored for native plant and animal species. These uplands will support 

populations of threatened and endangered species including the bluntnosed leopard lizard, Tipton kangaroo rat, San Joaquin kit fox, and 

Buena Vista Lake shrew. To meet the demands of the rapidly growing 

population of the southern San Joaquin Valley and to accommodate more 

than 50,000 visitors annually, the Refuge will provide opportunities for 

high-quality wildlife-dependent visitor services, including hunting, 

wildlife observation, environmental education, and interpretation. These 

visitor services opportunities will increase the public’s understanding of 
Introduction 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 13

and appreciation for wildlife and the importance of conserving their 

habitat.

Pixley Refuge 

Pixley Refuge represents one of the few remaining examples of the 

grasslands, vernal pools, and playas that once bordered the historic 

Tulare Lake. Management of these diverse natural communities will 

focus on providing high-quality habitat for threatened and endangered 

species including the blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Tipton kangaroo rat, 

San Joaquin kit fox, and vernal pool fairy shrimp. Natural lands 

between the Refuges will be protected through conservation easements, 

partnerships, and willing-seller acquisition to provide linkage areas for 

these species. Managed wetlands and adjacent grasslands will provide 

high-quality habitat for wintering and migratory waterfowl and 

waterbirds, including sandhill cranes. Restored riparian corridors will 

support a rich diversity of migratory songbirds and raptors. Pixley 

Refuge will provide unique opportunities for compatible wildlifedependent visitor services which will increase the public’s understanding 

of and appreciation for wildlife and the importance of conserving wildlife 

habitat.

Legal and Policy Guidance 

Refuges are guided by the mission, goals, and purpose of the Refuge 

System, Service policy, legal mandates, international treaties, and refuge 

purposes. Key concepts in the laws, regulations, and policies that guide 

management of the Refuge System include primary versus multiple-use 

public lands, compatibility, and priority wildlife-dependent recreational 

activities. Examples of relevant guidance include the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, as amended by the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 (Improvement Act), 

Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, Executive Order 12996 (Management 

and General Public Use of the National Wildlife Refuge System), and 

selected portions of the Code of Federal Regulations and the Service 

Manual.

The Refuge Recreation Act, as amended, authorized the Secretary of the 

Interior to administer refuges, hatcheries, and other conservation areas 

for recreational use when such uses did not interfere with the area’s 

primary purpose. The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration 

Act of 1966, as amended, provides guidelines and directives for the 

administration and management of all areas in the Refuge System, for 

the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife threatened with 

extinction, wildlife ranges, game ranges, wildlife management areas, and 

waterfowl production areas. Use of any area within the Refuge System 

was permitted, provided that such uses were compatible with the major 

purposes for which such areas were established. 

Executive Order 12996 (March 23, 1996) identified a new mission 

statement for the Refuge System; established six priority public uses 

(hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography, environmental 

education and interpretation); emphasized conservation and 

enhancement of the quality and diversity of fish and wildlife habitat; 

stressed the importance of partnerships with Federal and state agencies, 

tribes, organizations, industry, and the general public; mandated public 
Chapter 1 

14 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

involvement in decisions on the acquisition and management of refuges; 

and required identification, prior to acquisition of new refuge lands, of 

existing compatible wildlife-dependent uses that would be permitted to 

continue on an interim basis pending completion of comprehensive 

planning.

The Improvement Act defined a unifying mission for the Refuge System; 

established the legitimacy and appropriateness of the six priority visitor 

services; established a formal process for determining compatibility; 

established the responsibilities of the Secretary of the Interior for 

managing and protecting the Refuge System; and required a CCP for 

each refuge by the year 2012. The Improvement Act amended portions 

of the Refuge Recreation Act and National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act of 1966. 

Unlike other Federal lands, which are managed under a multiple-use 

mandate (e.g., national forests administered by the Forest Service and 

public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management), the 

Refuge System is managed specifically for the benefit of fish, wildlife, 

and plant resources and their habitats. Compatible wildlife-dependent 

recreation is a legitimate and appropriate general visitor service of the 

Refuge System. Wildlife-dependent public uses include hunting, fishing, 

wildlife observation and photography, and environmental education and 

interpretation are priority visitor services of the Refuge System. These 

uses must receive enhanced consideration over other visitor services in 

refuge planning and management. 

Before any uses, including wildlife-dependent recreational activities, are 

allowed on a refuge, Federal law requires that they be formally 

determined to be “compatible.” A compatible use is defined as a use 

that, in the sound professional judgment of the refuge manager, would 

not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment of the 

Refuge System mission or the refuge purposes. Sound professional 

judgment is defined as a finding, determination, or decision that is 

consistent with: the principles of sound fish and wildlife management and 

administration, available science and resources (funding, personnel, 

facilities, and other infrastructure), and applicable laws. If financial 

resources were not available to design, operate, and maintain an activity, 

the refuge manager would take reasonable steps to obtain assistance 

from the state and other conservation interests. 

The Service has completed draft compatibility determinations for the 

Refuges (Appendix D). Five of the six priority wildlife-dependent 

recreational activities were determined to be compatible for the Kern 

Refuge: hunting, wildlife observation, wildlife photography, 

environmental interpretation, and environmental education. Four of the 

six priority wildlife-dependent recreational activities were determined to 

be compatible for Pixley Refuge: wildlife observation, wildlife 

photography, environmental interpretation, and environmental 

education. Fishing was not evaluated at either Refuge due to the lack of 

fishing opportunities. Hunting was not evaluated at Pixley for two 

primary reasons. First, the Refuge’s wetland unit is too small to manage 

as a hunt area. It would require a disproportionate amount of staff time 

and resources for the small number of hunters potentially 
Introduction 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 15

accommodated. Second, Pixley Refuge is an important wintering area 

for sandhill cranes. The cranes are sensitive to disturbance and would 

likely stop using the Refuge if hunting were allowed. 
Chapter 1 

16 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 17 

Chapter 2. Planning Process

Planning Process, Planning Time Frame, and Future Revision

The first Planning Update for the Kern and Pixley Refuges CCP was 

distributed in August 1999. It announced public workshops held on 

August 30 and 31, 1999, to identify issues and concerns and described 

interim goals. In a Federal Register Notice dated August 16, 1999, the 

Service announced that it was preparing a CCP for Kern and Pixley 

Refuges. The second Planning Update, released in March 2000, 

described the issues, concerns, and opportunities identified at the public 

workshops, and the draft vision statements for the Refuges. The third 

Planning Update, released in March 2002, described the draft 

alternatives for managing Kern and Pixley Refuges. 

The development of this draft CCP was guided by the Refuge Planning 

Chapter of the Fish and Wildlife Service Manual (Part 602 FW2.1, 

November 1996). Key steps included: (1) preplanning; (2) identifying 

issues and developing a vision; (3) gathering information; (4) analyzing 

resource relationships; (5) developing alternatives and assessing 

environmental effects (see Appendix F for environmental assessment); 

(6) identifying a preferred alternative; and (7) publishing the draft CCP. 

The next steps in this process include soliciting public comments on the 

draft CCP, preparing the final CCP, obtaining approval from the 

California/Nevada Operations Manager, and finally, implementing the 

CCP.

Figure 5. CCP Process. 

Figure 5. CCP Process

Final

CCP

Prepare Draft

CCP

Develop

Alternative Objectives 

And Strategies 

Implement

CCP

And Monitor

Review and 

Revise the 

CCP

Public Scoping & 

Identify Issues 

Develop Vision 

Statement & 

Goals

Initiate Study

Preplanning

CCP

Process

Public

Input

Public

Input

Public

Input

Public

Input
Chapter 2 

18 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

Once finalized, this CCP will be annually reviewed by Refuge Complex 

staff while preparing work plans and updating the Refuge information 

management system database. It may also be reviewed during routine 

inspections or programmatic evaluations. Results of the reviews may 

indicate a need to modify the CCP. Monitoring objectives is an integral 

part of the CCP, and management activities may be modified if desired 

results are not achieved. If minor changes are required, the level of 

public involvement and associated NEPA documentation will be 

determined by the project leader. The CCP will be formally revised at 

least every 15 years. 

Planning Issues

Issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified through discussions 

with planning team members, key contacts, and through the public 

scoping process, which began with two public workshops in August 1999. 

Verbal and written comments were received at the meetings. The 

following issues, concerns, and opportunities are a compilation of 

information developed by the Service throughout the planning process. 

General

In general, commenters supported the Refuges and approved of the 

current management. Three people recommended that the CCP be 

coordinated with other conservation efforts in the region. One 

commenter suggested that Kern Refuge should be kept in its current 

condition. Another commenter stated that current water allocations 

should be maintained or increased if possible. 

Wildlife and Habitat Management 

The Service received a variety of comments relating to wildlife 

management. A few people commented on managing for specific species. 

For example, one commenter suggested that the Service replace chain 

link fencing with larger mesh to avoid a possible choking hazard to kit 

foxes. Another person suggested that Kern Refuge should emphasize 

management of tricolored blackbirds. 

Several people commented on existing management practices at the 

Refuges. Three commenters suggested that cattle grazing should be 

continued as a management tool on the Refuges. Four people suggested 

that vegetation in unit 1 should be better controlled to provide more 

open water habitat. Another person commented that the Refuges should 

ensure that vegetation management practices in the marsh are sensitive 

to migratory birds that use vegetation in the spring and summer. 

Other commenters suggested that the Service could adopt new wildlife 

management measures, including reintroducing large native game, or 

offering incentives to adjacent landowners to grow wildlife-friendly 

crops. Finally, one person suggested that the status and distribution 

information for all the natural resources on the Refuges should be 

updated.
Planning Process 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 19

Visitor services 

The Service received more comments on visitor services than any other 

category. These comments fall into three main categories: facilities and 

staffing; hunting; and nonconsumptive recreation. Under the first 

category (facilities and staffing), commenters suggested building more 

public restrooms at Kern Refuge, with Service staff on the Refuge at all 

times to prevent vandalism. Other commenters suggested that more 

parking lots be made available at Kern Refuge and that a parking lot 

should be constructed for visitors to Pixley Refuge. 

Comments on hunting were varied. Several commenters expressed 

support for the hunting program at Kern Refuge. Another commenter 

stated that hunting and trapping are not compatible with the Refuge 

purposes. Two people requested that more youth-hunt days be planned. 

Several people commented on the areas open to hunting at Kern Refuge. 

Comments ranged from increasing the hunting area at Kern Refuge to 

closing particular units. Other commenters suggested rotating the open 

and closed units. One person requested that Pixley Refuge be opened to 

hunting.

Several people commented on the reservation system. Some comments 

supported the existing system while others were opposed to it and 

suggested changes. One person suggested that the Kern Refuge offer 

three types of hunting passes: hunting from blinds, free roaming, and 

hunting from dikes. Four commenters requested that more hunters be 

accommodated on hunt days. 

A number of people suggested changes in the hunting regulations. Two 

commenters requested that the Service allow hunting on Sundays. One 

person suggested that hunters be allowed to start a half-hour or an hour 

earlier. Another person requested that the current 25-shell limit be 

maintained and that enforcement be increased. One commenter 

suggested that motion decoys be prohibited. Another person 

recommended that the Service adopt a blind limit of two adult hunters 

per blind. 

The Service received a variety of comments and ideas on 

nonconsumptive recreation. One person suggested that a birder’s board 

be established outside the new Refuge Complex office where birders 

could record their sightings. Two commenters suggested that the 

Service establish a second tour route at Kern Refuge that could be used 

by non-hunters on hunt days. Several comments addressed Pixley 

Refuge specifically. One commenter requested that a signed nature trail 

and viewing platform be developed at Pixley Refuge. Another person 

said the Service should address the liability issues of concurrent use by 

the public of areas where permittee livestock may interact with visitor 

services, such as birdwatching. 

Outreach/Environmental Education 

One commenter suggested that the Service produce an educational video 

about the Refuges and make a concerted effort to involve area schools. 

The same commenter suggested that the Service conduct a publicity 

campaign highlighting Refuge Complex restoration efforts and the 
Chapter 2 

20 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

resulting benefits. Finally, another person suggested that the Service 

put a Watchable Wildlife sign on Highway 99 to direct visitors to Pixley 

Refuge.

Acquisition

A number of commenters suggested that the Service expand the 

Refuges, to provide protected corridors between the Refuges and other 

conservation areas in the San Joaquin Valley. Another person suggested 

that the Service acquire lands at the boundaries of Kern Refuge to 

secure feeding habitat for tricolored blackbirds. Finally, another 

commenter recommended that the Service acquire the remaining private 

lands within the Pixley Refuge approved boundary.
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 21 

Chapter 3. Refuge and 

Resource Descriptions 

Geographic and Ecological Setting 

Geographic Setting 

The Refuge Complex is in the southern San Joaquin Valley (Valley) 

which is formed by the Sierra Nevada Mountains on the east and the 

Coastal Range on the west. Elevations in the Valley decrease toward the 

north and average 220 feet above mean sea level on the Refuge Complex. 

Historic and present drainage of the Valley and the Kern Complex is 

also toward the north. 

Kern Refuge, surrounded by agricultural lands and private duck clubs, 

represents the largest area (10,600 acres) managed for wildlife and 

plants in the southern portion of the Valley. Two major highways, 

Interstate 5 and Highway 99, run north and south through the Valley 

and are 20 miles to the east and 10 miles to the west of the Kern Refuge, 

respectively. One public road, Corcoran Road, borders the entire 

eastern edge of Kern Refuge. The closest town, Delano, is 20 miles to 

the east with a population of 22,800. Bakersfield is about 40 miles to the 

southeast and Fresno is 70 miles north of the Refuge. 

Pixley Refuge is surrounded by agricultural lands that support a 

growing dairy industry. Highway 99 is 9 miles to the east and Highway 

43 is 3 miles to the west; both run north and south and are connected by 

Avenue 56, which is approximately 2 miles south of the Pixley Refuge. 

The closest towns are Alpaugh, 8 miles to the west with a population of 

900, and Earlimart, 8 miles to the east with a population of 900. The 

Tulare, Visalia, and Hanford area, with a combined population of 138,000, 

is approximately 30 miles north of Pixley Refuge on State Highway 99. 

Historic Environment 

Geologic data and historic accounts describe the southern Valley as a 

vast sea that as recently as 100 years ago covered at least 800 square 

miles in Tulare, Kings, and Kern Counties (Howard 1979, PG&E 1970). 

Rivers and streams flowed from the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the 

east of the Valley creating lush wetlands, riparian corridors, and lake 

basins. Tulare Lake, the largest lake basin and lowest point in the 

Valley, served as an endpoint for this system. Outflow to the Pacific 

Ocean via the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the north, occurred in 

flood years (Figure 6). Despite being the driest portion of the Central 

Valley, the Tulare Basin historically contained the largest block of 

wetland habitat in California (about 260,000 acres of permanent wetlands 

and another 260,000 acres of seasonal wetlands) (CVHJV 1990). 

American settlement of the Tulare Lake Basin was spurred by 

development elsewhere in California, especially the increasing demand 

for food during the gold rush and the urbanization of San Francisco and 

the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta (Preston 1981). By the 1860s, the 

once isolated and self-sufficient Tulare Lake Basin provided agricultural 
Chapter 3 

22 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

crops to more urbanized areas in the State and was dependent on these 

areas for goods and services. 

Agriculture played the most significant role in transforming the 

southern Valley from one dependent on natural processes, rainfall, and 

snowmelt, to one dependent on water diversions and groundwater 

pumping for the production of crops. While this greatly benefited the 

small agricultural communities that formed throughout the Valley, as 

more and more native uplands, wetlands, rivers and streams were 

converted to agricultural production, there were adverse impacts to 

native wildlife (Preston 1981). The extent of Tulare Lake and the 

supporting marshlands, smaller lake basins to the south, and rivers and 

streams from the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east, were radically 

altered. By 1900, increased salinity and reduced water flows into the 

Figure 6. Map of the southern San Joaquin Valley by Lieut. G. H. Derby, 1850

Figure 6. Map of the southern San Joaquin Valley by Lieutenant G. H. Derby, 1850. Note: Tulare 

Lake is labeled Tache Lake on this map. 
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 23

Valley resulted in the demise of fisheries throughout the region as well 

as a large commercial fishing enterprise on Tulare Lake (Preston 1981). 

Today, the southern Valley is characterized by a patchwork of 

agricultural fields, orchards, and vineyards connected to, and dependent 

on, a network of water districts and water delivery canals (Figure 7). 

Native wetlands are virtually nonexistent because the water has been 

diverted for agricultural purposes. When flooding occurs, the historic 

lake basins, marshes, streams, and rivers, that were converted to 

agricultural lands, still carry the majority of the water through the 

Valley. However, sheet flooding across urban and upland areas is 

common. Riparian habitat was once common along streams and rivers in 

the Central Valley. Katibah (1984) estimates that 92 percent to 95 

percent of the Central Valley’s riparian habitat has been lost. Riparian 

habitat on the Kern Refuge represents four percent to five percent of the 

land area and less than one percent on the Pixley Refuge. Uplands are 

in noncontiguous blocks surrounded by agriculture. From 1976 to 1980, 

70 percent of habitat used by the endangered blunt-nosed leopard lizard 

had been lost to urbanization and agriculture (CDFG 2001). Other 

endangered species dependent on upland habitat such as the San 

Joaquin kit fox and Tipton kangaroo rat, have suffered similar losses. 

Range contraction, lack of upland habitat corridors, and competition with 

introduced species continue to adversely affect these animals. 

Today, the Refuges represent some of the largest blocks of contiguous 

uplands (Pixley Refuge) and managed wetlands (Kern Refuge) in the 

southern Valley. Resident, migratory, and threatened and endangered 

species as well as native plants continue to use these lands throughout 

the year. While some of these species are found on and use private 

property, their last stronghold in the southern Valley may be the 

Refuges.

Soils

Kern Refuge 

The five general soil types that have been mapped on the Kern Refuge 

include: Nahrub, partially drained-lethent complex (3,540 acres); 

Nahrub, drained-lethent complex (2,760 acres); Nahrub clay, drained 

(1,830 acres); Nahrub clay, partially drained (1,510 acres); and Garces 

silt loam (60 acres). When these soil types were mapped in 1982, 870 

acres of the Refuge were flooded, and therefore not mapped. The 

Nahrub and Lethent soils formed in alluvium from primarily granitic 

and sedimentary rock. Nahrub soils occur as deep deposits (depths to 61 

inches), with little to no surface slope, and poor drainage. They are 

composed of an upper layer of clay (0 to 34 inches) overlaying a lower 

layer of sandy loam, clay loam, and fine sandy loam. Lethent soils are 

also deep but are moderately well drained and are composed of a surface 

layer of silt loam (0 to 6 inches) over a clay layer up to 36 inches thick 

supported by loam to depths greater than 60 inches. Nahrub and 

Lethent soils are moderately to strongly saline-alkaline and may have 
Chapter 3 

24 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 7. Regional Land Cover
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 25

toxic levels of boron present in some areas. Permeability is very slow 

and water capacity is low. A seasonally high water table limits rooting 

depth to three to six feet in Nahrub soils; however, rooting depths in 

Lethent soils are greater than five feet. 

Garces silt loam is a deep (60 inches and greater) well-drained soil with 

little to no slope formed in alluvium derived from granitic rock. This soil 

is moderately to strongly saline-alkaline and may have toxic levels of 

boron present in some areas. While permeability is slow, rooting depths 

of greater than five feet are common. 

Suitability of the Nahrub-Lethent and Garces soils for farming and 

grazing is poor to marginal. Farming is limited by slow to very slow 

permeability, clay textures, perched water table, and saline-alkaline 

conditions. These conditions, as well as annual rainfall, limit grazing. 

Only the Nahrub clay, partially drained and Garces soils are identified as 

soil types capable of supporting grazing within local rainfall and salinealkaline constraints. 

The characteristics and constraints of the soil types found on Kern 

Refuge indicate that new roads, levees and wetland units should not be 

developed from local soils. Periodic maintenance on roads and levees 

that support the auto tour route and regular Kern Refuge operations, 

incorporate suitable base material and surface aggregate from off-site. 

Less used interior roads and levees developed from on-site materials are 

occasionally impassable, especially during the wet winter months. 

The soil types on the Kern Refuge have little effect on wetland 

management. Some shallower moist soil units are periodically farmed or 

subject to regular maintenance (disc, mow, burn, etc.) to manage wetland 

vegetation growth. Larger and deeper seasonal wetlands are not farmed 

but selected areas of vegetation are periodically managed to maintain 

and enhance open water habitat. During draw down and dry out of 

wetlands, the characteristics of local clay soils are evident. The 

saturated and sticky clay soils prohibit access into the wetlands by heavy 

equipment until the soils are almost completely dry. Earlier dewatering 

of some units is conducted so that there will be a dry enough substrate 

for maintenance.

None of the lands within Kern Refuge’s approved boundary are 

designated Prime Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance by 

the California Department of Conservation. 

Pixley Refuge 

The eleven soils types that have been mapped within Pixley Refuge’s 

approved boundary include: Akers-Akers, Saline-Sodic Complex (18.3 

acres); Biggriz-Biggriz, Saline-Sodic Complex (101 acres); Gambogy 

loam (469 acres); Gambogy-Biggriz, Saline-Sodic Association (4,157 

acres); Gareck-Garces Association (2,101 acres); Hanford sandy loam 

(less than 1 acre); Houser silty clay (15 acres); Kimberlina fine sandy 

loam (580 acres); Lethent silt loam (2,193 acres); Nahrub silt loam (74 

acres); and Riverwash (less than 1 acre). All of these soils are alluvium 
Chapter 3 

26 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

derived mainly from granitic rock sources located in former fan terraces, 

alluvial fans, flood plains, and basin rims. 

With the exception of 300 to 600 acres of created wetlands that include 

levees and roads on Lethent silt loam within Pixley Refuge boundary, all 

of the other soil types have not been significantly disturbed. Less 

frequently used dirt roads occur along the boundaries and are used for 

periodic surveys and fence maintenance. The majority of the other soil 

types support introduced grasses. Grazing occurs on about 4,730 acres 

of Pixley Refuge to provide more suitable habitat for listed species and 

to promote the establishment and growth of native vegetation. No new 

development is planned for the Pixley Refuge, but periodic maintenance 

of the roads and wetlands is required. 

More than 1,000 acres of land within the approved boundary have been 

leveled and reclaimed for irrigated croplands. Regular soil amendments 

are required to maintain productivity of cultivated crops. While Houser 

silty clay, Kimberlina fine sandy loam, Lethent silty loam, Nahrub silt 

loam, and Riverwash are not considered prime farmland, these soil 

types, with the exception of Riverwash, are farmed. However, about 340 

acres are considered Farmland of Statewide Importance by the 

California Department of Conservation. The Department of 

Conservation defines Farmland of Statewide Importance as irrigated 

land similar to Prime Farmland that has a good combination of physical 

and chemical characteristics for the production of agricultural crops. 

This land has minor shortcomings, such as greater slopes or less ability 

to store soil moisture than Prime Farmland. Land must have been used 

for production of irrigated crops at some time during the four years prior 

to the mapping date. 

Water

Kern Refuge 

Historic Environment. Historically, the land area now managed as the 

Kern Refuge was at the extreme southern portion of Tulare Lake. The 

present-day location of Kern Refuge and the extent of the historic lake 

basin suggest that during wet years, areas of Kern Refuge may have 

been flooded by rising lake waters. Additionally, areas of Kern Refuge 

likely supported emergent wetland vegetation and riparian habitat that 

connected streams originating to the east in the Sierra Nevada 

Mountains with the historic Tulare Lake Basin in the Valley. 

Conversion of the southern Valley from natural lands to agriculture 

beginning in the late 1800s resulted in the loss of wetlands and increased 

management of rivers to control floods and provide irrigation water to 

farmers. During this time, low dikes and canals were constructed for 

agricultural purposes on the land now occupied by the Kern Refuge and 

construction of the Goose Lake Canal, the major waterway that bisects 

the Refuge into eastern and western halves, was completed. With an 

average annual rainfall of six inches, the loss of natural wetlands, 

decreased frequency of spring floods, and a highly managed water 

delivery system of canals and dikes, the wetland dynamics of the 
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 27

southern Valley of today bears little resemblance to that of less than 100 

years ago. 

Refuge Water Development and Management. When development of 

the Kern Refuge began in the early 1960s, ten wells were drilled 

throughout the Refuge to provide a source of water for wetland 

management purposes. These wells averaged slightly in excess of 800 

feet deep and were able to provide a limited source of water at a rate of 

approximately 1,600 gallons per minute. This production rate did not 

meet the needs of the Refuge’s habitat and electrical costs prohibited the 

Service from using this groundwater as a sole source for habitat 

management. 

Currently, three of the wells are still operable with water levels 

stabilized approximately 200 feet below the surface. Water quality is 

relatively good with the exception of boron and arsenic levels that are 

consistently high in all wells. Slightly below the ground surface and 

located above an impervious clay layer is a perched or suspended aquifer 

or layer of water that is highly saline and not suitable for irrigation or 

habitat purposes. In some locations around the Refuge, this perched 

aquifer is less than 5 feet below the surface. 

Because using the wells proved to be cost prohibitive, the Service began 

purchasing fall and spring irrigation water from local water districts 

when available. In years of normal rainfall and when budgets permitted, 

sufficient water was purchased to flood less than 2,500 acres of fall and 

winter habitat at a cost exceeding $240,000. In years of limited water 

availability, less than 1,200 acres were flooded and this habitat was not 

available until late in the fall or early winter, far too late for the early fall 

migrant ducks that use the area. 

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act, Title 34 of Public Law 

102-575, was passed by Congress on October 30, 1992. A major purpose 

of the CVPIA was to change the management of the Central Valley 

Project to make fish, wildlife, and associated habitat protection and 

restoration a project purpose equivalent to that of supplying water and 

power for municipal and agricultural purposes. The CVPIA identified 

wetlands as a key component of wildlife protection and enhancement in 

the Central Valley and specified actions to further assess water needs 

and supply opportunities. Under provisions of the CVPIA, Kern Refuge 

was provided an annual allocation of 25,000 acre-feet of water for 

wetland management purposes. 

Only since implementing the Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 

1992 (CVPIA) has the amount of water delivered to the Kern Refuge 

been consistent and of sufficient volume to provide adequate wetland 

habitat for migratory waterfowl and waterbirds. With this water, the 

Refuge is able to flood 3,000 to 6,400 acres sequentially over a 3 to 5 

month period beginning in mid-August. Normally all CVPIA water 

destined for the Refuge is released from the California Aqueduct into the 

Buena Vista Water Storage District system and transported nearly 12 

miles through the Buena Vista Water Storage District Main Drain canal 

to the Refuge boundary. 
Chapter 3 

28 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

The CVPIA water is divided into two categories, Level 2 supplies sustain 

the historic level of habitat produced annually on the Kern Refuge, and 

Level 4 supplies provide sufficient water to reach optimum development 

of all potential wetland habitat on the Refuge. The CVPIA allocated a 

total of 9,950 acre-feet of Level 2 water and 15,050 acre-feet of Level 4 

water for developing and maintaining 6,700 acres of wetland habitat on 

an annual basis. Once water has been delivered into unit 1 of the Refuge, 

the water will be distributed throughout the moist soil units on the 

Refuge via a lift pump structure and a series of distribution ditches. 

Throughout the balance of the Refuge’s seasonal wetlands, water will be 

distributed on a gravity flow basis through a system of pipes and gates 

that control these flows. 

Early fall flood-up of Refuge habitat coincides with the late irrigations of 

agricultural crops upstream from the Refuge along the Main 

Drain/Goose Lake Canal. During this period, the Refuge water supply is 

heavily affected by irrigation return flows into the system. Water 

quality analysis during this period has shown no significant levels of 

pesticides, heavy metals, or other contaminants that could be 

detrimental to Refuge wildlife or habitat. However, high levels of 

dissolved salts have been documented. By mid-November, these 

agricultural return flows have ceased and water quality has greatly 

improved.

Flooding. In 1961, while searching for an adequate water supply for the 

Kern Refuge, the Service considered accepting floodwater from Poso 

Creek that originates in the southern Sierra Nevada Mountains. In 1962 

and 1963, the Poso Creek channel was realigned and improved to handle 

1,000 cubic feet per second of floodwater and extended to reach the 

southeast corner of the Refuge. No legal provisions were made to 

dispose of floodwater in excess of the holding capacity of the Refuge at 

any given time. Major floods originating from the Poso Creek watershed 

occur approximately every 10 to 12 years during which total discharges 

may exceed 130,000 acre-feet of water. Smaller floods generating in 

excess of 35,000 acre-feet of floodwater occur every four to five years.

Floods that reach the Refuge generally occur during the January 

through March period, the same time the Refuge has reached its 

maximum habitat management levels, thus limiting the amount of 

available floodwater storage capacity. 

Because the Refuge is not on any natural watercourse, the Service has 

no discharge point that does not interfere with neighboring landowners. 

To release any water from the Refuge, prior approval from downstream 

users on Goose Lake Canal must be obtained. This is not an option 

during floods since other rivers and streams are usually in flood stage as 

well and the Poso Creek water would be an additional burden. 
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 29

Aerial View of Kern Refuge Facing Southwest During 1986 Flood. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Photo. 

Normal management practices for seasonal wetlands require that every 

unit be dewatered each spring to permit the growth of annual food 

plants. To facilitate the draining of Refuge impoundments water must 

be released from units 7 and 8 to provide space for other units to the 

south to be drained. In the past, this drain water has been given to 

adjacent landowners for use as irrigation water or to help create habitat 

on private wetlands.

Pixley Refuge

Situated within the historic flood plain of Deer Creek, the area now 

managed as the Pixley Refuge was on the eastern edge of Tulare Lake. 

While the far west portion of the Turkey Tract may have been a part of 

the actual wetlands of the lake, the majority of the remaining land area 

probably consisted of riparian habitat, seasonally flooded wetlands, 

vernal pools, and wet meadows, depending on the level of precipitation in 

any given year. 

Although more than 750 acres of Pixley Refuge are designated to be 

managed as wetlands, sufficient water has not been available to provide 

any significant marsh habitat on a reliable basis. Infrequent flood flows 

in Deer Creek have at times been diverted into the Refuge wetlands to 

provide habitat on a very limited basis. In addition, in years of sufficient 

runoff when excess irrigation water is present, the Pixley Irrigation 

District has used some of the wetland units for groundwater recharge, 

providing habitat for water birds as a secondary benefit. While this 

habitat has been beneficial, this recharge water usually occurs in late 

spring and early summer, which is too late for the fall and winter 

migrant species to use the area. 

With the passage of the CVPIA, the Pixley Refuge was provided an 

annual water allocation of 6,000 acre-feet including 1,280 acre-feet of 

Level 2 water and 4,720 acre-feet of Level 4 water. This allocation was 
Chapter 3 

30 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

intended to be sufficient to allow the development and maintenance of 

755 acres of seasonal wetlands including 25 acres of riparian habitat, and 

545 acres of irrigated pastures and croplands to be used primarily by 

lesser and greater sandhill cranes. While the designated source for the 

Refuge’s CVPIA water allocation was the Friant-Kern Canal, no suitable 

canals or pipelines currently connect the Refuge to the water source. 

As an interim measure to provide the Pixley Refuge with water while a 

delivery system can be developed, a deep well was drilled in 1994 as a 

joint project with Ducks Unlimited. With the water from this well, which 

is just west of County Road 88, east of the Pixley Refuge wetland units, 

the Pixley Refuge can develop and maintain approximately 300 acres of 

seasonal wetlands. Various alternatives have been considered for a 

permanent delivery conduit for a Friant-Kern water supply but the most 

promising is to use existing pipeline systems from the Friant-Kern Canal 

to a point west of Highway 99 and then construct a new line from there 

to the Refuge wetlands. It may be necessary to drill a second well on the 

Refuge as part of a conjunctive use program that will permit the 

combined use of wells and delivered surface water to meet the water 

needs of the Refuge. When the final delivery system is in place, total 

wetlands will exceed 750 acres, more than twice the current flooded 

acreage.

Air Quality 

The Refuges are in California’s San Joaquin Valley Air Basin. Air 

quality in the Valley is among the worst in the United States. The San 

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District is the agency 

responsible for ensuring compliance with Federal and State air quality 

standards in the Valley. The Federal and State governments have each 

established ambient air quality standards for several pollutants. Most 

standards have been set to protect public health. However, standards 

for some pollutants are based on other values such as protecting crops 

and materials and avoiding nuisance conditions. Currently, the Valley is 

federally classified as a serious nonattainment area for both ground-level 

ozone and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). 

In addition, the Valley is classified as a severe nonattainment area for 

the California ozone standard and nonattainment for the PM10 standard. 

The Valley is in attainment or has not been classified for all other criteria 

pollutants.

Ozone, the main component of photochemical smog, is formed through a 

complex series of chemical reactions between reactive organic gasses 

(ROG) and nitrogen oxides (NOx). On-road motor vehicles are the 

largest contributors to NOx emissions in the Valley. On-road motor 

vehicles, area-wide sources, and stationary sources are significant 

contributors to ROG emissions. A significant portion of the stationary 

source ROG emissions are fugitive emissions from the extensive oil and 

gas production operations in the southern Valley. Once formed, ozone 

remains in the atmosphere for one or two days. As a result, ozone is a 

regional pollutant and often affects a large area. Ozone’s main effects 

include damage to vegetation, chemical deterioration of various 

materials, and irritation and damage to the human respiratory system. 
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 31

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a odorless, invisible gas which usually forms as 

a by-product of incomplete combustion of organic substances. The 

majority of the CO emitted in the Valley comes from motor vehicles. 

Carbon monoxide is a relatively localized pollutant, often resulting from 

a combination of high traffic volumes and traffic congestion. As a result, 

measured concentrations are not necessarily representative of the entire 

study area. A mildly toxic pollutant, CO interferes with oxygen 

transport to body tissues. 

Airborne dust (PM10) is produced by stationary point sources such as: 

fuel combustion and industrial processes; fugitive sources, such as 

roadway dust from paved and unpaved roads; wind erosion from open 

land; and transportation sources, such as automobiles. The primary 

sources of PM10 in the Valley are fugitive dust from paved and unpaved 

roads and agricultural operations. Soil type and soil moisture content 

are important factors in PM10 emissions. Federal and State PM10 

standards are designed to prevent respiratory disease and protect 

visibility.

Certain land uses are considered more sensitive to air pollution than 

others. Locations such as schools, hospitals, and convalescent homes are 

labeled sensitive receptors because their occupants (the young, old, and 

infirm) are more susceptible to respiratory infections and other air 

quality-related health problems than the general public. Residential 

areas are also considered sensitive receptors because residents tend to 

be home for extended periods, resulting in sustained exposure to any 

pollutants present. Sensitive receptors in the study area include the 

Refuge Complex headquarters and residences at Kern Refuge and the 

few scattered private residences south and east of Pixley Refuge. 

Plant Communities 

Kern Refuge 

The Kern Refuge supports a variety of wetland and upland vegetation 

over the 10,618 acres managed for waterfowl and endangered species.

The 1986 Master Plan identified six major vegetative communities 

(marsh/seasonal wetland, alkali playa, valley grassland, cultivated 

cropland, alkali scrub, and riparian) with 16 subcategories. At that time, 

wetland acreage was based on the amount of wetland habitat that was 

normally flooded from 1977 to 1984. From this information, wetland 

habitat accounted for approximately 37 percent (3,850 acres) of the total 

land area on the Refuge. 

In recent years, the quantity and availability of water has increased, 

allowing the Kern Refuge to provide more wetland habitat. As part of 

the CCP process, a new vegetation map was completed that more 

accurately reflects current conditions on the Refuge. Vegetation types 

were delineated based on recent aerial photographs, global positioning 

system (GPS) data taken in the field, and additional ground truthing. 
Chapter 3 

32 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

Based on this information, eight plant communities have been identified 

including grassland, seasonal marsh, alkali playa, grassland/alkali playa, 

moist soil wetland, riparian, valley sink scrub, and salt cedar (Figure 8). 

The salt cedar plant community covers approximately 1,600 acres and is 

in former wetland and grassland habitat types. Wetland habitat covers 

approximately 5,300 acres and includes 3,800 acres of seasonal marsh, 

1,200 acres of moist soil wetlands, and 215 acres of riparian habitat. An 

additional 1,200 acres of moist soil wetlands are being restored. 

Salt cedar is most commonly found on the west side of the Kern Refuge 

in dense impenetrable stands. Stands on the east side occur in seasonal 

wetlands and along the levees of some wetland units. On both sides of 

the Refuge, this habitat type has replaced grassland and wetland habitat. 

The Service is actively using mechanical and chemical control methods in 

an effort to control and remove this invasive species to restore wetland 

and grassland habitats. 

All plant community names are from Terrestrial Natural Communities of 

California (Holland 1986). Exceptions include moist soil wetlands and 

agricultural croplands. Appendix E includes a list of plant species 

documented on the Refuge. 

Wetland Plant Communities. Wetland plant communities occur in 

seasonal marshes, moist soil wetlands, and in riparian habitat. Salt cedar 

habitat occurs in these three wetland habitat types. 

Seasonal Marsh. Units 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 3, 6B, 6C, 7, and 8 are designated 

seasonal marshes and cover approximately 3,800 acres. They are large 

(156 to 846 acres) units characterized by water depths less than 4 feet 

and robust perennial wetland vegetation. Even though these units are 

Seasonal Marsh Habitat at Kern Refuge. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Photo. 
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 33

Figure 8. Land Cover: Kern Refuge
Chapter 3 

34 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

seasonally flooded only from September to May or June, adequate soil 

moisture throughout the dry and hot summer months provides suitable 

conditions for growing and maintaining cattail and hardstem bulrush. 

While cattail and hardstem bulrush may dominate certain areas of some 

seasonal marshes, other wetland plants are also common and include 

alkali bulrush and spike-rush. In deeper areas, burrhead and arrowhead 

are common, especially along the edges of ditches. Woody vegetation 

within these marshes can occur as isolated trees and shrubs of salt cedar, 

willow, and cottonwood or in dense thickets (salt cedar). Patches of 

iodine bush and alkali heath occur in slightly higher areas within the 

units. Selected areas may be occasionally mowed, disked, or burned to 

control perennial vegetation and maintain open water habitat. 

Moist Soil Wetlands. Units 4, 5, 6A, and 14 are designated moist soil 

wetlands and include about 2,400 acres. These wetlands are also 

seasonally flooded, small (22 to 62 acres), and are characterized by water 

depths less than 8 inches in the fall and winter and less than 2 inches in 

spring. These units are intensely managed by the Service through 

mowing, disking, and burning to maximize waterfowl food plant 

production. In any given year, approximately 20 percent of the total 

moist soil wetland acreage is subject to some form of vegetation 

management. These management actions are to promote the growth of 

swamp timothy and water grass while curtailing the spread of alkali 

bulrush and isolated stands of cattail and hardstem bulrush. Other 

species existing in these units include sprangle-top and various species of 

rushes. Swamp timothy exists naturally and requires one or two 

irrigations in the late spring or early summer while water grass is 

directly cultivated in prepared units and irrigated as needed. 

Riparian Habitat. Unit 9 and the southern portion of unit 10 contain the 

largest tract (215 acres) of riparian habitat on the Kern Refuge. The 

riparian habitat on the Refuge is contiguous with riparian habitat 

Riparian Habitat on Kern Refuge. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Photo. 
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 35

immediately south of the Refuge on private property. Viewed from 

above, a series of old channels associated with the Kern River meander 

through this area from south to north. Water is managed in these units 

to maintain and promote this habitat type on the Refuge but there is no 

outlet. Cottonwood and willow trees dominate but salt cedar is common 

in some areas. Smartweed is common in the channels. 

Alkali Playa. Easily distinguishable mostly bare, alkali soils. The most 

common plants associated with alkali playas are annual Atriplex species 

and annual grasses. 

Upland Plant Communities. Upland plant communities occur in 

grasslands, alkali playas, grassland/alkali playa complex, and valley sink 

scrub. Salt cedar habitat exists in the following four upland habitat 

types.

Grasslands. This habitat type covers approximately 2,800 acres on the 

west side of the Kern Refuge occurring from the southern to northern 

boundaries. Depending on the soil type and elevation, grassland plants 

are associated with clay and sandy soils, and where the elevation is 

slightly lower, with vernal pools. Common vernal pool plants include 

coyote-thistle, Fremont’s goldfields, and short woollyheads. These 

plants can be found in or near vernal pools were shallow pools and 

meandering sloughs collect moisture from winter rains. Both sandy and 

clay soil grassland plants may occur as either dense or sparse 

associations of brome, barley, annual fescue, California poppy, cream 

cups, bird’s eye gilia, spikeweed, and goldfields. Nonnative grasses 

(bromes and fescues) can become dense over a considerable area and 

encroach into areas supporting mainly native grasses as well as decrease 

the overall suitability of grassland habitat for threatened and 

endangered species. As a result, grazing is used to control nonnative 

grasses and to provide more open habitat suitable to the endangered 

blunt-nosed leopard lizard and Tipton kangaroo rat. 

Grassland/Alkali Playa Complex. This community consisted of areas 

where alkali playa and grassland habitats were interspersed and could 

not be delineated. Cumulatively, the alkali playa and the grassland/alkali 

playa complex covers approximately 500 acres on the Kern Refuge. 

Valley Sink Scrub. This habitat type occurs mainly on the west side, but 

small patches occur in higher areas in seasonal wetlands on the east side. 

Approximately 750 acres of this habitat type occur on the Kern Refuge 

and may be dominated by either saltbush or iodine bush. Saltbushdominated areas are sparsely vegetated and may also include aster. 

Plants in iodine bush–dominated communities are mostly succulent and 

occur on alkaline or poorly drained soils. Common plants in this 

community are iodine bush, suaeda, and alkali heath. 

Pixley Refuge 

Eight major land cover categories are found within the Pixley Refuge 

approved boundary: California annual grassland, alkali playa, northern 
Chapter 3 

36 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

claypan vernal pool, valley saltbush scrub, riparian, Great Valley willow 

scrub, intensively managed moist soil units, and agricultural croplands. 

About 74 percent of the lands within the approved boundary are annual 

grassland. Of the wetland plant communities, managed moist soil 

communities cover the greatest area. Figure 9 shows the distribution of 

plant communities within the approved refuge boundary. Below is a 

description of each plant community, including plant composition, 

ecological relationships, and distribution on the Refuge. 

Wetland Plant Communities.

Moist Soil Wetlands. All the 756 acres of managed wetlands on the 

Pixley Refuge are designated moist soil wetlands. These small wetlands 

are seasonally flooded and characterized by water depths of less than 

eight inches in the fall and winter and less than two inches in the spring. 

These units are occasionally managed by the Refuge through mowing, 

disking, and burning to maximize waterfowl food plant production. In 

any given year, less than 20 percent of the total moist soil wetland 

acreage is subject to some form of vegetation or soil management. These 

management actions are to promote the growth of swamp timothy and 

water grass while curtailing the spread of alkali bulrush and isolated 

stands of cattail and hardstem bulrush. Other species occurring in these 

units include sprangle-top and various species of rushes. Swamp timothy 

exists naturally and requires one or two irrigations in the late 

spring/early summer while water grass is directly cultivated in prepared 

units and irrigated as needed. 

Riparian. This habitat type is limited (about 15 acres) and occurs in a 

narrow band along Deer Creek on the southern border of the Pixley 

Refuge. Scattered cottonwood and willow trees are found along this 

creek.

Alkali Playa. This community occupies about 39 acres, or less than 1 

percent, of Pixley Refuge. However, these figures are an underestimate, 

because only the larger alkali playas were mapped. About 1,300 acres of 

the area mapped as annual grassland contain numerous small playas 

interspersed throughout. This community occurs on poorly drained soils 

with high salinity and/or alkalinity due to water evaporation that 

accumulates in closed drainages. Typically, vegetative cover in this 

community is 70 percent or less and the soil has a white salt crust. 

Indicator species of this community include alkali plagiobothrys, salt 

sand-spurry, low barley, Mediterranean grass, and alkali weed (Trask 

1989). 

Northern Claypan Vernal Pool. Northern claypan vernal pools are 

shallow depressions lined with an impervious clay layer that temporarily 

fill with water during the winter and spring rains and dry out completely 

during the summer. Water stands in the pool during the early part of 

the growing season, preventing most grassland species from becoming 

established. However, several annual plant species are specially adapted 

to this unique environment. Plants commonly found in vernal pools at 

Pixley Refuge include goldfields, popcorn flower, coyote thistle, 

mousetail, pillwort, woolly heads, pygmy-weed, and flowering quillwort. 
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 37

Figure 9. Land Cover: Pixley Refuge
Chapter 3 

38 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

Vernal Pool at Pixley Refuge. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Photo. 

On Pixley Refuge, vernal pools are found only on the Two Well Tract and 

the Big Deer Creek Unit and total about 36 acres. 

Upland Plant Communities.

California Annual Grassland. Approximately 7,347 acres, or 74 percent, 

of the lands within the approved Pixley Refuge boundary are California 

annual grassland. This grassland is a mosaic of grassland and alkali 

playas with vernal pools scattered throughout. The grasslands on Pixley 

Refuge are typically dominated by nonnative annual grasses including 

foxtail barley, low barley, soft chess, and red brome. Common forbs in 

this community include red-stemmed filaree, California burclover, bush 

seepweed, common spikeweed, bird’s eye gilia, and alkali heath. Alkali 

goldenbush (a shrub) is also occasionally found in the grasslands. Soil 

type has an important influence on the composition and structure of the 

grassland community. In general, grassland plants growing on fine 

textured soils are less dense and smaller than those growing on coarse 

textered soils. The grasslands along Deer Creek have more coarse 

textured soils and probably receive some subsurface moisture. Clumps 

of the perennial grass alkali sacaton are common in this area (Trask 

1989). 

When rainfall is sufficient, cattle are grazed on the grasslands to reduce 

cover and improve habitat conditions for the blunt-nosed leopard lizard 

and Tipton kangaroo rat. All of Pixley Refuge uplands are grazed except 

a 20-foot by 20-foot exclosure constructed in 1975 in the southwestern 

corner of Section 23. 

Valley Saltbush Scrub. This community is found in the 246-acre area 

just east of the managed wetland units and was set aside as mitigation 

for the development of the wetlands. Dominant shrubs in this 

community include saltbush, iodine bush, and suaeda. The understory is 
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 39

composed primarily of the same nonnative annual grass and forb species 

found in the annual grasslands. 

Agricultural Croplands. About 1,058 acres of private land within the 

approved Pixley Refuge acquisition boundary are actively farmed to 

provide feed for several dairies adjacent to the Refuge. These lands are 

subject to intensive farming (discing, soil amendments, irrigating, and 

harvesting) to support alfalfa and grain production. 

Developed Areas. A number of dairies have developed within the 

approved acquisition boundary since Pixley Refuge was established. 

These dairies now occupy about 704 acres within the approved boundary. 

Wildlife

The variety of unique habitats at the Refuges support a diversity of 

wildlife species. More than 359 species of birds, mammals, amphibians, 

and reptiles have been documented on the Refuges. Some 15 specialstatus wildlife species are known or believed to use the Refuges.

Appendix E contains a list of wildlife species observed in the Refuges. 

Birds. 

Kern Refuge. A total of 214 bird species have been sighted on Kern 

Refuge. Fifty-nine different species have nested on the Refuge. Species 

recorded on the Refuge include waterbirds, such as northern pintails, 

green-winged teal, and northern shoveler, which account for the largest 

number of ducks wintering on the Refuge. Other species including 

mallards, American wigeon, gadwall, cinnamon teal, canvasbacks, 

redheads, lesser scaups, ring-necked ducks, buffleheads, and ruddy 

ducks; and Canada geese, white-fronted geese, white pelicans, doublecrested cormorants, belted kingfishers, egrets, herons, American and 

least bitterns, grebes, rails, gulls, terns, plovers, black-necked stilts, 

Avocet Chick. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Photo.
Chapter 3 

40 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

American avocets, greater yellowlegs, western and least sandpipers, 

dunlins, and long-billed dowitchers also use Kern Refuge. 

Raptors, such as red-tailed hawks, northern harriers, Swainson’s hawks, 

golden eagles, peregrine falcons, kestrels, barn owls, burrowing owls, 

and great-horned owls, have been observed on Kern Refuge. 

On Kern Refuge, west of Goose Lake Canal, there are about 2,600 acres 

of upland communities consisting of annual grasslands and shrubs, such 

as iodine bush, saltbush, and seepweed. These flats have also been 

invaded by salt cedar. In some areas, small, sometimes-circular alkali 

flats exist. These areas and some of the higher areas scattered 

throughout the Refuge and along levees, provide habitat for birds 

adapted to an upland existence including ring-necked pheasants, 

mourning doves, and turkey vultures. 

Other birds found in the uplands or in vegetation on the edges of 

wetlands include hummingbirds, swallows, horned larks, flycatchers, 

crows, ravens, and sparrows. 

In the spring and fall a variety of neotropical migratory birds can be 

found in the riparian areas of the Kern Refuge. Some of the species 

include, common yellowthroats, western tanagers, warblers, vireos, 

kinglets, thrushes, and cedar waxwings. 

Red-winged, tricolored, and Brewer’s blackbirds use the marshes. 

Pixley Refuge. Many of the same species that use Kern Refuge use 

Pixley Refuge. Since Pixley Refuge consists primarily of the Valley 

Grassland plant community type, mostly grassland bird species nest on 

the Refuge. In recent years, beginning in August, ground water is 

pumped to the surface to provide about 300 acres of moist-soil habitat 

types. This provides habitat for migrating and wintering birds. Sandhill 

cranes are the most prominent species that roost on Pixley Refuge 

wetlands. Cranes begin arriving in September and numbers may peak at 

up to 6,000 birds in January. Sixty-seven species of birds have been 

documented using Pixley Refuge. 

In the fall and winter, the wetlands also support many of the same 

dabbling ducks found at Kern Refuge. In the past five years, greenwinged teal, northern shovelers, and mallards have been the three most 

abundant ducks counted during mid-winter aerial surveys. Other 

wintering waterfowl species abundant on the Refuge include gadwalls, 

wigeons, and northern pintails. Wintering ducks may reach numbers as 

high as 6,000 to 8,000 birds. Wintering Canada geese may number as 

high as 600 birds and smaller flocks of white-fronted and snow geese 

may be present. 
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 41

Great Egrets. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Photo.

Pixley Refuge also provides wintering habitat for white-faced ibis. In 

recent years, more than 2,000 white-faced ibis have been counted in a 

single day roosting in the wetlands. Wintering and migrating shorebirds 

also use the Refuge. Some of the more common shorebirds include: 

black-necked stilts, yellowlegs, American avocets, killdeer, long-billed 

dowitchers, and western and least sandpipers. Occasionally marbled 

godwits and Wilson’s phalaropes are observed. In the uplands, longbilled curlews are frequently sited in the winter, but mountain plovers 

are rarely observed. Waterbirds that may be observed at the Refuge 

include American coots, pied-billed grebes, various species of gulls, as 

well as wading birds, such as great blue herons, black-crowned night 

herons, great and snowy egrets, and American bitterns. Raptors 

observed on the Refuge include red-tailed hawks, northern harriers, 

American kestrels, burrowing owls, barn owls, and occasional sightings 

of great horned owls, prairie falcons, peregrine falcons, black-shouldered 

kites, turkey vultures, and Cooper’s hawks. Other common birds include 

mourning doves, western meadow larks, horned larks, loggerhead 

shrikes, and various species of sparrows and blackbirds. 

Mammals

Kern Refuge. A total of 27 species of mammals have been sighted on 

Kern Refuge. An additional 14 species may exist there based on their 

regional distribution; however, sightings have not been confirmed. Some 

of the mammals found on the Refuge include desert cottontail, blacktailed jackrabbit, coyote, kit fox, bobcat, opossum, raccoon, muskrat, 

beaver, badger, long-tailed weasel, striped and western spotted skunk, 

California voles, Heermann’s kangaroo rat, Tipton kangaroo rat, deer 

mouse, western harvest mouse, the San Joaquin pocket mouse, Botta’s 

pocket gopher, house mouse, roof rat, the endangered Buena Vista Lake 

shrew, California ground squirrel, and the San Joaquin antelope ground 

squirrel. The Refuge may also be home to the broad-handed (California) 

mole, although this is unconfirmed. 
Chapter 3 

42 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

The Refuge is home to at least two flying mammals, the Mexican freetailed bat and the western mastiff bat. In addition, several other species 

of bats may forage for insects on the Refuge including the western smallfooted myotis, California myotis, Yuma myotis, silver-haired bat, 

western pipistrelle, big brown bat, hoary bat, western red bat, 

Townsend’s western big-eared bat, and pallid bat. 

Pixley Refuge. At least 16 species of mammals use Pixley Refuge as 

habitat, and another 8 species may exist on the Refuge but their 

presence has not yet been confirmed. Of the 16 mammals known to 

inhabit Pixley Refuge, 5 are carnivores, such as coyotes, endangered San 

Joaquin kit foxes, badgers, striped skunks, and long-tailed weasels. 

Other species present include black-tailed jackrabbits, Audubon 

cottontail (desert cottontail), California ground squirrel (Beechey ground 

squirrel), Botta’s pocket gopher (valley pocket gopher), the endangered 

Tipton kangaroo rat, Heermann’s kangaroo rat, deer mice, western 

harvest mice, house mice, and, on rare occasions, in the water delivery 

canals, muskrats. Species that may be on the Refuge but their presence 

has not been confirmed include western mastiff bats, Mexican free-tailed 

bats, ornate shrews, broad-handed (California) moles, raccoons, spotted 

skunks, San Joaquin antelope ground squirrels, and California voles. 

Reptiles and Amphibians 

Kern Refuge. Kern Refuge is home to 12 species of reptiles and 4 

species of amphibians. 

The four species of lizards that inhabit Kern Refuge are the blunt-nosed 

leopard lizard, an endangered species, the coast horned lizard, California 

side-blotched lizard, and Western (California) whiptail. 

Seven species of snakes have been recorded using the Refuge. One 

species, the western (northern Pacific) rattlesnake is venomous. This pit 

viper is commonly seen in the spring when temperatures begin rising. 

The remaining species are the Pacific gopher snake, California (common) 

kingsnake, western long-nosed snake, California glossy snake, 

southwestern black-headed snake, and the common garter snake. An 

eighth species, the coachwhip (San Joaquin whipsnake) (Masticophis

flagellum ruddocki) exists in the vicinity of the Refuge and possibly 

exists on the Refuge but this has not been confirmed. 

One western pond turtle was found on the Kern Refuge in the early 

nineties, but that was a rare occurrence. The Service’s practice of 

draining wetlands in the summer to prevent avian botulism probably 

keeps the western pond turtle from being a permanent resident on the 

Refuge. This species possibly could thrive here if fresh water was 

available year around. 

The amphibians found on Kern Refuge include the Pacific treefrog, 

bullfrog, western toad, and western spadefoot toad. 
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 43

Pixley Refuge. Pixley Refuge provides habitat for 13 species of reptiles 

and amphibians and another 3 species of reptiles possibly exist on the 

Refuge, but their presence has not yet been confirmed. 

The four species of lizards inhabiting Pixley Refuge are the endangered 

blunt-nosed lizard, coast horned lizard, California side-blotched lizard, 

and western (California) whiptails. Western fence lizards may exist on 

the Refuge but their presence has not yet been confirmed. 

The five species of snakes present on the Refuge are the Pacific gopher 

snake, California (common) kingsnake, western long-nosed snake, 

southwestern black-headed snake, and, one poisonous species, the 

western (northern Pacific) rattlesnake. The San Joaquin whipsnake 

(coachwhip) and the California glossy snake possibly inhabit the Refuge 

but confirmations have not been made for these two species. 

Pacific Treefrog. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Photo.

The four species of amphibians that inhabit Pixley Refuge are the Pacific 

treefrog, western (California) toad, western (Pacific) spadefoot toad, and 

bullfrog. 

Invertebrates

Kern Refuge. Even though aquatic invertebrates are no doubt 

important as food for many species of wetland wildlife, there have been 

no comprehensive invertebrate surveys conducted at Kern Refuge. 

Some surveys are done on occasion by researchers looking for a 

particular group of invertebrates. For example, when there is water on 

the Refuge, the Kern Mosquito and Vector Control District monitors the 

wet areas primarily for the seven species of mosquitoes that exist on the 

Refuge (Culex erythrothorax, C. pipiens, C. tarsalis, Orahlerdatus

dorsalis, O. melanimon, O. nigromaculis, and Aedes vexans). In a study 

of the feeding ecology of northern pintail and green-winged teal, Euliss 

and Harris (1987) sampled the esophagial contents of numerous ducks 
Chapter 3 

44 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

and found water fleas (Cladocera), seed shrimp, snails (Gastropoda), 

dragonflies and damselflies (Odonata), midges, and flower flies 

(Syrphidae). In another example, one researcher documented, for the 

first time, a species of cattail bug found in the pistillate heads or spikes 

of cattails growing on the Refuge. 

During a 1997 limited survey for fairy shrimp, conducted in some of the 

alkali pools in the northeastern part of unit 12, one species was found. 

Comprehensive surveys of invertebrate and crustacean species and 

learning more about their ecology are two areas that need further 

development at the Refuge. 

Pixley Refuge. There have been no comprehensive surveys for 

invertebrates conducted at Pixley Refuge although aquatic invertebrates 

are no doubt an important source of food for many species of wetland 

wildlife. 

During wet winters, several vernal pools collect and hold water. Three 

species of fairy shrimp have been identified in some of these pools. They 

include the versatile fairy shrimp, the alkali fairy shrimp, and the 

Federally threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp. Also, clam shrimp have 

been found in some of these pools but the species has not been identified. 

Moth surveys conducted from 1993 to 1995 identified 55 species of moths 

on the Refuge. 

Special Status Species 

The following section provides more information on special status species 

that may exist or are known to exist on Kern or Pixley Refuges. This 

includes species that are in the following categories: Federally listed and 

proposed listed species; Bird Species of Conservation Concern at the 

Regional (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Pacific Region) or more local 

Bird Conservation Region (Coastal California Bird Conservation 

Region1

) scale; and State listed species. Birds identified by the Service 

as species of conservation concern are predominantly nongame birds in 

need of conservation action to prevent future listing as an endangered 

species. Under Executive Order 13186 these species represent 

conservation priorities for the Service, and other Federal agencies, and 

are to be specifically considered during planning and when actions are 

proposed on Federal lands.

San Joaquin Kit Fox 

The San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macroti mutica) is a small fox with 

relatively large ears and a long, bushy, black-tipped tail. They are 

endemic to the Valley and surrounding foothills and a few interior coast 

range watersheds. The San Joaquin kit fox is listed as a Federal and 

State endangered species. 

1 The Coastal California Bird Conservation Region includes the Central 

Valley and California coast south of San Francisco Bay.
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 45

San Joaquin Kit Fox. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Photo.

The San Joaquin kit fox is commonly associated with valley sink scrub, 

valley saltbush scrub, and annual grassland. Kit foxes also exist in some 

highly modified landscapes including petroleum fields, urban areas, and 

areas adjacent to agricultural fields. In general, they prefer to den in 

loose-textured soils but can be found on nearly every soil type (Service 

1998). The San Joaquin kit fox’s diet varies depending on abundance of 

potential food sources. Nocturnal rodents such as kangaroo rats, pocket 

mice, and white-footed mice comprise about one-third or more of their 

diet. Kit foxes also feed on California ground squirrel, black-tailed 

jackrabbit, San Joaquin antelope squirrel, desert cottontail, groundnesting birds, and insects (Service 1998). Home ranges of kit fox vary, 

depending on prey abundance, from less than one square-mile up to 

twelve square-miles (Service 1998). 

The primary threats to the survival of this species are loss and 

degradation of habitat by agricultural and industrial development and 

urbanization.

Population numbers are low on the Refuge with only seven kit foxes 

sighted on Kern Refuge during night spotlight surveys conducted from 

1996 through 2000. Fifteen kit foxes were sighted on Pixley Refuge 

during this same time. Resident or denning kit fox have not been 

confirmed on Kern Refuge. Kit fox den sites were confirmed on Pixley 

Refuge prior to the wet winters of the mid-1990s when their prey 

population numbers crashed. Denning has not been confirmed since that 

time. Occasionally, kit fox are found dead on the roads near both 

Refuges.
Chapter 3 

46 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

Tipton Kangaroo Rat 

The Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides) is a small, 

buff-colored rodent endemic to the southern Valley. This species is 

listed as a Federal and State endangered species. 

Tipton kangaroo rats inhabit arid-land communities such as iodine bush 

shrubland, valley saltbush scrub, and annual grassland on the floor of the 

Tulare Basin in level or nearly level terrain. Their habitat is typically 

characterized by one or more species of sparsely scattered woody shrubs 

and a ground cover of mostly introduced annual grasses and forbs. 

Shrubs typically associated with Tipton kangaroo rats are: spiny and 

common saltbushes, arrowscale, quailbush, iodine bush, pale-leaf 

goldenbush, honey mesquite, and seepweed. Much of the low-lying 

habitat occupied by Tipton kangaroo rats is susceptible to flooding from 

winter rains and overbank flooding from creeks. Tipton kangaroo rats 

commonly burrow in slightly elevated mounds, road berms, canal 

embankments, railroad beds, and the bases of shrubs and trees where 

windblown soils accumulate. The Tipton kangaroo rat’s diet consists 

mostly of seeds with smaller amounts of green herbaceous vegetation 

and insects (Service 1998). 

Tipton Kangaroo Rat. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Photo.

In the past, the primary reason for the Tipton kangaroo rat’s decline was 

habitat loss due to agricultural conversion. Today, the greatest threats 

to this species are habitat destruction or modification from industrial and 

agriculturally-related development, cultivation, buildup of heavy thatch 

by nonnative annual grasses, and urbanization. Flooding also poses a 

threat to this species (Service 1998). 

Pixley Refuge provides some of the best remaining habitat for Tipton 

kangaroo rats (Service 1998). The Endangered Species Recovery 

Program has been studying the population ecology of Tipton kangaroo 

rats at Pixley Refuge since 1992. Surveys are conducted on a grid in the 

Deer Creek East Unit twice a year. Few or no animals have been 
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 47

trapped in recent years. Population numbers crashed on Pixley Refuge 

and other areas of the southern Valley in the mid-1990s when the areas 

were flooded two winters in a row. Tipton kangaroo rats historically 

occurred in the upland communities on the west side of Kern Refuge. All 

of the west side was flooded in 1983 and partially flooded in the mid1990s. In limited, small mammal live-trapping surveys, conducted in 

1992, 1993, 1994, and 1998, few Tipton kangaroo rats were captured on 

the west side or near unit 8 on the east side. 

Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard 

The blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila) is a large lizard from the 

iguana family with a long tail, long powerful hind limbs, and a short, 

blunt snout. It is endemic to the Valley. The blunt-nosed leopard lizard 

is listed as a Federal and State endangered species. 

Blunt-nosed leopard lizards are found in open, sparsely vegetated areas 

of low relief in the Valley and the surrounding foothills. In the Valley, 

this species is most commonly associated with nonnative grassland and 

valley sink scrub communities. Valley needlegrass grassland and alkali 

playa also provide habitat for this species. In the foothills, the bluntnosed leopard lizard is found in saltbush scrub, upper Sonoran subshrub 

scrub, and serpentine bunchgrass. They generally use small rodent 

burrows for shelter from predators and temperature extremes (Service 

1998). Blunt-nosed leopard lizards feed mostly on insects (primarily 

grasshoppers, crickets, and moths) and other lizards (Service 1998). 

Home ranges for this species vary from 0.25 acres to 2.7 acres for 

females and from 0.52 acres to 4.2 acres for males (Service 1998). 

Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard. US Fish and Wildlife Service Photo.

The primary threats to blunt-nosed leopard lizards are habitat 

disturbance, destruction, and fragmentation. These threats come from a 

variety of sources including development and operation of oil and gas 

facilities, overgrazing, pesticide use, and on and off road vehicle use in or 

near blunt-nosed leopard lizard habitat (Service 1998). 
Chapter 3 

48 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

On Pixley Refuge, Uptain et al. (1985) found densities of blunt-nosed 

leopard lizards ranging from 0.1 to 4.2 per acre. Biologists from 

California State University, Stanislaus’s Endangered Species Recovery 

Program have been monitoring population numbers in the Deer Creek 

East Unit of Pixley Refuge from 1993 to the present. Population 

numbers experienced a drastic decline in the mid-nineties when there 

were successive years of high amounts of rainfall. On Pixley Refuge, 

lizard abundances appeared to be greater in the year 2000 monitoring 

season than they had been in recent years. On Kern Refuge, blunt-nosed 

leopard lizard surveys of limited scope were conducted on the west side 

in 1996 and 1998, with no blunt-nosed leopard lizards observed. The 

most recent sighting was one lizard on the east side of Kern Refuge in 

1994. Four sightings occurred in 1993, three lizards on the east side and 

one in the San Joaquin Desert Research Natural Area (RNA) on the 

west side. 

San Joaquin Antelope Squirrel 

The San Joaquin antelope squirrel (Ammospermophilus nelsoni) is a 

small buff/tan colored ground squirrel with a light stripe on its side and a 

light grey or white belly. This species is endemic to the Valley and the 

Carrizo and Elkhorn Plains to the west. The San Joaquin antelope 

squirrel is listed as a Federal species of concern and a State threatened 

species. 

The San Joaquin antelope squirrel inhabits arid annual grassland and 

shrubland communities. This species is most abundant in areas with 

sparse to moderate shrub cover (Service 1998). In the southern and 

western Valley, San Joaquin antelope squirrels are associated with plant 

communities containing saltbush and ephedra (Service 1998). They 

rarely occur on alkaline soils or in areas that are subject to flooding. San 

Joaquin antelope squirrels are omnivorous. They eat green vegetation, 

fungi, insects, and to a lesser extent, seeds (Service 1998). 

The greatest threat to the San Joaquin antelope squirrel is loss of 

habitat to agricultural developments, urbanization, and petroleum 

extraction. The long-term effects of overgrazing, namely loss of shrub 

cover and soil erosion, may also threaten this species. 

The San Joaquin antelope squirrel has not been seen on Kern Refuge for 

many years. The last confirmed sighting on Pixley Refuge was in 1985. 

San Joaquin antelope squirrels are more numerous south of Kern 

Refuge in the Elk Hills area. 

Buena Vista Lake Shrew 

The Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus) is a mouse-sized 

mammal with a long snout and tiny bead-like eyes. The fur on its upper 

surface is blackish-brown and the lower surface is smoke gray. Its tail is 

bicolored and relatively short. Buena Vista Lake shrews were likely 

historically distributed throughout the Tulare Basin (Service 2000). This 

species is a Federally listed endangered species and a State species of 

special concern. 
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 49

Buena Vista Lake shrews prefer moist habitats with an abundant layer 

of leaf litter. Plants typically found in their habitat include Fremont 

cottonwood, willows, glasswort, alkali heath, wild rye grass, and Baltic 

rush. The feeding and foraging habits of the Buena Vista Lake shrew 

are not known. In general, shrews feed mostly on insects and other 

invertebrates (Service 1998). 

The primary reasons for the Buena Vista Lake shrew’s historical decline 

and current threats to survival are loss and fragmentation of habitat. As 

a result, this species faces a high risk of extinction from catastrophic 

events such as floods and drought. 

Three Buena Vista Lake shrews were found on the Kern Refuge in 1992 

and 1994. Two Buena Vista Lake shrews were live-trapped and released 

at the capture site in 1998 in the riparian area of Kern Refuge. In 1999, 

Endangered Species Recovery Program biologists captured and 

released five Buena Vista Lake shrews at the capture site along a 

remnant slough in the moist-soil units of Kern Refuge. 

In 2000, a limited survey resulted in no captures of Buena Vista Lake 

shrews on Pixley Refuge on the southern boundary near Deer Creek. 

Pixley Refuge has little potential habitat for shrews. 

Mountain Plover 

The mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) is a small, killdeer-sized 

bird. Most mountain plovers winter in California’s Central Valley 

(Sutter and Yuba Counties southward) from September through March. 

Mountain plovers are also found in foothill valleys west of the San 

Joaquin Valley, and in the Imperial Valley. This species is a California 

Species of Concern. The mountain plover is also on the Service’s list of 

Nongame Birds of Conservation Concern for the South Pacific Coast 

Bird Conservation Region. 

Mountain plovers in California winter in plant communities with short 

vegetation, bare ground, and flat topography such as valley sink scrub, 

alkali playa, and annual grassland (BLM 1992, Service 1999). Mountain 

plovers are associated with areas grazed by domestic livestock, giant 

kangaroo rat precincts, and California ground squirrel colonies. The 

principle food of mountain plovers are beetles, grasshoppers, crickets, 

and ants (Service 1999). 

The principle threats to mountain plovers are conversion of grassland 

habitat, agricultural practices in the breeding range, domestic livestock 

grazing, and decline of native herbivores. Pesticide use in both the 

wintering and breeding range may also be contributing to the decline of 

this species. 

According to Service records, from 1962 to 1967 mountain plover 

numbers ranged from 1,000 to 10,000 on Kern Refuge. There have been 

no recorded sightings of mountain plovers on Kern Refuge since 1985. 

Mountain plover survey numbers have fluctuated at Pixley Refuge over 

the years and the Refuge provide habitat for wintering birds although 
Chapter 3 

50 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

population numbers fluctuate. In a 1993 survey, 109 plovers were 

counted. In January 1994, 21 birds were counted. The last sighting 

occurred in January 1997 when 15 birds were observed. 

Tricolored Blackbird 

The tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor) is about the same size as the 

more common red-winged blackbird and is similar in appearance. The 

most obvious difference in males is that the bar above the red shoulder 

patch is white on tricolors instead of yellow. This colonial nesting species 

is most numerous in California’s Central Valley and vicinity. It also 

occurs less commonly in coastal California, Oregon, and northwestern 

Baja California (Beedy and Hamilton 1997). The Service classifies the 

tricolored blackbird as a nongame bird of conservation concern at both 

the Pacific Region and more local South Pacific Coast Bird Conservation 

Region scale. The California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) 

classifies the tricolored blackbird as a species of special concern. 

Tricolored Blackbird. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Photo. 

Tricolored blackbirds have three requirements for colonial breeding 

sites: (1) access to open water; (2) a protected nesting substrate (flooded 

or thorny vegetation); and (3) suitable foraging habitat within about one 

mile of the nesting colony (Beedy 1989, Beedy and Hamilton 1997). 

Historically, tricolored blackbird breeding colonies occurred 

predominately in freshwater marshes dominated by tules and cattails 

(Beedy and Hamilton 1997). In recent years, an increasing percentage of 

colonies are in Himalaya blackberries, and silage and grain fields (Beedy 

and Hamilton 1997). 

The primary threats to the tricolored blackbird are predation, inclement 

weather conditions, habitat loss and alteration, poisoning, contaminants 

and pollution, and human disturbance (Beedy and Hamilton 1997). At 

Kern Refuge, the principle cause of nesting failure is predation by blackcrowned night herons (J. Allen pers. comm). 
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 51

Tricolored blackbirds have attempted nesting on Kern Refuge every 

year since 1992. Increased water supplies for wildlife mandated by 

recent legislation permits the establishment of nesting habitat in most 

years. Nesting flocks from 500 to 21,000 birds have been estimated over 

the years. In the spring of 2000, a colony of approximately 5,000 birds 

nested on the Refuge. Unfortunately, nesting success was low or 

nonexistent, presumably due to black-crowned night heron predation, 

another species that nests in the unit. In 2001, two colonies of tricolored 

blackbirds nested on Kern Refuge in dense cattails with small amounts 

of hardstem bulrush. The two colony sizes consisted of approximately 

1,000 and 5,000 adult birds and it is believed they had some reproductive 

success. The larger colony nested next to a colony of nesting white-faced 

ibis. 

Greater Sandhill Crane 

Historically, when water is available, lesser and greater sandhill cranes 

(Grus canadensis) roost on the wetlands of Pixley Refuge and feed in the 

surrounding grazed and agricultural lands. In the winter of 2000/2001, 

more than 5,000 sandhill cranes were roosting on the Refuge. The 

shallow water of the Refuge gives roosting cranes protection from 

ground predators such as coyotes. The subspecies composition is not 

known but the majority of the birds using the Refuge are lesser sandhill 

cranes. The greater sandhill crane is listed as a State threatened 

species. 

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp 

The vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) is a small (0.4 to 1- 

inch long) crustacean with a delicate elongated body, large stalked 

compound eyes and 11 pairs of swimming legs. This species is endemic 

to vernal pool habitats in California and southwestern Oregon (Service 

1994). The vernal pool fairy shrimp is federally listed as a threatened 

species. 

Vernal pool fairy shrimp typically inhabit vernal pools with clear to teacolored water, most commonly in grass or mud bottomed swales, or 

basalt flow depression pools in unplowed grasslands. They also may 

exist in alkaline vernal pools (Service 1994). The water in pools inhabited 

by this species has low total dissolved solids (TDS), conductivity, 

alkalinity, and chloride (Service 1994). Fairy shrimp feed on algae, 

bacteria, protozoa, rotifers, and bits of detritus (Service 1994). 

The primary threats to vernal pool fairy shrimp are the loss and 

alteration of habitat due to urban and agricultural development and 

random extinction by virtue of the small isolated nature of many of the 

remaining populations (Service 1994). 

The vernal pools found on the Pixley Refuge are not classic vernal pools 

but may represent a transition zone from prominent vernal pools further 

north in the Valley and no pools in the southern end. In 1993, vernal pool 

fairy shrimp were found in vernal pools on the Two Well Unit (Engler 

1993) of Pixley Refuge. The current status of this population is 

unknown.
Chapter 3 

52 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

White-faced Ibis 

White-faced ibis (Eudocimus albus) range from northern California, 

eastern Oregon, southern Idaho, southern Alberta, Canada, Montana, 

eastern North and South Dakota, and recently northwest Iowa south to 

the states of Durango and Jalisco in Mexico (Ryder and Manry 1994). 

Winter range is primarily in coastal Louisana and Texas south to Mexico 

and Central America. In California, ibis winter in the San Joaquin 

Valley, at the Salton Sea, and locally in southern California (Rosenberg 

et al. 1991). 

Ibis feed in the shallowly flooded pond margins or mudflats of the 

Refuges. They fly off the roosting and nesting marshes at Kern Refuge 

to feed in flood-irrigated agricultural fields. Their diet consists of 

aquatic and moist-soil invertebrates, especially earthworms and larval 

insects (mainly Orthoptera, Odonata, Hemiptera, Coleoptera, and 

Diptera), but also leeches and snails. They may also eat crayfish, small 

fish, frogs, bivalves, and larvae of chironomid flies (midges) (Ryder and 

Manry 1994). 

White-faced Ibis. Marguerite Gregory © California Academy of Sciences. 

White-faced ibis population numbers increased on Kern and Pixley 

Refuges in the 1990s, mainly due to higher water allocations for the 

Refuge Complex. Higher water allocations, in times when droughts are 

not occurring, permit wetlands to be created earlier in the summer as 

water is delivered to the Refuges and remain longer in the spring as 
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 53

there is more water available to maintain them. White-faced ibis 

numbers have gone from zero in 1990 to more than 5,600 birds counted 

on unit 1, the primary roosting area, in June 2001. Also, at least 1,000 

ibis active nests were estimated to be in unit 1 in the spring of 2001. 

Because nesting habitat is limited in the southern Valley, Kern Refuge is 

important for reproducing birds. 

The Pixley Refuge provides important foraging and roosting habitat for 

the white-faced ibis. In early February 2001, more than 2,200 whitefaced ibis were counted at sunset coming into the 300-acre wetland of 

Pixley Refuge to roost. 

Bald Eagle 

The bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) has suffered from habitat 

destruction and degradation, illegal shooting, and contamination of its 

food source, most notably due to the pesticide DDT. The bald eagle is 

listed federally as a threatened species and State listed as an endangered 

species. 

Bald eagles occasionally visit the Kern Refuge during the winter when 

abundant waterfowl provide a food source. The most recent sighting on 

the Refuge was in December of 2003. 

American Peregrine Falcon 

The American peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) was federally listed 

as an endangered species in 1970, and State listed as endangered in 1971. 

In August 1999, the American peregrine falcon was federally delisted. 

The American peregrine falcon is seen occasionally on the Kern Refuge 

especially during the winter when waterfowl populations are high and 

provide a prey base. Single observations of peregrine falcons have been 

reported in recent years primarily in the moist-soil units of Kern Refuge 

in the winter and spring months. Willow trees in the moist-soil units and 

a few utility poles provide perching sites for the falcons. 

Swainson’s Hawk. 

The Swainson’s hawk (Bueto swainsoni) is an uncommon breeding 

resident and migrant in the Central Valley (Polite 2000b). Swainson’s 

hawks breeding in California may spend the winter in Mexico and South 

America. Central Valley hawks appear to winter in Mexico and 

Columbia (CDFG 2001). Bloom (1980) estimated 110 nesting pairs, and a 

total population of 375 pairs in California (Polite 2000b). The Swainson’s 

hawk is State listed as a threatened species. 

Declining numbers of Swainson’s hawks are caused, in part, from loss of 

nesting habitat (Polite 2000b). Converting agricultural lands to various 

residential and commercial developments is a serious threat to 

Swainson’s hawks throughout California (CDFG 2001). 

Swainson’s hawks are rare migrants at Kern Refuge and reportedly 

breed further north. There are also records south of Kern Refuge on 

Kern Waterbank lands. Most sightings for the Refuge occur in July and 
Chapter 3 

54 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

August in the riparian area, with occasional sightings in March of a 

single bird. In mid-August 1993, a prescribed burn on the west side of 

the Refuge created good foraging habitat and 19 Swainson’s hawks were 

recorded feeding there. One pair of Swainson’s hawks did breed in an 

area north of the Refuge in 1993, and produced three young. Four 

Swainson’s hawks were seen in the Refuge riparian area in 1999, 

suggesting the Refuge provides limited roosting and foraging habitat as 

the birds migrate to South America. The birds have not been observed 

using the Refuge riparian area for nesting sites. 

Swainson’s hawks have been observed in the vicinity of Kern Refuge in 

migratory kettles. Kettles of Swainson’s hawks have been observed 

hunting and roosting off Refuge in areas where sheep are grazing, in 

newly cut alfalfa fields, and in burned areas. The largest kettle of 

Swainson’s hawk’s on record contained 95 individuals and was seen in a 

cut alfalfa field southeast of the Refuge along Wildwood Road in 1994. 

Burrowing Owl 

At one time, burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia) were common and 

widespread over western North America. However, populations of owls 

have declined, or disappeared altogether, due to the large scale changes 

made to the owl’s habitat (Souza 1998) including: poisoning and nest site 

loss resulting from human efforts to control squirrels and prairie dogs 

(Ehrlich, et. al. 1988); and converting grassland to agriculture (Grinnell 

and Miller 1944, Zarn 1974, and Remsen 1978). Burrowing owls are 

listed as a Federal Species of Management Concern and a State Species 

of Special Concern (Souza 1998). 

Kern Refuge provides habitat for burrowing owls in the form of 

grasslands on the west side along levees that contain abandoned 

California ground squirrels burrows, and in the entrance tunnels of two 

artificial kit fox dens. Small grassy areas such as the staging area north 

of the Refuge’s headquarters building, and the mall in front of the 

headquarters building, may support families of owls in some years. 

Multiple surveys in the spring and early summer of 1993, yielded counts 

of 12 distinct burrowing owl locations on Kern Refuge. On one sunrise 

survey conducted in July 1999, on the east side of Goose Lake Canal on 

Kern Refuge, five burrowing owls were counted. On night survey on the 

Kern Refuge conducted along a 12.1-mile route on the west side of Goose 

Lake Canal, five burrowing owls were counted in June of 1998. 

Pixley Refuge, consisting of primarily grazed grasslands, provides more 

habitat for burrowing owls. Multiple surveys conducted on Pixley 

Refuge in the spring and early summer of 1993, yielded 20 burrowing 

owl sites on Pixley Main (consisting of the Wetland, Centerfield, TwoWell, Deer Creek West and Deer Creek East Units) and the Dickey 

Tract. In addition, during this season, six burrowing owl locations were 

recorded on Pixley’s Horse Pasture Unit. 

On a sunrise survey of Pixley Main conducted on July 6, 1999, 48 

burrowing owls were observed. On a sunrise survey of the Horse 

Pasture Unit, conducted July 8, 1999, 28 burrowing owls were counted. 
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 55

Later that morning, 45 burrowing owls were counted at the Los Feliz 

Unit. On a 15.2-mile night survey route on Pixley Main, ten burrowing 

owls were counted in June 2001. Four burrowing owls were counted on 

the same survey route on a night survey in July 2001. 

Lost Hills Saltbush 

Lost Hills saltbush is an annual that flowers from May to August 

(Service 1998). It reaches a maximum height of eight inches (Service 

1998). The male and female flowers are mixed in small clusters in the 

upper leaf axils. The fruiting bracts are broadly triangular, irregularly 

toothed, and may or may not have tubercles. Lost Hills saltbush is listed 

as a Federal species of concern. It is one of the plant species included in 

the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, 

California (Service 1998). 

This species exists in the Valley sink scrub, Valley saltbush scrub, 

nonnative grassland, and alkali meadow plant communities (Service 

1998). At most sites, Lost Hills saltbush grows in dried beds of alkaline 

pools; however, one population, south of McKittrick, exists on exposed 

slopes rich in gypsum (Service 1998). Associated species include 

common saltbush, spiny saltbush, alkali heath, saltgrass, and seepweed 

(Service 1998). Valley-floor populations exist at elevations of 165 to 280 

feet (Service 1998). 

Prior to 1980, Lost Hills saltbush was reported in three general areas: 

north of Lost Hills; Mendota in Fresno County; and the Carrizo Plain in 

San Luis Obispo County (Service 1998). In the 1980s, a number of 

additional sites were discovered, and the species was confirmed to exist 

near Lost Hills and on the Carrizo Plain (Service 1998). The Lost Hills 

and Carrizo Plain sites represented large (greater than 10,000 plants) 

metapopulations, but most sites had a few hundred individuals or less in 

1993 (Service 1998). 

Lost Hills saltbush has been eliminated in some areas by converting land 

to agricultural use (Service 1998). Threats to this species include 

degraded habitat by livestock grazing, commercial and agricultural 

development, flooding for waterfowl management, and off-road vehicle 

activity (Service 1998). 

Although Lost Hills saltbush has not been the subject of direct 

conservation efforts, it has benefitted indirectly from acquisitions 

directed at other species (Service 1998). The most important task for 

conservation of Lost Hills saltbush is to protect existing populations on 

private land from ongoing threats (Service 1998). To do so, sites must be 

secured through conservation easements or acquisition, and public 

agencies must agree to protect habitat on public lands (Service 1998). 

In May 1991, a cursory survey was conducted of the San Joaquin Desert 

Research Natural Area (RNA), located in the northwest corner of the 

Kern Refuge, by the now late Jack Zaninovich, of the California Native 

Plant Society, and the Refuge biologist (Service 1991). Lost Hills 

saltbush was located and identified by Mr. Zaninovich in unit 12, which is 
Chapter 3 

56 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

within the RNA (Service 1991). This was the first record of this species 

for the Refuge (Service 1991). The heavy March rains resulted in a lush 

growth of many native forbs and probably increased the numbers of this 

small population of Lost Hills saltbush to a detectable level (Service 

1991). Surveys by botanists skilled enough to identify various species of 

Atriplex have not been conducted in the RNA since 1991. 

Diseases and Toxins 

When wildlife is exposed to bacterial, fungal, viral, or parasitic diseases, 

or chemical and biotoxins, the results can be massive die-offs of 

migratory waterfowl and it can be detrimental to resident wildlife 

populations. Suitable conditions for the outbreak and spread of diseases 

could occur on the Refuges because of infected migratory waterfowl, 

shorebirds, and neotropical migrants using the Refuge. Exposure to 

toxins could occur on the Refuges or on surrounding agricultural land. 

While relatively little is known about the general health of most wildlife, 

sufficient data exists on the Refuge’s to minimize, and if necessary, 

prevent major outbreaks and exposures of waterfowl and waterbirds to 

at least some chemicals and biotoxins. Management of other diseases 

has not been evaluated on the Refuges, but a network of qualified 

agencies and organizations would provide support for control and 

containment. Summarized below are real and potential toxin issues on 

the Refuges. 

Chemical Toxins 

Chemical toxin exposure on the Refuges could occur directly through 

lead shot, indirectly through rodenticides, and indirectly or directly 

through insecticides and herbicides. 

Lead Shot. Lead shot was commonly used for waterfowl hunting until 

1991, when the Service banned its use. Since 1991, steel shot has been 

used to hunt waterfowl. Infrequently, other nontoxic shot such as 

bismuth and tungsten are also used. In 1976, as part of a region-wide 

effort to address lead toxicity in waterfowl, 115 soil samples were taken 

that represented approximately 10 percent of the Kern Refuge wetland 

area. The number of lead pellets averaged 68,300 per acre and ranged 

from 8,094 to 147,155 pellets per acre. The range was reflective of the 

number of years a wetland unit had been exposed to hunting. Unit 1 had 

the highest average because it has been hunted 13 years and unit 6C had 

the lowest average because it has been hunted only 1 year. Also, as part 

of a related region-wide effort to address lead toxicity in waterfowl, 

gizzard samples were obtained from harvested waterfowl during the 

1975 to 1976, 1981 to 1982, and 1984 to 1985 hunt seasons. A total of 628 

gizzards, mostly from pintails (78 percent), were examined for ingested 

lead pellets. The overall ingestion rate decreased from 8 percent in 1975 

to 1976 to 2.7 percent in 1981 to 1982, to 2.2 percent in 1984 to 1985. At 

the time of these studies, the results were more indicative of pintails 

than any other species examined (mallard, shoveler, green-winged teal) 

and probably did not accurately reflect the lead pellet ingestion rate by 

waterfowl on the Kern Refuge. 
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 57

Since lead shot has been banned on the Refuge for more than 10 years, 

and because wetlands are periodically maintained through discing and 

plowing, lead poisoning is no longer the threat it once was. Periodic 

maintenance of wetland soils may aid in any remnant lead pellets 

migrating further into the soil, so that they will not be available to 

waterfowl when wetlands are flooded. 

Rodenticides. Rodenticides are not used on the Refuge. They may be 

used on surrounding land, which could result in secondary exposure to 

either transient or resident wildlife on the Refuge. 

Insecticides. The use of insecticides on the Refuge is governed by 

approved Pesticide Use Proposals and Compatibility Determinations. 

Limited use occurs to control mosquitoes to reduce the likelihood of 

serious public health risks, especially Encephalitis. The Kern County 

Mosquito Abatement District applies methoprene (a growth inhibitor) 

and BTI (biological control) in selected wetland areas only after field 

surveys document high mosquito densities. Published studies have 

documented that exposure of resident and migratory land-based and 

wetland wildlife to these larvacides causes little or no adverse effect to 

species or population persistence and longevity. 

Herbicides. The use of herbicides on the Refuge is governed by 

approved Pesticide Use Proposals and Compatibility Determinations. 

Both Rodeo and Roundup are used seasonally to control vegetation, 

especially cattails, around water control structures and in ditches and 

canals, and Garlon is used occasionally to control salt cedar. 

Diseases 

A Waterfowl Disease Plan, written in 1976, and a Disease Contingency 

Plan, written in 1984, provide a history and summary of disease 

outbreaks on the Refuges and surrounding lands from 1960 to 1983. 

These plans identify water level manipulation, habitat management, and 

planning as key elements in preventing, controlling, and managing 

waterfowl diseases. A Service Migratory Bird Disease Contingency Plan 

(1984) provides a framework for coordinating disease control and 

prevention.

The most serious disease on the Refuges is avian botulism and to a lesser 

extent avian cholera. For both of these, the Refuges could serve as a 

primary or secondary outbreak source. Avian botulism was first 

documented on Pixley Refuge in 1963, and in 1967 on Kern Refuge. 

Stagnant and poorly circulated water were identified as the causes in 

both initial outbreaks. Since that time, avian botulism has periodically 

been diagnosed on the Kern Refuge but infrequently on the Pixley 

Refuge. Water management (most wetlands are dry in June and July) 

has played a key role in reducing the likelihood of outbreaks on the 

Refuges, but the risk of birds becoming infected elsewhere and then 

using the Refuges, remains the same. 

Avian cholera was suspected in the death of one Canada goose on the 

Kern Refuge in 1968, and confirmed in the death of 96 birds in 1984. No 
Chapter 3 

58 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

outbreaks of or documented waterfowl deaths due to avian cholera have 

occurred on either of the Refuges since then, however, its occurrence in 

the Pacific Flyway is well documented. 

Cultural Resources 

Cultural Resources Defined 

Cultural resources are physical remains, sites, objects, records, oral 

testimonies, and traditions that connect us to our nation’s past. Cultural 

resources include archaeological and historical artifacts, sites, 

landscapes, plants, animals, sacred locations, and traditional cultural 

properties that play an important role in the traditional, but continuing, 

life of a community. Most of the recorded cultural resources at the 

Refuges are archaeological sites. 

Cultural resources, especially archaeological sites, are fragile and 

nonrenewable. Most consist of worked stone, fire altered rocks, and 

organically enriched soil on, or close to, the surface. When compared to 

the surrounding landscape and contemporary cultural features, such as 

roads, ditches, and structures, archaeological sites are small and subtle. 

Prehistoric Setting 

At various times the shore of Pleistocene era Lake Tulare would have 

been within what is now the Refuge. No archaeological evidence clearly 

demonstrates a Pleistocene human presence within the Refuge, however, 

discoveries nearby of fluted points, similar to the well known Clovis style 

projectile point, provide a hint of a human occupation around Lake 

Tulare for more than 9,000 years (Riddel and Olsen 1969, Preston 1981). 

The Refuge is situated on two historic slough channels that fed the 

Holocene Lake Tulare before it was drained for agricultural production. 

Marshes, sloughs, and lakes often provide rich resources for sustaining 

human life. The 1983 overview of cultural resources of the Refuge 

predicted that most sites are located above 218 feet mean sea level at the 

contact between Twissleman and Nahrub soil types (Arguelles 1983). 

These may represent the uplands and slough channels as they existed 

during the early Holocene Period. Many archaeological sites are found 

at bends in former sloughs and on large islands internal to the marsh. 

Ethnographic Setting 

When Europeans first came to California, the Yokuts inhabited most of 

the Valley. Settlement by people culturally akin to the Yokuts probably 

began about 7,000 years ago (Preston 1981). Their artifacts were much 

like those of Great Basin peoples but showed adjustments to a more 

westerly environment (Preston 1981). Latta (1949) estimated that before 

the coming of Europeans to California, the Yokuts numbered no less 

than 25,000 living in and around the Tulare Basin. In 1833, an epidemic, 

possibly a severe strain of malaria, wiped out 75 percent of the native 

population (Wallace 1978). 

Historic Setting 

Spanish Period. Pedro Fages left the first written record of the 

southern Valley. As acting governor of Alta California in the fall of 1772, 
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 59

Fages led a small band of soldiers through Tejon Pass and down into the 

Valley (Fages 1937). He visited the Yokut village of Tulamniu, which he 

named Buena Vista (Wallace 1978). From that time until 1806, except 

for a few vague reports of expeditions searching for deserting soldiers 

and mission runaways, there is no record of the Spanish visiting the 

southern Valley. 

In 1806, Father Jose Maria de Zalvidea and Alferez Gabriel Moraga 

accompanied Lieutenant Francis Ruiz from Mission Santa Barbara via 

Mission Santa Ynez into the Valley from the west, traversing, as Fages 

had done three decades earlier, around Buena Vista Lake and through 

what is now southern Kern County. Because the rest of California was 

rich and underpopulated, the Spanish saw little value in the Tulare 

Basin. 

Mexican Period. While Spanish authorities in California viewed the 

southern Valley with disinterest, the Mexicans saw it as a threat to their 

authority. It was a refuge and staging area for increasingly aggressive 

Yokuts raids and a route for illegal trappers, explorers, and settlers from 

the United States (U.S.). 

When California became part of Mexico (1822-1846), expeditions into the 

Valley were largely punitive. Ranchers organized campaigns to recover 

stolen livestock, punish thieves, and capture slaves. 

During the winter of 1826 to 1827, Jedediah Smith, the first U.S. citizen 

to enter the Valley, started trapping in the basin. His stories and the 

quality of the pelts he brought back encouraged the Hudson Bay 

Company to send trappers into California. Between 1832 and 1845 the 

Southern Trapping Party of the Hudson Bay Company employed 90 to 

100 men in the Valley (Elliott 1883). 

John C. Fremont explored the Valley in 1844 and 1845 (Preston 1981). 

In 1846, Fremont named the river the Spanish called Rio de San Felipe 

and La Porcincula, after his cartographer Edward M. Kern. 

U.S. Settlement. Although Tulare Basin did not experience an invasion 

by the first wave of immigrants, gold seekers and settlers soon overran 

the country and Indian lands passed into private hands. In 1851, the 

tribes agreed to relinquish their lands for reservations and payments in 

goods, but the treaty was never ratified by the U. S. Senate (Wallace 

1978). 

The key to agriculture in the Valley is irrigation. The first irrigation 

ditch in the basin was built between 1862 and 1867 (Preston 1981). Lake 

Tulare’s water levels fell and annual hydrologic cycles were disrupted as 

water was drawn from the Tulare Basin for irrigation. Natural stream 

courses were channelized and marshlands were drained for agricultural 

purposes. In 1898, articles in the Hanford Daily Journal and the Tulare 

County Times reported that the lake had dried up. 

Soils were an important factor in historic land use as they determined 

areas suitable for cultivation and grazing. Many soils initially favorable 
Chapter 3 

60 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

to historic agricultural methods were soon abandoned due to the 

accumulations of salts resulting from irrigation. Other soils, Pond Loam, 

Fresno clay, and to a lesser extent Nahrub clay were so heavy or 

compact that they would not yield to the plow, but did produce 

vegetation suitable for grazing (Arguelles 1983). 

As Tulare County’s reputation as grazing land grew, cattlemen streamed 

into the southern section. By the 1860s, the Visalia region had 3,300 nonIndian residents. Overgrazing and poor land management practices took 

their toll on the land and the people who settled there (Preston 1981). 

When the first rail line extended into the Tulare Basin in 1871, many of 

the cattle ranchers sold out and wheat and sheep farms spread across 

the basin. Between 1870 and 1880, Tulare County’s population increased 

149 percent from 4,533 to 11,281. By 1890 it had risen to 24,574, an 

additional 118 percent. 

Surveys

Most archaeological surveys in areas of Kern and Pixley Refuges have 

been done in conjunction with Federal projects. About 20 percent (2,102 

acres) of Kern Refuge’s 10,618 acres have been systematically surveyed 

for cultural resources. The remaining acreage includes about 33 percent 

(3,500 acres) managed as wetland and about 14 percent (1,500 acres) that 

was previously leveled agricultural fields, neither of which are likely to 

have intact archaeological sites. About 6 percent (387 acres) of Pixley 

Refuge’s 6,379 acres have been systematically surveyed for cultural 

resources.

Paleontological Resources 

Kern Refuge. Vertebrate fossils including a presumed mammoth 

(Arguelles 1983) and camelid remains (Grayson 1985) have been located 

within the Kern Refuge boundary. Beyond identification, no formal 

study of these fossils has been undertaken. No significant fossil finds 

would be expected within the Refuge. However, their discovery is a 

possibility. If collected, paleontological resources should be managed 

under the Department of the Interior’s Museum Property program.

Pixley Refuge. No significant fossil finds have been found, within the 

Pixley Refuge boundary. Discovery is, however, a possibility. 

Prehistoric Resources 

Kern Refuge. There are 26 recorded prehistoric sites within the Kern 

Refuge boundary, including burial areas, camp sites, and lithic scatter. 

A formal evaluation for eligibility to the National Register of Historic 

Places (NRHP) was started for the Poso Creek archaeological site, a 

prehistoric burial area. The nomination was returned by the National 

Park Service due to insufficient data. No further efforts have been taken 

to list this site on the NRHP. Eight prehistoric sites have been 

evaluated and determined not eligible for listing. Until listed or 

evaluated as ineligible all other sites should be treated as eligible for 

listing on the NRHP. It is probable that over the coming years 
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 61

archaeological sites may be inadvertently exposed by natural or human 

actions.

Several sites are currently mapped closely together. Additional survey 

data may show these to be a single site or an associated cluster. Given 

the area’s fluctuating hydrology, some sites may be deeply buried. 

Discovery of these sites through standard surface survey is unlikely. 

Pixley Refuge. There are three recorded prehistoric sites on Pixley 

Refuge. All consist of lithic scatter. In addition, one isolated prehistoric 

artifact (basal projectile point fragment) has been found on the Refuge. 

One prehistoric site lies just to the west of the Refuge. Three of the 

largest sites appear to have been dislocated from their original context 

and incorporated into levees. No sites have been formally evaluated for 

eligibility for listing on the NRHP. Until listed or evaluated as not 

eligible, all sites will be treated as eligible for listing on the NRHP. It is 

probable that over the coming years archaeological sites may be 

inadvertently exposed by natural or human actions. 

Historic Resources 

Kern Refuge. Two historic sites were recorded on Kern Refuge. Both 

consist of domestic debris from the first quarter of the twentieth 

century, such as cans that once held milk and tobacco, bottles, canning 

jars, and various metal objects. In 1983, these sites were determined not 

eligible for listing on the NRHP. Because the area was deemed swamp 

land during early surveys and not suitable for agriculture, physical 

remains of historic sites are likely to be few in number and primarily 

reflective of ranching activities. 

Pixley Refuge. Three historic sites have been recorded on the Pixley 

Refuge. They are composed largely of brick and some glass. The items 

date to the last quarter of the nineteenth century and the first quarter of 

the twentieth century. They likely correspond with the 1890s 

homesteads of M.P. Traniar and J. Armstrong (Arguelles 1983). 

Visitor Services 

The wetlands at Kern Refuge provide numerous opportunities for 

outdoor recreation including hunting, wildlife observation, photography, 

and environmental education. Over the past three years, Kern Refuge 

has averaged about 6,000 visitors annually. Until recently, the only 

visitor services on Pixley Refuge were guided public talks and tours. 

Pixley Refuge has averaged about 230 visitors per year over the last 

three years. Figure 10 shows the existing visitor facilities on Kern 

Refuge.

Refuge Access 

Kern Refuge’s entrance is located at the intersection of Garces Highway 

and Corcoran Road. The entrance is about 14 miles from Interstate 5 via 

State Highway 46 and Corcoran Road and 19 miles west of State 

Highway 99 via Garces Highway. Kern Refuge has a small paved 

parking lot at the headquarters with space for about eight vehicles and a 

larger gravel parking lot at the nearby hunter check station with space 
Chapter 3 

62 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

Figure 10. Existing Public Use Facilities: Kern Refuge

!©!© !©

!©

!© !©

!© !© !©

!© !©

!i !i

!i

!i!_

!_

!@

Refuge

HQ and

Entrance

1

12 8

2 14

7

3

9

11

13

6C

10

2A

6A

4A

5B

5A

1A

6B

4B

7B

0 0.5 1

Miles

CA/NV Refuge Planning Office - Mar 2004

!_ Restrooms

!i ParkingLots

!© Hunting Blinds

Existing Auto Tour Route

Closed Areas

Uplands

Wetland Sanctuary

Hunt Areas

Blinds

Free Roam

I

Figure 10. Existing Public Use Facilities

Kern National Widlife Refuge
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 63

for up to 75 vehicles. Three gravel parking lots with space for 20 to 30 

vehicles each, are located along the five-mile gravel auto tour route. In 

addition to vehicles, the tour route is also open to bicycles and 

pedestrians. 

Pixley Refuge is located about 6.7 miles from Highway 99 via Avenue 56 

and Road 88. The entrance to Pixley Refuge’s parking lot is located off 

Road 88, about one mile north of Avenue 56. The gravel parking lot has 

space for about 12 vehicles. 

Hunting

Waterfowl hunting has occurred on Kern Refuge since the early 1960s 

and is administered by CDFG through a cooperative agreement. Kern 

Refuge is the only public hunt area in the southern Valley. An average 

of 1,800 visitors per year hunt on the Refuge. From 1995 to 2002, the 

number of hunters at Kern Refuge has more than doubled from 1,236 to 

2,830. Hunters account for about 39 percent of the Refuge’s visitors. 

Currently, Kern Refuge has 11 hunting blinds spaced across 479 acres. 

Two of the blinds are wheelchair-accessible. A maximum of four hunters 

are allowed per blind. Kern Refuge also provides up to 1,867 acres of 

free roam hunt area. The maximum hunter density in this area is one 

hunter per 20 acres, for a total capacity of 93 hunters. The amount of the 

Refuge open to hunting depends on the acreage of flooded wetland 

habitat. The first 1,000 acres of the Refuge’s wetlands flooded, are 

closed to hunting. As the remaining wetland acreage is flooded, 55 

percent is closed to hunting and 45 percent is opened. During drought 

years, hunting may be completely closed or only open on a small area of 

the Refuge. Thus, the size of the hunt area is related to the availability 

of water. 

The duck-hunting season generally runs from late October or early 

November to mid-January. At Kern Refuge, hunt days are Wednesdays 

and Saturdays from a half hour before sunrise to sunset. Hunter success 

at Kern Refuge is consistently higher than the State average. Over a 7-

year period from 1995 to 2002, hunters at Kern Refuge averaged 2.7 

ducks per visit while, the State average over the same period was 1.7 

ducks per hunter visit. Figure 11 illustrates this trend. 

Hunters travel from all over California to hunt at Kern Refuge. 

However, most hunters are from two general areas: the southern Valley 

(Kern, Tulare, and Kings Counties) and the Los Angeles Basin (Los 

Angeles, Ventura, and Orange Counties). While about 34 percent of 

hunters traveled less than 50 miles to hunt on the Kern Refuge, 51 

percent traveled more than 100 miles to hunt the Refuge during the 1999 

hunt season. 
Chapter 3 

64 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

Hunting is not permitted on Pixley Refuge for a number of reasons. 

First, the Refuge is an important wintering area for sandhill cranes and 

the wetland area is too small to provide adequate sanctuary for the 

cranes and allow hunting. Second, due to the small size of the wetland 

unit, relatively few hunters could be safely accommodated. 

Furthermore, a hunt program would be difficult to administer due to the 

lack of staff present on the Refuge. Finally, as a wildlife sanctuary, 

Pixley Refuge’s wetlands attract waterfowl to the area, including nearby 

private wetlands that are hunted. 

Wildlife Observation, Interpretation and Environmental Education 

About 1,500 visitors participate in wildlife observation and 2,000 visitors 

participate in interpretation activities on Kern Refuge each year. The 

Refuge offers wildlife observation and photography opportunities along a 

five-mile self-guided auto tour route. Foot access is also allowed on 

established dike roads. The auto tour route is open year-round during 

daylight hours, except during the waterfowl hunting season. During this 

period, the Refuge is closed to the nonhunting public on hunt days 

 (Wednesdays and Saturdays). During the peak waterfowl migration, 

and wintering period (September 15 through February 15), visitor 

services are limited to the self-guided auto tour route, until 1,000 acres of 

wetlands are flooded. Once this initial sanctuary is established, 45 

percent of the remaining wetland units are opened to foot travel as they 

are flooded. 

Over the last three years, an average of about 445 visitors per year 

participate in staff or volunteer conducted talks, tours, and 

demonstrations at Kern Refuge. Approximately 340 students per year 

participate in Refuge-related environmental education, conducted by 

Refuge staff or volunteers either on or off Refuge. 

In 2000, Pixley Refuge staff and Tulare County Audubon Society 

volunteers constructed a parking lot and a 1.5-mile interpretive walking 

Figure 11. Average Duck Harvest per Hunter Visit: 1995 to 2002

Figure 11. Average Duck Harvest per Hunter Visit: 1995 to 2002.

0

1

2

3

4

1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Year

Number of Ducks Harvested 

per Visit

Kern Refuge

All State Administered Hunt Areas in California
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 65

trail and observation platform on the wetland unit at the Refuge. The 

trail guides visitors through 13 interpretive stops as well as six 

interpretive panels ending at an observation platform overlooking the 

east end of the managed wetland unit. The majority of the use occurs on 

the trail from fall to spring coinciding with bird migrations and 

waterfowl and waterbird use of the wetland habitat. Little use is 

expected in the summer months when the wetlands are dry. 

Socioeconomics

Economic Region 

Location. Kern Refuge is in the southern end of the Valley in the Tulare 

Basin, 19 miles west of Delano, California, in Kern County. Kern County 

is in the heart of Central California with an economic base of agriculture 

and oil. The Kern County land area is 2,000 square miles making it the 

third largest county in California. Kern Refuge, a single 10,618-acre 

unit, is surrounded by privately owned pasture (nonnative grassland), 

native scrublands, and agricultural croplands. 

Pixley Refuge is approximately 19 miles south of Tulare and 15 miles 

northwest of Kern Refuge, in Tulare County. Tulare County is about 

midway between San Francisco and Los Angeles. Tulare County 

consists of 2,000 square miles. The eastern half of the county (52 

percent) (U.S. Census Bureau 2003, California Research Bureau 1997) is 

primarily public land. These public lands include Kings Canyon National 

Park, Sequoia National Park, Sequoia National Forest, and Inyo 

National Forest. 

Population 

As of January 2001, Kern County’s population was 685,800 (about 2 

percent of the State’s population). Bakersfield, about 110 miles north of 

Los Angeles, is the County seat and the largest city in Kern County with 

a population of 254,400. Delano, Wasco, and Lost Hills, the cities nearest 

Kern Refuge, have populations of 38,824, 20,092, and 2,212, respectively. 

The combined population of the unincorporated portions of the County is 

276,200. The 2000 population for Census Tract 45, in which Kern Refuge 

is located, was 3,418, of this, 88 percent were Hispanic, 10 percent were 

white, 0.5 percent were black, 0.5 percent were American Indian, 

Eskimo, or Aleut, and 1 percent were Asian or Pacific Islander (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2003). 

The population of Tulare County, as of January 2001, was 375,550 (1.1 

percent of the State’s population). Of all the California counties, Tulare 

County is ranked first in agricultural production. Tulare County is also 

the second largest agricultural producing area in the United States and 

the number one milk producer in the world (California Department of 

Food and Agriculture 2002). Visalia, the County seat, is the largest city 

with a population of 94,300. Other major cities include Tulare, 

population 41,000, and Porterville, population 40,650. The combined 

population of the unincorporated portions of the County is 144,300. The 

2000 population of Census Tract 43, which includes the Pixley Refuge, 

was 6,746, of this 80 percent were Hispanic, 13 percent were White, 4 

percent were Asian or Pacific Islander, 1 percent were Black, 1 percent 
Chapter 3 

66 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

were American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut, and 1 percent were other (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2003). 

Employment

The civilian workforce in Kern County for 2000 was 287,000 (1.09 percent 

of the State’s population). The average per-capita income in 1999 was 

$19,886. The unemployment rate was 11.3 percent. In Tract 45, the 2000 

workforce of persons 16 and older was 2,188, of those, 22 percent were 

unemployed. Median household income for Tract 45 in 2000 was $30,547. 

In Tract 45, 39 percent of the population lives below the poverty level, of 

those, 35 percent are under 18 and 24 percent are 65 and older (U.S. 

Census Bureau 2003). 

In Kern County, the agriculture industry employed 46,900 people. 

Agriculture sales for the County in 2000 totaled $2.2 billion; this is 7.5 

percent of the State’s total agricultural income. Leading commodities in 

the County are grapes, citrus, almonds and by-products, cotton and 

processed cottonseed, milk, carrots, pistachios, cattle and calves, hay, 

and alfalfa. Of these commodities, California retains only 2 percent of 

the crops with approximately 18 percent exported to other nations and 

80 percent shipped to other states. In 2000, Kern County was the fourth 

most productive agricultural county in the State. 

The 2000 civilian labor force in Tulare County was 143,800, about 0.7 

percent of the State’s total. The average per-capita income in 1997 was 

$17,116. The 2000 work force in Census Tract 43, of persons 16 and 

older, was 3,172; of those, 1,394 were unemployed. Median household 

income is $19,185. In 2000, 38 percent of the population of Tract 43 lived 

in poverty; of those, 48 percent were 18 and younger and 13 percent 

were 65 and older (U.S. Census Bureau 2003). 

In 1999, 34,900 people in Tulare County were employed in the 

agricultural industry. The value of agricultural production in Tulare 

County for 1998 was $2.9 billion. This represents 10.8 percent of 

California’s total agricultural production. Leading commodities were 

livestock and livestock products, poultry and poultry products, field 

crops, vegetables, fruits and nuts, nursery products, seed crops, apiary 

products, milk, oranges, grapes, cattle and calves, hay and silage, alfalfa, 

plums, corn, grain and silage, nectarines, peaches, and cotton. 

Refuge Economics 

In 1996, 77 million people in the United States, 16 and older, participated 

in hunting, fishing, and wildlife watching; this is more than the total 

attendance in 1996 for all major league baseball and football games, 

which was 73.8 million. Of the 77 million wildlife enthusiasts, 62 million, 

almost one-third of the population of the United States, were wildlife 

watchers, this does not include hunting or visits to zoos, aquariums, or 

circuses. Americans spent $29.2 billion to observe, feed, and photograph 

wildlife in the United States, according to the 1996 National and State 

Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching report (Service 1998, Claudill 

and Laughland 1998). According to the report, more than one million 

jobs are created by wildlife watching, which generates $24.2 billion in 
Refuge and Resource Descriptions 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 67

employment income, $323.5 million in state income tax revenue, and $3.8 

billion in Federal income tax revenue. Wildlife watching also produces 

$1.04 billion in state sales tax revenue. Since 1991, wildlife watchers 

have increased by 21 percent (Service 1998, Claudill and Laughland 

1998). If wildlife watching had been a Fortune 500 company in 1996, it 

would have ranked 23rd (Claudill and Laughland 1998, Service 1998). 

In 1995, visitors to National Wildlife Refuges across the country 

contributed more than $401.1 million in sales to regional economies. As 

this spending flowed through the economy, more than 10,000 people 

were employed generating $162.9 million in employment income 

(Claudill and Laughland 1998). In 1996, wildlife watchers in California 

spent $2.1 billion and created 47,716 jobs that generated $1.1 million in 

income. This in turn resulted in $127.4 million in state sales tax revenue, 

$45.1 million in state income tax revenue, and $178.6 million in Federal 

income tax revenue (Claudill and Laughland 1998). 

In Kern County, travelers spent $788.8 million in 1998. The tourism 

industry employed 9,340 workers for a payroll of $121.4 million. County 

and State tax revenue generated by tourism totaled $13.2 million and $43 

million respectively. 

Millions of tourists travel through Tulare County each year to visit 

Sequoia National Park and Kings Canyon National Park. In 1998, 

travelers spent $425.4 million in Tulare County. The tourism industry 

employed 4,860 workers for a payroll of $64.2 million, which generated 

$7.1 million in local taxes and $23.1 million in State taxes. 

In fiscal year 2000, Refuge Revenue Sharing programs contributed 

$23,091 to Kern County and $9,325 to Tulare County. Grazing Receipts 

for Pixley Refuge were $18,756. On Kern Refuge, grazing receipts of 

$8,210 were used for habitat improvement projects. The two Refuges 

spent $498,400 for local contracts and another $160,000 was spent locally 

for goods and services. Salaries for Refuge employees, who live locally, 

totaled $530,000. 
Chapter 3 

68 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 69 

Chapter 4. Problems and 

Opportunities

Historic Habitat Destruction and Modification 

Kern Refuge was created in 1960 to replace wetland habitat in the 

southern San Joaquin Valley (Valley) lost as a result of draining and 

converting wetlands for agricultural use. Prior to the increase in 

agriculture, at least two streams that originated in the Sierra Nevada 

Mountains 40 to 60 miles to the east, meandered near the present day 

Refuge and ultimately emptied into Tulare Lake. Occasionally, during 

years of higher than average rainfall, these streams would overflow and 

flood major areas of the relatively flat Valley floor, including the area 

now occupied by the Refuge. These naturally flowing streams, 

occasional flooding, and relatively little agriculture resulted in a 

connected system of riparian corridors, wetland vegetation, and seasonal 

wetlands in the Valley. These natural processes and features are no 

longer apparent in the Valley, which today represents a landscape that 

has been drastically modified to meet agricultural demands. The 

Refuge, like the surrounding landscape, is also highly modified, with a 

series of constructed water delivery canals and ditches, water control 

structures, and regularly-shaped wetland units bounded by levees. 

Pixley Refuge was created in 1959 to replace wetlands lost due to 

draining by early settlers. Parts of Pixley Refuge are within the historic 

Tulare Lake Bed that once provided significant habitat for waterfowl on 

the Pacific Flyway. Draining the Tulare Lake Bed destroyed traditional 

habitat for migratory waterfowl. Other agricultural alterations in the 

southern San Joaquin Valley diminished upland habitat for native 

species as well. The Pixley Refuge preserves a portion of native upland 

habitat, which was once common on the lower portions of the Tulare 

Basin. Most of the other native uplands have been destroyed due to 

agriculture, urban development, and overgrazing. Today, only in high 

runoff years do flood flows reach the Tulare Lake Basin. In normal 

years, flows are retained in specific flood control areas for farming. The 

Tulare Basin watershed now has numerous reservoirs that hold the 

water to generate power, control flooding, and irrigate throughout the 

season. Continuing development around the Refuge could potentially 

become a problem, as dairies and other types of agriculture eliminate 

native habitat.

Nonnative Plant Species 

Nonnative plant species, especially salt cedar, continue to be problematic 

along levees and in wetland units. Although salt cedar provides habitat 

for some wildlife, most researchers have concluded that it has little value 

to most native amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals (Lovich and de 

Gouvenain 1998). While labor-intensive management (cutting it to a 

stump and painting the stump with herbicide) is effective in controlling 

salt cedar, treating large areas is expensive and the Refuge lacks the 

staff to implement this control method. Biological control is feasible but 

still uncertain, mechanical removal is site limited, and the use of foliar 

herbicides is being investigated. An integrated approach is being used 
Chapter 4 

70 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

on the Refuge Complex to control salt cedar that includes cut stump 

treatments as well as removal. 

The majority of vegetative ground cover on Refuge Complex uplands is 

nonnative grasses. This is particularly evident on the Pixley Refuge, but 

salt cedar also exists with nonnative grasses on the Kern Refuge. 

Because these grasses easily out-compete most native grasses and 

shrubs, without some form of management (grazing, burning, mowing) 

they can easily form dense rank stands of vegetation. These dense 

stands are not suitable for use by listed species, and prevent the 

establishment and growth of native forbs and shrubs. In contrast, the 

historic vegetation was probably dominated by desert scrub with a 

sparse cover of annual grasses and forbs (Hamilton 1997). This habitat 

type provided suitable foraging, burrowing, and escape cover for a 

variety of small native mammals and lizards. While grazing is currently 

the most promising tool used to reduce the density and height of 

nonnative grasses, little is known about its effects on the endangered 

Tipton kangaroo rat and blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Germano et al

2001). 

Contaminants

Little information is available on the overall health of Kern Refuge. 

While there is relatively little development around the Refuge, nonpoint 

source pollution from agricultural lands may be problematic, especially 

during floods, or through contaminated water delivery. Comprehensive 

water quality testing is conducted periodically. A comprehensive water 

analysis was completed in 1998 for water entering the Refuge at the 

Goose Lake Canal Intake. A review of this analysis found that the water 

chemistry was typical of irrigation return flows and that the Refuge 

could expect considerable variability based on the seasons and land 

practices. Generally, the water quality was considered moderate being 

not entirely acceptable but also not entirely problematic. No general 

change in wetland plant composition or distribution has been detected 

due to contamination or pollution, nor has any population of terrestrial or 

aquatic animal species indicated a problem. 

The Refuge’s reliance on delivered water, which includes some tail water 

from recently irrigated agricultural land, and the greatly reduced 

frequency of flooding, has allowed increased sediment and salt 

accumulation in many Refuge wetlands. In the higher elevation areas of 

the Refuge wetlands, this increase is noticeable in the lack of vegetation 

and white appearance of the soils, indicating a high salt concentration. 

In 1991, a Contaminants Assessment Process Report for Pixley Refuge 

was completed, based on studies conducted between 1986 to 1987. This 

report concluded that although the Refuge is in a highly agricultural 

area, contaminant levels are comparatively low and pose little or no 

threat to wildlife on the Refuge. The agricultural lands that surround 

the Refuge support row crops and dairies, and may become a problem in 

the future. Chronic illegal dumping, typically household waste, occurs 

along Road 88, which runs through Pixley Refuge. Illegal drug 

manufacturing by-products are occasionally dumped along this road as 

well and pose a potential threat to people and wildlife. 
Problems and Opportunities 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 71

Water Supply 

The Central Valley Project Improvement Act of 1992 (CVPIA) contains 

provisions that require the Bureau of Reclamation (Bureau) to provide 

reliable and adequate water supplies to both Kern and Pixley Refuges. 

For Kern, the Level 2 supply of 9,950 acre-feet of water is available in all 

years that are rated as better than critically dry, which is most years. In 

critically dry years, the Refuge will only receive 75 percent of the Level 2 

amount which is approximately 7,460 acre-feet. The Level 4 supply for 

Kern is 15,050 acre-feet and must be acquired by the Bureau each year 

from willing sellers. This availability of this supply to the Refuge is 

subject two major constraints: the availability of water on the open 

market, and the availability of Bureau funds to purchase the water. 

Either one of these limitations can affect the timing and total water 

supply available to the Refuge. 

The federal water year runs from March through February and water 

delivery schedules are prepared by the Refuge that detail monthly water 

delivery requests based on habitat management requirements. 

Unfortunately, the purchase of Level 4 water may not be complete until 

late in the summer or fall and frequently does not meet the total Level 4 

allocation. Since the total quantity of water that will be available for 

Refuge management is unknown early in the spring, it is impossible to 

develop and implement quality irrigation schedules. This limitation 

greatly impacts the Refuge’s ability to maximize the quality and quantity 

of the irrigated food plants. This inadequate spring and summer 

irrigation translates into decreased habitat suitability for migrating and 

wintering waterfowl and waterbirds the following fall and winter. 

Likewise, any decrease in total wetlands produced as fall and winter 

habitat, impacts the ability of the Refuge to supply the needs of the 

migrating and wintering waterfowl and waterbirds that utilize the 

Refuge habitats. 

Pixley Refuge currently receives all of its management water from a 

single well that was drilled in 1994. The well was drilled as an interim 

measure to provide some water to the Refuge while long term supply 

and conveyance agreements were developed. An environmental 

assessment developed in 2003 detailed a preferred alternative for 

delivering water to the Refuge via a pipeline that would connect to the 

Friant-Kern Canal (Bureau 2003). The high cost of this proposed project 

as well as a lack of available Bureau staff time has delayed development 

of the delivery system. Currently the Refuge only utilizes approximately 

1,000 acre-feet of water per year out of a CVPIA allocation of 6,000 acrefeet. Due to well output restrictions and internal Refuge water 

conveyance infrastructure limitations, the Service is able to actively 

manage only 300 of the 750 acres of potential wetlands. A conjunctive 

use program, utilizing both wells and surface water deliveries, has been 

proposed as an alternative to utilizing only surface deliveries. While 

water quality is generally good in the vicinity of the Refuge, the aquifer 

below the Refuge is over drafted causing fears that any additional use by 

the Refuge could create problems for other well users in the area. The 

lack of a reliable and full water supply continues to impact the full 
Chapter 4 

72 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

development of wetlands and has impacted the creation of suitable 

foraging habitat for sandhill cranes that winter on the Refuge. 

Lack of Information 

Strategies for wetland and upland management focus on providing 

suitable habitats for migratory birds, threatened and endangered 

species, and other resident wildlife. While these strategies are 

supported by biological information and principles, the lack of wildlife 

population data and long term habitat management information could 

create problems when planning and implementing future management 

actions.

High priority management actions include manipulating wetland 

vegetation to reduce emergent plant density, increasing moist soil 

waterfowl food plant vigor, and setting back successional processes to 

provide open water habitats. Grazing, fire, mowing, discing, plowing, 

and flood-up and draw-down dates have been used to manage wetland 

vegetation. The timing and effectiveness of these actions, however, has 

not been thoroughly correlated with the resultant vegetation and wildlife 

responses. With the exception of flood-up and draw-down dates, all 

other management actions occur during summer to early fall when the 

wetlands are dry. When flood-up occurs, bird use has not consistently 

been correlated with specific management actions. Because specific data 

is not available that provides concrete information concerning the effects 

of a single management action or interactions of multiple habitat 

modifications, the Refuge may not be providing the best possible habitat 

management for migratory and resident wetland dependent species. 

More specific data must be obtained and analyzed before the refuge 

manager is able to adequately address specific management actions. 

Grazing is used as a management tool to control nonnative vegetation on 

upland habitats on the Refuges. These uplands, approximately 25 

percent of the land area on the Kern Refuge and 95 percent of the land 

area on the Pixley Refuge, are used by threatened and endangered 

species. While the grazing season typically runs from November to 

April, the effects that cattle might have on the quality of the habitat for 

these species is not well documented. Compacting soil, destroying 

existing and potential burrow sites, reducing coverage or loss of native 

plants, and increasing waste products, are some of the issues that 

require further documentation, which ultimately may result in 

modifications to the grazing program. 

Fire is occasionally used to control wetland vegetation. However, the 

poor air quality in the San Joaquin Valley typically results in “No Burn” 

days during times when prescribed fire is most often used (summer and 

fall). While fire has been an important component in vegetation control 

and management in the past, current air quality restrictions will make it 

more difficult to use in the future. 

Land use practices on lands adjacent to the refuges are also of 

immediate concern. Sewage sludge imported from outside the Tulare 

Basin is applied as a soil amendment to croplands north of the Kern 

Refuge and dairies continue to be developed adjacent to the Pixley 

Refuge.
Problems and Opportunities 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 73

While the lack of information on the Refuges and on private properties 

adjacent to the Refuges continues to effect management strategies, 

there are ample opportunities for the Refuges to cooperate with area 

duck clubs to protect private upland habitat, provide technical assistance 

for wetland management, and cooperate with other Federal and State 

natural resource organizations to restore habitat and identify local 

conservation priorities. 
Chapter 4 

74 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 75 

Chapter 5. Refuge 

Management Direction: Goals 

Objectives and Strategies 

Goals are descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statements of desired 

future conditions that convey a purpose but do not define measurable 

units. Goals translate refuge purposes into management direction. Each 

goal is supported by measurable, achievable objectives with specific 

strategies needed to accomplish them. Objectives are designed to be 

accomplished within 15 years. Actual implementation, however, may 

vary as a result of available funding. Figures 11 and 12, respectively, 

show the proposed habitat management and visitor services plans for 

Kern Refuge. Figure 13 shows the proposed habitat management and 

visitor services plans for Pixley Refuge. 

Kern Refuge 

Goal 1. Provide high quality wintering and migratory habitat for 

migratory birds in the southern San Joaquin Valley, with an 

emphasis on waterfowl and waterbirds. 

Objective 1.A. Of the 6,400 acres that can be managed as seasonal 

wetlands, the Refuge would manage 2,400 acres for a plant cover of 

approximately 60 percent emergent vegetation and 40 percent open 

water. These moist soil units would be flooded less than eight inches 

deep to maximize seed availability for wintering and migratory dabbling 

ducks and to provide invertebrate substrate with sparse vegetation and 

water depths of less than two inches for shorebirds during the following 

spring migration (March to May). Plant composition will consist of 50 

percent or more of high-energy waterfowl food plants (ammannia, 

swamp timothy, sprangle-top, and barnyard grass). 

Prescribed Burn in Seasonal Marsh Unit. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Photo.

Goal 1: 

Migratory

Birds
Chapter 5 

76 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

!

!

!

!

!!

!

1

12

14

8

2

7

11 3

9

13

10

6C

2A

6A

4A

5B

5A

6B

4B 1A

7B

Restore Alkali

Scrub (440 acres)

Plant Riparian

Vegetation (15 acres)

Strengthen Levees

around Unit 14

Prepare Grassland Management

Plan, Eradicate 90 percent

of Salt Cedar in 10 Years, and

Expand Surveys and Monitoring

for Special Status Species Rehabilitate

Seasonal Marsh

(1,100 acres)

Complete

Moist Soil

Rehabilitation

(1,200 acres)

Expand Aerial Waterfowl

Surveys and Ground Surveys

for Shorebirds, other Waterbirds

and Raptors

Eradicate 90

percent of Salt

Cedar from 

Seasonal Marsh

within 5 Years

Eradicate 90 percent

of Salt Cedar from 

Riparian Habitat

within 10 Years

CA/NV Refuge Planning Office - Feb 2004

I

Figure 12. Proposed Habitat Management

Kern National Widlife Refuge

Moist Soil

Riparian

Seasonal Marsh

Summer Water

Units to be Rehabilitated

Saltbush Scrub

Grassland/Scrub/Playa

! ! Riparian Expansion
Refuge Management Direction: Goal, Objectives, and Strategies 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 77

!©!© !©

!©

!© !©

!© !© !©

!© !©

!i !i

!i

!i!_

!_

!@

Refuge

HQ and

Entrance

1

12 8

2 14

7

3

9

11

13

6C

10

2A

6A

4A

5B

5A

1A

6B

4B

7B

Construct New

Auto Tour Route

Develop Kiosk,

Boardwalk, and

Enhance Pond

at Entrance

Expand Hunt Area Expand Environmental Education

and Interpretation Programs

0 0.5 1

Miles

CA/NV Refuge Planning Office - Feb 2004

!_ Restrooms

!i ParkingLots

!© Hunting Blinds

New Auto Tour Route

Existing Auto Tour Route

Closed Areas

Uplands

Wetland Sanctuary

Hunt Areas

Blinds

Free Roam

I

Figure 13. Proposed Visitor Services Plan

Kern National Widlife Refuge
Chapter 5 

78 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

!i

!Å

Plant Riparian

Vegetation

(10 acres)

Acquire Remaining 

Natural Lands within

the Approved Boundary

(from willing sellers)

Expand Surveying,

Monitoring, and 

Research for Special 

Status Species and

Prepare a Grassland

Management Plan

Expand Environmental

Education and Interpretation

Programs

Pursue Linkage between

Pixley Refuge Units and

Department of Fish and

Game - Protected Natural 

Lands to South

Develop Grain

and Pasture

Unit (272 acres)

Develop Pullout

and Interpretive

Displays

ç

ç

ç

|ÿ99

|ÿ43

190 |ÿ

CA/NV Refuge Planning Office - March 2004

Figure 14. Proposed Habitat Management

and Visitor Services Plan

Pixley National Widlife Refuge

0123

Miles

I

Grain

Grassland

Moist Soil Wetlands

Riparian

Approved Refuge Boundary

Riparian Expansion

!Å Existing Observation Platform

!i Existing Parking Lot
Refuge Management Direction: Goal, Objectives, and Strategies 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 79

Rationale: Dabbling ducks prefer to feed in shallow water, between 2 and 

10 inches deep, with an equal ratio of open water and emergent 

vegetation (Fredrickson and Reid 1988). In general, pintail and greenwinged teal at Kern Refuge use open water areas during the day and 

areas with dense emergent food plants at night (Euliss and Harris 1987). 

Shorebirds feed on mudflats and very shallow water habitats (less than 

two inches deep) with sparse vegetation (Eldridge 1992). Pintail and 

green-winged teal are opportunistic foragers and generally shift their 

food habits throughout the season to the most available foods. Pintail 

and teal eat mostly seeds during fall. As the season progresses, the 

percentage of invertebrates in their diets increases, accounting for about 

60 percent of their food during January and February (Euliss and Harris 

(1987). A high diversity of food plants would provide balanced nutrition 

for waterfowl. Shorebirds feed primarily on invertebrates (Eldridge 

1992). The percent cover target in this objective is an average for all 

units.

Strategies:

 Begin flooding moist soil units in August if water is available. The 

Service would begin drawing down units in March. 

 Irrigate units once or twice in April and May to assist plant 

germination for waterfowl food. 

 Treat vegetation annually on 25 percent of the units using one or more 

of the following treatments: burning, discing, or mowing. 

Objective 1.B. Within three years, the Refuge would completely 

rehabilitate unit 14 (1,200 acres) to provide moist soil habitat for 

wintering and migratory dabbling ducks and spring-migrating 

shorebirds. 

Rationale: Pre-irrigated agricultural croplands were once the main 

source of habitat in the southern San Joaquin Valley for pintails arriving 

between August and September. Between 1976 and 1987, however, the 

area of pre-irrigated croplands declined by 60 percent (Barnum and 

Euliss 1991). Developing unit 14 as a moist soil unit would replace some 

of this lost habitat and increase the Kern Refuge’s carrying capacity for 

wintering and migratory dabbling ducks and spring-migrating 

shorebirds. Completion of this project will allow the Refuge to use its 

full CVPIA water allocation. 

Strategies:

 Eradicate salt cedar from the unit using mechanical and chemical 

methods. 

 Initiate moist soil water and vegetation management (see Objective 

1A).

Objective 1.C. Of the 6,400 acres of seasonal wetlands, the Refuge would 

manage 3,800 acres for a plant cover of 45 percent to 55 percent 

emergent vegetation (cattails, hardstem bullrush) flooded to less than 4 

feet deep, to provide foraging and loafing habitat for wintering and 

migratory waterfowl. 
Chapter 5 

80 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

Rationale: Deeper wetland habitats provide foraging sites for diving 

ducks. This type of habitat, equally interspersed with tall emergent 

vegetation (cattail and hardstem bulrush), provides excellent habitat for 

cover and loafing for a variety of waterfowl.

Strategies:

 Flood up the units sequentially, beginning in mid-August and finishing 

by mid-December. 

 Begin drawing down the units by late February and finish by midJune.

 Use burning, mowing, disking, and herbicide, as needed, to achieve 

the targeted plant cover. 

 Eradicate 90 percent of the existing acreage of salt cedar from 

seasonal wetland units within 5 years,. 

 Rehabilitate units 7, 7b, and 8 by reconstructing existing dikes or 

constructing new dikes, installing new water control structures, and 

mechanically removing salt cedar. 

Mowing Seasonal Marsh at Kern Refuge. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Photo.

Objective 1.D. Of the 3,800 acres of marsh habitat, the Refuge would 

manage up to 300 acres for a plant cover of 75 percent, flooded from 1 to 

2 feet deep from mid-March to July, to provide nesting habitat for 

tricolored black birds and white-faced ibis. 

Rationale: Kern Refuge has historically been an important nesting site 

for tricolored blackbirds and recently for white-faced ibis. More than 

10,000 blackbirds and 5,000 ibis nest in the late spring or early summer 

when water management objectives on the Refuge are directed at 

drawing water off wetlands. During this time, the Refuge provides 

stable wetland habitat for these species that is consistent with published 

management recommendations (Beedy and Hamilton 1997). This action 

also benefits other wetland dependent wildlife. 

Strategies:

 Retain 1 to 2 feet of water in unit 1 from mid-March to July. 
Refuge Management Direction: Goal, Objectives, and Strategies 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 81

 Conduct two tricolored blackbird censuses each spring in cooperation 

with the CDFG. 

 Coordinate with Kern Mosquito Abatement District to insure that 

spraying does not occur when tricolor blackbirds are present. 

Objective 1.E. The Refuge would minimize the occurrence, spread, and 

severity of botulism outbreaks.

Rationale: Type C botulism can cause major die-offs of waterbirds 

during the summer. Between 1969 and 1980, four major outbreaks in the 

southern San Joaquin Valley killed 70,700 birds. Major die-offs 

generally occur during the years when the valley receives flood flows 

from Sierra Nevada streams during the spring (D. Hardt pers. comm). 

On the Refuge, botulism can be avoided by completely draining the 

wetlands during the hottest period of the summer (D. Hardt pers. comm) 

Strategies:

 Keep all units dry between June 1 and August 1 (except 300 acres of 

unit 1 managed for tricolored blackbirds.) 

 Patrol historically problematic wetlands on the Refuge and in the 

southern Valley in cooperation with the CDFG to quickly identify 

outbreaks.

 Remove sick and dead birds from wetlands. Sick birds would be 

brought to the duck hospital at Kern Refuge for rehabilitation. 

Carcasses would be buried. 

Objective 1.F. The Refuge would provide high quality resting and 

foraging habitat in a sanctuary for waterfowl, using the following 

formula: (1) the first 1,000 acres of habitat would be closed to hunting; 

and (2) the remaining wetland habitat would be opened on a 45-percent 

open, 55-percent closed basis. 

Rationale: Sanctuary areas are extremely important on Refuges that 

allow hunting and other public uses, because they provide high quality 

habitat for feeding, resting, and thermal protection. Without these 

areas, waterfowl and other wildlife species exposed to repeated human 

disturbances may change food habits and distribution patterns, feed only 

at night, lose weight, have decreased reproductive success, and/or 

abandon the feeding, nesting, and resting areas. Sanctuary at Kern 

Refuge is especially important because it attracts waterfowl away from 

the Tulare Lake Drainage District evaporation ponds which are 

immediately north of the Refuge. These ponds may contain harmful 

levels of contaminants including selenium (San Joaquin Valley Drainage 

Program 1990). 

Strategies:

 Open units 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 4A, and 4B to hunting and close the remaining 

units when all Refuge wetlands are flooded. 

 Open units 5A and 5B after the moist soil habitat in unit 14 is 

completely developed.
Chapter 5 

82 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

Objective 1.G. The Refuge would conduct regular surveys of waterfowl 

and other migratory birds on the Refuge and in the southern San 

Joaquin Valley to help track their population status. 

Rationale: Regular surveys of waterfowl and other migratory birds are a 

critical component of the adaptive management approach proposed for 

these species and their habitat. These surveys, in addition to those 

conducted at other wildlife areas in California’s Central Valley and 

throughout the Pacific Flyway, provide important information about 

species’ population trends that will help determine how well our 

management strategies are working. 

Strategies:

 Conduct monthly aerial waterfowl surveys of the southern Valley from 

September to March. 

 Conduct biweekly shorebird, waterbird, and raptor surveys from 

September to June. 

Objective 1.H. In partnership with other Federal, State, and local 

agencies and nongovernmental organizations, the Service would seek to 

protect and enhance up to 16,000 acres of wetlands and associated 

uplands in the southern San Joaquin Valley through conservation 

easements. Up to 2,000 acres may be acquired in fee title. The acquired 

lands would become the Tulare Basin Wildlife Management Area. 

Rationale: Despite being the driest region in the Central Valley, the 

historic wetlands in the Tulare Basin associated with Tulare, Buena 

Vista, and Kern Lakes, provided the largest single block of wetland 

habitat in California (Service 1978). About 260,000 acres of permanent 

wetlands and an equal area of seasonal wetlands, were once present. 

Loss and modification of these native wetlands was primarily due to 

large-scale conversion to agricultural lands and the dramatic decline in 

flood flows to the Tulare Basin held back by flood control projects. 

Today, less than one percent of the historic wetland acreage remains. 

Active and cooperative partnerships with other Federal, State, and local 

agencies and nongovernmental organizations would allow all of these 

agencies to use expertise, personnel, and funding resources to acquire 

and enhance wetlands for migratory and resident waterfowl and 

waterbirds. This project would make an important contribution toward 

the goals of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan and the 

Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture Implementation Plan (see 

Appendix B). 

Strategies:

 Within one year, prepare a detailed land protection plan and 

environmental assessment to evaluate various land protection 

alternatives. 
Refuge Management Direction: Goal, Objectives, and Strategies 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 83

Goal 2. Protect, preserve, and restore valley sink scrub and 

grassland habitats in the southern San Joaquin Valley to contribute 

to the recovery plan goals for the San Joaquin kit fox, blunt-nosed 

leopard lizard, and Tipton kangaroo rat. 

Objective 2.A. The Refuge would actively manage 2,377 acres of upland 

vegetation to prevent excessive accumulation of mulch and growing 

plants to provide suitable habitat for Tipton kangaroo rat and bluntnosed leopard lizard. The Service would maintain an average residual 

dry matter (RDM) of less than 800 pounds per acre in the upland areas 

until optimum management conditions are determined through scientific 

research.

Rationale: The Tipton kangaroo rat and blunt-nosed leopard lizard 

inhabit upland plant communities where the understory is dominated by 

nonnative annual grasses and forbs. During all but drought years, if left 

unchecked, these annuals form dense stands. The Tipton kangaroo rat 

and blunt-nosed leopard lizard both appear to be intolerant of dense 

grass cover (Germano et al. 2001). In a habitat management plan for 

kangaroo rats at Lemoore Naval Air Station (Kelly et al. 2000), 

prescribed burning in grasslands when RDM approaches or exceeds 800 

pounds per acre is recommended. Though fire is an effective means of 

reducing annual grass cover, it can kill native saltbush shrubs (Germano 

et al. 2001) and is difficult to implement over large areas due to air 

quality restrictions. Germano et al., (2001) recommend cattle grazing as 

an alternative to burning to reduce exotic grass cover for the benefit of 

declining species in the southern San Joaquin Valley. 

Strategies:

 Measure the average RDM at several locations beginning in October 

of each year to determine appropriate timing, duration, and stocking 

rates for cattle (assumptions for pounds RDM/animal unit month). 

 Graze cattle in the upland areas until target RDM is reached. 

 Implement cooperative land management agreements with grazing 

permittees.

 Develop and implement a grassland management plan that explores 

various grazing regimes for managing the cover of grasses and forbs. 

The plan would be adaptive, and would include monitoring the effects 

of management tools on vegetation and wildlife. 

Objective 2.B. The Refuge would protect uplands from Poso Creek flood 

flows.

Rationale: Poso Creek flood waters discharge onto the west side of the 

Refuge. The inadequate levees and water control structures of unit 14 

on the west side may result in sheet flooding of adjacent Refuge uplands. 

Floods of this magnitude occur every 8 to 10 years on average, the most 

recent occurrence was in 1998. The endangered Tipton kangaroo rat and 

blunt-nosed leopard lizard are intolerant of flooding (Service 1998). 

Refuge records reflect little or no use of Refuge uplands by these two 

species, and the endangered San Joaquin kit fox, in the years following 

floods.

Goal 2: 

Threatened

and

Endangered

Species
Chapter 5 

84 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

Strategies:

 Fill all wetland units to capacity when flood flows arrive. 

 Stop inflow into the Refuge after all wetland units are filled. 

 Strengthen levees surrounding units 11, 12, and 14. 

 Negotiate a Poso Creek floodwater management agreement with 

adjacent landowners that maximizes benefits to waterfowl, shorebirds, 

and other wetland wildlife. 

Objective 2.C. In partnership with other Federal, State, and local 

agencies and nongovernmental organizations, the Service would seek to 

establish links between Kern Refuge and other natural lands in the area 

including the Semitropic Ridge Natural Area, Pixley Refuge, the 

Allensworth Natural Area, and along Poso Creek to the Sierra foothills. 

Links would be established through management or conservation 

agreements, incentive programs, and/or acquisition from willing sellers 

(fee or easement). 

Rationale: Currently, most protected natural lands in the San Joaquin 

Valley that provide habitat for Tipton kangaroo rat, blunt-nosed leopard 

lizard, and San Joaquin kit fox are isolated islands surrounded by 

unprotected lands (see Figure 7 in Chapter 3). Establishing links 

between these habitat islands would prevent genetic isolation of the 

listed and sensitive species that exist there (Recovery Tasks 5.1.2 and 

5.1.9 in the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley). 

Strategies:

 Seek approval to prepare a detailed land protection plan to evaluate 

various land protection alternatives. 

 Coordinate with habitat conservation planning efforts in Kern and 

Tulare Counties. 

Objective 2.D. In partnership with CDFG and California State 

University, Stanislaus’ Endangered Species Program (ESRP), conduct 

research and monitoring of special status species and their habitats as 

described in the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin 

Valley.

Rationale: Lack of information about some species existing on Pixley 

Refuge can be a major impediment to successful management. The 

Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley identifies a 

number of research needs applicable to Kern Refuge (Recovery Tasks 

3.2.4, 3.2.19, 3.2.30, 4.26, 4.53, 4.56, and 4.82). Currently, the Refuge has 

inadequate resources (funding and staff) to conduct this research. 

Cooperative partnerships with other agencies, universities, and 

institutions could produce additional resources, enabling more research 

projects to be completed. 

Strategies:

 Census and monitor the following special status species on the Refuge 

on an annual basis: San Joaquin kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat, bluntnosed leopard lizard, Buena Vista Lake shrew, giant slough thistle, 

and recurved larkspur. 
Refuge Management Direction: Goal, Objectives, and Strategies 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 85

 Develop and implement a comprehensive census and monitoring plan 

for special status species. 

 Investigate the following aspects of Buena Vista Lake shrew biology 

and ecology: habitat requirements, reproduction and demography, 

population genetics, effects of pesticide use and drift, and the effects 

of selenium. 

 Conduct rare plant surveys of the alkali sinks on the Refuge. 

Goal 3. Restore and maintain representative examples of Tulare 

Basin riparian and saltbush scrub habitats on Kern Refuge. 

Objective 3.A. The Kern Refuge would maintain and enhance the 450-

acre riparian area through regular water management to provide habitat 

for a high diversity of native riparian dependent species (neotropical 

migrants, raptors, colonial nesting birds, and small mammals). 

Rationale: Because nearly 90 percent of the riparian vegetation present 

prior to European settlement has been lost, riparian areas in the 

southern San Joaquin Valley are rare (Barbour et al. 1991). Riparian 

communities on the Refuge are used by special status species including 

Buena Vista Lake shrew and giant slough thistle. The large willow and 

cottonwood trees on the Refuge provide nesting habitat for great horned 

owls and great blue herons. The natural hydrology of the area has been 

dramatically altered by upstream water diversions and creek 

channelization. As a result, the riparian vegetation along the remnant 

sloughs in units 9 and 10 and between units 4 and 5, has no natural 

source of surface water to sustain it. 

Strategies:

 Flood the riparian area in fall, winter, and early spring. 

 Irrigate trees once a month during the summer (June, July, and 

August) to maintain trees. 

 Eradicate salt cedar from the riparian areas using mechanical 

removal, herbicide, and/or water management. 

Objective 3.B. By 2005, the Refuge would plant and maintain 15 acres of 

riparian vegetation along the canals around unit 14 to provide habitat for 

the Buena Vista Lake shrew, neotropical migrant birds, and colonial 

nesting waterbirds. 

Rationale: See rationale under Objective 3.A. Riparian restoration and 

management recommendations contained in the Riparian Bird 

Conservation Plan (RHJV 2000) would be used to guide riparian 

restoration efforts. 

Strategies:

 Rehabilitate canal and setback levee 30 feet along canals. 

 Plant and maintain riparian trees, shrubs, and forbs native to the 

riparian forests in the area using cuttings from nearby populations. 

 Monitor response of bird populations to riparian restoration. 

 Manage restored riparian habitat according to strategies listed under 

Objective 3.A. 

Goal 3: 

Biodiversity
Chapter 5 

86 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

Objective 3.C. Within 5 years, the Refuge would restore 440 acres of 

valley saltbush scrub vegetation in unit 13 to provide cover, nesting, and 

foraging habitat for upland migratory bird species. 

Rational: The valley saltbush scrub plant community occurred 

historically on the borders of lakes and overflow lands of the major 

streams in the Tulare Basin. More than 80 percent of this community 

was eliminated as the Valley was developed for agriculture (Werschkull 

et al., 1984). Alkali sink scrub provides important cover, nesting, and 

foraging habitat for a variety of migratory bird species including: sage 

sparrow, western meadowlark, loggerhead shrike, short-eared owl, 

burrowing owl, and mourning dove. Restoring unit 13 would increase 

the extent of this community on the Refuge by more than 50 percent. 

Strategies:

 Monitor existing test plot. 

 Cut shallow swales through unit 13. 

 Prepare seed beds with light disking or by other means. 

 Collect, prepare, and broadcast seed. 

 Irrigate unit by flooding swales. 

 Control weeds. 

 Monitor success (seed germination, plant growth, relative cover, etc.). 

Objective 3.D. The Refuge would reduce salt cedar cover on the Refuge 

by 90 percent over the next 10 years to improve habitat quality for native 

species. 

Rationale: Salt cedar is a nonnative invasive species contributing to the 

decline in suitability of native habitats used by native-resident and 

migratory species (TNC 2001, Kerpez and Smith 1987). Dense stands of 

salt cedar exist in upland areas in the RNA, in wetlands, and along 

levees.

Strategies:

 Control salt cedar using an integrated pest management (IPM) 

approach that may include the following methods: flooding (in 

wetlands only), mechanical removal, biological control, and herbicide 

applied to cut stumps (Garlon) or foliage (Arsenal). 
Refuge Management Direction: Goal, Objectives, and Strategies 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 87

Waterfowl at Kern Refuge. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Photo. 

Goal 4. Provide visitors with wildlife-dependent recreation, 

interpretation, and education opportunities that foster an 

appreciation and understanding of Kern Refuge’s unique wildlife, 

plant communities, and cultural resources. 

Objective 4.A. The Refuge would provide safe hunting opportunities for 

up to 172 hunters per day (depending on the area of flooded wetlands) on 

Wednesdays and Saturdays during the hunt season. Hunters would 

have a reasonable chance of success in uncrowded conditions. 

Rationale: Hunting, one of the six priority public uses identified in the 

Refuge Improvement Act, has occurred on Kern Refuge since 1963. In 

this objective, safe means that there are no hunting-related safety 

incidents. Reasonable chance of success means that the average duck 

harvest per hunter visit would be greater than or equal to the State 

average. Uncrowded means that there would be no more than one 

hunter per 20 acres. Kern Refuge is open to hunting only two days a 

week (Wednesday and Saturday) unlike other refuges in the Central 

Valley that are open three days a week (Wednesday, Saturday, and 

Sunday). There are two main reasons for not allowing hunting on 

Sundays: (1) hunter success is usually poor on the second day of back-toback hunt days; and (2) it allows the auto tour route to be opened on a 

weekend day when the demand for wildlife viewing is greatest. The tour 

route cannot be opened on a hunt day because it goes through a portion 

of the hunt area. 

Strategies:

 Provide 11 spaced blinds in units 4A and 4B (2 wheelchair-accessible) 

for hunter use with a maximum of 4 hunters per blind. 

 Provide 1,867 acres of free-roam hunt area in units 1, 1A, 2, and 2A. 

Maximum hunter density would be 1 hunter per 20 acres with a 

maximum of 92 hunters. 

Goal 4: 

Visitor

Services
Chapter 5 

88 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

 Provide an additional 9 spaced blinds in units 5A and 5B (1 

wheelchair-accessible) for use by up to 4 hunters per blind, when unit 

14 is completely developed as a moist soil unit. 

Objective 4.B. The Refuge would provide opportunities, including 

adequate facilities, for visitors to view, photograph, appreciate, and enjoy 

the Refuge’s unique natural communities and wildlife during all seasons 

with a target of 5,000 visits per year 

Rationale: Wildlife observation and photography are two of the six 

priority public uses identified in the Refuge Improvement Act. 

Currently, about 2,300 visitors per year participate in wildlife 

observation and photography on Kern Refuge. Most use occurs along 

the five-mile self guided auto tour route. The tour route is closed, 

however, on hunt days (Wednesdays and Saturdays) due to safety 

concerns. As a result, opportunities for wildlife viewing and 

photography on these days are limited. A new tour route could provide 

wildlife viewing opportunities on hunt days. 

Strategies:

 Construct a new tour route as shown in Figure 12. This would involve 

improving and weatherproofing approximately 2.3 miles of existing 

levee road, constructing pullouts, and installing interpretive signs 

along the route. This project could potentially be funded through the 

Refuge Roads Program. 

 Construct two new photography blinds. 

Objective 4.C. The Refuge would provide guided interpretive tours for 

students and members of interested organizations to develop an 

awareness of natural communities, wildlife, and ecology with a target of 

sustaining at least 1,000 visits per year. 

Rationale: Educational and interpretive activities provide the public with 

opportunities to be introduced to and better understand the natural 

resources and their management. Implementing programs with local 

schools and communities would provide an alternative learning 

environment (outdoor classroom) for investigating and interpreting 

relationships between flora and fauna. 

Strategies:

 Develop and implement a public use plan. 

 Develop partnerships with local school districts and other 

organizations to provide periodic, interpretive tours which highlight 

the Refuge’s unique resources. 

 Develop new interpretive signs, displays, and a new Refuge brochure. 

 Develop a kiosk and boardwalk, and enhance the pond at the Refuge 

entrance.
Refuge Management Direction: Goal, Objectives, and Strategies 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 89

Cub Scouts Hiking at Kern Refuge. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Photo.

Objective 4.D. The Refuge would encourage educators from the 

southern San Joaquin Valley to use Kern Refuge to conduct 

environmental education field studies that focus on the Refuge’ s unique 

natural communities, with a target of 500 visits annually within 5 years. 

Rationale: Both upland and wetland areas on Kern Refuge represent 

habitats of the southern San Joaquin Valley prior to the conversion of 

native lands for agriculture. Within the managed native habitats on the 

Refuge, the relationships between native plants and animals can be 

observed, documented, and studied. Information obtained through a 

visit to the Refuge, as well as that presented in educational materials, 

would provide a working foundation for environmental education in the 

field as well as in the classroom. 

Strategies:

 Hire one full time outdoor recreation planner (shared with Pixley 

Refuge) when funding is available

 Develop educational materials. 

Objective 4.E. The Refuge would encourage and provide opportunities 

for research by other agencies, universities, and institutions, as the 

projects relate to the management goals and objectives of the Refuge. 

Rationale: Lack of information about some species and their habitats on 

Kern Refuge can be a major impediment to successful management. The 

Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley identifies a 

number of research needs applicable to the Kern Refuge (Recovery 

Tasks 3.2.4, 3.2.19, 4.25, 4.52, 4.55, and 4.57). Currently, the Refuge has 

inadequate resources (funding and staff) to conduct this research. 

Cooperative partnerships with other agencies, universities, and 

institutions could produce additional resources, enabling more research 

tasks to be completed. 
Chapter 5 

90 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

Strategies:

 Develop research partnerships with the U.S. Geological Survey 

Biological Resources Division, California State University, and 

University of California campuses, focusing on the RNA and the 

Refuge’s unique wetland and riparian habitats. 

Objective 4.F. Within three years, the Refuge would participate in a 

minimum of 12 outreach activities each year. 

Rationale: Since it was established in 1960, Kern Refuge has been a 

haven for waterfowl hunters. While managing wetland habitat is 

important, the Refuge management focus continues to broaden and 

include uplands, listed species, and nonconsumptive compatible uses. 

Participating in local and regional fairs, workshops, and presentations at 

schools and other organizations is critical to increasing the number of 

people aware of the Refuge and its unique resources, especially among 

nontraditional user groups. 

Strategies:

 Develop a friends group for the Refuge. 

 Provide presentations about the Refuge and its unique resources to 

schools, conservation groups, and public service organizations. 

 Plan and conduct a Waterfowl Expo at the Refuge each fall. 

 Purchase general and Refuge specific displays for use at fairs, shows, 

and festivals. 

Kern Refuge Community Outreach. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Photo.

Objective 4.G. Implement a proactive cultural resource management 

program focused on meeting the National Historic Preservation Act 

requirements; and consultation with the State Historic Preservation 

Officer to identify, inventory, evaluate, and protect cultural resources. 

Rationale: Various Federal historic preservation laws and regulations 

require the Service to implement the kind of program described under 
Refuge Management Direction: Goal, Objectives, and Strategies 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 91

this objective. Inattention to these responsibilities may obstruct the 

Refuge in its other land, habitat, and wildlife management efforts. 

Strategies:

 Identify archaeological sites that coincide with existing and planned 

roads, facilities, public use areas, and habitat projects. 

 Implement a program to evaluate NRHP eligibility on those 

archaeological sites that may be affected by Service projects, 

management activities, erosion, or neglect. Prepare and implement 

activities to mitigate impacts to such sites as necessary. 

 Develop a geographic information system (GIS) layer for cultural 

resources that can be used with other GIS layers for the Refuge, yet 

contains appropriate controls to protect sensitive information. 

 Develop partnerships with the Tribes for inventorying, evaluating, 

and project monitoring for cultural resources consistent with the 

regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

 Update and expand Kern and Pixley Refuges 1983 Overview of 

Cultural Resources to develop a cultural resource management plan. 

Objective 4.H. Develop a program for interpreting the cultural 

resources of the Refuge, in partnership with the Tribes and other 

preservation partners. 

Rationale: Because cultural resources are not renewable, interpreting 

them could instill a conservation ethic among the public and others who 

encounter or manage them. The goals of the cultural resources 

interpretive program would be to: (1) translate the results of cultural 

research into media that can be understood and appreciated by a variety 

of people; (2) relate the connection between cultural resources and 

natural resources and the role of humans in the environment; (3) foster 

an awareness and appreciation of native cultures; and (4) instill an ethic 

for the conservation of our cultural heritage. 

Strategies:

 Consult with the Tribes, historical societies, and other preservation 

partners to identify the type of cultural resources information 

appropriate for public interpretation. 

 Prepare interpretive cultural resources media (e.g., pamphlets, signs, 

exhibits).

 Develop a museum property inventory. Create storage and use plans 

for museum property as part of the outreach program. 

Objective 4.I. Create and use a memorandum of agreement with Native 

American groups to implement the inadvertent discovery clause of the 

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). 

Rationale: Developing a memorandum of agreement prior to an 

inadvertent discovery is strongly suggested by the NAGPRA 

implementing regulations. Such an agreement can facilitate 

consultations as required by law after an inadvertent discovery. 
Chapter 5 

92 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

Strategies:

 Identify Native American Tribes, groups, and direct lineal 

descendants that may be affiliated with the Refuge lands. 

 Open consultation process with affiliated Tribes, groups, and direct 

lineal descendants. 

 Define funerary, sacred, and cultural patrimony objects. 

 Develop procedures to follow for intentional and inadvertent 

discoveries. 

 Identify persons to contact for the purposes of NAGPRA. 

Pixley Refuge 

Goal 1. Protect, preserve, and restore alkali sink scrub, saltbush 

scrub, iodine bush scrub and grassland habitats in the southern San 

Joaquin Valley, to contribute to the recovery plan goals for the San 

Joaquin kit fox, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, and Tipton kangaroo 

rat.

Objective 1.A. Pixley Refuge would actively manage 4,730 acres of 

upland vegetation to prevent excessive accumulation of mulch and 

growing plants and provide suitable habitat for Tipton kangaroo rat and 

blunt-nosed leopard lizard. The Service would maintain an average 

residual dry matter (RDM) of less than 800 pounds per acre in the 

upland areas until optimum management conditions are determined 

through scientific research. 

Rationale: The Tipton kangaroo rat and blunt-nosed leopard lizard 

inhabit upland plant communities where the understory is dominated by 

nonnative annual grasses and forbs. During all but drought years, if left 

unchecked, these annuals form dense stands. The Tipton kangaroo rat 

and blunt-nosed leopard lizard both appear to be intolerant of dense 

grass cover (Germano et al., 2001). In a habitat management plan for 

kangaroo rats at Lemoore Naval Air Station, prescribed burning in 

grasslands when RDM approaches or exceeds 800 pounds per acre is 

recommended (Kelly et al., 2000). Though fire is an effective means of 

reducing annual grass cover, it can kill native saltbush shrubs (Germano 

et al., 2001) and is difficult to implement over large areas due to air 

quality restrictions. Germano et al., (2001) recommend cattle grazing as 

an alternative to burning to reduce exotic grass cover for the benefit of 

declining species in the southern San Joaquin Valley. 

Strategies:

 Measure the average RDM at several locations beginning in October 

of each year to determine appropriate timing, duration, and stocking 

rates for cattle (assumptions for pounds RDM/animal unit month). 

 Using the stocking rates calculated above, graze cattle in the upland 

areas until target RDM is reached. 

 Implement cooperative land management agreements with grazing 

permitees.

 Develop and implement a grassland management plan that explores 

various grazing regimes for managing the cover of grasses and forbs. 

The plan would be adaptive, and would include monitoring the effects 

of management tools on vegetation and wildlife. 

Goal 1: 

Threatened

and

Endangered

Species
Refuge Management Direction: Goal, Objectives, and Strategies 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 93

Objective 1.B. In partnership with CDFG and California State 

University, Stanislaus’ (CSUS) Endangered Species Recovery Program, 

the Refuge would conduct habitat management studies to determine how 

best to enhance habitat for the Tipton kangaroo rat and blunt-nosed 

leopard lizard. 

Rationale: More than 90 percent of the habitat on the Pixley Refuge is 

grassland, composed of native and nonnative species. Grazing is 

currently the only management tool used to provide more open habitat 

for these endangered species. Additional research would provide 

important information related to grazing rates and duration as well as 

information on other management tools (mowing, burning) that may also 

be useful. Information from research conducted in partnership with 

other agencies would complement Refuge and region-wide management 

strategies and objectives for these endangered species (Recovery Task 

4.24 in Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, 

California). 

Strategies:

 Continue to work closely with CDFG and the CSUS’ Endangered 

Species Recovery Program to facilitate studies on the Pixley Refuge. 

 Participate in studies with these agencies and institutions to gain a 

greater understanding of the characteristics and challenges associated 

with endangered species on non-Refuge lands. 

Blunt-Nosed Leopard Lizard. W. Flaxington © 2003. 

Objective 1.C. In partnership with other Federal, State, and local 

agencies and private landowners, the Service would seek to link and 

protect blocks of suitable habitat for the Tipton kangaroo rat and bluntnosed leopard lizard, in the area between and around the Pixley Refuge 

and the Allensworth Natural Area, to minimize the effects of random 
Chapter 5 

94 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

catastrophic events (e.g., drought, flooding, fire) on their populations.

The blocks of land should be several thousand acres each, with a core 

area of at least 5,000 acres of high quality habitat that is not subject to 

over bank or sheet flooding. The core area should provide topographic 

and plant community diversity. 

Rationale: Historically, the Tipton kangaroo rat was widely distributed 

in the arid portions of the Tulare Basin. By 1985, the area it inhabited 

had been reduced, primarily by cultivation and urbanization, to about 3.7 

percent of the historical acreage (Service 1997). The remaining 

populations on small islands of protected habitat (see Figure 7 in 

Chapter 3) are vulnerable to random catastrophic events (e.g., drought, 

flooding, fire). Protecting larger blocks of habitat would contribute to 

the Tipton kangaroo rat’s recovery by making these populations less 

vulnerable to extinction. This objective would implement Recovery Task 

2.1.7 of the Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley. 

Strategies:

 Acquire remaining natural lands within the approved Refuge 

Boundary from willing sellers. 

 Seek approval to prepare a land protection plan to evaluate various 

land protection strategies (fee or easement acquisition of natural 

lands, and agricultural land retirement). 

Goal 2. Restore and maintain a representative example of Tulare 

Basin riparian habitat on Pixley Refuge. 

Objective 2.A. The Refuge would maintain and enhance the existing 15-

acre riparian area to provide habitat for a high diversity of native 

riparian dependent species (neotropical migrants, raptors, colonial 

nesting birds, and small mammals). 

Rationale: Because nearly 90 percent of the riparian vegetation present 

in the Central Valley prior to European settlement has been lost, 

riparian areas in the southern San Joaquin Valley are rare (Barbour et 

al. 1991). The willows along Deer Creek provide cover and nesting 

habitat for a variety of neotropical migratory birds and raptors. 

Strategies:

 Eradicate exotic vegetation from the riparian areas using mechanical 

removal and/or herbicide. 

Objective 2.B. Within 5 years, the Refuge would plant and maintain 10 

acres of riparian forest along the service ditch and north levee of wetland 

cells to provide habitat for a diversity of wildlife including neotropical 

migratory birds, colonial nesting waterbirds, and raptors. 

Rationale: See Objective 2.A 

Strategies:

 Plant dormant cottonwood and willow pole cuttings in late fall. 

 Irrigate in spring and summer and monitor and replant as necessary. 

Goal 2:

Biodiversity
Refuge Management Direction: Goal, Objectives, and Strategies 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 95

Goal 3. Provide high quality wintering and migratory habitat for 

migratory birds in the southern San Joaquin Valley, with an 

emphasis on waterfowl, sandhill cranes, and other waterbirds. 

Objective 3.A. The Refuge would manage 755 acres of moist soil units 

for a plant cover of approximately 60 percent emergent vegetation and 

40 percent open water. The units would be flooded to a depth of less 

than eight inches, to maximize seed availability for wintering and 

migratory dabbling ducks; to provide invertebrate substrate with sparse 

vegetation; and to provide water depths of less than two inches for 

shorebirds during the following spring migration (March to May). Plant 

composition will consist of 50 percent or more of high-energy waterfowl 

food plants (ammannia, swamp timothy, sprangle-top, and barnyard 

grass).

Rationale: Dabbling ducks prefer to feed in shallow water, between 2 and 

10 inches deep, with an equal ratio of open water and emergent 

vegetation (Fredrickson and Reed 1988). Pintail and green-winged teal 

are opportunistic foragers and generally shift their food habits 

throughout the season to the most available foods. Pintail and teal eat 

mostly seeds during the fall. As the season progresses, the percentage 

of invertebrates in their diets increases, accounting for about 60 percent 

of their food during January and February (Eulis and Harris (1987). A 

high diversity of food plants would provide balanced nutrition for 

waterfowl. Shorebirds feed primarily on invertebrates on mudflats and 

very shallow water habitats (less than two inches deep) with sparse 

vegetation (Eldridge 1992).

Strategies:

 Begin flooding moist soil units in August if water is available. The 

Refuge would begin drawing down units in March. 

 Irrigate units once or twice in April and May to assist waterfowl food 

plant germination. 

 Treat vegetation on 25 percent of the units annually using one or more 

of the following treatments: burning, discing, or mowing. 

Objective 3.B. Within 5 years, the Refuge would develop 272 acres of the 

Turkey Tract into a grain and pasture unit to provide foraging habitat 

for waterfowl, sandhill cranes, and other waterbirds. 

Rationale: Up to 3,000 sandhill cranes each year use the moist soil 

habitat at Pixley Refuge for resting habitat while they forage mostly off 

Refuge on adjacent grain fields. In the past several years, a number of 

these grain fields have been lost due to the development of several large 

dairies and more are planned. Development of a grain unit on the 

Turkey Tract would provide permanent foraging habitat for the cranes 

adjacent to the wetland unit to replace habitat lost due to development of 

dairies. 

Goal 3: 

Migratory

Birds
Chapter 5 

96 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

Sandhill Cranes. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Photo.

Strategies:

 Develop water delivery system from existing wetland units to the 

Turkey Tract. 

 Develop irrigation system. 

 Cultivate small grains in rotation. 

Objective 3.C. The Refuge would minimize the occurrence, spread, and 

severity of botulism outbreaks.

Rationale: Type C botulism has the potential to cause major die-offs of 

waterbirds during the hot summer. Between 1969 and 1980, four major 

outbreaks in the southern San Joaquin Valley killed 70,700 birds. Major 

die-offs generally occur during the years when the Refuge receives flood 

flows from Poso Creek during the spring. Botulism can be avoided by 

completely draining the wetlands during the hottest period of the 

summer (David Hardt, pers. comm.). 

Strategies:

 Keep all units dry between June 15 and August 1. 

 Patrol historically problematic wetlands on the Refuge and in the 

southern San Joaquin Valley in cooperation with CDFG to quickly 

identify outbreaks. 

 Remove sick and dead birds from wetlands. Sick birds would be 

brought to the duck hospital at Kern Refuge for rehabilitation. 

Carcasses would be buried. 
Refuge Management Direction: Goal, Objectives, and Strategies 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 97

Goal 4. Provide visitors with wildlife-dependent recreation, 

interpretation, and education opportunities which foster an 

appreciation and understanding of Pixley Refuge’s unique wildlife 

and plant communities. 

Objective 4.A. The Refuge would provide opportunities (including 

adequate facilities) for visitors to view, photograph, appreciate, and 

enjoy the Refuge’s unique natural communities and wildlife during all 

seasons, with a target of 3,500 visits per year. 

Rationale: Wildlife observation and photography are two of the six 

priority public uses identified in the Refuge Improvement Act. 

Currently, about 300 visitors per year participate in wildlife observation 

and photography on Pixley Refuge. All use occurs along the 1.5-mile 

self-guided interpretive trail. 

Strategies:

 Construct a pullout off State Highway 43, with signs that interpret 

wildlife-friendly farming for sandhill cranes and other waterbirds, 

once the Turkey Tract is fully developed. 

Objective 4.B. The Refuge would provide guided interpretive tours for 

students and members of interested organizations to develop an 

awareness of natural communities, wildlife, resource management, and 

ecology with a target of sustaining at least 1,000 visits per year. 

Rationale: Educational and interpretive activities provide the public with 

opportunities to better understand the natural resources and 

management practices on the Refuge. Implementing programs with 

local schools and communities would provide an alternative learning 

environment (outdoor classroom) for investigating and interpreting 

relationships between flora and fauna. 

Strategies:

 Hire a full time outdoor recreation planner (shared with Kern 

Refuge), when funding is available.

 Develop educational materials. 

Objective 4.C. The Refuge would encourage educators from the 

southern San Joaquin Valley to use Pixley Refuge to conduct 

environmental education field studies that focus on the Refuge’s unique 

natural communities, with a target of 500 visits annually within 5 years. 

Rationale: The upland and wetland areas on Pixley Refuge represent 

habitats of the southern San Joaquin Valley that existed prior to the 

conversion of native lands for agriculture. Within the managed native 

habitats on the Refuge, the relationships between and among native 

plants and animals can be observed, documented, and studied. 

Information obtained through a visit to the Refuge, as well as that 

presented in educational materials would provide a working foundation 

for environmental education in the field as well as in the classroom. 

Goal 4: 

Visitor

Services
Chapter 5 

98 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 

Strategies:

 Develop and implement a public use plan. 

 Establish partnerships with educational institutions and local 

organizations.

 Develop educational materials. 

 Develop new interpretive signs, displays, and a Refuge brochure. 

Objective 4.D. The Refuge would encourage and provide opportunities 

for research by other agencies, universities, and institutions, as the 

projects relate to the management goals and objectives of the Refuge. 

Rationale: The lack of information about some species existing on Pixley 

Refuge can be a major impediment to successful management. The 

Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley identifies a 

number of research needs applicable to Pixley Refuge (Recovery Tasks 

3.2.4, 3.2.19, 4.24, 4.25, 4.50, 4.51, 4.57, 4.77, 4.78, and 4.79). Currently, 

the Refuge has inadequate resources (funding and staff) to conduct this 

research. Cooperative partnerships with other agencies, universities, 

and institutions could produce additional resources, enabling more 

research projects to be completed. 

Strategies:

 Continue to participate in and facilitate studies conducted by CSUS’ 

Endangered Species Recovery Program. 

 Develop research partnerships with the U.S. Geological Survey 

Biological Resources Division, California State University, and 

University of California campuses focusing on Pixley Refuge’s unique 

grassland and alkali playa habitats. 

Objective 4.E. Within three years, the Refuge would participate in a 

minimum of 12 outreach activities each year. 

Rationale: Public outreach is essential in developing understanding of 

and appreciation for wildlife conservation and the Refuge System. 

Strategies:

 Develop a friends group for the Refuge. 

 Provide presentations about the Refuge and its unique resources to 

schools, conservation groups, and public service organizations. 

 Coordinate with California Department of Transportation to develop 

Refuge displays for rest stops. 

Objective 4.F. The Refuge would preserve archaeological resources for 

present and future cultural and scientific research and education. 

Rationale: Little reconnaissance or documentation has occurred on 

Pixley Refuge concerning historic or archaeological sites and most 

adjacent properties have been highly modified to meet agricultural 

needs. Preservation and perhaps interpretation of historic or 

archaeological sites would add to our knowledge of prior occupation in 

the southern San Joaquin Valley and on the Refuge. 
Refuge Management Direction: Goal, Objectives, and Strategies 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 99

Strategies:

 Conduct archeological surveys prior to starting habitat or biological 

work that may disturb historic or archaeological sites. 

 Work with Federal and State historic preservation offices and 

universities to document and interpret any discovered sites. 

 Conduct law enforcement patrols. 
Chapter 5 

100 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges 
Comprehensive Conservation Plan 101

Chapter 6. Plan 

Implementation

Once the preferred management alternative has been finalized, the CCP 

has been approved, and the Service has notified the public of its decision, 

the implementation phase of the CCP process begins. During the next 

15 years, the objectives and strategies presented in this CCP would be 

realized; the CCP would serve as the primary reference document for all 

Refuge Complex planning, operations, and management until it is 

formally revised. The Service would implement the final CCP with 

assistance from existing and new partner agencies and organizations and 

the public. 

Activities needed to realize the management strategies discussed in this 

CCP are referred to as projects. Every effort would be made to 

implement these projects by the deadlines established here. However, 

the timing of implementation of the management activities proposed in 

this document is contingent upon a variety of factors, including: 

 Funding,

 Staffing,

 Completion of detailed step-down management plans, 

 Compliance with other Federal laws and regulations, 

 Partnerships, and 

 The results of monitoring and evaluation. 

Each of these factors is described briefly below as it applies to the 

Service’s proposed action. 

Funding and Staffing 

To implement the proposed action and to achieve the objectives and 

goals of this CCP, the Service would need additional funding and staff. 

Appendix E describes the budget proposals and staffing needs for Kern 

and Pixley Refuges, respectively, for each project proposed in this CCP.

Full implementation of all of the projects proposed in this CCP would 

require the Service to increase Kern Refuge Complex’s current annual 

operations budget by 43 percent to approximately $820,000. 

If the proposed action is implemented, full staffing for both Kern and 

Pixley Refuges would include the following positions. 

 Project leader 

 Deputy project leader 

 Wildlife biologist 

 Private lands biologist 

 Administrative support assistant 

 Office automation clerk 

 Refuge operations specialist 

 Three engineering equipment operators 

 Maintenance worker 

 Outdoor recreation planner 

 Law Enforcement Officer 

 Biological Science Technician 
Chapter 6 

102 Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges

Step-Down Management Plans 

Some projects or types of projects require more in-depth planning than 

the CCP process is designed to provide. For these projects, the Service 

prepares step-down management plans. In essence, step-down 

management plans provide the additional planning details necessary to 

implement management strategies identified in a CCP. Kern and Pixley 

Refuges currently have a number of step-down plans already completed. 

These include plans for fire management (Appendix K), disease 

prevention and control, and pest management. This CCP proposes 

several new step-down plans that are identified in Table 1 along with 

their target date for completion. 

Table 1. Proposed New Step-Down Plans. 

Step Down Plans Target Year for 

Completion 

Land Protection Plan – Wetlands 2005

Comprehensive Inventory and Monitoring 

Plan 2006

Grassland Management Plan 2006

Visitor Services Plan 2007 

Land Protection Plan – Upland Linkages and 

Threatened and Endangered Species Habitat2 2008

Poso Creek Flood Water Management Plan 2016 

Compliance Requirements 

This CCP was developed to comply with all Federal laws, executive 

orders, and legislative acts to the extent possible. Some activities 

(particularly those that involve revising an existing step-down 

management plan or preparing a new one) would need to comply with 

other laws or regulations. In addition to NEPA and the Improvement 

Act, full implementation of all components of this CCP would require 

compliance with: 

 Executive Order 11988 (Floodplain Management); 

 Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review of Federal 

Programs);

 Executive Order 11593 (Protection of Historical, Archaeological, and 

Scientific Properties); 

 Executive Order 11990 (Protection of Wetlands); 

 Executive Order 12996 (Management and General Public Use of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System); 

 Executive Order 12898 (Environmental Justice in Minority 

Populations and Low-Income Populations); 

 Secretarial Order 3127 (Hazardous Substances Determinations); 

 Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended; 

 Refuge Recreation Act of 1962, as amended; and the 

 National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended. 

2

 Subject to the approval of the Director of the Fish and Wildlife Service 
Plan Implementation 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan 103

Partnership Opportunities 

As described in Chapter 1, a number of partners play an important role 

in helping the Service achieve its goals and objectives for Kern and 

Pixley Refuges. The Service would continue to rely on these and other 

partners in the future to help implement this CCP and to provide input 

for future CCP updates. This CCP identifies many projects that provide 

new opportunities for existing or new partners. There is great potential 

for more public participation and assistance in the management and 

interpretation of the Refuges. The Service welcomes and encourages 

more public participation in the Refuges. 

Adaptive Management 

This CCP provides for adaptive management of Kern and Pixley 

Refuges. Adaptive management is a flexible approach to long-term 

management of biotic resources that is directed by the results of ongoing 

monitoring activities and new data. Management techniques, objectives, 

and strategies are regularly evaluated in light of monitoring results, new 

scientific understanding, and other new information. These periodic 

evaluations are used to adapt management objectives and techniques to 

better achieve the Refuge’s goals. Monitoring is an essential component 

of adaptive management in general, and of this CCP. Specific 

monitoring strategies have been integrated into the goals and objectives 

described in this CCP whenever possible. 

Plan Amendment and Revision 

CCPs are meant to evolve with each individual refuge unit, and the 

Improvement Act specifically requires that CCPs be formally revised 

and updated at least every 15 years. The formal revision process would 

follow the same steps as the CCP process (see Figure 3). In the 

meantime, the Service would review and update this CCP periodically (at 

least as often as every five years) based on the results of the adaptive 

management program. This CCP would also be informally reviewed by 

Refuge staff while preparing annual work plans and updating the Refuge 

database. It may also be reviewed during routine inspections or 

programmatic evaluations. Results of any or all of these reviews may 

indicate a need to modify the plan. The goals described in this CCP 

would not change until they are re-evaluated as part of the formal CCP 

revision process. The objectives and strategies, however, may be revised 

to address changing circumstances or to take advantage of increased 

knowledge of the resources on the Refuge. If changes are required, the 

level of public involvement and associated NEPA documentation would 

be determined by the Project Leader in accordance with Service policy.