Appendix A. 

Environmental Assessment 

A-i

Table of Contents

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action...................................................................................................A-1

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................... A-1

Proposed Action................................................................................................................................................... A-1

Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action................................................................................................ A-1

Project Area ......................................................................................................................................................... A-1

Decisions to be Made .......................................................................................................................................... A-1

Issue Identification.............................................................................................................................................. A-1

Public Involvement.............................................................................................................................................. A-1

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Refuge Service and National Wildlife Refuge System .......................................... A-4

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the Proposed Action ...........................................................................A_7

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................................... A-7

Current Management ......................................................................................................................................... A-7

Features Common to All Alternatives............................................................................................................ A-19

Proposed Action................................................................................................................................................. A-20

Alternative A: No Action .................................................................................................................................. A-21

Alternative B ...................................................................................................................................................... A-22

Alternative C ...................................................................................................................................................... A-24

Alternative D...................................................................................................................................................... A-26

Chapter 3. Affected Environment...................................................................................................................A-27

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences ....................................................................................................A-29

Soils...................................................................................................................................................................... A-29

Water Quantity and Quality............................................................................................................................. A-30

Air Quality .......................................................................................................................................................... A-30

Plant Communities............................................................................................................................................ A-32

Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................................ A-33

Special Status Species....................................................................................................................................... A-37

Diseases and Toxins .......................................................................................................................................... A-39

Cultural Resources............................................................................................................................................ A-39

Visitor Services .................................................................................................................................................. A-40

Socioeconomics................................................................................................................................................... A-43
A-ii

Figures

Figure 1. Watershed and Ecosystem Setting ....................................................................................................................A-2 

Figure 2. Location Map.........................................................................................................................................................A-3 

Figure 3. Habitat Management Alternatives: Kern Refuge.........................................................................................A-15 

Figure 4. Visitor Service Alternative: Kern Refuge ......................................................................................................A-16 

Figure 5. Habitat Management and Visitor Services Alternative: Pixley Refuge ....................................................A-17 

Figure 6. Kern Refuge: Current and Projected Visitation (15 Years) ........................................................................A-38 

Figure 7. Pixley Refuge: Current and Projected Visitation (15 Years) ......................................................................A-40 

Tables

Table 1. Alternatives Summary: Kern Refuge .................................................................................................................A-8 

Table 2. Alternatives Summary: Pixley Refuge .............................................................................................................A-12 

Appendices

Appendix 1. Alternatives: Goals, Objectives, and Strategies 

Appendix 2. References 
A-1

Chapter 1. Purpose of and Need for Action 

Introduction

This draft environmental assessment (EA) evaluates the environmental effects of four alternatives for 

managing the Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges (Refuges). This EA will be used by the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service (Service) to solicit public involvement in the refuge planning process and to determine 

whether the implementation of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP) would have a significant 

effect on the quality of the human environment. This EA is part of the Service's decision-making process 

in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). 

Proposed Action 

The Service proposes to implement Alternative C, as described in this EA. This alternative is described in 

more detail in the CCP. 

Purpose of and Need for the Proposed Action 

A CCP is needed to guide the management of the Kern and Pixley Refuges. In addition, the National 

Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 requires that CCPs be in place for all refuges within 15 

years of its enactment. 

Project Area 

Kern and Pixley Refuges are two of several National Wildlife Refuges in California 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), also known as the Tulare Basin. 

Kern Refuge is about 19 miles west of Delano, California in northern Kern County. The Refuge consists of 

a single 10,618-acre unit. It is surrounded by privately owned non-native grassland used for pasture, 

agricultural croplands, and privately owned wetlands managed as duck clubs. Pixley Refuge is located 

approximately 19 miles south of the city of Tulare, California in southwestern Tulare County. It consists of 

11 units ranging in size from 40 to 900 acres, surrounded by agricultural croplands and pasture. 

Decisions to be Made 

Based on the analysis documented in this draft EA, the California/Nevada Operations Manager must 

select one of the management alternatives for Kern and Pixley Refuges and determine whether the 

selected alternative would have a significant effect on the quality of the environment. 

Issue Identification 

Issues, concerns, and opportunities were identified through early planning discussions and through the 

public scoping process, which began with the mailing of the first planning update in August of 1999. Other 

comments were submitted in writing and through personal communications. For a discussion of the issues, 

see Chapter 2 of the CCP. 

Public Involvement 

Three CCP planning updates were distributed to a mailing list of about 210 individuals, groups, and 

agencies in August 1999, February 2000, and April 2002. Public workshops were held in August of 1999 in 

Tulare and Bakersfield. In addition, a brochure describing the planning process and requesting input was 

distributed to refuge visitors during the fall of 1999. The Project Leader gave presentations to several 

groups including the Tulare Basin Wetlands Association and the Audubon Society. 
A-2

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
A-3
A-4

Public input received in response to these updates and workshops is incorporated into the CCP and EA, 

and a summary of comments is included in Chapter 2 of the CCP. The original comments are being 

maintained in the California/Nevada Refuge Planning Office in Sacramento, California, and are available 

for review.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Wildlife Refuge System 

The mission of the Service is to conserve, protect, and enhance the nation's fish and wildlife and their 

habitats for the continuing benefit of the American people. The Service is the primary Federal agency 

responsible for migratory birds, endangered plants and animals, certain marine mammals, and 

anadromous fish. The responsibility to conserve our nation's fish and wildlife resources is shared with 

other Federal agencies and State and Tribal governments. 

As part of this responsibility, the Service manages the National Wildlife Refuge System (Refuge System). 

The Refuge System is the only nationwide system of Federal lands managed and protected for wildlife and 

their habitats. 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. 

The Kern and Pixley Refuges are managed as part of the Refuge System in accordance with the National 

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

Improvement Act of 1997, and other relevant legislation, Executive Orders, regulations, and policies. 

Chapter 1 of the CCP summarizes these major laws, regulations, and policies and describes the goals of the 

Refuge System. 

Refuge Purposes 

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 set aside 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 landutilization program . . ." 7 U.S.C. § 1011; (2) Secretarial Order 2843, dated November 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. 

Goals for the 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. 

Goal 2: 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's kangaroo rat. 

Goal 3: Restore and maintain a representative example of Tulare Basin grassland, riparian, and sink scrub 

habitats on Kern Refuge. 

Goal 4: Provide visitors with wildlife- dependant recreation, interpretation, and education opportunities 

which foster an appreciation and understanding of Kern Refuge’s unique wildlife, plant communities and 

cultural resources. 
A-5

Goals for the Pixley Refuge 

Goal 1: Protect, restore, and manage 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's kangaroo rat. 

Goal 2: Restore and maintain a representative example of Tulare Basin grassland and riparian habitat on 

Pixley Refuge. 

Goal3: 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. 

Goal 4: Provide visitors with wildlife-dependant recreation, interpretation, and education opportunities 

which foster an appreciation and understanding of Pixley Refuge’s unique wildlife and plant communities. 
A-6
A-7

Chapter 2. Alternatives, Including the 

Proposed Action

Introduction

This chapter describes four alternatives for managing Kern and Pixley Refuges: Alternative A, No Action; 

Alternative B, Emphasize Waterfowl; Alternative C, Emphasize Migratory Birds and Special Status 

Species; and Alternative D, Emphasize Biodiversity. These alternatives are summarized in Tables 1 and 2 

and described below. Appendix 1 includes more detailed descriptions includes goals, objectives, and 

strategies for each alternative. Figures 3, 4, and 5 show a graphical representation of these alternatives. 

The Service’s proposed action is Alternative C. Three of the four alternatives presented in this chapter are 

“action alternatives” that would involve a change in the current management of the Refuges. Under the 

Continue Current Management alternative, the Service would continue managing Kern and Pixley 

Refuges as it currently does. 

Current Management 

Kern Refuge

Current management of the Kern Refuge is guided by a Master Plan developed in 1986. Management 

efforts are focused on creation and maintenance of quality wetland habitat for migratory birds with an 

emphasis on waterfowl and water birds; protection of threatened and endangered species and 

enhancement of their habitats; and providing quality wildlife-dependant recreational opportunities.

Wetland habitat creation and maintenance has been a major emphasis since the inception of the Refuge 

due to the absence of naturally occurring marsh habitat in the southern valley. Water management 

regimes involving specific water draw down dates, spring irrigations and fall flood-up periods are followed 

to produce quality habitat within the wetlands of the Refuge. Non-native grasslands are managed for use 

by several threatened and endangered species through the implementation of a closely monitored cattlegrazing program. Control of non-native, invasive plant species such as salt cedar is ongoing to improve 

both wetland and upland habitats. 

Public uses such as wildlife observation, photography and waterfowl hunting have long been available on 

limited areas of the Refuge and are compatible with the purposes for which the Refuge was established. 

Periodic wildlife surveys within various habitat types are conducted to monitor population trends of 

waterfowl, raptors, shorebirds and other resident and migratory species. Surveys are periodically 

conducted to determine the presence or absence of threatened and endangered species such as San 

Joaquin kit fox, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, and Tipton kangaroo rats. 

Pixley Refuge

As is the case with Kern, management of Pixley Refuge is guided by a Master Plan developed in 1986. 

Since annual grasslands comprise over 74 percent of the area within the approved refuge boundary, 

management of this habitat type that supports threatened and endangered species, is of primary concern. 

Closely monitored cattle grazing is the primary management tool utilized to reduce the grass cover and 

provide more open habitat suitable to the endangered blunt-nosed leopard lizard and Tipton kangaroo rat. 

Although very limited in scope, seasonal wetlands are created and maintained on approximately 300 acres 

of impoundments in the southwestern portion of the Refuge adjacent to the Deer Creek channel. These 

moist soil units are maintained during the fall and winter for the benefit of waterbirds including ducks, 

geese, sandhill cranes, and other wading and shorebirds. Although foraging habitat for cranes on the 

Refuge is limited, use of Refuge ponds as roosting areas is generally increasing on an annual basis. 
A-8

Table 1. Alternatives Summary: Kern Refuge. 

Topic

Alternative A – 

Continue Current 

Management 

Alternative B – 

Emphasize Waterfowl 

Management and 

Hunting 

Alternative C – Emphasize 

Migratory Bird and 

Wildlife-Dependant 

Public Use 

Alternative D –

Emphasize Native 

Biodiversity and Nonconsumptive Public 

Use

Overview 

Refuge focus Remains the same: provide 

wintering habitat for 

migratory waterfowl 

Provide wintering habitat 

for migratory waterfowl 

Provide wintering habitat for 

migratory birds and 

contribute to the recovery of 

targeted special status species 

Maximize native 

biodiversity and 

contribute to the recovery 

of targeted special status 

species

Summary of 

management 

changes

# Continue current 

management and public 

use with out change 

# Expand and improve 

management programs 

for migratory waterfowl 

# Expand and improve 

opportunities for 

consumptive public use 

(hunting) 

# Expand and improve 

management programs for 

migratory waterfowl, 

colonial nesting species, 

threatened and endangered 

species, riparian 

communities, and native 

uplands

# Expand and improve 

opportunities for both 

consumptive and nonconsumptive public use 

# Expand and improve 

management programs 

for migratory waterfowl, 

colonial nesting species, 

threatened and 

endangered species, 

riparian communities, 

and native uplands 

# Expand and improve 

opportunities for nonconsumptive public use 

and scale back hunting 

program

Migratory Birds (Goal 1) 

Wintering and 

migratory habitat 

for waterfowl and 

shorebirds 

# Continue existing 

management of moist soil 

units to maximize swamp 

timothy and millet 

production

# Complete rehabilitation 

of unit 14 to provide 1,200 

acres of new moist soil 

habitat (Figure 3) 

# Continue existing marsh 

management 

# Continue existing 

botulism control practices 

# Continue to provide

existing flexible closed 

zone; as wetlands are 

flooded up, the first 1,000 

acres are closed, then 

55% are closed with 45% 

open (4,223 acres of 

permanent sanctuary) 

# Slightly modify 

management of moist 

soil units to maximize 

diversity of high energy 

waterfowl food plants 

# Same as Alternative A 

# Continue existing marsh 

management; 

rehabilitate units 7 and 

8 to improve water 

efficiency

# Same as alternative A 

# Decrease size of closed 

zone; after the first 

1,000 acres are closed, 

close 30%, with 70% 

open (2,531 acres of 

permanent sanctuary) 

# Same as Alternative B 

# Same as Alternative A 

# Same as Alternative B plus 

eradicate 90% of salt cedar 

in marsh units within 5 

years and rehabilitate 

former research unit (7b) 

into 180 acres of seasonal 

marsh 

# Same as alternative A 

# Same as Alternative A 

(3,504 acres of permanent 

sanctuary when unit 14 is 

developed as a moist soil 

unit)

# Substantially modify 

management of moist 

soil units to maximize 

diversity of native food 

plants and improve 

habitat for shorebirds 

# Same as alternative A 

# Same as Alternative C 

but research unit would 

be rehabilitated into a 

180 acre moist soil unit 

# Same as alternative A 

# Increase size of closed 

zone (5,140 acres of 

permanent sanctuary 

when unit 14 is 

developed as a moist soil 

unit)
A-9

Topic

Alternative A – 

Continue Current 

Management 

Alternative B – 

Emphasize Waterfowl 

Management and 

Hunting 

Alternative C – Emphasize 

Migratory Bird and 

Wildlife-Dependant 

Public Use 

Alternative D –

Emphasize Native 

Biodiversity and Nonconsumptive Public 

Use

Nesting habitat for 

tricolor blackbirds, 

white-faced ibis 

and other colonial 

nesting species 

# Continue to manage 300-

acre portion of unit 1 for 

colonial nesting species 

(maintain summer water) 

# Discontinue 

management of unit 1 

for colonial nesting 

species

# Same as Alternative A # Same as Alternative A 

Surveys and 

monitoring 

# Continue existing limited 

survey and monitoring 

program

# Expand aerial surveys 

for waterfowl 

# Expand aerial surveys of 

waterfowl and ground 

surveys of shorebirds, 

waterbirds, and raptors

# Same as Alternative C 

Wetland habitat 

protection and 

enhancement 

# No wetland habitat 

protection or 

enhancement would be 

implemented

# Prepare land protection 

plan which evaluates 

alternatives for 

protecting and 

enhancing up to 16,000 

acres of southern San 

Joaquin Valley wetlands 

# Same as Alternative B # Same as Alternative B 

Threatened and Endangered Species (Goal 2) 

Habitat

management 

Continue existing program: 

# grazing program to 

improve habitat 

suitability for listed 

species

# Same as Alternative A Expand habitat management: 

# grazing

# experimental burns 

# monitor habitat and 

population response 

# Same as Alternative C,

Habitat flood 

protection

# Continue to protect 

uplands from flooding by 

rejecting Poso Creek 

flood flows after wetland 

units are filled to capacity

# Same as Alternative A # Increase flood protection 

for uplands by 

strengthening levees 

surrounding unit 14 

# renegotiating flood water 

management agreement 

# Same as Alternative C 

Habitat linkage # No habitat linkage would 

be pursued 

# Prepare and implement 

a land protection plan 

which evaluates 

alternatives for 

establishing linkages 

between Kern Refuge 

and other natural lands 

in the area 

# Same as Alternative B # Same as Alternative B 

Research and 

monitoring 

# Continue limited 

presence/absence surveys 

for threatened and 

endangered species 

# Same as Alternative A # Substantially expand 

monitoring program for 

special status species 

# Prepare comprehensive 

surveying and monitoring 

plan for special status 

species

# Same as Alternative C 

Native Diversity (Goal 3) 

Riparian habitat 

management 

# Continue periodic 

flooding of riparian 

habitat in fall, winter, and 

# Same as Alternative A # Continue periodic flooding 

of riparian habitat in fall, 

winter, and early spring 

# Same as Alternative C 
A-10

Topic

Alternative A – 

Continue Current 

Management 

Alternative B – 

Emphasize Waterfowl 

Management and 

Hunting 

Alternative C – Emphasize 

Migratory Bird and 

Wildlife-Dependant 

Public Use 

Alternative D –

Emphasize Native 

Biodiversity and Nonconsumptive Public 

Use

early spring 

# Continue monthly 

irrigation during summer 

# Same as Alternative A # Continue monthly irrigation 

during summer 

# Control salt cedar using 

mechanical, chemical, 

and/or biological means 

# Same as Alternative C 

Riparian habitat 

expansion

# No riparian habitat 

expansion would occur 

# Plant 7 acres of riparian 

vegetation along canals 

surrounding unit 14 

# Plant 15 acres of riparian 

vegetation along canals 

surrounding unit 14 

# Plant 30 acres of 

riparian vegetation 

along canals 

surrounding unit 14 

Native upland 

plant community 

restoration

# No native upland plant 

community restoration 

would occur 

# No native upland plant 

community restoration 

would occur 

# Eradicate 90% of salt cedar 

in riparian and upland 

habitat within 10 years 

# Restore 440 acres of 

saltbush scrub in unit 13 

# Prepare grassland 

management plan 

# Same as Alternative C 

Research # Continue allowing 

research 

# Continue allowing 

research 

# Encourage and provide 

opportunities for research 

# Same as Alternative C 

Public Use (Goal 4) 

Outreach Continue limited outreach 

program

Expand refuge outreach: 

# Develop friends group 

# Give refuge 

presentations at schools, 

public events, and public 

service and 

conservation group 

meetings

# Plan and conduct 

waterfowl expo at 

refuge each fall 

# Purchase displays 

(general and refuge 

specific)

# Same as Alternative B # Same as Alternative B 

Hunting Maintain existing hunting 

opportunities (Figure 4): 

# 11 spaced blinds 

# 2,180 acres free roam 

hunt area 

# Hunt days: Wed and Sat 

Substantially increase 

hunting opportunities: 

# 28 spaced blinds 

# 2,369 acres free roam 

hunt area 

# Hunt days: Wed, Sat, 

and Sun 

# Increase law 

enforcement presence 

Increase hunting 

opportunities:

# 20 spaced blinds 

# 2,180 acres free roam hunt 

area

# Hunt days: Wed and Sat 

# Increase law 

enforcement presence

Reduce hunting 

opportunities:

# 11 spaced blinds 

# 1,165 acres free roam 

hunt area 

# Hunt days: Wed and Sat 

# Increase law 

enforcement presence 

Environmental

education and 

interpretation

Maintain limited 

environmental education 

and interpretation 

programs

Expand environmental 

education and 

interpretation program: 

# Develop and implement 

public use plan 

Substantially expand 

environmental education and 

interpretation programs: 

# Develop and implement 

public use plan 

Same as Alternative C 
A-11

Topic

Alternative A – 

Continue Current 

Management 

Alternative B – 

Emphasize Waterfowl 

Management and 

Hunting 

Alternative C – Emphasize 

Migratory Bird and 

Wildlife-Dependant 

Public Use 

Alternative D –

Emphasize Native 

Biodiversity and Nonconsumptive Public 

Use

# Establish partnerships 

with educational 

institutions and local 

organizations

# Develop educational 

materials

# Establish partnerships with 

educational institutions and 

local organizations 

# Develop educational 

materials

# Develop new interpretive 

signs and displays and new 

refuge brochure 

# Develop kiosk, boardwalk, 

and enhance pond at refuge 

entrance

Wildlife

observation and 

photography

# Continue to maintain 

existing 6-mile tour route 

# Continue to maintain 

existing 6-mile tour 

route

# Development and 

implement public use 

plan

# Continue to maintain 

existing 6-mile tour route 

# Develop and implement a 

public use plan 

# Construct new 4.3-mile tour 

route (open every day) 

# Construct 2 new photo 

blinds

# Continue to maintain 

existing 6-mile tour 

route

# Develop and implement 

a public use plan 

# Construct a new 4.3-

mile tour route (open 

every day) 

# Construct 2 new photo 

blinds

# Construct a new 7.4-

mile tour route (open on 

non-hunt days) 

Cultural resources # Survey, identify, and 

evaluate sites within 

planned development 

areas

# Survey, identify, and 

evaluate sites within 

planned development 

areas

# Create and utilize a 

Memorandum of 

Agreement with Native 

American groups to 

implement the 

inadvertent discovery 

clause of the Native 

American Graves 

Protection and 

Repatriation Act 

# Survey, identify, and 

evaluate sites within 

planned development areas 

# Update and expand existing 

cultural resources overview 

# In consultation with Tribes 

and local historical societies, 

prepare interpretive media 

(e.g., pamphlets, signs, 

exhibits)

# Create and utilize a 

Memorandum of 

Agreement with Native 

American groups to 

implement the inadvertent 

discovery clause of the 

Native American Graves 

Protection and Repatriation 

Act

# Same as Alternative C 

Staffing and Cost Summary 

Staffing needs 

(for Kern and 

Pixley Refuges) 

Maintain current staffing: 

# Project leader 

# Deputy project leader 

# Wildlife biologist 

# Private lands biologist 

# Administrative support 

assistant

# Office automation clerk 

Increase staff to: 

# Project leader 

# Deputy project leader 

# Wildlife biologist 

# Private lands biologist 

# Administrative support 

assistant

# Office automation clerk 

Increase staff to: 

# Project leader 

# Deputy project leader 

# Wildlife biologist 

# Private lands biologist 

# Administrative support 

assistant

# Office automation clerk 

# Same as alternative C 
A-12

Topic

Alternative A – 

Continue Current 

Management 

Alternative B – 

Emphasize Waterfowl 

Management and 

Hunting 

Alternative C – Emphasize 

Migratory Bird and 

Wildlife-Dependant 

Public Use 

Alternative D –

Emphasize Native 

Biodiversity and Nonconsumptive Public 

Use

# Refuge operations 

specialist

# 2 engineering equipment 

operators

# Refuge operations 

specialist

# 4 engineering 

equipment operators 

# Outdoor recreation 

planner 

# Law Enforcement 

Officer 

# Refuge operations specialist 

# 4 engineering equipment 

operators

# Outdoor recreation planner 

# Law Enforcement Officer 

# Biological Science 

Technician 
A-13

Table 2. Alternatives Summary: Pixley Refuge

Topic

Alternative A – 

Continue Current 

Management 

Alternative B – 

Emphasize Waterfowl 

and Special Status 

Species

Alternative C – 

Emphasize Special 

Status Species and 

Migratory Birds 

Alternative D –

Emphasize Special 

Status Species and 

Biodiversity

Overview 

Refuge focus Remains the same: 

Contribute to the 

recovery of targeted 

special status species 

and provide wintering 

habitat for migratory 

birds

Same as Alternative A Same as Alternative A Contribute to the recovery 

of targeted special status 

species and maximize 

native biodiversity 

Summary of 

management 

changes

# Continue current 

management and 

public use with out 

change

# Expand and improve 

management programs 

for special status species 

and migratory waterfowl 

# Expand and improve 

opportunities for nonconsumptive public use 

# Expand and improve 

management programs for 

special status species, 

migratory waterfowl, and 

riparian communities 

# Expand and improve 

opportunities for nonconsumptive public use 

# Expand and improve 

management programs 

for special status species, 

migratory waterfowl, 

and riparian 

communities 

# Expand and improve 

opportunities for nonconsumptive public use 

Threatened and Endangered Species (Goal 1)

Habitat

management 

# Continue existing 

grazing program to 

improve habitat 

suitability for listed 

species (Figure 5) 

# Same as Alternative A # Prepare a grassland 

management plan which 

explores different grazing 

regimes and monitoring 

effects on 

# Same as Alternative C

Habitat protection 

and linkage 

# No habitat 

protection or linkage 

would be pursued 

# Pursue willing seller 

acquisition of remaining 

natural lands within the 

approved refuge 

boundary

# Pursue willing seller 

acquisition of remaining 

natural lands within the 

approved refuge boundary 

# Prepare and implement a 

land protection plan which 

evaluates alternatives for 

protecting natural lands 

around Pixley Refuge and 

Allensworth Natural Area 

and linking them with 

other natural lands to the 

north and Kern Refuge to 

the southwest 

# Same as Alternative C 

Research and 

monitoring 

# Continue limited 

presence / absence 

surveys for 

threatened and 

endangered species 

# Expand surveying and 

monitoring program for 

special status species 

# Substantially expand 

survey and monitoring 

program for special status 

species

# Prepare comprehensive 

surveying and monitoring 

plan for special status 

species

# Substantially expand 

research on kit fox, bluntnosed leopard lizard, and 

Tipton kangaroo rat 

biology, ecology, and 

habitat management 

# Same as Alternative C 
A-14

Topic

Alternative A –

Maintain Current 

Management 

Alternative B – 

Waterfowl and Special 

Status Species 

Emphasis 

Alternative C – 

Special Status Species 

and Migratory Bird 

Emphasis 

Alternative D –

Special Status Species 

and Native Diversity 

Emphasis 

Migratory Birds (Goal 2)

Wintering and 

migratory

habitat for 

waterfowl and 

waterbirds

# Continue existing 

management of moist 

soil units to maximize 

swamp timothy and 

millet production 

# Slightly modify 

management of moist 

soil units to maximize 

diversity of high energy 

waterfowl food plants 

# Same as Alternative B 

# Develop 272-acre grain 

unit (foraging habitat) 

in the Turkey Tract

# Substantially modify 

management of moist 

soil units to maximize 

diversity of native food 

plants and improve 

habitat for shorebirds 

# Same as alternative C 

# Continue existing 

botulism control 

practices

# Same as alternative A # Same as alternative A # Same as alternative A 

Surveys and 

monitoring 

# Continue existing 

limited survey and 

monitoring program 

# Expand aerial surveys 

for waterfowl 

# Expand aerial surveys 

of waterfowl and ground 

surveys of shorebirds, 

waterbirds, and raptors

# Same as Alternative C 

Native Diversity (Goal 3)

Riparian

habitat

expansion

# No riparian habitat 

expansion would occur 

# Plant 5 acres of riparian 

vegetation along the 

service ditch 

# Plant 10 acres of 

riparian vegetation 

along the service ditch 

and north levee 

# Plant 20 acres of 

riparian vegetation 

along the service ditch 

and north, south, and 

west levees 

Grassland

restoration and 

management 

# No grassland 

restoration and 

management plan would 

be prepared 

# No grassland 

restoration and 

management plan would 

be prepared 

# Prepare and implement 

a grassland restoration 

and management plan 

# Same as Alternative C 

Public Use (Goal 4)

Environmental

education and 

interpretation

# Maintain limited 

environmental

education and 

interpretation

opportunities (Figure 5) 

Expand environmental 

education and 

interpretation program: 

# Develop and implement 

public use plan 

# Establish partnerships 

with educational 

institutions and local 

organizations

# Develop educational 

materials

Substantially expand 

environmental education 

and interpretation 

programs:

# Develop and implement 

public use plan 

# Establish partnerships 

with educational 

institutions and local 

organizations

# Develop educational 

materials

# Develop new 

interpretive signs and 

displays and a new 

refuge brochure 

Same as Alternative 3 

Wildlife

observation 

and

photography

# Maintain trail and 

viewing platform 

# Maintain trail and 

viewing platform 

# Develop and implement 

a public use plan 

# Same as Alternative B 

plus

# Develop pullout and 

interpretive displays at 

# Maintain trail and 

viewing platform 

# Develop and implement 

a public use plan 

# Develop pullout and 

interpretive displays at 
A-15

Topic

Alternative A –

Maintain Current 

Management 

Alternative B – 

Waterfowl and Special 

Status Species 

Emphasis 

Alternative C – 

Special Status Species 

and Migratory Bird 

Emphasis 

Alternative D –

Special Status Species 

and Native Diversity 

Emphasis 

the Turkey Tract the Turkey Tract 

# Develop parking lot and 

vernal pool foot trail 

Outreach Expand refuge outreach: 

# Develop friends group 

# Give Refuge 

presentations at 

schools, public events, 

and public service and 

conservation group 

meetings

Same as Alternative B Same as Alternative B 

Cultural

resources 

# Continue to provide law 

enforcement protection 

for existing cultural 

sites

# Conduct cultural 

resources surveys prior 

to starting ground 

disturbing work 

# Same as Alternative A # Same as Alternative A # Same as Alternative A 
A-16

1

12

14

8

2

7

11 3

9

13

10

6C

2A

6A

4A

5B

5A

6B

4B 1A

7B

Note: Under Alternatives A and B, unit 7B (the research unit)

would normally be dry except during significant floods.

!

!

!

1

12

14

8

2

7

11 3

9

13

10

6C

2A

6A

4A

5B

5A

6B

4B 1A

7B

Rehabilitate

Seasonal Marsh

(1,150 acres)

Plant Riparian

Vegetation (7 ac.)

Expand Aerial

Waterfowl Surveys

!

!

!

!

!

!

1

12

14

8

2

7

11 3

9

13

10

6C

2A

6A

4A

5B

5A

6B

4B 1A

7B

Restore

Saltbush

Scrub

(440 ac.)

Eradicate

90 % of

Salt Cedar

from

Seasonal

Marsh

within 5

years

Strengthen

Levees

around

Unit 14

Expand Surveys

for T&E Species

Plant

Riparian

Vegetation

(15 ac)

Rehabilitate

Seasonal

Marsh

(1,330

acres)

Eradicate 90% of 

Salt Cedar from

Upland and Riparian

Habitat Within 10 Years

!

!

!

!

!

!

! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

1

12

14

8

2

7

11 3

9

13

10

6C

2A

6A

4A

5B

5A

6B

4B 1A

7B

Plant

Riparian

Vegetation

(30 ac)

Emphasize Native

Plants in Moist Soil

Management

Expand

Surveys 

for T&E

Species

Restore

Saltbush

Scrub

(440 ac.)

Eradicate

90% of

Salt Cedar

from

Seasonal

Marsh

within 5

years

Strengthen Levees

around Unit 14

Rehabilitate

Seasonal

Marsh

(1,150

acres)

Rehabilitate

Moist Soil

(180 acres)

Eradicate 90% of 

Salt Cedar from

Upland and Riparian

Habitat Within 10 Years

CA/NV Refuge Planning Office - Feb 2004

Alternative A Alternative B

Alternative C Alternative D

I 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

Miles

Figure 3. Habitat Management Alternatives

Kern National Wildlife Refuge Units to be Rehabilitated

! ! Riparian Expansion

Saltbush Scrub

Grassland/Scrub/Playa

Moist Soil

Riparian

Seasonal Marsh

Summer Water

1a Unit Designations
A-17

!! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

! ! ! !! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!@

!

1

12

14

8

2

7

11 3

9

13

10

6C

2A

6A

4A

5B

5A

6B

4B 1A

7B

!! ! ! ! ! ! !

!!

!

! ! ! !! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!@

!

1

12

14

8

2

7

11 3

9

13

10

6C

2A

6A

4A

5B

5A

6B

4B 1A

7B

Substantially

Expand

Hunt Area

Open the Refuge to Hunting on Sundays

(In Addition to Wednesdays and Saturdays)

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

! ! ! !! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!@!

1

12

14

8

2

7

11 3

9

13

10

6C

2A

6A

4A

5B

5A

6B

4B 1A

7B

Construct New

Auto Tour Route

Expand

Hunt Area

Develop Kiosk, 

Boardwalk, and 

Enhance Pond

at Entrance

! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! !

!

!

!

! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

!

!

! ! ! ! !

!

!

!

!! ! !! ! !

!

!

!

!

!

!

!

!@!

1

12

14

8

2

7

11 3

9

13

10

6C

2A

6A

4A

5B

5A

6B

4B 1A

7B

Construct New

Auto Tour Route Reduce

Hunt Area

Construct New

Auto Tour Route

Develop Kiosk, 

Boardwalk, and 

Enhance Pond

at Entrance

1012 0.5

Miles

I

CA/NV Refuge Planning Office - Feb 2004

Alternative A Alternative B

Alternative C Alternative D

Figure 4. Visitor Services Alternatives

Kern National Wildlife Refuge

!@ Refuge Headquarters

!!! Interpretive Auto Tour Routes

Hunt Areas Closed Areas

Other areas closed to hunting

Wetlands closed to hunting

Free Roam

Blinds

Unit Designations
A-18

! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !

!j

Acquire Remaining

Natural Lands within

the Approved Boundary

(from willing sellers)

Pursue Linkage between

Pixley Refuge Units and

Natural Lands to South

Expand Surveying and

Monitoring for Special

Status Species and Prepare 

Grassland Management Plan

Expand

Environmental

Education and

Interpretation

Programs

Construct New

Pullout and Vernal

Pool Interpretive Trail

Develop Grain

and Pasture

Unit (272 ac.)

Develop Pullout

and Interpretive

Displays

Plant Riparian

Vegetation (20 ac.)

ç

ç

ç

Emphasize native plants in 

moist soil units and fluctuate

water levels for shore birds !Ö !Å

! ! ! ! !

!! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! !

!j

!Ö !Å

Acquire Remaining

Natural Lands within

the Approved Boundary

(from willing sellers)

Pursue Linkage between

Pixley Refuge Units and

Natural Lands to South

Expand Surveying and

Monitoring for Special

Status Species and Prepare 

Grassland Management Plan

Expand

Environmental

Education and

Interpretation

Programs

Develop Grain

and Pasture

Unit (272 ac.)

Develop Pullout

and Interpretive

Displays

Plant Riparian

Vegetation

(10 ac.)

ç

ç

ç

! ! ! ! !

!j

!Ö !Å

Acquire Remaining

Natural Lands within

the Approved Boundary

(from willing sellers)

Expand Surveying and

Monitoring Program for

Special Status Species

Expand

Environmental

Education and

Interpretation

Programs

Plant Riparian

Vegetation

(5 ac.)

!j

!Ö!Å

Wetland Units

Los Felix Unit

Big Deer

Creek Unit

Center Field Unit

Horse Pasture

Unit

Two Well

Tract

Turkey Tract

Dickey

Tract

200 Acre

Tract

Approved Refuge Boundary !!!!! Riparian Expansion

Grassland

Moist Soil Wetlands

Grain and Pasture Interpretive Trail

!j Parking Lot

!Ö

!Å ObservationPlatform

Figure 5. Proposed Habitat Management

and Visitor Services Plan

Pixley National Wildlife Refuge

I

0123

Miles

CA/NV Refuge Planning Office - Feb 2004
A-19

Current public use of the Refuge is limited to organized tours and use of a newly opened self-guided 

interpretive trail and observation platform located on the eastern margin of the wetland area. Most 

visitors are attracted to the Refuge by the opportunity to view the large number of sandhill cranes that 

return to the Refuge each evening at dusk. 

Periodic wildlife surveys within various habitat types are conducted to monitor population trends of 

waterfowl, raptors, shorebirds and other resident and migratory species. Surveys are periodically 

conducted to determine the presence or absence of San Joaquin kit fox along survey routes established on 

the Refuge. Service staff from the Endangered Species Recovery Program conduct census surveys along 

established transects on the Refuge to monitor populations of blunt-nosed leopard lizards and Tipton 

kangaroo rats. 

Features Common to All Alternatives 

All alternatives contain some common features. These are presented below to reduce the length and 

redundancy of the individual alternative descriptions. 

Kern Refuge 

Rehabilitation of Unit 14. The Service would continue the ongoing rehabilitation of unit 14 to provide 1,200 

acres of new moist soil habitat. 

Riparian Habitat Maintenance. The Service will continue to maintain 450 acres of existing riparian habitat 

in Unit 9 by periodically flooding it in fall, winter, and early spring and irrigating it monthly during 

summer.

Mosquito Control. The Kern Mosquito Vector Control District (KMVCD) has been monitoring and 

controlling mosquito populations on the Refuge since 1983. During an average mosquito monitoring 

period, typically between the months of April and October, the KMVCD assesses mosquito populations by 

using a dip net to detect the number of mosquito larvae in the seasonal marsh and moist soil units and 

riparian areas. Mosquito adult populations are assessed with CO2 traps. When one or more larvae are 

captured per dip, KMVCD would treat larval mosquitoes using Bacillus thuringiensis serovar. israelensis

(Bti) and methoprene. 

Applications of larvicides may occur anywhere in the wetland and moist soil units of the Refuge. The 

potential wetland areas for mosquito breeding and consequently mosquito treatment is 7,900 acres. The 

KMVCD applies these larvicides from a tank mounted on a truck, from a backpack sprayer, or, when 

serious outbreaks occur, through aerial applications from a fixed-wing aircraft. Mosquito control 

applications normally occur during the months of August, September, and October when the Refuge 

begins the annual fall flood-up for migrating waterfowl; however, applications can occur anytime between 

the months of April to November depending on environmental conditions. Applications can occur 

anywhere in the wetland and moist soil units of the Refuge, total area for potential mosquito breeding and 

consequently mosquito treatment is 7,900 acres. The total area of the Refuge that is treated varies with 

the conditions of each year. 

The range in area treated in the last five years varied from a low of 1677 acres in 2003 to a high of 2468 

acres in 2002. Some of these areas are treated more than once. Between 1988 and 2000, 5 to 10 treatments 

occurred per season. More recently, the number of treatments required has risen to 13 in 2001, 19 in 2002, 

and 16 in 2003. The average area covered per treatment is 263 acres. If efforts to control immature 

mosquitoes fail to prevent adult trap counts from exceeding 150 per night, and WNV and/or WEE or SLE 

are detected within or near the Refuge, KMVCD proposes to treat infested areas with a mosquito 

adulticide. KMVCD proposes to use the adulticides Pyrocide or Pyrenone, which have natural pyrethrins 

as the active ingredient. 
A-20

Disease Monitoring and Control. Under all alternatives, existing botulism control practices would 

continue, including keeping all units (except the eastern portion of unit 1) dry between the first of June 1 

and the first of August; patrolling historically problematic wetlands on the Refuge and in the surrounding 

areas in cooperation with the California Department of Fish and Game; and removing sick birds and 

carcasses from wetlands. 

Fire Management. Prescribed fire has been an integral part of wetland management on the Complex since 

1980. Under each alternative, prescribed fire will be used to manage wetland vegetation in seasonal 

marshes and moist soil wetlands to remove excess vegetation. This creates a mosaic of open water and 

emergent vegetation that provides for less intense fires and increases habitat quality for many waterfowl 

and waterbird species. Each year, prescribed fire activity would be established and coordinated annually 

as part of the annual work plan between the refuge managers, biological staff, and zone fire management 

officer. Approximately 5 to 10 percent of the Complex’s total moist soil and seasonal marsh acreage would 

be treated annually. Prescribed fire will not occur in upland habitats used by threatened and endangered 

species. 

Wildland fires that may threaten or occur in upland habitats will be suppressed. Wildland fires will be 

contained using natural firebreaks, e.g. roads, levees, canals, etc. Heavy fire equipment will be kept on 

roads to prevent getting stuck. However, if the fire threatens private property or if any other situation 

exists that constitutes an immediate threat to human life or property, then immediate, total suppression 

efforts will be taken. Roads and canals on the refuges will be maintained by mowing, grading, or spraying 

to act as fire breaks in the event of a wildland fire. New firebreaks will not be created through upland 

habitat.

Pixley Refuge 

Mosquito Control. The Tulare Mosquito Abatement District (TMAD) has been monitoring and controlling 

mosquito populations on the Refuge since 1963. During an average mosquito-monitoring period, typically 

between the months of April and November, TMAD assesses adult mosquito populations using CO2 traps, 

and mosquito larvae using dip nets, to detect the number of larvae in the moist soil units and riparian 

areas. When two or more larvae are captured per dip, TMAD will employ the use of either the bacterium 

Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) or the juvenile hormone analog methoprene. 

Applications of larvicides may occur anywhere in the moist soil units of the Refuge. The potential wetland 

areas for mosquito breeding and consequently mosquito treatment are 450 acres. Mosquito control 

applications can occur anytime between April through November, depending on environmental conditions, 

but normally occur during from mid-August through October, when water is being added to the wetland 

units.

Treatment will be conducted mainly by aerial application in areas where monitoring has documented high 

mosquito larval densities or high concentrations of a specific vector bearing mosquito species. Aerial 

application has been done using fixed-wing aircraft flown at an altitude of 10-20 feet above the vegetation 

and at airspeeds of 130-140 miles per hour. 

If efforts to control immature mosquitoes fail to prevent adult trap counts from exceeding 150 per night, 

and WN, WEE, or SLE are detected within or near the Refuge, and a public health emergency is declared 

by the state or county, TMAD proposes to treat infested areas with a mosquito adulticide. 

Proposed Action 

The planning policy that implements the Improvement Act of 1997 requires the Service to select a 

preferred alternative that becomes its proposed action under NEPA. The written description of this 

proposed action is effectively the draft CCP. Alternative C is the proposed action for Kern and Pixley 

Refuges because it best meets the following criteria. 

 Achieves the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 
A-21

 Achieves the purposes of Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges. 

 Provides guidance for achieving the Refuges’ 15-year visions and goals.. 

 Maintains and restores the ecological integrity of the habitats and populations on the Refuges. 

 Addresses the important issues identified during the scoping process. 

 Addresses the legal mandates of the Service and the Refuges. 

 Is consistent with the scientific principles of sound fish and wildlife management and endangered 

species recovery. 

The proposed action described in this EA is preliminary. The action ultimately selected and described in 

the final CCP will be determined, in part, by the comments received on this version of the EA. The 

proposed action presented in the final CCP may or may not be the preferred alternative presented in this 

version; the final CCP may propose a modification of one of the alternatives presented here. 

Alternative A: Continue Current Management 

Kern Refuge

Under Alternative A, the Service would continue to manage Kern Refuge as it has in the recent past. In 

general, management would be guided by the Master Plan adopted in 1986. The focus of the Refuge would 

remain the same, to provide wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl. Current staffing and funding 

needs would remain the same. 

Migratory Birds. Under Alternative A, the Service would continue existing management of moist soil and 

seasonal marsh units. Wetland units would be flooded up in August and draw down would begin in March. 

Moist soils units would be irrigated once or twice in April and May to assist in the germination of swamp 

timothy. Each year 25 percent of the moist soil and seasonal marsh units would be burned, disked, or 

mowed.

To provide sanctuary for wintering birds and other wildlife, the existing flexible closed zone would be 

maintained as follows: the first 1,000 acres of wetlands to be flooded are closed to public use; as the 

remaining wetlands are flooded, 45 percent are open and 55 percent are closed (3,023 acres of permanent 

sanctuary). The Service would continue to maintain water through most of the summer in the eastern 

portion of unit 1 to provide nesting habitat for tricolor blackbirds, white-faced ibis, and other colonial 

nesting birds. 

The Service would continue its limited aerial and ground-surveying program for migratory waterfowl. 

The Service would not prepare a land protection plan that explores protection and enhancement of 

southern San Joaquin Valley wetlands. 

Threatened and Endangered Species. Under Alternative A the Service would continue its current grazing 

program to improve habitat suitability for Tipton’s kangaroo rat and blunt-nosed leopard lizard. The 

Service would continue to protect Refuge uplands from flooding by diverting Poso Creek flood flows after 

wetland units are filled to capacity. The Service would not prepare a land protection plan exploring habitat 

linkage to other natural lands in the area. Limited presence/absence surveys for Tipton’s kangaroo rat, 

blunt-nosed leopard lizard, and San Joaquin kit fox would continue. 

Riparian and Saltbush Scrub Habitat. Under Alternative A (No Action), the Service would continue to 

manage the existing riparian habitat but would not plant any new riparian vegetation. Furthermore, no 

native alkali scrub restoration would occur. The Service would continue to allow researchers to conduct 

research on the Refuge but would not actively pursue it. 

Visitor Services. Under Alternative A the Refuge visitor services would continue unchanged. The Refuge 

would continue its small outreach program, which includes an annual waterfowl expo and a limited number 
A-22

of presentations by refuge staff at schools, and public service and conservation group meetings. Existing 

hunting opportunities would be maintained including 11 spaced blinds and 2,183 acres of free roam hunt 

area (when all wetlands are flooded), with a maximum capacity of 153 hunters per day. The Service would 

also continue to maintain its existing six-mile auto tour route. 

Pixley Refuge

Under Alternative A Pixley Refuge would continue to be managed as it has in the recent past. In general, 

management would be guided by the Master Plan adopted in 1986. The focus of the Refuge would remain 

the same, contribute to the recovery of targeted special status species-- the blunt-nosed leopard lizard and 

Tipton’s kangaroo rat, and provide wintering habitat for waterfowl and sandhill cranes. Current staffing 

and funding needs would remain the same. 

Threatened and Endangered Species. Existing habitat management practices would be continued under 

this alternative. Grazing would continue to be the only tool used to reduce the cover of grasses and forbs 

and improve habitat conditions for blunt-nosed leopard lizard and Tipton’s kangaroo rat. The existing 

limited presence/absence surveys for threatened and endangered species would also be continued. The 

current number of acres owned by the Refuge would not increase, other lands within the approved 

boundary would not be acquired, and linkage to other natural lands south of the Refuge would not be 

pursued. 

Riparian and Grassland Habitat. No riparian habitat expansion would occur under this alternative. A 

grassland management plan would not be prepared. 

Migratory Birds. Under Alternative A, the Service would continue existing management of moist soil units 

(755 acres) to maximize swamp timothy production. Units would be flooded up in August and draw down 

would begin in March. Moist soils units would be irrigated once or twice in April and May to assist in the 

germination of swamp timothy. Each year 25 percent of the units would be burned, disked, or mowed. The 

Service would also continue its limited program of aerial and ground waterfowl surveys. 

Visitor Services. Under Alternative A, visitor services on Pixley Refuge would remain limited. The public 

would continue to have year-round access to the interpretive trail and observation platform adjacent to the 

wetlands units. Refuge staff would also continue to offer a small number of guided tours to schools and 

service groups. The Refuge would continue to be closed to hunting due to its small size and sensitive 

resources.

Alternative B

Kern Refuge

Under Alternative B, the Refuge focus would remain the same as the 1986 master plan, to provide 

wintering habitat for migratory waterfowl. Management programs for migratory waterfowl would be 

expanded and improved under this alternative, as described below. In addition, Staffing and funding needs 

would increase to accommodate the changes. 

Migratory Birds. The Service would use the same tools and techniques to manage moist soil units under 

Alternative B as it does under Alternative A. However, under Alternative B, the Service would use 

adaptive management to target a greater diversity of high-energy waterfowl food plants such as ammania, 

swamp timothy, sprangle-top, and watergrass, rather than just swamp timothy and watergrass. Two new 

engineering equipment operators would be hired to help maintain the Refuge’s wetland habitat. 

Seasonal marsh management would be the same as under Alternative A. In Addition, the Service would 

rehabilitate units 7 and 8 (1,150 acres) to improve habitat conditions and water management efficiency. 

This would involve rehabilitating interior levees; eradicating salt cedar from the units using mechanical 

control; and installing new water control structures. 
A-23

Under this Alternative, the size of the permanent sanctuary would be reduced from 3,023 acres to 2,531 

acres. The first 1,000 acres of wetlands to be flooded would be closed to public use. As the remaining 

wetlands are flooded, 70 percent would be open and 30 percent would be closed. 

The Service would discontinue maintenance of summer water in the eastern portion of unit 1 for colonial 

nesting species and reduce the density of the vegetation to improve habitat conditions for waterfowl. 

The aerial surveying program would be expanded in the Tulare Basin to better track waterfowl population 

trends.

The Service would prepare and implement a land protection plan that explores protection and 

enhancement of Tulare Basin wetlands and associated uplands. 

Threatened and Endangered Species. Under Alternative B, the Refuge would manage threatened and 

endangered species according to current practices described under Alternative A. 

Riparian and Saltbush Scrub Habitat. In addition to current management practices described under 

Alternative A, the Service would plant and maintain seven acres of new riparian habitat under Alternative 

B, along the canal west of Unit 14 in conjunction with the moist soil expansion. However, no native alkali 

scrub restoration would occur under this alternative. The Service would continue to allow researchers to 

conduct research on the Refuge but would not actively pursue it. 

Visitor Services. Under Alternative B, the Service would improve and expand visitor services on Kern 

Refuge with a focus on hunting. The hunting program on the Refuge would be substantially expanded by 

opening an additional 187 acres (Unit 6b) to free-roam hunting and 1,330 acres (Units 5a, 5b, 6a, and 6c) to 

hunting from 18 new designated blinds. In addition to the current hunt days̛Wednesdays and 

Saturdays̛the Refuge would be opened to hunting on Sundays. The Service would also hire a full time law 

enforcement officer to protect public safety enforce wildlife laws. 

Under this alternative, the current limited outreach program would be expanded by developing a Refuge 

friends group. In addition, the number of Refuge presentations held at schools, public events, and public 

service and conservation group meetings, would increase. The Service would purchase new Refuge 

displays for use at these events. 

Under Alternative B, the environmental education and interpretation programs would be expanded. A 

visitor services plan would be developed and implemented and a full time outdoor recreation planner would 

be hired (shared with Pixley Refuge). The Service would also seek to establish new partnerships with 

educational institutions and local organizations for environmental education on the Refuge. In addition, 

new educational materials would be developed. 

Under this Alterative, the Service would also survey, identify, and evaluate cultural and historic sites 

within planned development areas. The Service would also create and utilize a Memorandum of 

Agreement with Native American groups to implement the inadvertent discovery clause of the Native 

American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. 

Pixley Refuge

Under Alternative B, the focus of Pixley Refuge would remain much the same as described under 

Alternative A, with improved and expanded management programs for threatened and endangered 

species, migratory birds, and riparian communities. 

Threatened and Endangered Species. Under Alternative B, existing habitat management practices would 

be continued. Grazing would continue to be used to reduce the cover of grasses and forbs and improve 

habitat conditions for blunt-nosed leopard lizard and Tipton’s kangaroo rat. Surveying and monitoring 
A-24

programs for special status species would be improved and expanded under this alternative. In addition, 

the remaining natural lands within the approved refuge boundary would be acquired from willing sellers. 

Migratory Birds. The Service would use the same tools and techniques to manage moist soil units under 

Alternative B as it does under Alternative A. Under Alternative B, however, the Service would use 

adaptive management to provide migratory birds with a greater diversity of high-energy waterfowl food 

plants such as ammania, swamp timothy, sprangle-top, and millet, rather than just providing swamp 

timothy and millet. The aerial surveying program for waterfowl would be expanded in the Tulare Basin to 

better track species population trends. 

Riparian and Grassland Habitat. Under Alternative B, the Service would plant five acres of riparian 

vegetation along the service ditch between the north and south wetland units. 

Visitor Services. Under Alternative B, the Service would improve and expand visitor services on Pixley 

Refuge with a focus on outreach and environmental education. The current limited outreach program 

would be expanded by developing a Refuge friends group. In addition, the number of Refuge 

presentations held at schools, public events, and public service and conservation group meetings would 

increase. 

Under Alternative B, the environmental education programs would be expanded. A visitor services plan 

would be developed and implemented and a full time outdoor recreation planner would be hired (shared 

with Kern Refuge). The Service would also seek to establish new partnerships with educational 

institutions and local organizations for environmental education on the Refuge. In addition, new 

educational materials would be developed. 

Alternative C

Kern Refuge

Under Alternative C, the Refuge focus would be to provide wintering habitat for migratory birds and 

contribute to the recovery of targeted special status species. Under this alternative, management 

programs for migratory waterfowl, colonial nesting birds, threatened and endangered species, riparian 

communities, and native uplands would be expanded and improved. In addition, opportunities for hunting, 

wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation would be improved and 

expanded from the present conditions. Staffing and funding needs would increase to accommodate the 

changes.

Migratory Birds. Management and rehabilitation of moist soil and seasonal marsh units would be the same 

as Alternative B, with the following exceptions. 

 Unit 7b would be rehabilitated as a managed seasonal marsh (in addition to units 7 and 8) 

 The ratio of open to closed habitat would be the same as under Alternative A. The first 1,000 acres of 

wetlands to be flooded would be closed to public use; as the remaining wetlands are flooded, 45 percent 

would be open and 55 percent would be closed. After unit 14 is completely developed, the area of 

permanent sanctuary would total 3,504 acres. 

 The Service would continue maintenance of summer water in the eastern portion of unit 1 for colonial 

nesting species. 

 The Service would eradicate 90 percent of the salt cedar occurring in the seasonal marsh units within 

five years, using flooding and mechanical removal that could involve digging, mowing, and disking. 

 The Service would expand its surveying program to include monthly waterfowl surveys of the southern 

San Joaquin Valley from September to March, and biweekly ground surveys of shorebirds, waterbirds, 

and raptors from September to June). 

 The Service would also prepare a land protection plan that explores protection and enhancement of 

Tulare Basin wetlands and associated uplands. 
A-25

Threatened and Endangered Species. Under Alternative C, the Service would continue to use cattle 

grazing in the 2,377-acre upland area to control the accumulation of thatch and provide suitable habitat for 

the blunt-nosed leopard lizard and Tipton kangaroo rat. Plant cover would be periodically monitored using 

average residual dry matter calculations and cattle stocking rates would be adjusted accordingly. The 

Service would also develop and implement a grassland management plan that would explore various 

options (different grazing regimes) for managing plant cover and improving habitat conditions for blunt 

nosed leopard lizard and Tipton kangaroo rat. 

Riparian and Saltbush Scrub Habitat. In addition to the current riparian habitat management practices 

described under Alternative A, the Service would plant and maintain 15 acres of new riparian habitat 

under Alternative C, along the canal west of unit 14 in conjunction with the ongoing moist soil expansion. 

Herbicides (imazapyr and glyphosate) would be used to treat salt cedar through foliar spray or cut stump 

application with a goal of removing 90 percent within 10 years. In addition, the Service would restore 400 

acres of saltbush scrub in unit 13. 

Visitor Services. Visitor services would be improved and expanded under Alternative C. For example, 

hunting opportunities would be increased by opening an additional 540 acres (Units 5a and 5b) to hunting, 

and constructing nine new hunting blinds. Other major new visitor services projects under this alternative 

include: developing new interpretive signs and displays, and a new refuge brochure; enhancing the pond at 

the refuge entrance and constructing a new kiosk and boardwalk; constructing a new 4.3-mile tour route 

(open every day); and constructing two new photo blinds. In addition, the Service would hire a full time 

outdoor recreation planner and a full time law enforcement officer. 

Pixley Refuge

Under Alternative C, the focus of Pixley Refuge would remain the same as described in Alternative A, with 

improved and expanded management programs for threatened and endangered species, migratory birds, 

and riparian communities.

Threatened and Endangered Species. Under Alternative C, the Service would continue to use grazing to 

improve habitat conditions for Tipton kangaroo rat and blunt-nosed leopard lizard. In addition, the Service 

would prepare a grassland management plan and conduct habitat management research to better define 

the habitat needs of these species. The Service would also substantially expand its surveying, monitoring, 

and research programs for special status species and prepare a comprehensive surveying and monitoring 

plan. 

Migratory Birds. Management of moist soil units under Alternative C, would be the same as Alternative 

B. Botulism control practices would be the same as Alternative A. In addition, a 272-acre grain unit would 

be developed on the Turkey Tract to provide forging habitat for sandhill cranes and geese. Both aerial 

surveys for waterfowl and ground surveys of shorebirds, waterbirds, and raptors would be expanded under 

this alternative. 

Riparian and Saltbush Scrub Habitat A grassland restoration and management plan would be prepared. 

Approximately ten acres of riparian vegetation would be planted on the north levee and along the service 

ditch that supplies water to the wetland units. 

Visitor Services. Alternative C includes the same visitor services improvements as Alternative B. In 

addition, a new wildlife viewing area and interpretive displays would be constructed on the Turkey Tract 

adjacent to State Highway 43. The displays would focus on sandhill crane ecology and wildlife friendly 

farming.
A-26

Alternative D 

Kern Refuge

This alternative changes the Refuge focus to maximizing native biodiversity and contributing to the 

recovery of targeted special status species. It also focuses on non-consumptive visitor services (wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. Staffing and funding needs would 

increase to accommodate the changes. 

Migratory Birds. The management of moist soil units would be substantially modified to maximize 

diversity of native food plants and improve habitat for shorebirds. In addition, the Service would attempt 

to mimic historic hydrologic conditions by continuously fluctuating water levels in the moist soil units 

between zero and eight inches in winter and early spring. The size of the closed zone would be increased to 

5,140 acres of permanent sanctuary. 

Threatened and Endangered Species. Habitat management for threatened and endangered species would 

be the same as Alternative C. 

Riparian and Saltbush Scrub Habitat. Management under this alternative would be the same as 

Alternative C, except more riparian habitat would be restored (30 acres). 

Visitor Services. Major new programs under this alternative would be the same as Alternative C, with the 

following exceptions: an additional 7.4-mile auto tour route would be constructed, and the free roam hunt 

area would be reduced by 47 percent from 2,183 acres to 1,165 acres. The Refuge would continue to be 

open to hunting on Wednesdays and Saturdays only. 

Pixley Refuge

The focus of Pixley Refuge would change under Alternative D to contributing to the recovery of targeted 

special status species and maximizing native species diversity. 

Migratory Birds. The management of moist soil units would be substantially modified to maximize 

diversity of native food plants and improve habitat for shorebirds. 

Threatened and Endangered Species. Management of the Pixley Refuge uplands for threatened and 

endangered species would be the same as Alternative C. 

Riparian and Saltbush Scrub Habitat. Grasslands would be managed the same under Alternative C and 

Alternative D. Approximately 20 acres of riparian vegetation would be planted on the north levee and 

along the service ditch that supplies water to the wetland units. 

Visitor Services. Alternative D includes the same visitor services improvements as Alternative C. In 

addition, a new parking lot off Road 83 and vernal pool foot trail in the Two Well Tract would also be 

developed.
A-27

Chapter 3. Affected Environment

Chapter 3 of the CCP provides a detailed description of the affected environment for both Kern and Pixley 

Refuges.
A-28
A-29

Chapter 4. Environmental Consequences

This chapter describes the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the four alternatives 

described in Chapter 2. Alternative A, the No Action Alternative, is a continuation of current management 

practices; it serves as the baseline against which Alternatives B, C, and D are compared. Mitigation 

measures are included at the end of each section, if required. 

Impacts associated with water supply for the Refuges are described in the Final Environmental 

Assessment for Refuge Water Supply, Long Term Water Supply Agreements for the Tulare Basin 

(Bureau of Reclamation and Service 2001). Impacts associated with water conveyance to the Refuges are 

described in the Environmental Assessment and Initial Study, Conveyance of Refuge Water Supply, South 

San Joaquin Valley Study Area (Bureau of Reclamation and DFG 2003). 

The four alternatives for managing Kern and Pixley Refuges will make small but important contributions 

to wildlife conservation, biodiversity, and threatened and endangered species recovery in the southern San 

Joaquin Valley. However, they do not offset the massive losses of natural plant communities and wildlife in 

the Tulare Basin that have occurred over the last 150 years (see Chapter 3 in the CCP). Therefore, the 

cumulative beneficial effects of habitat management and restoration actions described in the alternatives 

are not expected to have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. 

The following sections address environmental impacts by resources area. 

Soils

Kern Refuge 

Alternative A. Under Alternative A the Service would complete the rehabilitation of Unit 14. Construction 

activities could result in large areas of bare soil that could be subject to erosion. However, because 

construction will occur during the dry season, the terrain is flat, and the dust control practices used, any 

erosion is expected to be minor and localized. 

Alternative B. In addition to the potential soil impacts related to rehabilitation of Unit 14, Alternative B 

could also result in similar construction-related impacts to due the rehabilitation of Units 7 and 8 and 

riparian restoration near unit 14. These impacts are also expected to be minor and localized for the same 

reasons described above. 

Alternatives C and D. In addition to the soils impacts described under Alternative B, Alternative C also 

includes other Refuge improvements that could result in the same type of impacts: restoration of 440 acres 

of alkali sink scrub in Unit 13; mechanical removal of salt cedar from the seasonal marsh, riparian, and 

upland units; strengthing levees around Unit 14, and construction of a new dike across Unit 1. These 

impacts are also expected to be minor and localized for the same reasons described above. 

Pixley 

Alternative A. No impacts on soils are anticipated under Alternative A. 

Alternative B. No impacts on soils are anticipated under Alternative B. 

Alternative C. Under Alternatives C, the Service would pursue acquisition of the remaining undeveloped 

lands within the approved refuge boundary. Of these undeveloped lands, about 340 acres are considered 

Farmland of Statewide Importance by the California Department of Conservation. As of 2000, there were 

393,036 acres of Farmland of Statewide Importance in Tulare County. If all 340 acres were purchased, 

retired, and restored to native uplands, this would represent a less than one tenth of one percent loss. 

Furthermore, this loss would be offset by the conversion of 310-acres of nonnative grasslands in the 

Turkey Tract Unit to a cultivated grain field. 
A-30

Alternative D. Impacts to soils under Alternative D would be the same as those described under 

Alternative C. 

Water Quantity and Quality

Kern Refuge 

Alternative A. No impacts on water quality are anticipated under Alternative A. 

Alternatives B, C, and D. Under Alternatives B, C and D, the Service would plant 7 to 30 acres of riparian 

vegetation along the canal east of unit 14. Plantings would occur during the winter when the canal is full. 

As a result, soils disturbed during the planting could enter the canal and temporarily increase its turbidity. 

However, since the water in the canal is not flowing, any sediment suspended in the water will drop out 

quickly. As a result, this impact is not considered significant. 

Pixley Refuge 

Alternative A. No impacts on water quality are anticipated under Alternative A. 

Alternative B, C, and D. Under Alternative B, the Service would plant 5 to 20 acres of riparian vegetation 

along the canal that supplies the wetland units and along the south, west, and north edges of the wetland 

units. Plantings would occur during the winter when the canal is full. As a result, soils disturbed during 

the planting could enter the canal the wetland cells adjacent to the restoration area and temporarily 

increase its turbidity. However, since the water in the canal is not flowing, any sediment suspended in the 

water will drop out quickly. As a result, this impact is not considered significant. 

Air Quality 

Kern Refuge

Alternative A. Implementation of Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would not substantially increase 

pollutant emissions related to Refuge management and use. Visitor use levels and vehicular trips to and 

from the Refuge are expected to increase only moderately as the population of the surrounding region 

grows. In addition, no significant construction projects are proposed under this alternative. 

Alternatives B, C, and D. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, both short and long-term increases in pollutant 

emissions are expected. Short term increases in dust (PM10) and tailpipe emissions (particulate matter, 

nitrogen oxides, and reactive organic gases) would result from projects which disturb the soil and/or 

require the use of heavy equipment including: rehabilitation of units 7, 7b, and 8; restoration of saltbush 

scrub vegetation in unit 13; and construction of new auto tour routes. Tailpipe emissions (ROG, NOX, and 

PM10) would result from the use of combustion engines in construction equipment and employee vehicles 

during trips to and from the job site. Dust emissions would result from the excavation, transport, and 

grading of large amounts of soil. 

Long-term increases in emissions would result from the growing number of vehicular trips to, from, and on 

the Refuge as visitation increases. This increase is expected to be similar under all three action 

alternatives (about 9,000 more visitors per year by 2,018). 

Prescribed fire is another potential source of PM10 emissions. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, fire would 

be used on a limited basis to control vegetation in the wetland units, as described in the Refuge’s Fire 

Management Plan. Additional details will be provided in the Prescribed Fire Plan prepared prior to each 

burn. The Prescribed Fire Plan would describe: the year’s burn unit(s) and their predominant vegetation; 

the primary objectives of the unit(s) and the fire(s); the acceptable range of results; site preparation 

requirements; weather requirements; safety considerations and measures to protect sensitive features; 

burn-day activities; communications and coordination for burns; ignition technique; smoke management 

procedures; and post-burn monitoring.
A-31

Burning vegetation could temporarily increase PM10 concentrations in the area. The Smoke Management 

section of each year’s Prescribed Fire Plan will include estimates of total fuel consumed (in tons/acre), 

emissions in pounds/acre, and total emissions (for entire burn) (in pounds). The estimates will be based on 

empirical factors relating particulate matter emissions to fuel type (in pounds/ton) and estimated fuel 

loading and nature of fuels present in each burn unit, and assume 100% consumption. Before conducting a 

burn, the Service will be required to obtain a burn permit from the San Joaquin Valley Unified Air 

Pollution Control District; in addition, separate NEPA review may be required for prescribed burns. If 

necessary, appropriate mitigation measures will be developed and incorporated into burn permits and 

NEPA review based on site- and burn-specific parameters. 

In the context of current poor air quality conditions in the San Joaquin Valley air basin and likely 

worsening in the future due, and with the mitigation measures described below, the minor emission 

increases caused by Refuge activities under these alternatives would not be considered significant. 

Pixley Refuge

Alternative A. Implementation of Alternative A (No Action Alternative) would not substantially increase 

pollutant emissions related to Refuge management and use. Visitor use levels and vehicular trips to and 

from the Refuge are expected to increase only moderately as the population of the surrounding region 

grows. In addition, no significant construction projects are proposed under this alternative. 

Alternatives B, C, and D. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, increases in short and long-term emissions are 

expected. The sources of the emissions are similar to those described previously under Kern Refuge. 

These include ROG, NOX, and PM10 emissions from the use of combustion engines in construction 

equipment and employee vehicles during trips to and from the job site; PM10 emissions would also result 

from the excavation, transport, and grading of soil. Long-term increases in emissions would result from 

the increasing number of vehicular trips to and from the Refuge as visitation increases. These predicted 

increases in visitation range from 1,100 visits per year under alternative B, to 3,000 visits per year under 

Alternative C. Another long-term source of PM10 emissions at Pixley Refuge under Alternatives C and D 

would be the agricultural operations (disking) on the Turkey Tract grain unit. 

 In the context of current poor air quality conditions in the San Joaquin Valley air basin and likely 

worsening in the future due, and with the mitigation measures described below, the minor emission 

increases caused by Refuge activities under these alternatives would not be considered significant. 

Mitigation

Under each alternative, the Service would implement the following dust control measures, in compliance 

with San Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control District (APCO) rules 8021 and 8061: 

 On each day that 75 or more vehicle trips will occur on an unpaved road segment, the owner/operator 

shall limit Vehicle Dust Emissions (VDE) to 20 percent opacity from the unpaved road segment by 

application and/or maintenance of at least one of the following control measures: watering; applying a 

uniform layer of washed gravel; applying a chemical/organic dust suppressant; using vegetative 

materials; paving; and any other method that effectively limits VDE to 20 percent opacity; or, by 

implementing an APCO approved Fugitive PM10 Management Plan as specified in Rule 8011. 

 On each day that 100 or more vehicle trips will occur on an unpaved road segment, the owner/operator 

shall limit VDE to 20 percent opacity and comply with the requirements of a stabilized unpaved road 

surface by the application and/or maintenance of at least one of the following control measures: 

watering; applying chemical/organic stabilizers/suppressants in accordance with the manufacturer’s 

specifications; using road mix; paving; and any other method that results in a stabilized unpaved road 

surface; or, by implementing an APCO-approved Fugitive PM10 Management Plan as specified in Rule 

8011 (General Requirements). 

The following control measures would be implemented for construction, excavation, and other earth 

moving activities:
A-32

 Pre-Activity: (1) pre-water site sufficient to limit VDE to 20 percent opacity, and (2) phase work to 

reduce the amount of disturbed surface area at any one time. 

 During Active Operations: (1) apply water or chemical/organic stabilizers/suppressants sufficient to limit 

VDE to 20 percent opacity; or (2) construct and maintain wind barriers sufficient to limit VDE to 20 

percent opacity and use control measure (1); (3) Apply water or chemical/organic 

stabilizers/suppressants to unpaved haul/access roads and unpaved vehicle/equipment traffic areas 

sufficient to limit VDE to 20 percent opacity and meet the conditions of a stabilized unpaved road 

surface.

 Temporary Stabilization During Periods of Inactivity: (1) Restrict vehicular access to the area; and (2) 

apply water or chemical/organic stabilizers/suppressants, sufficient to comply with the conditions of a 

stabilized surface. If an area includes 0.5 acres or more of disturbed surface area and it remains unused 

for seven or more days, the area must comply with the conditions for a stabilized surface area as defined 

in Rule 8011. 

Mitigation measures, including smoke management practices, applicable to prescribed fire would be 

detailed in the prescribed fire plan prepared before each fire. 

Plant Communities 

Kern Refuge

Alternative A. Under Alternative A (no action), current vegetation management would continue 

unchanged. The Service would continue to burn, mow, disc, or use herbicides to manage vegetation in 

about 25 percent of the moist soil units each year to reduce the cover of emergent vegetation and 

encourage the growth of annuals that provide food for waterfowl. The same techniques would be used 

periodically to reduce the cover of emergent vegetation in seasonal marsh units. In addition, under 

Alternative A, the Service would complete the rehabilitation of Unit 14, a 1,200-acre moist soil wetland. 

The Service would also continue seasonal irrigation of the riparian vegetation in unit 9 to maintain it. 

Grazing would be used on the Refuge uplands to reduce the cover of nonnative annual grasses. 

Alternative B. Alternative B would include the same vegetation management measures as described under 

Alternative A. In addition, the Service would rehabilitate seasonal marsh units 7 and 8 by repairing and/or 

replacing dikes, replacing water control structures, and mechanically removing salt cedar. This would 

increase the cover of native seasonal marsh plants on the Refuge. The Service would also plant five acres 

of riparian vegetation on the east side of Unit 14. This would have a small beneficial effect on local and 

regional biodiversity because most of the riparian vegetation in the Tulare Basin and the rest of the 

Central Valley has been lost or degraded.

Alternative C. Impacts under Alternative C would be similar to those described under Alternative B, with 

a few differences. Under Alternative C, the Service would also rehabilitate unit 7b, which would increase 

the cover of native marsh vegetation on the Refuge. Under this Alternative, the Service would use 

herbicides (imazapyr and glyphosate) to treat salt cedar in all riparian and upland units with a goal of 

removing 90 percent with ten years. Mechanical removal and flooding would be used to eradicate salt 

cedar from seasonal marsh units with a target of removing 90 percent within five years. This would have a 

beneficial effect on the Refuge’s vegetation because it would improve the cover of native plant species. 

However, both herbicides are broad-spectrum and could effect non-target plants through drift and runoff 

(both herbicides), or leaching from the roots of treated plants (imazapyr only) (Tu et al. 2001). These 

potential effects would be minimized by closely following label application instructions. 

Alternative C, the Service would plant riparian vegetation on 15 acres around unit 14 (rather than five 

acres under Alternative B). In addition, the Service would restore 440 acres of saltbush scrub in Unit 13. 

Both of these projects would make a small beneficial effect on local and regional biodiversity because both 

of these plant communities have been eliminated from most of their historic range (San Joaquin Valley 

Drainage Program 1990). 
A-33

Alternative D. The impacts on plant communities under Alternative D would be the same as those 

described under Alternative C, with one exception. Under Alternative D, the Service would plant riparian 

vegetation on 30 acres around unit 14 (rather than 15 acres under Alternative C) and would make a greater 

contribution to local and regional biodiversity. 

Pixley Refuge

Alternative A. The Service would continue current vegetation management practices under Alternative A. 

For example, about 25 percent of the moist soil units would be burned, mowed, disked, or sprayed with 

herbicide, to reduce the cover of emergent vegetation and encourage the growth of annuals that provide 

food for waterfowl. In addition, the Service will continue to use grazing on Pixley Refuge’s uplands to 

control the growth of nonnative annual grasses. 

Alternative B. Effects on plant communities under Alternative B would be the same as Alternative A. In 

addition, the Service would plant five acres of riparian vegetation along the service canal in the wetlands 

unit. This would have a small beneficial effect on local and regional biodiversity because most of the 

riparian vegetation in the Tulare Basin and the rest of the Central Valley has been lost or degraded. 

Alternative C. The impacts on plant communities under Alternative C would be the same as those 

described under Alternative B, with a few exceptions. Under Alternative C, the Service would plant 10 

acres of riparian vegetation in the wetlands unit (rather than 5 acres under Alternative B), thereby making 

a greater contribution to local and regional biodiversity. In addition, under Alternative C, the Service 

would develop a 272-acre grain unit on the Turkey Tract, an area currently dominated by nonnative annual 

grasses. Non-native grassland is relatively common in the Tulare Basin so this impact is not considered 

significant. 

Alternative D. The impacts on plant communities under Alternative D would be the same as those 

described under Alternative C, with one exception. Under Alternative D, the Service would plant 20 acres 

of riparian vegetation in the wetlands unit (rather than 10 acres under Alternative C) thereby making a 

greater contribution to local and regional biodiversity. 

Wildlife

Kern Refuge

Alternative A. Under Alternative A, current management of the Refuge would continue unchanged. The 

Refuge would continue to provide 1,200 acres of high quality moist soil habitat and 3,800 acres of seasonal 

marsh for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and other water birds through water management and 

periodic vegetation management. In addition, the Service would complete the rehabilitation of Unit 14 to 

provide an additional 1,200 acres of moist soil habitat. The Service would also continue to maintain water 

in the eastern portion of Unit 1 to improve habitat quality for colonial nesting water birds. 

Under this alternative, the Service would continue to maintain 450 acres of riparian habitat on the Refuge 

with periodic flood irrigation. This would benefit the variety of wildlife that use this habitat, including 

raptors, songbirds, and colonial nesting birds such as the great blue heron. The Refuge would also 

continue to use livestock grazing in the uplands on the west side of the Refuge to improve habitat 

conditions for the Tipton kangaroo rat and blunt-nosed leopard lizard. 

Recreational use of the Refuge is expected to increase gradually as the population of the southern San 

Joaquin Valley grows. Most of these new users are expected to participate in wildlife observation, 

primarily along the auto tour route. This growth in recreational use could adversely affect birds using the 

Refuge wetlands, resulting in flushing, disruption of feeding and roosting, increased demands on the birds’ 

available energy, and reduced use of preferred habitat (DeLong 2002). 

Under all alternatives, the Service would continue to allow the Kern Mosquito Vector Control District 

(KMVCD) to monitor and control mosquitoes on the Refuge. The typical monitoring and control period is 
A-34

April through November. The mosquito species targeted on the Refuge are Culex erythrothorax, C.

pipiens, C. tarsalis, Orahlerdatus dorsalis, O. melanimon, O. nigromaculis, and Aedes vexans. The agent 

used most frequently by the KMVCD to treat mosquitoes on the Refuge is Bacillusthuringiensis 

israelensis (Bti). The bacterium Bti is a microbial insecticide that, when ingested, is toxic to mosquitoes, 

black flies and several other members of the nematocera suborder within the order diptera. Methoprene, 

an insect growth regulator, is also used. It interferes with the normal maturation process of mosquitoes. 

The intact Bti toxin is not active against vertebrates (Boisvert and Boisvert 2000). The greatest 

susceptibility are within a few families of invertebrates: culicidae (mosquitos), simuliidae (black flies) and 

chironomidae (midges); with mosquitoes and black flies being the most susceptible (Boisvert and Boisvert 

2000). Laboratory and field studies have shown that Bti is toxic to some larval chironomids, but many 

factors, such as temperature, water depth, aquatic vegetation, and suspended organic matter, reduce its 

toxicity to chironomids in the environment (Charbonneau et al. 1993; Merritt et al. 1989). Chironomids are 

an important part of the diet of pintail and green-winged teal at Kern Refuge, especially after January 

(Euliss and Harris 1993). However, during the fall and early winter when most mosquito control on Kern 

Refuge occurs, pintail and teal feed mostly on seeds. 

Methoprene kills mosquito larvae during emergence. However, it is not as specific as Bti (Breaud et al.

1977). Studies have shown deleterious effects of methoprene on aquatic beetles (Norland and Mulla 1975), 

and backswimmers (Miura and Takahashi 1974), but low toxicity to other organisms such as zooplankton 

(Niemi et al. 1999; Miura and Takahashi 1973). 

Alternative B. Alternative B would result in mostly beneficial and some adverse impacts on wildlife. The 

effects on wildlife under this alternative would be the similar to those described under Alternative A, with 

the following exceptions. 

 Under Alternative B, the Service would rehabilitate the seasonal marsh units 7 and 8 by repairing 

and/or replacing dikes, replacing water control structures, and mechanically removing salt cedar. This 

could result in the temporary disturbance and/or displacement of wildlife in these units. However, once 

the rehabilitation work is completed, there would be a long-term benefit to waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

other waterbirds due to improved habitat quality. 

 The Service would stop maintaining water in Unit 1 during the summer under this alternative. This 

could have a long-term adverse effect on tricolor blackbirds, white-faced ibis, and other marsh-nesting 

birds because they may abandon nesting in Unit 1. Loss of this important nesting area could reduce 

regional population levels. This is a potentially significant impact. However, without summer water, 

which limits access to the eastern portion of Unit 1, the Service could better manage the dense 

vegetation in this area and improve habitat quality for waterfowl. 

 The Service would plant five acres of riparian vegetation along the east side of Unit 14. Once 

established, this new habitat would provide a long-term benefit to a variety of wildlife including 

migratory songbirds and raptors. 

 The Service would substantially expand the hunt program under Alternative B, with 5,600 hunters 

expected to visit the Refuge each season (2,800 hunters are expected under Alternative A). 

Furthermore, the sanctuary area would be substantially reduced from 3,946 acres under Alternative A 

to 2,465 acres under Alternative B. Potential impacts of this increased hunting pressure include flushing 

of birds, disruption of feeding and roosting activity, reduced use of preferred habitat, increased demands 

on birds’ available energy, crippling of birds, and mortality of non-target birds (DeLong 2002). 

Nevertheless, the remaining sanctuary is believed to be adequate to maintain wintering waterfowl 

populations on the Refuge ( 

 The take of migratory waterfowl is expected to almost double under this alternative to about 14,000 

ducks per season. This is a little over one percent of the total ducks harvested State-wide each year. 

Because the Refuge’s estimated harvest is relatively small compared to the total harvest state-wide, this 

impact is not considered significant. 
A-35

Alternative C. Alternative C would result in mostly beneficial and some adverse impacts on wildlife. The 

effects on wildlife under this alternative would be the similar to those described under Alternative A, with 

the following exceptions. 

 Under Alternative C, the Service would rehabilitate the seasonal marsh units 7, 7b and 8 by repairing 

and/or replacing dikes, replacing water control structures, and mechanically removing salt cedar. This 

could result in the temporary disturbance and/or displacement of wildlife in these units. However, once 

the rehabilitation work is completed, there would be a long-term benefit to waterfowl, shorebirds, and 

other waterbirds due to improved habitat quality. 

 The Service would use mechanical removal and flooding to eradicate salt cedar from seasonal marsh 

units with a target of removing 90 percent within five years. Herbicides (imazapyr and glyphosate) 

would be used to treat salt cedar from all riparian and upland units with a goal of removing 90 percent 

within ten years. 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). This would have a beneficial effect on the Refuge’s wildlife because it would improve 

the cover of native plant species that are higher value to native wildlife. Both herbicides are of relatively 

low toxicity to birds, mammals, and fish (Tu et al. 2001). 

 The Service would plant 15 acres of riparian vegetation along the east side of Unit 14. Once established, 

this new habitat would provide a long-term benefit to a variety of wildlife including migratory songbirds 

and raptors. In addition, the Service would restore 400 acres of saltbush scrub vegetation in Unit 13 

which would benefit a variety of upland birds, including quail and mourning dove. 

 Finally, the Service would expand the hunt program, and expand and improve programs for wildlife 

observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. As a result, Refuge visitation is 

expected to increase substantially to 15,500 visits per year. This is 80 percent more visits than expected 

under Alterative A. The hunt program would be expanded under this alternative, with 3,600 hunters 

expected to visit the Refuge each season (2,800 hunters are expected under Alternative A). 

Furthermore, the sanctuary area would be reduced from 3,946 acres under Alternative A to 3,431 acres 

under Alternative C. Potential impacts from this increased use are described under Alternative B. 

Furthermore, construction of the new tour route under this alternative could temporarily disturb and/or 

displace wildlife that use the levees and adjacent seasonal marsh. 

 The take of migratory waterfowl is expected to increase by about 30 percent under this alternative to 

about 10,000 ducks per season. This is less than one percent of the total ducks harvested State-wide 

each year. Because the Refuge’s estimated harvest is relatively small compared to the total harvest 

state-wide, this impact is not considered significant. 

Alternative D. Alternative D would result in mostly beneficial effects with some adverse effects on wildlife. 

Impacts under this alternative would be similar to those described under Alternative C, with the following 

exceptions.

 Under Alternative D, the Service would attempt to mimic historic hydrologic conditions by continuously 

fluctuating water levels in the moist soil units between zero and eight inches in winter and early spring. 

This would improve habitat conditions for migrating shorebirds because shallow water habitat is in short 

supply during this period (Page and Shuford 2000). 

 Under this Alternative, the Service would plant 30 acres of riparian vegetation, the largest amount of all 

the alternatives. This would provide a greater benefit to the variety of wildlife that use this plant 

community, including migratory songbirds and raptors. 

 Finally, the Service would scale back the size of the hunt program to about, 2,500 visits per year. 

Furthermore, the sanctuary area would be increased from 3,946 acres under Alternative A to 4,811 

acres under Alternative D. However, other visitor services would be expanded and improved, including 

wildlife observation, photography, environmental education, and interpretation. As a result, Refuge 

visitation is expected to increase substantially to 16,500 visits per year. This is double the number of 

visits expected under Alterative A. Potential impacts from this increased use are described under 

Alternative B. Furthermore, construction of two new tour routes under this alternative could 

temporarily disturb and/or displace wildlife that use the levees and adjacent seasonal marsh. The take 

of migratory waterfowl is expected to decrease by about 10 percent under this alternative. 
A-36

Pixley Refuge

Alternative A. Under Alternative A, current management of Pixley Refuge would continue unchanged. 

The Refuge would continue to use livestock grazing in the grasslands to improve habitat conditions for the 

Tipton kangaroo rat and blunt-nosed leopard lizard. In addition, the Refuge would continue to provide 756 

acres of high quality moist soil habitat for migratory waterfowl, shorebirds, and other water birds through 

water management and periodic vegetation management. 

Recreational use of the Refuge is expected to increase gradually as the population of the southern San 

Joaquin Valley grows. Most of these new users are expected to participate in wildlife observation. This 

growth in recreational use could adversely affect birds using the Refuge wetlands, resulting in flushing, 

disruption of feeding and roosting, increased demands on birds’ available energy, and reduced use of 

preferred habitat (DeLong 2002). 

Under all alternatives, the Service would continue to allow the Tulare Mosquito Abatement District 

(TMAD) to monitor and control mosquitoes on Pixley Refuge. The potential impacts of mosquito control 

on wildlife are described in the discussion under Kern Refuge, Alternative A. 

Alternative B. Effects on wildlife under Alternative B would be similar to Alternative A, with a few 

exceptions. Under Alternative B, the Service would pursue acquisition of the remaining natural lands 

within the approved Refuge Boundary from willing sellers. Once these lands are acquired, they would be 

protected from future development in perpetuity. This would benefit the wide variety of wildlife that 

inhabits these grasslands including the endangered blunt-nosed leopard lizard and Tipton kangaroo rat. 

The Service would also plant five acres of riparian vegetation along the service ditch between the wetland 

units. Once established, this new habitat would provide a long-term benefit to a variety of wildlife 

including migratory songbirds and raptors and amphibians. 

Under Alternative B, Refuge visitation is expected to increase substantially to 1,200 visits per year. This is 

145 percent more visits than expected under Alterative A. Potential impacts of this increased use include 

flushing of birds, disruption of feeding and roosting activity, increased energetic costs, and reduced use of 

preferred habitat (DeLong 2002). However, because most of the wetland unit will remain a sanctuary 

closed to all public use, birds will be able to avoid the disturbance by temporarily retreating to sanctuary 

units. As a result, this impact is not considered significant. 

Alternative C. Effects on wildlife under Alternative C would be similar to Alternative B with the following 

exceptions. Under this alternative, the Service would develop a 272-acre grain and pasture unit in the 

Turkey Tract unit. This area is currently densely vegetated with nonnative grasses and forbs and has a 

low wildlife value. However, once developed, this area would provide a long-term benefit to sandhill cranes 

and geese by providing a dependable food source in close proximity to the wetland unit. The Service would 

also restore more riparian habitat under Alternative C (ten acres) than Alternative B (five acres) and 

would thus provide a greater benefit to the variety of wildlife (raptors, songbirds, amphibians, etc) which 

use this important habitat type. 

Under Alternative C, Refuge visitation is expected to increase substantially to 3,000 visits per year. Even 

though this is over 300 percent more visits than expected under Alterative A, the number of visitors is 

relatively small when spread throughout the year. Potential impacts of this increased use would be similar 

to those described under Alternative B. Furthermore, construction of a new interpretive pullout at the 

Turkey Tract could temporarily disturb and/or displace wildlife that use the area. 

Alternative D. Alternative D would also have mostly beneficial and some adverse effects on wildlife. 

Effects under this alternative would be similar to Alternative C, with three exceptions. Under Alternative 

D, the Service would attempt to mimic historic hydrologic conditions by continuously fluctuating water 

levels in the moist soil units between zero and eight inches in winter and early spring. This would improve 
A-37

habitat conditions for migrating shorebirds because shallow water habitat is in short supply during this 

period (Page and Shuford 2000). 

Under this Alternative, the Service would also plant more riparian vegetation (20 acres) than the other 

alternatives. This would provide a greater benefit to the variety of wildlife that use this plant community, 

including migratory songbirds, raptors, and amphibians. 

Under Alternative D, Refuge visitation is expected to increase substantially to 3,500 visits per year. This is 

400 percent more visits than expected under Alterative A. Potential impacts of this increased use would be 

similar to those described under Alternative B. Furthermore, construction of a new parking lot and vernal 

pool trail temporarily disturb and/or displace wildlife that use the area. 

Special Status Species 

This section describes the effects of the alternatives on special status species that are known to occur on 

Kern and/or Pixley Refuges.

Kern Refuge 

Alternative A. Under Alternative A (No Action), continuation of current management activities will have 

beneficial effects on special status species. For example, the Service would continue to use grazing in the 

Research Natural Area to control nonnative grasses and to provide more open habitat suitable to the 

endangered blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Tipton kangaroo rat and the proposed threatened mountain plover. 

These uplands and associated sensitive species would continue to be protected from flooding by keeping 

excess water from entering the Refuge after the wetlands are filled to capacity. Under Alternative A, the 

Buena Vista Lake shrew is expected to benefit from the continued periodic flood irrigation that maintains 

the riparian habitat in units 4a, 5a, and 9. The Service would continue to manage a 300-acre portion of Unit 

1 for colonial nesting species by maintaining dense emergent vegetation and keeping it flooded throughout 

the summer. This is expected to benefit tricolored blackbird (a bird of conservation concern) by making 

their nests less vulnerable to predation. 

Under Alternative A, recreational use of the Refuge is expected to increase over time as the population of 

the southern San Joaquin Valley grows. The endangered blunt-nosed leopard lizard could be affected by 

the increase in visitors because it is active during the day and could be vulnerable to encounters with 

automobiles and other vehicles along the tour route. However, most Refuge visitors come during the cold 

fall and winter months when leopard lizards are inactive. The San Joaquin kit fox and Tipton kangaroo rat 

are both active at night when the Refuge is closed. As a result, these listed species would not likely be 

adversely affected. 

Alternative B. Implementing Alternative B would result in both beneficial and adverse effects on special 

status species. Blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Tipton kangaroo rat, and mountain plover would continue to 

benefit from the Service’s efforts to improve the quality of upland habitat through grazing and flood 

protection. Under Alternative B, the Buena Vista Lake shrew is expected to benefit from the periodic 

flood irrigation that maintains the riparian habitat in units 4a, 5a, and 9. In addition, the Service’s 

restoration of five acres of riparian habitat on the east side of unit 14 would increase the area of suitable 

habitat for this imperiled species. Under this Alternative, the Service would discontinue management of a 

300-acre portion of unit 1 for colonial nesting. As a result, the tricolored blackbird may abandon nesting in 

the marsh because their nests would be vulnerable to coyote predation (Beedy and Hamilton 1997). This 

could adversely affect the tricolored blackbird, a bird of conservation concern, because Kern Refuge has 

provided important nesting habitat for these species. 

Alternative C. Alternative C, would have beneficial effects on special status species. Blunt-nosed leopard 

lizard, Tipton kangaroo rat, and mountain plover would continue to benefit from the Service’s efforts to 

improve the habitat quality of the uplands through grazing and flood protection. Alternative C would 

increase the flood protection for special status species in the uplands by strengthening the levees around 
A-38

units 11, 12, and 14. In addition, the blunt-nosed leopard lizard and Tipton kangaroo rat may benefit when 

the Service restores 400 acres of saltbush scrub vegetation in unit 14, an area that is currently unsuitable 

habitat for these species. Under Alternative C, the Service would also significantly expand monitoring and 

research of special status species. Information gained from this research could improve management for 

these species in the future. 

Habitat for the blunt-nosed leopard lizard and Tipton kangaroo rat may be affected when the Service 

rehabilitates units 7, 7b and 8 by repairing cross levees, replacing water control structures, and removing 

salt cedar, to increase the efficiency with which these units can be flooded. Even though these seasonal 

wetland units have been flooded annually since 1995 (D. Hardt, pers. com.), approximately 100 acres of 

higher ground in unit 8, and 200 acres in unit 7, are flooded only occasionally and support upland 

vegetation. These small, isolated upland areas may have provided marginal habitat for the blunt-nosed 

leopard lizard and Tipton kangaroo rat in the past. However, they have been inundated occasionally 

during larger flood events, such as the one that occurred in 1998. As a result, the blunt-nosed leopard 

lizard and Tipton kangaroo rat are no longer expected to inhabit this area and would not likely be 

adversely affected by the proposed rehabilitation project. 

Under this alternative, the Buena Vista Lake shrew is expected to benefit from the periodic flood irrigation 

that maintains the riparian habitat in units 4a, 5a, and 9. In addition, the Service’s restoration of 15 acres 

of riparian habitat on the east side of unit 14 would increase the area of suitable habitat for this imperiled 

species. 

Alternative D. Effects on special status species under Alternative D would be the same as those described 

under Alternative C, with a one exception. Under Alternative D, the Service would plant 30 acres of 

riparian vegetation around unit 14 (rather than 15 acres as proposed in Alternative C) and would thus 

provide more habitat for the Buena Vista Lake shrew. 

Pixley Refuge

Alternative A. Under Alternative A (No Action), continuation of current management activities will have 

beneficial effects on special status species. For example, the Service would continue to use grazing on the 

Refuge’s grasslands to control nonnative grasses and to provide more open habitat suitable to the 

endangered blunt-nosed leopard lizard and Tipton kangaroo rat. In addition, the Service would continue to 

manage the moist soil wetland units to provide wintering habitat for sandhill cranes, including a species 

State-listed as threatened, the greater sandhill crane.

Alternative B. In addition to the beneficial effects of ongoing management described under Alternative A, 

the Service would implement a few new projects that would benefit special status species. Under 

Alternative B, the Service would pursue acquisition of the approximately 3,200 acres of remaining 

undeveloped lands within Pixley Refuge’s approved boundary from willing sellers. This habitat protection 

effort would contribute to the recovery of blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Tipton kangaroo rat, and San 

Joaquin kit fox by permanently protecting habitat from development and linking disconnected tracts of 

existing Refuge land. 

Under Alternative B, the Service would also plant and maintain five acres of riparian vegetation along the 

service ditch running between the moist soil units. This riparian vegetation, once established, could 

provide habitat for the endangered Buena Vista Lake shrew. 

Alternative C. Alternative C would result in the same beneficial effects for special status species as 

Alternative B. In addition, under Alternative C, the Service would prepare a grassland management plan 

and substantially expand surveying, monitoring, and research for Tipton kangaroo rat, blunt-nosed leopard 

lizard, and San Joaquin kit fox. Information gained through these activities could help improve 

management for these imperiled species in the future. Under Alternative C, the Service would plant and 

maintain ten acres of riparian vegetation, rather than five acres as proposed in Alternative B, thereby 
A-39

creating more habitat for the Buena Vista Lake shrew. The Service would also develop a 272-acre grain 

unit on the Turkey Tract. This new grain unit, by providing foraging habitat in close proximity to the 

moist soil units, is expected to benefit the greater sandhill crane, State-listed threatened species. 

Alternative D. Under Alternative D, the effects on special status species would be the same as described 

in Alternative C, with the following exceptions. First, the Service would plant 20 acres of riparian 

vegetation under Alternative D rather than 10 acres under Alternative C, thus providing more habitat for 

the Buena Vista Lake shrew. Second, the Service would develop a parking lot and vernal pool foot trail in 

the Two Well Tract. This area is known habitat for three listed species, the blunt-nosed leopard lizard, 

Tipton kangaroo rat, and vernal pool fairy shrimp. Trail and parking lot would be developed on existing 

disturbed areas to avoid affecting these species or their habitat. 

Diseases and Toxins 

The potential effects of diseases and toxins would be similar under all alternatives. Under each alternative, 

the Service would continue current botulism control practices, including keeping most units dry between 

the first of June 1 and the first of August; patrolling historically problematic wetlands on the Refuges and 

in the surrounding areas in cooperation with the California Department of Fish and Game; and removing 

sick birds and carcasses from wetlands. As a result, the potential for an outbreak of botulism would be 

minimized.

Under all alternatives the Service would continue to prohibit the use of lead shot at Kern Refuge for 

waterfowl hunting as it has for the past 12 years. 

Cultural Resources 

All of the alternatives for Kern and Pixley Refuges, including the No Action Alternative, have the potential 

to disturb cultural resources. The nature and degree of the impacts would depend on the specific activities 

undertaken, the nature of the resource(s) present, and the nature of previous management activities on the 

site and severity of any previous impacts. All ground-disturbing activities will require review by the 

Service's Regional Archaeologist, who will determine appropriate procedures to protect cultural resources 

and will specify any necessary mitigation, guided by the Service's Programmatic Agreement for cultural 

resources with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). 

Under strategy 4.F.1, described in the CCP and included in all the alternatives, site-specific surveys will be 

conducted for potential archaeological and historic resources prior to initiating any construction projects 

such as roads, facilities, public use areas, and habitat projects. Refuge construction projects will be 

designed to avoid or minimize impacts on cultural resources. By implementing the mitigation measures 

described below, any potential impacts to cultural resources are expected to be less than significant. 

Mitigation 

All ground-disturbing activities will be coordinated with the Service's Regional Archaeologist, in order to 

preserve the Refuge's archaeologic and historic resources. Specific guidelines follow that may apply to 

Refuge activities, depending on site-specific conditions.

 Cultural resources survey by a qualified archaeologist may be required in areas where a grounddisturbing activity or prescribed burning is proposed. If burning is proposed entirely within a flood zone 

or in a previously disked or plowed area, or if burning has been an ongoing practice on the site, a 

cultural resources survey may not be required. However, cultural resources surveys will likely be 

necessary for all burns on upland sites, and for burns that require excavation (scraping, plowing, or 

disking) to establish a fire line. In some cases, it may be appropriate to conduct cultural resources 

survey work after a prescribed burn is completed, because the visibility of artifacts or other resources 

may be increased after burning, and artifacts may be more vulnerable to vandalism or theft when 

exposed by burning. 
A-40

 As required by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) (25 USC 3001 

et seq. or 43 CFR 10), any construction or ground-disturbing activity on the Refuge with the potential to 

disturb human remains, burial objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony will be planned 

and implemented in consultation with affected Tribes. 

 If potentially significant artifacts are found during any activity on the Refuge, work will cease within 100 

feet of the find, and access will be restricted until a qualified archaeologist, and members of local Tribes 

can assess the significance of the find and propose appropriate methods of treatment, as required by 

NAGPRA.

 If human remains are found during any activity on the Refuge, work will cease within 100 feet of the 

find, access will be restricted, and the Kern or Tulare County Coroner will be informed of the discovery,

as required under Public Resources Code Section 5050.5. If no investigation of the cause of death is 

required, remains will be treated in accordance with the requirements of NAGPRA. 

Visitor Services 

Kern Refuge

Alternative A. Under the No Action Alternative, the Service would maintain current Refuge visitor 

services and facilities. Therefore, there would be no effects on visitor services under this alternative. 

However, overall Refuge use is expected to increase as the population of the southern San Joaquin Valley 

and the rest of the State continues to grow over the next 15 years. According to California State 

Department of Finance projections, the population of the southern San Joaquin Valley (Kern, Tulare, and 

Kings Counties) is expected to grow by 38 percent between 2005 and 2020. The State as a whole is 

expected to grow by 24 percent over the same period. In the western states region, participation in 

hunting is predicted to decline by 21 percent between 1995 and 2020. Participation in nonconsumptive 

recreation is expected to increase 37 percent over the same period (Cordell et al. 1999). However, these 

regional trends may not necessarily reflect what is happening on a local scale. For example, waterfowl 

hunter use days at Kern Refuge have remained the same or increased for four out of the past five years 

while State-wide waterfowl hunter use days have declined for four out of the past five years (DFG 2003). 

For purposes of this alternative, we assume that hunter use will remain the same over the life of the CCP 

and nonconsumptive recreation will increase at a rate proportional to the predicted population growth for 

the three-county southern San Joaquin Valley Region. Currently, Kern Refuge receives about 7,000 visits 

per year. Under Alternative A, the Refuge is expected to receive 8,400 visits annually by 2020. These 

increases in visitor use Alternative A serve as a baseline with which to compare the action alternatives. 

Figure 6 shows the current public use levels and predicted use levels under each alternative. 

Alternative B. Alternative B would improve and expand visitor services on Kern Refuge with a focus on 

hunting. The hunting program on the Refuge would be substantially expanded by opening an additional 

187 acres to free-roam hunting and 1,330 acres to hunting from 18 new blinds. In addition to Wednesdays 

and Saturdays, the current hunt days, the Refuge would be opened to hunting on Sundays. Alternative B 

would also expand the environmental education and interpretation programs on the Refuge and a full time 

outdoor recreation planner would be hired. 
A-41

Under Alternative B, 

visitation to the Refuge is 

expected to increase 

substantially over the 15-

year life of the CCP, to 

about 13,000 visits per 

year. This is over 50 

percent more visits than 

expected under Alternative 

A. Nearly 60 percent of the 

increased visits under 

Alternative B would be due 

to expansion of the hunt 

program. The remaining 

visitor growth is expected 

due to the expanded 

environmental education 

and interpretation 

programs. However, 

visitation for wildlife 

observation and 

photography would decline 

under Alternative B, due to 

the proposed closure of the 

auto tour route on 

weekends throughout the 

hunt season (the tour route 

is currently closed only on 

Saturdays).

Alternative C. Under 

Alternative C, the Service 

would improve and expand all visitor services on the Refuge. Hunting opportunities would be increased by 

opening an additional 540 acres to free roam hunting and constructing nine new hunting blinds. Other 

major visitor services projects proposed under this alternative include: developing new interpretive signs 

and displays; publishing a new refuge brochure; enhancing the pond at the refuge entrance; constructing a 

new kiosk and boardwalk; constructing a new 4.3-mile tour route to be open every day; and constructing a 

new photo blind.

Visitation to the Refuge under Alternative C, is expected to increase substantially over the 15-year life of 

the CCP, to about 15,500 visits per year. When compared to the current number of visitors, described 

under Alternative A, this is an increase in refuge visits of more than 80 percent. Approximately 10 percent 

of this growth would be attributed to increases in hunting, with 20 percent due to environmental education, 

30 percent due to interpretation visits, and 40 percent due to wildlife observation and photography. 

Alternative D. Alternative D would improve and expand visitor services on Kern Refuge with an emphasis 

on non-consumptive uses. Major new visitor services projects under this alternative would include: 

developing new interpretive signs and displays; publishing a new refuge brochure; enhancing the pond at 

the refuge entrance; constructing a new kiosk and boardwalk; constructing a 4.3-mile auto tour route to be 

open every day and a 7.4-mile auto tour route to be open on non hunt days; and constructing a new photo 

blind. Under Alternative D, the hunt program would be substantially reduced by eliminating about 47 

percent of the free roam hunt area. 

Figure 6. Kern Refuge: Current and Projected Visitation (15 

years)

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Use Days

Interpretation 2,000 2,800 4,000 5,000 5,000 

Environmental

Education

 450 600 2,000 2,000 2,000 

Wildlife Observation

and Photography

 1,500 2,100 1,500 5,000 7,000 

Hunting 2,800 2,800 5,600 3,600 2,500 

Current Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
A-42

Visitation to the Refuge under Alternative D, is expected to increase substantially over the 15-year life of 

the CCP, to about 17,000 visits per year. This is almost 100 percent more visits than expected under the no 

action alternative (Alternative A). Despite the overall increase in visitation anticipated under Alternative 

D, it is predicted that the number of hunting visits would decline by more than 10 percent due to the 

reduction in the size of the hunt area proposed. 

Pixley Refuge

Alternative A. The Service would maintain current visitor services and facilities under the No Action 

Alternative. Therefore, this Alternative would have no effects on visitor services. However, Pixley Refuge 

visitation is expected to increase as the population of the southern San Joaquin Valley grows (see 

discussion under Kern Refuge, Alternative A). For purposes of this Alternative, we assume that visitation 

will increase at a rate proportional to the predicted population growth for the three-county southern San 

Joaquin Valley Region. Currently, Pixley Refuge receives about 500 visits per year. Under Alternative A, 

the Refuge is expected to receive about 700 visits annually by 2020. Figure 7 shows the current public use 

levels and predicted use levels for Pixley Refuge under each alternative. 

Alternative B. Under Alternative B, the outreach and environmental education programs would be 

improved and expanded. The current limited outreach program would be expanded by developing a 

Refuge friends group and Refuge staff would give more presentations about the Refuge at schools, public 

events, and public service and 

conservation group meetings. A 

visitor services plan would be 

developed and implemented and 

a full time outdoor recreation 

planner would be hired (shared 

with Kern Refuge). The Service 

would also seek to establish new 

partnerships with educational 

institutions and local 

organizations for environmental 

education on the Refuge. In 

addition, new educational 

materials would be developed. 

Under Alternative B, the number 

of visitors to Pixley Refuge is 

expected to increase over the 15-

year life of the CCP, to 1,200 

visits per year. This is almost 70 

percent more visits than 

expected under Alternative A.

Alternative C. Alternative C 

would include the same visitor 

services improvements as 

Alternative B. In addition, a 

wildlife viewing area and 

interpretive displays would be 

constructed on the Turkey Tract 

adjacent to State Highway 43. 

Under this alternative, the 

number of visitors to Pixley 

Refuge is expected to increase 

Figure 7. Pixley Refuge: Current and Projected Visitation (15 

years)

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

Use Days

Interpretation 40 100 100 1,000 1,000 

Environmental

Education

 - - 500 500 500 

Wildlife Observation

and Photography

 450 600 600 1,500 2,000 

Current Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D
A-43

substantially over the 15-year life of the CCP to 3,000/ visits per year. This is over 300 percent more visits 

than expected under Alternative A. 

Alternative D. Alternative D would include the same visitor services improvements as Alternative C. In 

addition, a parking lot and vernal pool foot trail would be developed at the Two Well Tract. Under this 

alternative, the number of visitors to Pixley Refuge is expected to increase substantially over the 15-year 

life of the CCP, to 3,500 visits per year. This is over 300 percent more visits than expected under 

Alternative A.

Socioeconomics

Kern Refuge

Alternative A. Under the No Action Alternative, current management practices would continue and no 

change in Refuge staffing would be required. The No Action Alternative would thus have no impact on 

local employment conditions or the local economy. 

Alternatives B, C, and D. Under Alternatives B, C, and D, wildlife management and visitor services 

programs would expand. This would require the Service to increase the staff of the Refuge by a maximum 

of three full-time employees (shared with Pixley Refuge). In addition, Refuge visitation under Alternatives 

B, C, and D is expected to increase substantially over the life of the CCP. This increase could benefit the 

local economy and local employment conditions if Refuge visitors patronized local businesses such as gas 

stations, restaurants, hotels, and sporting good stores. No projects proposed under any of the Alternatives 

would have a negative impact on low-income or minority populations. 

Pixley Refuge

Alternative A. Under the No Action Alternative, current management practices would continue and no 

change in Refuge staffing would be required. The No Action Alternative would thus have no impact on 

local employment conditions or the local economy. 

Alternatives B, C, and D. Socioeconomic effects under Alternatives B, C, and D would be the same as 

those described under Kern Refuge. In addition, the Service would pursue acquisition of the remaining 

3,215 acres of undeveloped lands within the approved boundary from willing sellers. Although land 

acquired by the Service would be removed from the tax rolls, Tulare County would receive annual revenue 

sharing payments. These are equal to one of the following, whichever is largest: 75 cents per acre; threequarters of one percent of the fair market value; or twenty-five percent of net refuge receipts. The market 

value is updated every five years. If refuge receipts are insufficient to allow full payment, the 

disbursement may be reduced proportionally. Congress may appropriate additional funds to ensure full 

payments. 
A-44
A-45

Appendix 1: AlternativesGoals, Objectives, and Strategies 

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 6,700 acres that can be managed as seasonal wetlands, the Service would manage 1,200 acres 

(2,400 acres with moist soil expansion) for a plant cover of approximately 60 percent emergent vegetation and 40 

percent open water flooded to less than 8 inches to maximize seed availability for wintering and migratory 

dabbling ducks and to provide invertebrate substrate with sparse vegetation and water depths of less than 2 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). 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 Acres of moist soil habitat. 

high

energy

high

energy

high

energy

native Waterfowl food plant composition target 

Strategies

9 9 9 9 1.A.1 Assuming water is available, begin flooding moist soil units in August. The 

Refuge would begin drawing down units in March 

9 9 1.A.2 Stagger floodup of moist soil units 

9 1.A.3 Continuously fluctuate water levels between 0 and 8" 

9 9 9 9 1.A.4 Irrigate units once or twice in April and May to assist waterfowl food plant 

germination. 

9 9 9 1.A.5 Each year, 25 percent of the units would receive one or more of the following 

vegetation treatments: burning, disking, mowing, or herbicide. 

9 1.A.6 Each year, 25 percent of the units would receive one or more of the following 

vegetation treatments: burning, disking, or mowing. 

Rationale: Dabbling ducks prefer to feed in shallow water, between 2 to 10 inches deep, with an equal ratio of open 

water and emergent vegetation (USFWS 1988a). In general, pintail and green-winged 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 2 inches deep) with sparse vegetation 

(USFWS 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 food eaten 

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 (USFWS 1992). The percentage cover targets 

in this objective are an average for all units. 
A-46

Objective 1.B: Within 5 years the Refuge would develop 1,200 acres within Unit 14 as moist soil habitat to provide 

habitat for wintering and migratory dabbling ducks and spring-migrating shorebirds. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 Acres of new moist soil habitat. 

Strategies

9 9 9 9 1.B.1 Rehabilitate interior and exterior levees of Unit 14. 

9 9 9 9 1.B.2 Eradicate salt cedar from the unit using mechanical and chemical methods. 

9 9 9 9 1.B.3 Recontour soils on Unit 14 to improve capacity and flood up/draw down efficiency. 

9 9 9 9 1.B.4 Install new water control structures. 

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. However, between 1976 and 1987, the area of preirrigated 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. Additionally, since the increased water allocations 

established by the CVPIA will be available to the Refuge in 2002, completing this project would allow the Refuge 

to meet the CVPIA obligations. 

Objective 1.C: Of the 6,700 acres of seasonal wetlands, the Refuge would manage 3,800 acres for a plant cover with 

45 to 55 percent as emergent vegetation (cattails, hardstem bullrush) flooded less than 4 feet deep to provide 

foraging and loafing habitat for wintering and migratory habitat for waterfowl. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

3,800 3,800 3,800 3,800 Acres of seasonal marsh habitat. 

Strategies

9 9 9 9 1.C.1 Flood up the units sequentially, beginning in mid-August and finishing by mid-December 

9 9 9 9 1.C.2 Begin drawing down the units by mid-June. 

9 9 9 1.C.3 Use burning, mowing, discing and herbicide as needed to achieve the targeted plant cover. 

9 1.C.4 Use burning, mowing, and discing, as needed to achieve the targeted plant cover. 

9 9 1.C.5 Within 5 years, eradicate 90 percent of the existing acreage of salt cedar from seasonal 

wetland units. 

9 9 9 1C.6 Rehabilitate Units 7 and 8 by reconstructing existing dikes or constructing new dikes to 

improve water management efficiency. 

Rationale: Deeper wetland habitats provide foraging and feeding sites for diving ducks (USFWS 1993). 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. 

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 1 to 2 feet deep from mid-March to July to provide nesting habitat for tri-colored black birds 

and white-faced ibis. 
A-47

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

300 0 300 300 Acres of seasonal marsh habitat with summer water. 

Strategies

9 9 9 9 1.D.1 Retain 1-2 feet of water in the eastern portion of Unit 1 until July 

9 9 1.D.2 Construct and maintain a new dike across Unit 1 to improve water management flexibility. 

9 9 1.D.3 Conduct two tri-colored blackbird censuses each spring in cooperation with the CDFG. 

9 9 1.D.4 Coordinate research and monitoring of ibis and tri-colored blackbird with CDFG 

9 9 1.D.5 Coordinate with Kern Mosquito Abatement District to insure that spraying does not occur 

when birds are nesting 

Rationale: Kern Refuge has historically been an important nesting site for tri-colored 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 which is consistent with published management recommendations 

(Beedy and Hamilton 1997). This action also benefits other wetland dependent wildlife. 

Objective 1.E: The Refuge would minimize the occurrence, spread, and severity of botulism outbreaks. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

same for all alternatives 

Strategies

9 9 9 9 1.E.1 Keep all units dry between June 1 and August 1 (except 300 acres of Unit 1 managed for tricolored blackbirds. 

9 9 9 9 1.E.2 Patrol historically problematic wetlands on the Refuge and in the southern San Joaquin 

Valley in cooperation with the CDFG to quickly identify outbreaks. 

9 9 9 9 1.E.3 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. 

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 Sierran 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..). 

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; (2) the remaining 

wetland habitat would be opened on a 45 percent open, 55 percent closed basis (3,504 acres of permanent wetland 

sanctuary). 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

45 70 45 30 Percent of wetland habitat open to hunting and other public uses 

55 30 55 70 Percent of wetland habitat closed to hunting and other public uses 

4,223 2,531 3,504 5,140 Acres of wetland sanctuary
A-48

Strategies

9 9 9 9 1.F.1 The first 1,000 acres of wetlands flooded will be closed to hunting. 

9

1.E.2 As the remaining wetlands are flooded1, 45 percent will be opened and 55 percent will be 

closed. When all Refuge wetland units are flooded, Units 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 4A, and 4B would be open to 

hunting and the remainder would be closed. 

9

1.E.3 As the remaining wetlands are flooded, 70 percent will be opened and 30 percent will be 

closed. When all Refuge wetland units are flooded, units 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B, 6A, 6B, and 6C 

would be open to hunting and the remainder would be closed. 

9

1.E.4 As the remaining wetlands are flooded, 45 percent will be opened and 55 percent will be 

closed. When all Refuge wetland units are flooded, units 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 4A, 4B, 5A, and 5B would be 

open to hunting and the remainder would be closed. 

9

1.E.4 As the remaining wetlands are flooded, 30 percent will be opened and 70 percent will be 

closed. When all Refuge wetland units are flooded, units 1, 1A, 4A, and 4B would be open to hunting 

and the remainder would be closed. 

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. 

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. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

same for all alternatives 

Strategies

9 1.G.1 Conduct three aerial waterfowl surveys of the southern San Joaquin Valley between October 

and March. 

9 9 9 1.G.2 Conduct monthly aerial waterfowl surveys of the southern San Joaquin Valley from 

September to March. 

9 9 1.G.3 Conduct biweekly shorebird, waterbird, and raptor surveys from September to June. 

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.

Objective 1.I: In partnership with other Federal, State, and local agencies and nongovernmental organizations, 

the Refuge would seek to protect and enhance up to 16,000 acres of wetlands in the southern San Joaquin Valley. 

 

1

Including unit 14 when rehabilitation is completed. 
A-49

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

n/a same for all action alternatives 

Strategies

9 9 9 1.I.1 Within 1 year, complete and begin to implement a detailed land protection plan and EA to 

evaluate various land protection alternatives. 

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 wetlands habitat in 

California (USFWS 1978). About 260,000 acres of permanent wetlands and an equal area of seasonal wetlands 

were present. Loss and modification of these native wetlands was primarily due to large scale conversion to 

agricultural lands (see Figure 7 in CCP) and the dramatic decline in flood flows to the Tulare Basin due to flood 

control projects. Today, less than 1 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 protect and enhance wetlands for migratory 

and resident waterfowl and waterbirds. 

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 the 2,377 acres of upland vegetation to prevent excessive 

accumulation of mulch and growing plants to provide suitable habitat for Tipton kangaroo rat and blunt-nosed 

leopard lizard. The Refuge would maintain an average residual dry matter (RDM) between 750 and 800 pounds 

per acre in the upland areas until such time as optimum management conditions are determined through scientific 

research.

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

2,377 2,377 2,377 2,377 same for all alternatives 

Strategies

9 9 9 9

2.A.1 Beginning in October of each year, periodically measure the average RDM at several locations 

to determine appropriate timing, duration, and stocking rates for cattle (assumptions for lbs 

RDM/AUM).

9 9 9 9 2.A.2 Using the stocking rates calculated in the strategy above, graze cattle in the upland areas 

until target RDM is reached. 

9 9 2.A.3 Develop cooperative land management agreements with each grazing permitee 

9 9

2.A.4 Develop and implement a grassland management which explores various options (grazing, 

prescribed fire, etc) 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. 

Rationale: The Tipton Kangaroo rat and blunt-nosed leopard lizard inhabit areas where the understory is 

dominated by nonnative annual grasses and forbs. During all but drought years, if left uncheck, these annuals 

form dense stands with RDM increasing each year. The Tipton kangaroo rat and blunt-nosed leopard lizard prefer 

sparsely vegetated areas with RDM less than 750 to 800 pounds per acre (USFWS 1998, Kelly et al. 2000). 
A-50

Objective 2.B: The Service would protect Refuge uplands from Poso Creek flood flows. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

same for all alternatives 

Strategies

9 9 9 9 2.B.1 When flood flows arrive, the Refuge would fill all wetland units to capacity. 

9 9 9 9 2.B.2 When all wetland units are filled, stop inflow into Refuge. 

9 9 2.B.3 Strengthen levees surrounding Units 11, 12, and 14. 

9 9 2.B.4 Negotiate a Poso Creek flood water management agreement with adjacent landowners. 

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 result in sheet flooding of adjacent Refuge uplands. This occurs 

every 8 to 10 years, on average, the most recent being in 1998. The endangered Tipton kangaroo rat and bluntnosed leopard lizard are intolerant of flooding (USFWS 1998) and Refuge records reflect little or no use of Refuge 

uplands by these two species, as well as the endangered San Joaquin kit fox, in the years following floods. 

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). 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

n/a n/a 9 9 Establish linkages between Kern Refuge and other natural lands. 

Strategies

9 9 2.C.1 Seek approval to prepare a detailed land protection plan to evaluate various land protection 

alternatives.

9 9 2.C.2 Coordinate with ongoing habitat conservation planning efforts in Kern County.

Rationale: Currently, most protected natural lands in the San Joaquin Valley that provide habitat for Tipton 

kangaroo rat, blunt-nosed leopard, and San Joaquin kit fox are isolated islands surrounded by unprotected lands 

(See Figure 7 in CCP). 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). 

Objective 2.D: In partnership with DFG and 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. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

n/a n/a 9 9 Monitoring and research 

Strategies

9 9 2.D.1 Conduct annual presence/absence surveys for listed species along established transects 
A-51

9 9

2.D.2 Census and monitor the following special status species in the Refuge on an annual basis: San 

Joaquin kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Buena Vista Lake shrew, giant 

slough thistle, and recurved larkspur 

9 9 2.D.3 Develop and implement a comprehensive census and monitoring plan for special status 

species

9 9

2.D.4 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 

9 9 2.D.6 Conduct rare plant surveys of the alkali sinks on the Refuge 

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. 

Goal 3. Restore and maintain representative examples of Tulare Basin grassland, riparian, and sink 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 dependant species (neotropical migrants, 

raptors, colonial nesting birds, and small mammals). 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

450 450 450 450 Acres of riparian habitat maintained and enhanced 

Strategies

9 9 9 9

3.A.1 Flood the riparian area in fall, winter, and early spring. 

9 9 9 9 3.A.2 Flood irrigate trees once a month during the summer (June, July, and August) to 

maintain trees. 

9 9 3.A.3 Eradicate salt cedar from the riparian areas using mechanical removal, herbicide, 

and/or water management. 

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 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. 
A-52

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 migrants birds, and colonial nesting 

waterbirds.

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

0 5 15 30 Acres of riparian habitat restored. 

Strategies

9 9 9 3.B.1 Rehabilitate canal and setback levee 30 feet along canals.

9 9 9 3.B.2 Plant and maintain riparian trees, shrubs, and forbs native to the riparian forests in the area 

using cuttings from near by populations. 

9 9 9 3.B.3 Maintain restored riparian habitat as described in Objective 3.A 

9 9 3.B.4 Monitor response of bird populations to riparian restoration. 

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. 

Objective 3.C: Within 5 years, the Refuge would restore 400 acres of valley sink scrub vegetation in Unit 13 to 

provide cover, nesting, and foraging habitat for upland migratory bird species. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

0 0 400 400 Acres of valley sink scrub habitat restored. 

Strategies

9 9 3.C.1 Cut shallow swales through the unit. 

9 9 3.C.2 Prepare seed beds with light discing or other means. 

9 9 3.C.3 Collect, prepare, and broadcast seed. 

9 9 3.C.4 Irrigate unit by flooding swales. 

9 9 3.C.5 Monitor success (seed germination, plant growth, relative cover, etc.). 

Rational: The valley sink scrub plant community occurred historically on the boarders 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/or 

foraging habitat for a variety migratory bird species including: sage sparrow, western meadowlark, logger-headed 

shrike, short-eared owl, burrowing owl, and mourning dove. Resorting Unit 13 would increase the extent of this 

community on the Refuge by more than 50 percent. 

Objective 3.D: Within 5 years of CCP completion, prepare a grassland management plan that addresses control of 

exotic vegetation (salt cedar, nonnative annual grasses).

Alternative

A B C D Objective Target

9 9 Prepare grassland management plan

Strategies
A-53

9 9 3.D.1 Conduct comprehensive plant and animal surveys. 

9 9 3.D.2 Prepare detailed GIS vegetation maps. 

9 9 3.D.3 Conduct literature review. 

9 9 3.D.4 Prepare grassland management plan in cooperation with CDFG, USGS BRD, ESRP, and 

university researchers. 

Rationale: Currently, there is no plan that guides management of the RNA. Invasive nonnative grasses and salt 

cedar are problems in much of the RNA. Grazing is the only management activity currently used to manage 

vegetation. A management plan is needed to explore the use of other grazing regimes and new tools such as 

prescribed fire for managing vegetation. 

Objective 3.E: The Refuge will encourage and provide opportunities for research by other agencies and 

universities in the region, especially as they relate to the management goals and objectives of the Refuge. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Target

9 9 9 Encourage and provide opportunities for research.

Strategies

9 9 9 3.E.1 Each year, update and share the Refuge research needs list with universities in the region and 

other agencies which conduct research. 

9 9 3.E.2 Refuge staff will actively participate in the San Joaquin Valley natural Communities 

Conference each year. 

Rational: Lack of information about some species existing 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. 

Goal 4. Provide visitors with wildlife-dependant recreation, interpretation, and education opportunities 

which foster an appreciation and understanding of Kern Refuge’s unique wildlife and plant communities. 

Objective 4.A: The Refuge would provide safe hunting opportunities for up to 164 hunters per day (depending on 

area of flooded wetlands) on Wednesdays and Saturdays during the hunt season. Hunters would have a 

reasonable chance of success in uncrowded conditions. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

136 217 164 93 Number of hunters accommodated per hunt day (approx 28 hunt days/year if Wed & Sat, 43 if Wed, 

Sat, Sun) 

Wed, 

Sat

Wed, 

Sat,

Sun

Wed, 

Sat

Wed, 

Sat Hunt days 

Strategies

9 9 9 9 4.A.1 Provide 11 spaced blinds in Units 4A and 4B (1 handicapped-accessible) for hunter use 

(maximum of 4 hunters per blind). 
A-54

9 9 9 4.A.2 Provide 1,840 acres of free-roam hunt area in units 1, 1A, 2 and 2A. Maximum hunter density 

will be 1 hunter per 20 acres (maximum of 92 hunters) 

9 4.A.3 Provide 1,000 acres of free-roam hunt area in units 1and 1A. Maximum hunter density will be 

1 hunter per 20 acres (maximum of 48 hunters). 

9 4.A.4 When Unit 14 is completely developed as a moist soil unit, provide an addition 17 spaced 

blinds in Units 5A and 5B (1 handicapped-accessible) for hunter use (4 hunters per blind). 

9

4.A.5 When unit 14 is completely developed as a moist soil unit, provide an addition 18 spaced blinds 

in units 5A, 5B, 6A and 6C for hunter use (4 hunters per blind) and 187 acres of free roam hunting in 

unit 6b) (maximum of 9 hunters). 

9 4.A.6 Work with CDFG to setup Sunday as hunt day (in addition to Wed and Sat). 

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 1 hunter per 20 acres. 

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 by 2018. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

2,100 1,500 5,000 7,000 Number of wildlife observation visits per year

Strategies

9 9 9 9 4.B.1 Continue to maintain the existing 6 mile tour route 

9 9 9 4.B.2 Develop and implement a public use plan 

9 9

4.B.3 Construct new 4.3 mile tour route around unit 7(open every day). This would involve 

improving existing levee road to make it all weather, constructing pullouts, and installing 

interpretive signs along route. 

9 9 4.B.4 Construct a new photography blind 

9

4.B.5 Construct new 7.4 mile tour route around units 1, 1a, 4a, and 4b (open on non-hunt days). This 

would involve (1) improving existing levee road to make it all weather; (2) construction of guard rails 

around 5 wells along southern leg of route; (3) constructing pullouts, and (4) installing signs along 

the route. 

Rationale: Wildlife observation and photography are two of the six priority public uses identified in the Refuge 

Improvement Act. Currently, about 1,500 visitors per year participate in wildlife observation and photography on 

Kern Refuge. Most use occurs along the 5-mile self-guided auto tour route. However, the tour route is closed on 

hunt days (Wednesdays and Saturdays) due to safety concerns. As a result, opportunities for wildlife viewing and 

photography on these days are limited. 

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 5,000 visits per year by 2018. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

3,000 4,000 5,000 5,000 Number of interpretive visits per year
A-55

Strategies

9 9 9 4.C.1 Develop and implement a public use plan 

9 9 9 4.C.2 Develop partnerships with local school districts and other organizations to provide periodic. 

interpretive tours which highlight the Refuge’s unique resources 

9 9 4.C.3 Develop new interpretive signs, displays, and a new Refuge brochure 

9 9 4.C.4 Develop a kiosk and a boardwalk, and enhance the pond at the Refuge entrance 

Rationale: Interpretation is one of the six priority public uses identified in the Refuge Improvement Act.

Interpretive activities provide the public with opportunities to be introduced to and better understand Refuge 

resources and their management. Currently, about 2,000 visitors per year participate in interpretive activities on 

the Refuge. Implementing programs with local schools and communities would provide support for the Refuge and 

provide an alternative environment for investigating and interpreting Refuge ecology. 

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. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Target

550 2,000 2,000 2,000 Number of environmental education visits per year

Strategies

9 9 9 4.D.1 Development and implement public use plan 

9 9 9 4.D.2 Establish partnerships with educational institutions and local organizations 

9 9 9 4.D.3 Add 1 FTE outdoor recreation planner 

9 9 9 4.D.4 Develop educational materials

Rationale: Environmental education one of the six priority public uses identified in the Refuge Improvement Act. 

Currently, about 340 visitors per year participate in environmental education activities on the Refuge. 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. 

Objective 4.E: Within three years, the Refuge would participate in a minimum of 12 outreach activities each year. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

6 10 12 13 Number of outreach events per year. 

Strategies

9 9 9 4.E.1 Develop a friends group for the Refuge 

9 9 9 9 4.E.2 Give presentations about the Refuge and its unique resources to schools, conservation groups, 

and public service organizations 

9 9 9 9 4.E.3 Plan and conduct a Waterfowl Expo at Refuge each fall 

9 9 9 4.E.4 Purchase general and Refuge specific displays for use at fairs, shows, and festivals 

9 9 9 4.E.5 Coordinate with California Department of Transportation to develop Refuge displays for rest 

stops.
A-56

Rationale: The Refuge was established in 1960 under provisions of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and has long 

been a haven for waterfowl hunters. While managing wetland habitat is important, the Refuge objectives and 

issues continue to broaden and include uplands, listed species, and non-consumptive uses. Outreach activities such 

participation in local and regional fairs and presentations to schools, conservation groups, and service 

organizations help keep potential Refuge users informed and involved in the Refuge. 

Objective 4.F: Implement a proactive cultural resource management program focused on meeting the National 

Historic Preservation Act requirements. In addition to consultations the State Historic Preservation Officer, this 

would involve identifying, inventorying, evaluating, and protecting cultural resources. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

9 9 9 9 Same for all alternatives

Strategies

9 9 9 9 4.F.1 Identify archaeological sites that coincide with existing and planned roads, facilities, public use 

areas, and habitat projects 

9 9 9

4.F.2 Implement a program to evaluate eligibility to the NRHP those archaeological sites that may 

be impacted by Service projects, management activities, erosion, or neglect. Prepare and 

implement activities to mitigate impacts to such sites as necessary 

9 9

4.F.3 Develop a Geographic Information system (GIS) layer for cultural resources that can be used 

with other GIS layers for the Refuge, yet contains appropriate locks to protect sensitive 

information.

9 9 4.F.4 Develop partnerships with the Tribes for inventorying, evaluating, and project monitoring for 

cultural resources consistent with the regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

9 4.F.5 Update and expand the 1983 Overview of Cultural Resources, Kern and Pixley Refuges, to 

develop a cultural resource management plan 

Rationale: Various Federal historic preservation laws and regulations require the Service to implement the kind 

of program described under this objective. Inattention to these responsibilities may obstruct the Refuge in its 

other land, habitat, and wildlife management efforts. 

Objective 4.G: Develop, in partnership with the Tribes and other preservation partners, a program for 

interpreting the cultural resources of the Refuge. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

9 9 Same for all action alternatives

Strategies

9 9 4.G.1 Consult with the Tribes, historical societies, and other preservation partners to identify the 

type of cultural resources information appropriate for public interpretation. 

9 9 4.G.2 Prepare interpretive media (e.g., pamphlets, signs, exhibits) that relate to cultural resources. 

9 4.G.3 Develop a museum property inventory. Create storage and use plans for museum property as 

part of the outreach program. 

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 fourfold: (1) translate the results of cultural research into media that can be understood and 
A-57

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. 

Objective 4.H: 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). 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

9 9 9 Same for all action alternatives

Strategies

9 9 9 4.H.1 Identify Native American Tribes, Groups, and direct lineal descendants that may be affiliated 

with the Refuge lands 

9 9 9 4.H.2 Open consultation process with affiliated Tribes, Groups, and direct lineal descendants 

9 9 9 4.H.3 Define funerary, sacred, and cultural patrimony objects 

9 9 9 4.H.4 Develop procedures to follow for intentional and inadvertent discoveries 

9 9 9 4.H.5 Identify persons to contact for the purposes of 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. 

4.2 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: The Refuge would actively manage the 4,730 acres of upland vegetation to prevent excessive 

accumulation of mulch and growing plants to 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. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Target

4,730 4,730 4,730 4,730 Acres of upland vegetation managed for endangered species. 

Strategies

9 9 9 9

2.A.1 Beginning in October of each year, periodically measure the average RDM at several locations 

to determine appropriate timing, duration, and stocking rates for cattle (assumptions for lbs 

RDM/AUM).

9 9 9 9 2.A.2 Using the stocking rates calculated in the strategy above, graze cattle in the upland areas 

until target RDM is reached. 

9 9 2.A.3 Develop cooperative land management agreements with each grazing permitee 

9 9

2.A.4 Develop and implement a grassland management which 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. 
A-58

Rationale: The blunt-nosed leopard lizard and the Tipton kangaroo rat inhabit areas where nonnative annual 

grasses and forbs dominate the understory. During all but drought years, these annuals form dense stands if left 

unchecked with RDM increasing each year. These two species prefer sparsely vegetated areas with RDM less 

than 750 to 800 pounds per acre (USFWS 1998, Kelly et al. 2000). 

Objective 1.B: In partnership with CDFG and the Endangered Species Recovery Program, the Refuge would 

conduct habitat management studies to determine how best to manage natural lands to enhance habitat for the 

Tipton kangaroo rat and blunt-nosed leopard lizard. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

n/a n/a 9 9 Conduct habitat management studies. 

Strategies

9 9 2.B.1 Expand, coordinate, and continue habitat management studies in on Pixley Refuge. 

9 9

2.B.2 Initiate studies of competition between Tipton and Heerman’s kangaroo rats, focusing 

primarily on how different habitat management prescriptions affect the population dynamics of the 

two species at sites of coexistence. 

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 regionwide management strategies and objectives for these endangered species (Recovery Task 4.24 in Recovery Plan 

for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California). 

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 blunt-nosed leopard lizard 

in the area between and around the Pixley Refuge and the Allensworth Natural Area to minimize the effects of 

random 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. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

n/a 9 9 9 Link and protect blocks of suitable habitat for endangered species. 

Strategies

9 9 9 2.C.1 Acquire remaining natural lands within the approved Refuge Boundary from willing sellers. 

9 9 2.C.2 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). 

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 (USFWS 1997). The remaining populations on small islands of protected habitat (see Figure 

7 in CCP) 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, 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 of the Recovery Plan for Upland 

Species of the San Joaquin Valley. 
A-59

Objective 1.D: In partnership with DFG and 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. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

n/a 9 9 9 Conduct habitat management research. 

Strategies

9 1.D.1 Conduct annual presence/absence surveys for SJKF, BNLL, and TKR along established 

transects

9 9 9

1.D.2 Census and monitor the following special status species in the refuge on an annual basis: San 

Joaquin kit fox, Tipton kangaroo rat, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Buena vista Lake shrew, and 

recurved larkspur 

9 9 1.D.3 Develop and implement a comprehensive census and monitoring plan for special status species

9 9

1.D.4 Investigate the following aspects of San Joaquin kit fox biology and ecology: dispersal, 

movements, diet, reproduction and demography, use of agricultural fields, use of artificial dens, and 

effects of rodenticide use 

9 9 1.D.5 Investigate the following aspects of Tipton kangaroo rat biology and ecology: competition with 

Heerman’s kangaroo rat, effects of grazing, effects of fire, and reproduction and demography 

9 9 1.D.6 Investigate the following aspects of blunt-nosed leopard biology and ecology: competition with 

effects of grazing, effects of fire, and reproduction and demography 

9 9 1.D.7 Conduct rare plant surveys of the alkali sinks on the Refuge 

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. 

Goal 2. Restore and maintain a representative example of Tulare Basin grassland and riparian habitat on 

Pixley Refuge. 

Objective 2.A. The Refuge would maintain and enhance the 15-acre riparian area to provide habitat for a high 

diversity of native riparian dependant species (neotropical migrants, raptors, colonial nesting birds, and small 

mammals). 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

15 15 15 15 Acres of riparian habitat maintained 

Strategies

9 9 9 9 2.A.1 Eradicate exotic vegetation from the riparian areas using mechanical removal or herbicide. 

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 
A-60

willows along Deer Creek provide cover and nesting habitat for a variety of neotropical migratory birds and 

raptors.

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. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

0 5 10 20 Acres of riparian habitat restored. 

Strategies

9 9 9 2.B.1 Plant dormant pole cuttings of cottonwoods and willows during late fall and irrigate. 

9 9 9 2.B.2 Flood in fall, winter, and early spring 

9 9 9 2.B.3 Monthly summer irrigation (June, July, and August) 

9 9

2.B.4 In partnership with adjacent and upstream landowners , control salt cedar, giant reed, and 

other invasive species along Deer Creek using IPM approach (mechanical, chemical, and/or 

biological means) 

9 9 2.B.5 Monitor response of bird populations to riparian restoration. 

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.

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 more than 50 percent 

annuals [or high energy waterfowl food plants] flooded less than 8 inches to maximize seed availability for 

wintering and migrating dabbling ducks and to provide invertebrate substrate with sparse vegetation and water 

depths less than 2 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). 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

755 755 755 755 Acres of moist soil habitat 

high

energy

high

energy

high

energy

native Waterfowl food plant composition target 

Strategies

9 9 9 9 1.A.1 Assuming water is available, begin flooding moist soil units in August. The Refuge would 

begin drawing down units in March 

9 9 1.A.2 Stagger floodup of moist soil units 

9 1.A.3 Continuously fluctuate water levels between 0 and 8" 

9 9 9 9 1.A.4 Irrigate units once or twice in April and May to assist waterfowl food plant germination. 
A-61

9 9 9 1.A.5 Each year, 25 percent of the units would receive one or more of the following vegetation 

treatments: burning, disking, mowing, or herbicide. 

9 1.A.6 Each year, 25 percent of the units would receive one or more of the following vegetation 

treatments: burning, disking, or mowing. 

Rationale: Dabbling ducks prefer to feed in shallow water, between 2 to 10 inches deep, with an equal ratio of open 

water and emergent vegetation (USFWS 1988a). In general, pintail and green-winged 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 2 inches deep) with sparse vegetation 

(USFWS 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 food eaten 

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 (USFWS 1992). The percentage cover targets 

in this objective are an average for all units. 

Objective 3.B: Within 5 years, the Service would develop 272-acres within the Turkey Tract into a grain unit to 

provide foraging habitat for waterfowl, sandhill cranes, and other waterbirds. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

0 0 272 272 Acres of grain developed in Turkey Tract 

Strategies

9 9 3.B.1 Develop water delivery system from existing wetland units to the Turkey Tract. 

9 9 3.B.2 Develop irrigation system. 

9 9 3.B.3 Cultivate small grains in rotation. 

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. 

Objective 3.D: The Refuge would minimize the occurrence, spread, and severity of botulism outbreaks. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

same for all alternatives 

Strategies

9 9 9 9 1.E.1 Keep all units dry between June 1 and August 1 (except 300 acres of Unit 1 managed for tricolored blackbirds. 

9 9 9 9 1.E.2 Patrol historically problematic wetlands on the Refuge and in the southern San Joaquin 

Valley in cooperation with the CDFG to quickly identify outbreaks. 

9 9 9 9 1.E.3 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. 

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 
A-62

the years when the valley receives flood flows from Sierran streams during the spring (?source?). On the Refuge, 

botulism can be avoided by completely draining the wetlands during the hottest period of the summer (?source?).

Goal 4. Provide visitors with wildlife-dependant 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 1,500 visits per year by 2018. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

600 600 1,500 2,000 Number of wildlife observation visits per year

Strategies

9 9 9 9 4.A.1 Continue to maintain existing viewing platform in wetland unit 

9 9 4.A.2 Develop and implement a public use plan 

9 9 4.A.3 Once Turkey Tract is fully developed, construct a pullout with signs which interpret wildlifefriendly farming for sandhill cranes and other waterbirds 

9 4.A.4 Develop parking lot and vernal pool foot trail 

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. 

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, management, and ecology with a target of 

sustaining at least 1,000 visits per year by 2018. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

100 100 1,000 1,000 Number of interpretive visits per year by 2018 

Strategies

9 9 9 9 4.C.1 Continue to maintain existing 1.5 mile interpretive trail 

9 9 4.C.2 Develop and implement a public use plan 

9 9 4.C.3 Develop partnerships with local school districts and other organizations to provide periodic. 

interpretive tours which highlight the Refuge’s unique resources 

Rationale: Interpretation is one of the six priority public uses identified in the Refuge Improvement Act.

Interpretive activities provide the public with opportunities to be introduced to and better understand Refuge 

resources and their management. Currently, about 65 visitors per year participate in interpretive activities on the 

Refuge. Implementing programs with local schools and communities would provide support for the Refuge and 

provide an alternative environment for investigating and interpreting Refuge ecology. 
A-63

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. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Target

0 500 500 500 Number of environmental education visits per year

Strategies

9 9 9 4.D.1 Development and implement public use plan 

9 9 9 4.D.2 Establish partnerships with educational institutions and local organizations 

9 9 9 4.D.3 Add 1 FTE outdoor recreation planner (shared with Kern Refuge) 

9 9 9 4.D.4 Develop educational materials

Rationale: Environmental education one of the six priority public uses identified in the Refuge Improvement Act. 

Currently, there is no environmental education program on the Refuge. 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. 

Objective 4.D: Implement a proactive cultural resource management program focused on meeting the National 

Historic Preservation Act requirements. In addition to consultations the State Historic Preservation Officer, this 

would involve identifying, inventorying, evaluating, and protecting cultural resources. 

Alternative

A B C D Objective Targets

9 9 9 9 Same for all alternatives

Strategies

9 9 9 9 4.F.1 Identify archaeological sites that coincide with existing and planned roads, facilities, public use 

areas, and habitat projects 

9 9 9

4.F.2 Implement a program to evaluate eligibility to the NRHP those archaeological sites that may 

be impacted by Service projects, management activities, erosion, or neglect. Prepare and 

implement activities to mitigate impacts to such sites as necessary 

9 9

4.F.3 Develop a Geographic Information system (GIS) layer for cultural resources that can be used 

with other GIS layers for the Refuge, yet contains appropriate locks to protect sensitive 

information.

9 9 4.F.4 Develop partnerships with the Tribes for inventorying, evaluating, and project monitoring for 

cultural resources consistent with the regulations of the National Historic Preservation Act. 

9 4.F.5 Update and expand the 1983 Overview of Cultural Resources, Kern and Pixley Refuges, to 

develop a cultural resource management plan 

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. Various 

Federal historic preservation laws and regulations require the Service to implement the kind of program described 

under this objective. Inattention to these responsibilities may obstruct the Refuge in its other land, habitat, and 

wildlife management efforts. 
A-64
A-65

Appendix 2: References 

Beedy, E. C. and W. J. Hamilton. 1997. Tricolor blackbird status update and management guidelines. 

September. (Jones & Stokes Associates, Inc. 97-099.) Sacramento, CA. Prepared for U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 

Boisvert, M. and J. Boisvert. 2000. Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis on target and 

nontarget organisms: a review of laboratory and field experiments. Biocontrol Science and 

Technology 10:517-561. 

Breaud, T.P., J.E. Farlow, C.D. Steelman, and P.E. Schilling. 1977. Effects of the insect growth regulator 

methoprene on natural populations of aquatic organisms in Louisiana intermediate marsh habitats. 

Mosquito News 37:704-712. 

Charbonneau, C.S., R.D. Drobney, and C.F. Rabeni. 1994. Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis var. 

israelensis on nontarget benthic organisms in a lentic habitat and factors affecting the efficacy of 

the larvicide. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 13 Vol. 2:267-279. 

Cordell, H. Ken; Betz, Carter; Bowker, J.M.; and others. 1999. Outdoor recreation in American life: a 

national assessment of demand and supply trends. Champaign, IL: Sagamore Publishing: 219-321. 

Euliss, N.H. and S.W. Harris. 1987. Feeding ecology of northern pintails and green-winged teal wintering 

in California. J. Wildl. Manage. 51:724-732. 

Klein, M. L., S. R. Humphrey, H. F. Percival. 1995 Effects of ecotourism on distribution of waterbirds in a 

wildlife refuge. Conservation Biology 9(6):1454-1465. 

Lovich, J.E. and R.G. de Gouvenain. In press. Saltcedar invasion in desert wetlands of the southwestern 

United States: ecological and political implications. In: Majumdar, S.K. (ed.). Ecology of Wetlands 

and Associated Systems. Pennsylvania Academy of Science. 

Merritt, R. W., E.D. Walker, M.A. Wilzbach, K.W. Cummins, and W.T. Morgan. 1989. A broad evaluation 

of Bti for black fly (Diptera:Simuliidae) control in a Michigan River: efficacy, carry and nontarget 

effects on invertebrates and fish. Journal of the American Mosquito Control Association 5:397-415. 

Miura, T. and R.M. Takahashi. 1974. Insect developmental inhibitors. Effects of candidate mosquito 

control agents on nontarget aquatic organisms. Environmental Entomology 3:631-636. 

Miura, T. and R.M. Takahashi. 1973. Insect developmental inhibitors. Effects on nontarget organisms. 

Journal of Economic Entomology 66:917-922. 

Niemi, G.J., A.E. Hershey, L. Shannon, J.M. Hanowski, A. Lima, R.P. Axler, and R.R. Regal. 1999. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18:549-559. 

Norland, R.L. and M.S. Mulla. 1975. Impact of Altosid on selected members of an aquatic ecosystem. 

Environmental Entomology 4:145-152. 

Page, G.W. and W.D. Shuford. 2000. Southern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Plan. Version 1.0. Point 

Reyes Bird Observatory. Stinson Beach, CA. 

San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program. 1990. Fish and Wildlife Resources and Agricultural Drainage in 

the San Joaquin Valley, California. Sacramento, California. 
A-66

State of California, Department of Finance, Interim County Population Projections. Sacramento, 

California, June 2001. 

Tu, M., Hurd, C. & J.M. Randall. 2001. Weed Control Methods Handbook, The Nature Conservancy, 

http://tncweeds.ucdavis.edu, version: April 2001 
Appendix B. 

Wilderness Review 

B-1

 A wilderness review is the process used by the Service to determine whether or not to 

recommend lands or waters in the National Wildlife Refuge System to Congress for 

designation as wilderness. The Service is required to conduct a wilderness review for each 

refuge as part of the CCP process. Lands or waters that meet the minimum criteria for 

wilderness are identified in a CCP and further evaluated to determine whether they merit 

recommendation for inclusion in the Wilderness System. 

According to Section 13 of the Service’s Director’s Order No. 125 (12 July 2000), in order for a 

refuge to be considered for wilderness designation, all or part of the refuge must: 

 Be affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the human imprint substantially 

unnoticeable;

 Have outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recreation; 

 Have at least 5,000 contiguous acres (2,000 ha) or be sufficient in size to make practicable its 

preservation and use in an unimpaired condition, or be capable of restoration to wilderness 

character through appropriate management, at the time of review; and 

 Be a roadless island. 

Kern Refuge contains a total 10,618 acres. However, it is subdivided into 14 smaller units 

surrounded by numerous roads and bisected by miles of cross levees. Units 11 and 12 (the San 

Joaquin Desert Research Natural Area) are the most natural of the Refuge units. They still 

contain much evidence of past human use, including dirt roads and remnants of past ranching 

activities. Furthermore, these units together comprise about 2,000 acres, which is smaller than 

the area required for designation as wilderness. For these reasons, Kern Refuge does not 

meet the criteria for wilderness designation. 

Pixley Refuge contains a total of 6,385 acres in nine management units. The largest contiguous 

block of Service-owned lands is about 4,500 acres. However, this block is divided roughly in 

half by a county road and numerous smaller dirt roads. Pixley Refuge also contains much 

evidence of past and current human use, including nearly 800 acres of actively managed 

wetlands, and remnants of past ranching and farming activities. For these reasons, Kern 

Refuge does not meet the criteria for wilderness designation. 

Appendix C. 

Landscape Level Goals 

C-1

Landscape Level Goals 

Relevant to Kern and Pixley Refuges 

CALFED Ecosystem Restoration Program 

 Improve aquatic and terrestrial habitats and natural processes to support stable, self-sustaining 

populations of diverse and valuable plant and animal species, and includes recovery of species listed 

under the State and Federal Endangered Species Acts. 

 Protect or restore functional habitat types throughout the watershed for public values such as 

recreation, scientific research, and aesthetics. 

 Prevent establishment of additional non-native species and reduce the negative biological and 

economic impacts of established non-native species. 

 Improve and maintain water and sediment quality to eliminate, to the extent possible, toxic impacts 

on organisms in the system, including humans. 

Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture Implementation Plan 

 Protect, maintain, improve, and restore habitat to increase waterfowl populations to desired levels in 

the Central Valley of California consistent with other objectives of the NAWMP. 

 Protect 80,000 additional acres of existing wetlands through acquisition of fee-title or perpetual 

conservation easements. 

 Secure an incremental, firm 402,450 acre-foot water supply that is of suitable quality and is delivered 

in a timely manner for use by the NWR’s, State WA’s, and the GRCD. 

 Secure CVP power for NWR’s, State WA’s, GRCD, and other public land private lands dedicated to 

wetland management. 

 Increase wetland areas by 120,000 acres and protect these wetlands in perpetuity by acquisition of 

fee-title or conservation easements. 

 Enhance waterfowl wetland habitats on 291,555 acres of public and private lands. 

 Enhance waterfowl habitat on 443,000 acres of agricultural lands. 

 Increase waterfowl populations to desired levels: total ducks (breeding: 400,000; mallard (breeding): 

300,000; total ducks (winter): 4,700,000; mallard (winter): 531,000; pintail (winter): 2,800,000; total 

geese and swans: 875,000; cackling Canada: 200,000; Aleutian Canada: 5,000; Lesser snow: 320,000; 

Ross’: 100,000; tule white-fronted: 5,000; Pacific white-fronted: 200,000; tundra swan: 40,000. 

Kern County General Plan Goals 

 Habitats of threatened or endangered species should be protected to the greatest extent possible. 

 Rivers and streams in the County are important visual and recreational resources and wildlife 

habitats. Areas of riparian vegetation along rivers and streams will therefore be preserved when 

feasible to do so. 

North American Waterfowl Management Plan – 1998 Update 

 Enhance the capability of landscapes to support waterfowl and other wetland-associated species by 

ensuring that Plan implementation is guided by biologically based planning, which in turn is refined 

through ongoing evaluation. 

 Define the landscape conditions needed to sustain waterfowl and benefit other wetland-associated 

species, and participate in the development of conservation, economic, management, and social 

policies and programs that most affect the ecological health of these landscapes. 
C-2

 Collaborate with other conservation efforts, particularly migratory bird initiatives, and reach out to 

other sectors and communities to forge broader alliances in a collective search for sustainable uses 

of landscapes. 

 Maintain the current diversity of duck species throughout North America and achieve a continental 

breeding population of 62 million ducks during years with average environmental conditions, which 

would support a fall flight of 100 million. 

 Attain a black duck mid-winter population index of 385,000. 

 Increase or reduce goose populations to sustainable levels listed in Appendix 1. 

 Reduce Western tundra swan population to 60,000, and increase Pacific Coast trumpeter swan 

population to 43,200. 

 In the Central Valley Habitat Joint Venture Area, protect 80,000 acres, restore 120,000 acres, and 

enhance 735,000 acres. 

Pacific Flyway Management Plan: Western Management Unit Mourning Dove Goals and 

Objectives

 Maintain the Western Management Unit (WMU) population of mourning doves and its habitat at 

levels consistent with optimum distribution, density, and recreational uses of the resources. 

 Determine the causes of mourning dove population declines in the (WMU) and establish procedures 

to reverse the trends. 

 Increase the population levels of WMU mourning doves to a point where call-count indices average 

no less than 16 in the Coastal subunit. 

 Increase and maintain adequate habitat to sustain the current seasonal distribution of WMU 

mourning doves throughout their range. The important habitat components are appropriate 

structures for nesting and roosting (trees), and food and water sources. 

 Maximize the potential for systained consumptive and non-consumptive uses of the mourning dove 

resource in the WMU. 

Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. 

 The ultimate goal of this recovery plan is to delist the 11 endangered and threatened species and 

ensure the long-term conservation of the 23 candidates and species of concern. An interim goal is to 

reclassify the endangered species to threatened status. The 11 listed species include five 

endangered plants (California jewelflower, palmate-bracted bird’s-beak, Kern mallow, San Joaquin 

woolly-threads, and Bakersfield cactus), one threatened plant (Hoover’s woolly-star), and five 

endangered animals (giant kangaroo rat, Fresno kangaroo rat, Tipton kangaroo rat, blunt-nosed 

leopard lizard, and San Joaquin kit fox). This plan details the recovery criteria and habitat 

protection, monitoring, and research priorities for each of these imperiled species. 

Riparian Bird Conservation Plan (California Partners in Flight and the Riparian Habitat Joint 

Venture)

 Increase the breeding range of native birds and safeguard healthy bird communities with high 

productivity.

 Maximize riparian ecosystem health, promote a self-sustaining functioning system, and maximize 

the cost-effectiveness of riparian conservation activities. 

 Increase the overall breeding range and/or abundance of native riparian birds by designing and 

implementing horticultural restoration projects that mimic natural riparian plant diversity and 

“patchiness”. Such plantings will most quickly support a diverse community of bird species that can 

successfully nest in the restored habitat. 

 Increase the value of existing/ongoing habitat and restoration projects for bird species. 
C-3

 Ensure that large landscape-scale management and flood control projects maximize benefits to 

wildlife in conjunction with benefits to agriculture and urban populations. Achieving numerous goals 

simultaneously would maximize the overall value of such projects to the people of California. 

 Implement and time land-management activities with the goal of maximizing bird species 

productivity or “source” populations. 

 Protect, recreate, or minimize interruptions of natural processes, particularly hydrology and 

associated high-water events to allow/promote/facilitate the natural cycle of channel movement, 

sediment deposition, and scouring that results in a diverse mosaic of riparian vegetation classes. 

Southern Pacific Coast Regional Shorebird Plan 

 Increase the wintering population of the Mountain Plover in the Central Valley. 

 Create suitable open foraging habitat by managing for giant kangaroo rats (Dipodomys ingens) and 

using fire and grazing, as appropriate. 

 Increase populations of breeding and wintering Snowy Plovers and wintering Long-billed Curlews 

in the Central Valley. 

 Increase breeding and wintering populations of other shorebirds in the Central Valley. 

 Restore, enhance, and manage wetlands with integrated wetland management goals, which 

accommodate the needs of a greater diversity of birds, including shorebirds (Isola 1998). 

 Ensure the availability of high quality water for wetlands. 

 Resist fragmentation or loss of existing wetland complexes by urban encroachment. 

 Promote management practices in agricultural lands and vernal pool rangelands that will provide for 

a greater diversity of birds, including shorebirds. Also promote easements and other options for 

maintaining wildlife-friendly agricultural lands and vernal pool rangelands. 

 Reduce use of contaminated agricultural evaporation ponds by shorebirds and other waterbirds 

while creating alternative uncontaminated habitats that will mimic historic saline playa wetlands 

thereby maintaining the current mix of waterbird communities. 

 Increase shorebird use of sewage ponds or wetlands using treated sewage effluent if issues of 

disease transmission and contaminants can be addressed. 

USFWS/CDFG Tricolored Blackbird Status Update and Management Guidelines 

 Maintain viable, self-sustaining populations distributed throughout the current range of the species. 

 Avoid losses of tricolor colonies and their reproductive effort throughout their range. 

 Increase the breeding opportunities on suitable public lands and on private lands managed for this 

species. 

 Enhance public awareness and support for protection of this unique species. 

 Minimize losses of important foraging habitat for both nesting and wintering populations. 

Appendix D. 

Compatibility Determinations 

D-1

Compatibility Determination

Use: Hunting waterfowl (ducks and geese), coots, moorhens, and upland 

game birds (ring-necked pheasant) 

Refuge Name: Kern National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

The Kern National Wildlife Refuge, located in Kern County, 

California, was established in 1960 under provisions of the 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. § 715d). 

Refuge Purpose (s):

Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, 

or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (16 

U.S.C. §71sd) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The Mission of the National Wildlife 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 Administration Act of 1966, as amended [16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee]) 

Description of Use: The Kern National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) would continue to provide 

opportunities for hunting waterfowl (ducks and geese), coots, moorhens and upland game birds 

(pheasant). Hunting is identified as a priority public use of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

under the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997. Other priority wildlifedependent public uses identified by the Act include fishing, wildlife observation, photography, 

environmental education and interpretation. Hunting would be permitted on designated areas of 

the Refuge, pursuant to the conditions of a cooperative agreement with the State of California, 

Department of Fish and Game, during the established state waterfowl hunting season. This use 

has occurred annually since the first hunting season on the Refuge in 1963 (Kern NWRC files). 

The Refuge would remain closed to all other forms of hunting and target shooting. 

The waterfowl hunting season typically begins the third weekend in October and continues to the 

third weekend in January with waterfowl hunting being allowed on the Refuge Wednesdays and 

Saturdays only. Shooting hours and daily limits conform to federal and State regulations. 

Complete copies of hunting regulations may be obtained from the Department of Fish & Game at 

www.dfg.ca.gov, the Kern NWR hunter check station during operational hours on Wednesdays 

and Saturdays or at the Kern NWR office. 
D-2 

Pheasant hunting will be permitted incidental to waterfowl hunting only in the free roam units and 

only during that portion of the state waterfowl hunting season when pheasant season is also open. 

While the majority of the pheasants on the refuge are found in upland areas located west of Goose 

Lake Canal where hunting is prohibited, pheasant hunting is only permitted within the wetlands 

where relatively few pheasant reside. While a limited number of pheasants are taken each year, 

the opportunity is there in the event that a hunter flushes a bird while walking to and from his 

waterfowl hunting location. The refuge does not plant pheasants on the area and all birds are wild 

from the self sustaining population. 

A detailed discussion of the Kern NWR hunt program can be found in Chapter 3 of the Kern 

NWR Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS). Also contained in the Environmental 

Assessment developed for the CCP are four alternatives that describe various levels of hunting 

activity that range from 11 spaced blinds and 1,165 acres of free roam area to a maximum of 28 

blind sites and 2,369 acres open to free roam hunting (see Figure 4 in the Draft CCP). Alternative 

B also proposes to add Sunday as a shoot day on the refuge. When the Draft CCP is finalized a 

Public Use Plan will be developed as a step down plan from the CCP that will provide updated 

management guidelines for operation of the refuge hunting program. 

A variety of seasonal and moist soil wetlands are managed by the Refuge to provide suitable 

habitat for migratory and wintering waterfowl. Some of these areas will also be managed to 

provide hunter access into free roam units and units having designated blind sites. Each free roam 

unit will have an established hunter quota based on a ratio of one hunter per 20 acres of habitat. 

Within the spaced blind area, blinds which can accommodate up to 4 hunters per blind are 

established at fixed locations. The mandatory spacing and hunter quotas will help prevent 

overcrowding of specific areas within the hunt units on the refuge and contribute to a safer and 

higher quality hunting experience. Three handicapped accessible blinds will also be located in the 

spaced blind area. Throughout the waterfowl hunting season, new areas will be opened to hunting 

as additional wetland habitat is flooded on the refuge. Under ideal conditions, which depend 

largely on water availability and subsequent total area of flooded wetlands, the Refuge will be able 

to provide hunting opportunities for up to 152 hunters per day. 

Designated hunting areas are delineated on refuge hunting maps and the hunt area and closed 

zones are posted annually with appropriate refuge signs. If new areas are added during the 

season, posting is changed to accommodate these modifications. 

Hunting will be allowed in free roam Units 1, 1A, 2, and 2A as well as units having designated 

blind sites in one of 11 moist soil wetlands located in Units 4A, 4B, and 5A. These units represent 

approximately 2,513 acres but may vary from year to year depending upon water availability and 

total acres flooded. 

Each blind site will be designated with a numbered post; hunters assigned to a blind must remain 

within 100 feet of the numbered post when engaged in shooting unless pursuing injured birds. The 

hunting area will be delineated annually, based on water and habitat availability, by signs and 

maps that are distributed to all hunters. Access will be achieved by foot or, in some units, by 

boats. The use of non-motorized boats supports free roam hunters in deep water areas such as 

Units 1 & 2 and makes access safer and easier and enables more efficient retrieval of birds. Use of 

hunting dogs will be encouraged to reduce the crippling loss of birds, however, as with all dogs on 
D-3

the refuge, retrievers must be under the control of their handlers at all times. Failure to control a 

dogs activities can result in citation of the owner. 

All firearms are to remain unloaded until hunters are within the designated hunt area. Each 

hunter shall possess no more than 25 shells while in the field and only approved non-toxic shot 

may be used or possessed while afield. 

Prospective hunters will apply through a statewide DFG reservation system for a particular hunt 

day on the refuge or if they are not drawn for a reservation they may enter a daily lottery drawing 

held each morning at the hunter check station. Neither a reservation nor a lottery drawing 

guarantees a hunter a specific hunting location on the refuge, it simply establishes the order in 

which a hunter enters through the check station. Each unit within the hunting area is filled to 

maximum quota level on a first-come first-served basis. Once hunter quotas are reached no other 

hunters are allowed to enter that unit until space is made available by hunters leaving the area. 

Daily permits are issued to hunters as they pass through the check station and each permit is 

marked with the assigned hunting area to assist in enforcement of unit quotas. 

Hunting use has been heaviest on Saturdays, as opposed to Wednesdays, and this trend is 

expected to continue. During the waterfowl hunt season of fall/winter 2003/2004, an average of 

2.74 birds per hunter were harvested from the Refuge. Season length and hunter bag limits 

change each year as regulations are modified to account for habitat and waterfowl population 

fluctuations throughout North America. On average, with the refuge hunting only two days a 

week there are approximately 26 shoot days per year with nearly 3,000 hunters participating. 

Both the California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) and the Service understand the 

importance to waterfowl of having areas closed to hunting in the southern San Joaquin Valley. 

For this reason CDFG and the Service have agreed that the first 1,000 acres of wetlands flooded 

on the refuge will be closed and any additional flooded habitat beyond this amount will be 

classified as 55% closed and 45% open to hunting. Therefore, if water availability results in 1,000 

or less acres of flooded wetland habitat, no hunting will occur. Since the refuge was established 

under the authority of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (MBCA), the Service is authorized to 

permit hunting on no more than 40% of the total area of the refuge. Based on the existing 

agreement with CDFG the refuge would open no more than 45% of the flooded wetland acreage 

which would not exceed 2,925 acres which is less than the allowable 4,247 acres authorized by the 

MBCA. 

On the two days a week when hunting is permitted on the refuge, a check station is staffed by 

CDFG personnel that monitor all vehicle and pedestrian traffic entering and leaving the refuge. 

All hunters are checked in as they enter and are again checked as they exit the hunt area. In 

addition to the obvious safety aspects of ensuring that all hunters are accounted for at the end of 

the day, hunter success data is collected and hunter bags are checked for compliance with existing 

hunting regulations. To ensure that non-hunters do not accidentally enter the hunt area, check 

station personnel contact all visitors and redirect non-consumptive users away from the hunt area. 

Alternative wildlife observation opportunities are suggested to these visitors. Never are hunters 

and non-hunters allowed in the same areas of the refuge. This is done primarily to limit the 

possible philosophical conflicts over the issue of hunting but also is for safety reasons as well. 
D-4 

The hunting program at Kern conforms to the regulations established by the State of California 

pursuant to the regulatory framework provided by the Service. This framework is developed each 

year by the Flyway Councils, States and the Service through an process known as Adaptive 

Harvest Management which considers, among other factors, resource population levels, habitat 

conditions, and anticipated harvest levels (Williams and Johnson 1995). In addition to conforming 

to state and federal regulations, the refuge establishes Special Regulations that are published in 

the Code of Federal Regulations that further restrict hunter activities and hunting methods. Such 

restrictions as limiting hunters to 25 shot shells in their possession in the field helps reduce birds 

being shot at beyond acceptable ranges and reduces crippling losses. Other Special Regulations 

limit hunter movements within the spaced blind area, eliminate the use of motors on boats, require 

the use of non-toxic shot while hunting pheasants and restrict when firearms may be carried while 

loaded. Some of these restrictions contribute toward achieving a safe and enjoyable hunting 

experience, while others contribute toward a healthy refuge environment. 

Availability of Resources: To facilitate this use, the Refuge provides adequate staff which 

includes administrative, managerial, biological, and when available, a Refuge law enforcement 

officer to perform hunter compliance enforcement. Due to changes in Service policy regarding 

refuge law enforcement personnel, there may be times when a trained Service law enforcement 

officer (LEO) will not be available on the refuge in a full time capacity. When this is the case, 

LEO’s from other refuges will be detailed to the refuge to provide the necessary refuge patrol 

activities. The California Department of Fish and Game provides one full-time and one or two 

seasonal employees to administer the hunter check station and daily processing of hunters and 

monitoring of game taken. Additional law enforcement is provided by California Department of 

Fish and Game wardens and on occasion, Fish and Wildlife Service special agents. 

The public hunting program on Kern NWR and eight other NWR’s in California are administered 

cooperatively with the California Department of Fish & Game under the provisions of a 

Cooperative Agreement last amended in 2001. This agreement details the responsibilities and 

costs associated with the implementation of the hunt program on each refuge and provides a 

detailed list of costs to be reimbursed to the Service by the State. Some of the cost items listed for 

reimbursement include: signs, brochures, permit compliance, access control, maintenance of the 

check station, blinds, and parking lots, and administrative functions such as managerial, biological 

and clerical support. Each year the State is invoiced for these costs by the Service including an 

inflation factor. For the 2003-04 hunting season, the reimbursement to the refuge for costs 

directly associated with the hunt program will be $11,440. Essentially, the refuge incurs no unreimbursed expenses specifically for administering and monitoring the hunting program. 

In addition to staffing the hunter check station and performing refuge clean-up duties, the CDFG 

staff also performs all refuge sign posting tasks as directed by the Refuge Manager to conform 

with current habitat conditions. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: Annual fluctuations in the amount of refuge area open to 

hunting and consequently the numbers of hunters allowed on the refuge are a direct result of the 

quantity of fall water the refuge receives and the resulting wetlands provided. Fluctuations in 

waterfowl population trends are monitored annually on a continent wide basis by the Service 

through breeding ground and waterfowl production surveys and migration surveys such as the 
D-5

mid-winter inventory that is conducted on a flyway wide basis. As stated earlier, this data is 

analyzed by the Service and other agencies to develop season lengths and bag limits. 

 Threatened and Endangered Species: There are currently 4 species found on Refuge that are 

listed as endangered and one species proposed for listing as endangered. The species are San 

Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides 

nitratoides), blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia silus), and Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew 

(Sorex ornatus relictus) respectively. Use of the hunter access route as well as the wetland areas 

of the refuge are very uncommon for the three upland dwelling species; blunt-nosed leopard 

lizard, Titpton kangaroo rat and San Joaquin kit fox, and according to refuge files no confirmed 

sightings of any of these three species has occurred in the hunt area in the past 20 years. Both the 

San Joaquin kit fox and Tipton kangaroo rat are nocturnal and are generally not active during 

times when hunters are using the wetland areas. Since most hunters enter the refuge before 

sunrise and some wait to exit after sunset there is a very remote possibility of these animals being 

on the public use roads during hours of darkness. However, no documented vehicle strikes with 

these species have occurred. The refuge has a posted 20 mile per hour speed limit and this limit is 

enforced to protect all refuge wildlife and to support a safe environment for visitors. Speeding 

tickets have been issued and warnings are given as needed. The blunt-nosed leopard lizard is not 

found within the wetlands and is hibernating during the cooler months of hunting season so 

conflicts with hunters is not an issue. 

The Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew has been confirmed to occur within the spaced blind portion 

of the hunting area. However, the habitat occupied by the shrew is along riparian areas where 

vehicle traffic is prohibited. Its habitat is also off limits to pheasant hunters and no waterfowl 

hunting blinds are located within 1/4 mile of this habitat. Therefore, the potential for impacts by 

hunters on this species should not be considered significant. Pheasant hunting is only permitted 

within the free roam areas of wetland units so impacts from pheasant hunters to any listed species 

should be no greater than that of waterfowl hunters. Due to the limited nature of the upland 

pheasant cover where an extensive hunt could impact pheasant population levels and where 

possible conflicts with listed species in those areas could occur, a large scale pheasant hunt 

involving upland habitat has never been considered and is not being proposed at this time. 

Due to the spacial separation of hunting activity and species habitat limitations, season of use, and 

restrictions on hunter activity, the possibility of conflicts or impacts by hunters on listed species is 

very remote. A Section 7 consultation and resulting Biological Opinion were completed for full 

implementation of the Kern NWR Mater Plan (USFWS) that resulted in a finding of not likely to 

jeopardize the continued existence of listed species on the refuge. A revised Section 7 will be 

prepared for the refuge CCP that will address the alternatives presented in the EA including the 

potential changes to the hunting program. 

Migratory Birds: The hunting program is limited to waterfowl, coots, moorhens and ring-necked 

pheasants only within the wetland areas of the refuge. Therefore human activity may disturb or 

harm both target and non-target migratory birds only in riparian, and wetland habitats on the 

Refuge. Hunters may accidentally take non-target migratory birds due to misidentification, 

however, this is rare and is usually reported to refuge or CDFG staff by other hunters. A certain 

level of self enforcement is prevalent with the refuge hunters. Select numbers of waterfowl 

belonging to target species would be taken by hunters each season, but this is not expected to 
D-6 

result in significant adverse effects on their populations. As stated previously, hunting regulation 

frameworks which include hunting limits are established annually through the adaptive harvest 

management process which includes factors such as anticipated hunter harvest of waterfowl. 

These guidelines are proposed for the Pacific Flyway and the State establishes hunting limits 

which fall within these framework guidelines. 

Other Biological Resources: Litter discarded by visitors can entangle wildlife or possibly be 

ingested, resulting in death or injury. Litter control is a major emphasis item in the routine 

maintenance of the refuge public use areas. Trash cans and restrooms are provided year round in 

parking areas for use by the public while involved in wildlife observation, photography, education, 

interpretation as well as hunting. Additional restrooms and trash cans are provided and 

maintained by the State during the hunting season. Each year the State employees assigned to 

the hunt program conduct daily litter patrols following each hunt day, clean the blind areas and 

levees at least monthly to collect spent shell casings and litter and conduct a major refuge cleanup at the end of the season. During the hunt season the trash cans are emptied daily by CDFG 

staff and the hunters are encouraged by the State employees to keep the area clean and to use the 

trash cans provided. 

Additional potential impacts to resident and migratory wildlife include the trespass of hunters 

outside the established hunt zone and dogs harassing wildlife. The hunt area is patrolled on shoot 

days and refuge employees performing routine work also actively watch for hunters outside of 

their assigned areas. While hunter trespass may cause a temporary disturbance to wildlife in the 

immediate vicinity of the activity, this violation is rare and wildlife temporarily displaced have 

large areas closed to hunting in which to seek refuge. Dogs have not generally been observed 

harassing wildlife and are normally kept under close control by the hunters themselves. 

As the current hunt program is operated, the main tour route is closed on hunt days since it runs 

through the area that is hunted. Wildlife viewing opportunities on the two shoot days each week 

are limited due to this closure. Proposed in the Draft CCP is the creation of a new tour route 

located in a portion of what is now closed area. If this change is included in the finalized CCP then 

possible temporary displacement of waterfowl and other birds from a small portion of the closed 

area in close association to the new tour route is possible. Waterfowl displaced from limited areas 

within the closed area of Kern seldom move far and very rarely venture into the hunt area where 

they are impacted by hunters (Hardt, pers, comm). 

Public Review and Comment: During completion of the Master Planning process in 1984 the 

hunt program underwent public review. A notice of Proposed Action was issued as well as five 

informational news letters and four news releases. Public open houses have been held at various 

times to accept comments on the hunt program as well as direct communications with hunters and 

bird watchers throughout the years. As part of the CCP process, a public review and comment 

period will be included during which time the current hunting program and proposed minor 

changes will undergo public scrutiny. 

Determination (Check one Below) 

 _______ Use is not compatible X Use is compatible with 

stipulations
D-7

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

I. The refuge will continue to follow the conditions of the agreement by establishing 1,000 

acres of sanctuary before wetland habitat is open for public hunting. If 1,000 acres or less 

of wetland habitat are available due to water restrictions, then no hunting will be allowed 

for that particular waterfowl hunting season. 

II. Regulatory directional signs, as well as maps, will clearly mark hunting areas (free roam 

and blind site units), closed areas, and available parking lots. Additional pamphlets at the 

refuge headquarters will provide further information including special season restrictions, 

California, and refuge regulations. Signs will be maintained and replaced on an as needed 

basis.

III. Law enforcement patrols will be conducted on a routine basis in cooperation with 

California Department of Fish and Game wardens to ensure regulation compliance and the 

protection of Refuge resources. All laws applicable to the refuge hunting program included 

in the Code of Federal Regulations and the State of California Fish and Game Code will be 

enforced. The Refuge will increase law enforcement patrols when staff is available, 

particularly during opening weeks of waterfowl hunting season, to document hunter use 

and ensure compliance with Refuge and California regulations. 

IV. By 2005, a new interpretive kiosk will be installed near the Refuge demonstration pond to 

inform hunters of refuge habitats as well as wildlife resources and ways to avoid adverse 

impacts to the resources. Other information will include general hunting and special 

regulations.

V. To deter hunters from taking long shots thereby reducing disturbance, decreasing the 

possibility of target misidentification, and decreasing the crippling loss of target species, 

waterfowl hunters will be limited to no more than 25 shells while in the field and will be 

required to use only approved non-toxic shot. Current levels of shell compliance checks 

will be maintained to keep compliance at current or better rates. 

VI. Annual monitoring of waterfowl hunter use and impacts will continue to be implemented. 

The information gathered will be used to review and possibly revise hunting regulations to 

enhance the quality and safety of the Refuge’s hunting program, and ensure hunting would 

continue to be compatible with the Refuge purpose and the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 

VII. Upon final approval of the Kern NWR Comprehensive Conservation Plan, a step down 

Public Use Plan will be developed that will provide management guidelines for operation 

of the refuge hunting program. 

Justification: The mission of the National Wildlife 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 Unites States for 

the benefit of present and future generations of Americans. Additionally, the National Wildlife 

Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 recognized the importance of connecting people with the 

land and its resources. Wildlife-dependent recreational activities such as hunting, fishing, wildlife 
D-8 

observation, wildlife photography, environmental education, and interpretation are all important 

opportunities for making this connection possible. 

As early as the 1930's, sportsmen in Kern County became alarmed with the loss of wetlands in the 

area and began petitioning for the establishment of a refuge in the area. One of the five 

justifications for establishment of the refuge in 1960 was that the area would provide opportunities 

for public hunting. The purpose for establishing the refuge was “for use as an inviolate sanctuary 

or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” Hunting is recognized as a 

management activity for migratory birds and therefore, hunting is consistent with the purpose for 

which the refuge was established. 

Hunting is a high priority public use that has occurred on the refuge for over 40 years. The 

hunting program has been developed and modified over the years to minimize the impact to other 

users such as bird-watchers and photographers, provide adequate closed areas for waterfowl and 

other wetland dependent species, restrict hunter access and hunter densities in the hunt areas, 

protect T&E species from hunter impacts, and ensure that hunters conform to applicable state 

and federal hunting regulations. These actions have developed a safe program for participants 

while simultaneously protecting the natural resources on the refuge. 

Regulations such as the limit on the number of shells a hunter may possess, the type of shot that 

may be used and the prohibition of boat motors all contribute to sustaining a healthy environment. 

Law enforcement patrols and enforcement of regulations limit impacts to non-target species and 

encourage the ethical and fair take of migratory game birds and pheasants in numbers 

appropriate for the population levels occurring during a specific season. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year):

 2018 Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation Date (for priority public uses) 

________ Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation Date (for all uses other priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

 X Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

________ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

________ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References Cited:

USFWS, 1963. Kern NWR Annual Narrative. 
D-9

Williams, B.K. and F.A. Johnson, 1995. Adaptive Management and the Regulation of Waterfowl 

Harvests. The Wildlife Society Bulletin, Vol. 23(3):430-436.

Hardt, David, 2004. Personal communication.

USFWS. 1985. Kern National Wildlife Refuge Master Plan, March 1985

USFWS, 2004. Kern National Wildlife Refuge Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan, May 2004 

Refuge Determination:

Prepared by: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

California/Nevada 

Operations Manager _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
D-10
D-11

Compatibility Determination

Use: Wildlife observation and photography 

Refuge Name: Kern National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

The Kern National Wildlife Refuge, located in Kern County, 

California, was established November 18, 1960, under the 

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C.§ 

715d). 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, 

or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (16 

U.S.C.§71sd) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(NWRS) 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 Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee)] 

Description of Use(s):

The Kern National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) is open to the public daily from sunrise to sunset to 

engage in wildlife observation and photography along an established 6.5 mile auto tour route; on 

foot, utilizing established roads and levees found adjacent to the auto tour routes, and from nonmotorized boats such as kayak, canoe, and pith boat. The National Wildlife Refuge System 

Improvement Act of 1997 identifies wildlife observation, photography, and interpretation as 

wildlife dependent public uses for National Wildlife Refuges, as well as hunting, fishing, and 

environmental education.

Areas closed to the public are signed as such and primarily include areas designed as sanctuary 

for waterfowl or habitat for threatened and endangered species. There are no established “trails” 

for this use. Approximately 15 miles of levee roads, excluding the 6.5 mile auto tour route are 

available for these uses and 1,870 acres of flooded acres are available for these uses via nonmotorized boat. Visitors engaged in this use are welcome to walk, not drive, the established roads 

and levees adjacent to the auto tour route and operate non-motorized boat in units 1, 1A, 2, and 2A 

(see map 1). An average of 800 people per year participate in this type of use.. 

Wildlife Observation: Wildlife observation is primarily conducted via auto along the self-guided, 

6.5 mile auto tour route, foot access on established levees and roads adjacent to the auto tour 

route, and by non-motorized boat. Throughout the waterfowl hunt season, the tour route and units 

open to boating, are closed to all non-consumptive recreation, and only on Wednesdays and 

Saturdays. Wildlife observation occurs in all habitat types on the refuge including riparian, alkali 

scrub, marsh/seasonal wetland, alkali playa, cultivated cropland, and valley grassland all of which 

are accessible along the auto tour route and adjacent established levee roads. 
D-12

Wildlife Photography: Wildlife photography would occur on the refuge and along the self-guided 

auto tour route, established roads and levees, and via non-motorized boat in units 1, 1A, 2, and 2A. 

Photographers, searching for a more unstudied photo opportunity than wildlife found along the 

auto tour route, would be allowed to seek out these opportunities along auxiliary levees and areas 

by boat. Commercial photography, or other forms of image capturing, requires a Special Use 

Permit issued by the refuge. Economic uses of natural resources are authorized on national 

wildlife refuges where the use is determined to contribute to the accomplishment of the specific 

refuge where the use is to take place (16 U.S.C. 515s). Economic uses on national wildlife refuges 

can include timber removal, the grazing of livestock, mineral extraction, or uses which facilitate 

approved programs on national wildlife refuges. Commercial photography would be applicable to 

wildlife observation and wildlife photography uses, facilitating the refuges’ public use program. 

There are currently two photography blinds planned as part of the Comprehensive Conservation 

Planning process. Existing disabled waterfowl hunter blinds are available for photographing 

wildlife after the waterfowl hunting season beginning in early February through early October 

each year and excluding Saturday and Wednesday during waterfowl hunting season. 

Interpretation: A pamphlet is available at the kiosk or at the Refuge Headquarters which provides 

information for 10 interpretive stops along the auto tour route, as well as other general Refuge 

information. Interpretive panels have been placed along the tour route which provide additional 

information of wildlife and their respective habitats observed along this route. There are no 

interpretive panels along the auxiliary levees adjacent to the auto tour route. 

Availability of Resources: Adequate funding and staff exist to meet the maintenance and 

management needs of the auto tour route for wildlife observation and wildlife photography. 

Activities include but are not limited to road and interpretive panel upkeep as well as updating 

pamphlets and replacing closed area signs. Estimated personnel and supply costs for grading 

roads (3 times per year), mowing road shoulders (4 times per year), cleaning litter from road 

shoulders, and adding road material where necessary annually totals $4,500. Additionally, $500 is 

expended to cover personnel costs and supplies for printing, updating, and stocking pamphlets. 

Administrative costs associated with issuing special use permits is estimated at less than $200 

annually. Further information regarding resources related to this use can be viewed in the 

Compatibility Determination for Environmental Education and Interpretation. 

For information on road maintenance and additional coast analysis regarding these uses, please 

refer to the 1984 Refuge Master Plan for Kern National Wildlife Refuge as well as the 

Environmental Assessment for the 2004 Draft CCP. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Threatened and Endangered Species: Human activity has had adverse impacts on threatened and 

endangered species found in the Southern San Joaquin Valley (Germano and Williams, 1993, 

Williams 1995, and Orloff et al. 1986). There are currently 4 species found on the refuge that are 

listed as endangered; San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), Tipton kangaroo rat 

(Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides), blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia silus), and Buena 

Vista Lake ornate shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus). Impacts to these species is considered nonadverse as San Joaquin kit fox and Tipton kangaroo rats are generally not active during the time 
D-13

when the general public in on the refuge. San Joaquin kit fox and Tipton kangaroo rats have been 

observed in areas on the Refuge which consist of upland habitats, most of which is closed to public 

access. Blunt-nosed leopard lizards are diurnal, and therefore have a higher risk for adverse 

impacts, in particular, through auto strikes. The speed limit on the auto tour route is regulated to 

20 mph, providing ample time to slow and stop for wildlife. Refuge staff on occasion remind 

visitors of the posted speed limit as no law enforcement officers are currently employed at the 

Refuge. Immediate habitat where Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew has been found is open to foot 

traffic only. Due to the sensitivity of the habitat area, and safety concerns posed by venomous 

snakes, the public is discouraged from entering the area. Other impacts from auto traffic could 

involve temporary disruption of an animal from it’s living quarters, feeding, or breeding sites. 

According to Refuge biological files, there are no known auto strikes of threatened or endangered 

species along the auto tour route. 

For additional information on impacts to threatened and endangered species regarding this use, 

please refer to the 1984 Refuge Master Plan for Kern National Wildlife Refuge as well as the 

Environmental Assessment for the 2004 Draft CCP. 

Migratory Birds: Human activity involved with this use may disturb migratory birds utilizing the 

refuge’s habitats primarily during feeding and breeding activities (Korschgen and Dahlgren 1992). 

Several species of ground nesting birds to the refuge include killdeer (Charadrius vociferus),

black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), American avocet (Recurvirostra americana), and 

various waterfowl. White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) and tri-colored blackbirds (Agelaius tricolor)

breed on the refuge within units accessible to this use via non-motorized boat. The previously 

mentioned species can be migratory, leaving wintering areas for breeding areas, or resident, living 

in the same area year-round. Short-term impacts to these species occur when they are 

temporarily displaced from marsh/seasonal wetland edge nests and roadside habitat as vehicles or 

people pass by or stop on the tour route or as people walk and stop along established roads and 

levees.

These disturbances are not vastly different than those as a result of normal refuge operation that 

include large farm equipment and biological surveys. Long-term positive impacts involve 

primarily the public’s appreciation of natural resources and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

This displacement typically occurs during the breeding season, late March through early August, 

when avian species rearing young is at its peak, and for lengths of time ranging from 3-10 minutes 

(Kern NWRC biological files). Monitoring and adjustable management of these uses would be 

implemented to ensure that impacts remain within acceptable levels. Participation of these uses 

via non-motorized boat would be allowed between 1 September and 1 March to avoid impacts and 

disturbance to breeding and rearing of young. 

Disturbances by the public would be more frequent especially during the early breeding season, 

March-April, as the weather is of a mild nature. Public use of this type lessens considerably as the 

temperatures increase, May-August. Long-term positive impacts involve the public’s long lasting 

education and appreciation of natural resources in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, the 

importance of the Refuge in the Pacific Flyway, and the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

Possible long term adverse impacts due to disturbance of nesting migratory birds could involve 

nest failure, increased chick depredation, nest abandonment (Sowls 1955), and unknown long-term 
D-14

population declines. Human disturbance to waterfowl has been found to be of greatest impact by 

uses involving motorized boats, fishing, and hunting (Korschgen and Dahlgren 1992). These 

impacts are avoided on the refuge as fishing is not allowed, hunting occurs during the winter 

months when birds are not breeding, and only non-motorized boats are allowed between 1 

September and 1 March during the non-breeding season. 

Continued compatible practice of this use on the Refuge is supported by the purpose for which the 

Refuge was created. Kern NWR was established and is managed for wintering waterfowl 

populations in the Southern San Joaquin Valley. The overall numbers of waterfowl present during 

April-July is demonstrably lower, as much as 75%, than the wintering population. These numbers 

are generated from the annual Statewide Mid-winter Waterfowl count (USFWS 1980-2004) and 

on-the-ground surveys conducted by Refuge staff. 

Refuge Habitats: Impacts to Refuge habitats including riparian, alkali scrub, marsh/seasonal 

wetland, alkali playa, cultivated cropland, and valley grassland could be of concern if visitors do 

not regulate themselves to the roads and levees. Impacts could involve the trampling of vegetation 

and displacement of wildlife beyond the auto tour route. Closed area signs along wildlife viewing 

routes, auto tour route and levee roads, are currently posted to ward adverse impacts to refuge 

habitats. Visitors are allowed to walk or drive along these designated routes provided the area is 

not posted as closed. 

Other Biological Resources: Litter discarded by visitors can entangle wildlife or possibly be 

ingested, resulting in death or injury. This has not posed a serious problem in the past and is not 

expected to increase as visitation increases. Additionally, adequate facilities for garbage disposal 

exists to all Refuge visitors. Garbage sites are found within the boundaries of three public parking 

areas as well as Refuge headquarters. Restrooms are available for visitor use at Refuge 

headquarters and at the public parking areas along the auto tour route. 

Public Review and Comment: During completion of the Master Planning process of 1984, this 

use underwent public review. A notice of Proposed Action was issued as well as informational 

news letters and four news releases. As part of the Comprehensive Conservation Planning 

process, a public review and comment period will be included during which time this use and 

proposed minor changes will undergo public scrutiny. 

Determination: (Check One Below)

 Use is not compatible X Use is compatible

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Regulatory and directional signs will clearly mark the tour route and areas along this route which 

are closed to the public as well as areas open to non-motorized boats. 

Uses will not be allowed during shoot days, Wednesdays and Saturdays, October through 

January. 

Participation in these activities via non-motorized boat would be allowed between 1 September 

and 1 March. 
D-15

Maps and public use information are to be made available at the kiosk at the entrance to the 

Refuge as well as at the Refuge Headquarters. 

Participation of these activities via non-motorized boat by groups of 3 or greater will require a 

Special Use Permit. 

Seasonal closures of specific auxiliary dikes will be posted if necessary. Closures would be in place 

due to rain and muddy road conditions or general refuge maintenance in order to keep the public 

safe and to prevent damage to roads that require expensive repair. 

Access to the Refuge will be allowed only between sunrise and sunset unless a special use permit 

is obtained from the Refuge Manager to engage in this use during alternative hours. 

By 2005, a new interpretive kiosk will be installed near the refuge demonstration pond to inform 

visitors of its habitats as well as wildlife resources and ways to avoid adverse impacts to the 

resources which would include remaining on existing roads, keeping a respective distance from 

nesting birds, and alternative wildlife viewing opportunities during the waterfowl hunt season. 

This kiosk will replace a smaller kiosk currently in use which provides this same information. 

The refuge currently has no law enforcement officers on staff to monitor this use. Refuge staff will 

periodically monitor activities of visitors participating in these activities to ensure compliance. In 

the event this use is not being adhered to as and impacts associated with this use are observed, 

adaptive management measures will be taken. Some adaptive management measures taken will 

involve, but not be exclusive to, fencing the public from sensitive areas, reviewing signed areas 

and making appropriate changes, or closing specific areas to public access. 

Justification: Wildlife observation and photography are public uses that will allow the visitors to 

enjoy, experience native wildlife, plants, and habitats. Since the majority of the land near and 

adjacent to the refuge has been highly modified and converted to agriculture, and is held in 

private ownership, the refuge plays an important role in allowing the public to view and 

experience animals in a local, natural setting. Regulatory and directional signs, as well as maps 

and pamphlets, provide the necessary information for the public to enjoy the refuge wildlife, 

reduce long-term adverse impacts to wildlife and habitats on the refuge as well as opportunities to 

view native wildlife and plants. 

As expressed priority uses of the Refuge system, these uses take precedence over other potential 

public uses in Refuge planning and management. The Service strives to provide priority public 

uses when compatible with the purpose of the Refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. 

These uses, when conducted in accordance with the stipulations, would not be expected to result in 

adverse impacts to refuge resources, and may benefit these resources by helping increase public 

awareness of refuge resource. Proposed wildlife observation and photography via non-motorized 

boat conducted in accordance with the stipulations herein would be compatible with the refuge 

purpose and the National Wildlife Refuge System mission. 

Mandatory Re-evaluation Date (provide month and year):
D-16

2019 Mandatory 15 year Re-evaluation Date (for priority uses) 

_____ Mandatory 10 year Re-evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below): 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 The 1985 Environmental Assessment addressed effects associated with the 

implementation of the Master Plan (1984) for the Kern NWR. * 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

* The refuge will work under the guidance of the signed Kern NWR Master Plan until the current 

planning process for the Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan is complete and witnessed. 

References Cited:

1955. Sowles, L.K.. “Prairie Ducks.” Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 

1984. USFWS. Kern National Wildlife Refuge, Master Plan. 

1985. D. F. Williams. A Review of the Population Status of the Tipton Kangaroo Rat, Dipodomys 

nitratoides nitratoides. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, Non-game Wildl. Invest., 

Final Rep. E-W-R, IV-10.0 48 pp. 

1986. S. G. Orloff, F. Hall, and L. Spiegel. Distribution and Habitat Requirements of the San 

Joaquin Kit Fox in the Northern Extreme of Their Range. Trans. West. Sect. Wildl. Soc. 22:60-70. 

1992. Korschgen, C. E. and R.B. Dahlgren. Human Disturbances of Waterfowl: Causes, Effects, 

and Management. USFWS, Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.2.15, pp 1-8. 

1993. D. J. Germano and D. F. Williams. Recovery of the Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard: Past 

Efforts, Present Knowledge, and future Opportunities. Trans. West. Sec. Wildl. Soc. 28:38-47. 

USFWS, Kern NWRC, biological files. Kern NWRC, Delano, California. 

USFWS. Mid-winter Waterfowl Survey. Results from 1980-2004. 
D-17

Refuge Determination

Prepared by: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

California/Nevada 

Operations Manager _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
D-18
D-19

 Compatibility Determination

Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation 

Refuge Name: Kern National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

The Kern National Wildlife Refuge, located in Kern County, 

California, was established November 18, 1960, under the 

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

 (16 U.S.C.§ 715d). 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, 

or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (16 

U.S.C.§71sd) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The mission of the National Wildlife 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 Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee)]. 

Description of Use(s):

The Kern National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) proposes to enhance existing environmental 

education by strengthening existing partnerships with area schools, universities, conservation 

groups and other organizations such as California Regional Environmental Education Community 

(CREEC). Environmental education and interpretation have been identified as priority public 

uses for National Wildlife Refuges by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 

1997. 

The refuge has developed an educators guide and plans to develop more environmental education 

and interpretive materials that will include a new general refuge brochure, as well as various 

endangered species and native habitats fact sheets. To further accomplish this purpose, the refuge 

will also utilize existing National Wildlife Refuge System environmental education items such as 

those concerning wetlands and the ecology of migratory birds. These materials would serve to 

interpret the value of local wildlife and their respective habitats and the importance of the refuge 

and the National Wildlife Refuge System in conserving their biological integrity. 

The refuge supports populations of endangered species such as Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys

nitratoides nitratoides), blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia silus), Buena Vista Lake ornate 

shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus), and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Other species 

found on the refuge that are of concern to the State of California and the federal government are 

tri-colored blackbirds (Agelaius tricolor) and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). The Refuge is 

an important place on the Pacific Flyway providing habitat for thousands of wintering waterfowl 

species such as canvasback (Aythya valisineria), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), and green-
D-20

winged teal (Anas crecca) as well as various species of shorebirds during winter and spring 

months.

The refuge is currently open to the public everyday from sunrise to sunset to engage in 

environmental education and interpretation along an established 6.5 mile auto tour route and on 

foot, utilizing established roads and levees. There are no established “trails” for this use. 

Approximately 15 miles of levee roads, excluding the 6.5 mile auto tour route, are available for this 

use via foot. Visitors engaged in this use are welcome to walk, not drive, the established roads and 

levees adjacent to the auto tour route. Additionally, these activities would also occur near the 

refuge demonstration pond near the main headquarters building at the site of the proposed refuge 

kiosk to be completed in 2005. 

The refuge currently has no interpretive or educational displays at its headquarters facilities and 

environmental education materials are somewhat sparse. Several educational and conservation 

organizations utilize the refuge for educational purposes, typically during the winter and spring 

months. Some of these organizations include Kern Audubon Society, Tulare Audubon Society, 

Tehachapi Mountain Birding Club, local museum groups, area historical societies, as well as 

groups from California State University Bakersfield. Estimates for this use which involves 

conservation groups conducting environmental education and interpretation on the refuge 

averages 800 persons a year. 

The refuge currently engages in environmental education and interpretation to illustrate the 

importance of native habitats for threatened and endangered species as well as those habitats for 

migratory birds, particularly waterfowl and resident wildlife. Tours are scheduled on a call-in 

basis and duties are shared among refuge staff. Tours are varied depending upon the groups 

request. Requests can focus on migratory bird resources, water use, habitat management, or a 

combination of the three. School groups which request a refuge educators guide are encouraged to 

request an additional environmental education game/activity as a part of the tour request. 

A pamphlet is currently available at the existing kiosk or at the refuge headquarters that provides 

information for 10 interpretive stops along the self-guided auto tour route, as well as other general 

refuge information. Interpretive panels have been placed along the tour route and provide 

information on wildlife and their respective habitats. 

By 2005, a new kiosk located near the refuge demonstration pond, will be built and will provide the 

following information: 

1. An orientation map showing the location of the auto tour route, levees and roads available 

for foot and auto traffic, and other specific regulations. 

2. A display panel which illustrates the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

3. Interchangeable sign detailing the hunting season and applicable changes. 

4. Spaces for various pamphlets including new general refuge brochure, species list, and 

wildlife fact sheets. 

5. A history of the Southern San Joaquin Valley and its related wildlife resources illustrating 

wetland resources from pre-European arrival to the present. 

This new kiosk and interpretive signs would be larger than the existing kiosk and will additionally 

provide visitors with information on the various refuge habitats including marsh/seasonal wetland, 
D-21

alkali playa, valley grassland, cultivated cropland, alkali scrub, and riparian. More information 

would include species found on the Refuge with emphasis on migratory waterfowl and their 

related habitats; threatened and endangered species; and ways visitors can minimize impacts to 

wildlife resources and their related habitats. 

While most environmental education and interpretation would enlighten the visiting public 

concerning migratory waterfowl and localized endangered species, other educational aspects 

would acquaint the public to the National Wildlife Refuge System and the mission of the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service. 

Availability of Resources: Presently, adequate funding and staff meet the current needs for an 

environmental education and interpretive program at existing visitation rates, but as demand 

increases, new funding sources will need to be identified. Area schools are requesting hands-on 

nature activities to emphasize particular curricula topics concerning the environment and to 

provide students with a well rounded Refuge experience. Approximately $90,000 would be needed 

for the proposed environmental education and interpretation materials, and building a kiosk with 

an outdoor education orientation area. In anticipation of increased use in this area, an outdoor 

recreation planner would be needed at an initial start up sum of $128,000. The Refuge is currently 

pursuing and will continue to pursue various areas of funding for this use including grant 

opportunities, partnerships with non-governmental groups, resource sharing with other agencies, 

and volunteer recruiting. 

For information on road maintenance and additional cost analysis associated with these uses, 

please refer to the 1984 Refuge Master Plan for Kern National Wildlife Refuge as well as the 

Environmental Assessment for the 2004 Draft CCP. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use(s):

Threatened and Endangered Species: Human activity has had adverse impacts on threatened and 

endangered species found in the Southern San Joaquin Valley (Germano and Williams, 1993, 

Williams 1995, and Orloff et al. 1986). There are currently four species found on Refuge that are 

listed as endangered. The species listed as endangered are San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis 

mutica), Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides), blunt-nosed leopard lizard 

(Gambelia silus), and the Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus).Impacts to these 

species is considered non-adverse as San Joaquin kit fox and Tipton kangaroo rats are generally 

not active during the time when the general public in on the refuge. There are no known denning 

sites on the Refuge of San Joaquin kit fox, the most recent sightings of this species being south of 

the Refuge on private property. While blunt-nosed leopard lizards are diurnal, and therefore have 

a higher risk to be struck by autos, the speed limit on the auto tour route is regulated to 20 mph, 

providing ample time to slow and stop for wildlife. According to Refuge files, there are no known 

auto strikes of blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Tipton kangaroo rats, or San Joaquin kit fox on the auto 

tour route. Refuge staff on occasion remind visitors of the posted speed limit as no law 

enforcement officers are currently employed at the Refuge. Immediate habitat where Buena Vista 

Lake shrew has been found is closed to the public. This habitat type is found a minimum of 500 

feet from the auto tour route. Other impacts from auto traffic could involve temporary disruption 

of an animal from it’s living quarters, feeding, or breeding sites. 
D-22

According to Refuge biological files, there are no known auto strikes of threatened or endangered 

species along the auto tour route. 

For additional information on impacts to threatened and endangered species regarding this use, 

please refer to the 1984 Refuge Master Plan for Kern National Wildlife Refuge as well as the 

Environmental Assessment for the 2004 Draft CCP. 

Migratory Birds: Some individuals belonging to species of ground nesting birds are year-round 

residents of the Refuge. These species include killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), black-necked stilt 

(Himantopus mexicanus), American avocet (Recurvirostra americana), and various waterfowl 

species that are present during early fall through early summer. The previously mentioned 

species can be migratory, leaving wintering areas for breeding areas, or resident, living in the 

same area year-round. Short-term impacts to these species occur when they are temporarily 

displaced from marsh/seasonal wetland edge nests and roadside habitat as vehicles or people pass 

by or stop on the self-guided auto tour route and along established roads and levees. This 

displacement typically occurs during the breeding season, late March through early August, and 

for lengths of time ranging from 3-10 minutes (Kern NWRC biological files). Monitoring and 

adjustable management of this use would be implemented to ensure that impacts remain within 

acceptable levels. 

These disturbances are not vastly different than those resulting from normal Refuge operation 

that may include large farm equipment, transportation to and from a work site, and conducting 

biological surveys. Disturbances by the public would be more frequent especially during the early 

breeding season, March-April, as the weather is of a mild nature. Public use of this type lessens 

considerably as the temperatures increase, May-August. This use encourages group 

environmental education and interpretation, minimizing the impacts to migratory birds and other 

wildlife by gathering a visiting group together, in one area or vehicle. Long-term positive impacts 

involve the public’s long lasting education and appreciation of natural resources in the Southern 

San Joaquin Valley, the importance of the Refuge in the Pacific Flyway, and the National Wildlife 

Refuge System. 

Possible long term adverse impacts due to disturbance of nesting migratory birds could involve 

nest failure, increased chick depredation, nest abandonment (Sowls 1955), and unknown long-term 

population declines. Human disturbance to waterfowl has been found to be of greatest impact by 

water uses involving motorized boats, fishing, and hunting (Korschgen and Dahlgren 1992). These 

impacts are avoided on the refuge as fishing is not allowed, hunting occurs during the winter 

months when birds are not breeding, and only non-motorized boats are allowed between 1 

September and 1 March during the non-breeding season. 

Continued compatible practice of this use on the Refuge is supported by the purpose for which the 

refuge was created. The refuge was established and is managed for wintering waterfowl 

populations in the Southern San Joaquin Valley. The overall numbers of waterfowl present during 

April-July is demonstrably lower, as much as 75%, than the wintering population. These numbers 

are generated from the annual Statewide Mid-winter Waterfowl count (USFWS 1980-2004) and 

on-the-ground surveys conducted by refuge staff. 

Refuge Habitats: Impacts to refuge habitats including riparian, alkali scrub, marsh/seasonal 

wetland, alkali playa, cultivated cropland, and valley grassland could be of concern if visitors do 
D-23

not confine environmental education activities to established roads and levees, as required. These 

impacts have not been observed from visitors engaged in this use in the past. Closed area signs 

along wildlife viewing routes are currently posted to protect against adverse impacts to refuge 

habitats. Insuring this use results in minimum impacts would be accomplished by Refuge staff 

who accompany groups while leading interpretive talks. Staff would send the refuge 

environmental education guide to groups wishing to partake in this use as part of the text includes 

specific rules and regulations concerning impacts to wildlife. 

Other Biological Resources: Litter discarded by visitors can entangle wildlife or possibly be 

ingested, resulting in death or injury. This has not posed a serious problem in the past and is not 

expected to as visitation increases. Additionally, adequate facilities for garbage disposal exists to 

all Refuge visitors. Refuse disposal sites are found within the boundaries of three public parking 

areas as well as refuge headquarters. Restrooms are available for visitor use at Refuge 

headquarters and at one of the public parking areas along the auto tour route. 

Public Review and Comment: Public comment on this use was solicited during an August 1999 

public scoping workshop as associated with the Environmental Assessment for the Kern NWR 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Several comments were obtained for this use during 

the August 1999 public scoping workshop. The comments were positive in nature and focused on 

increasing Refuge visibility and outreach. Two other comments received suggested that an 

alternative auto tour route be developed for used other than consumptive during waterfowl hunt 

days.

Determination: (Check One Below) 

 Use is not compatible X Use is compatible

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: In order to allow environmental education and 

interpretation to occur on Refuge, the following provisions will be followed: 

Educators and other groups who wish to visit the Refuge to independently instruct a classroom 

group or have refuge staff conduct environmental education and interpretation during their visit 

will receive a Kern NWR Educators Guide. The Educators Guide will be obtained by phoning and 

requesting a copy before scheduling a tour or trip. Other materials will be provided that include 

endangered species fact sheets, the refuge, and auto tour route informational brochures. 

Seasonal information will be given which advises visitors of the special needs of breeding 

migratory birds to minimize disturbance. 

Sign replacement/installation will be prioritized to keep visitors out of sensitive areas. 

Group visitation will be encouraged over individual visitation by persons engaged in these uses. 

Groups will be encouraged to conduct environmental education and interpretation in established 

areas (i.e. refuge tour route and new and existing kiosk areas) to lessen impacts to wildlife. 

As the need increases, the refuge will recruit volunteers or interns to assist with providing 

environmental education and interpretive tours. 
D-24

By 2005, a new kiosk near the Refuge demonstration pond will be built to inform visitors and those 

engaged in environmental education and interpretation of the refuge’s habitats and the wildlife 

that depend on them. This kiosk will also illustrate refuge rules and regulations, as well as a 

history of the Southern San Joaquin Valley. 

Access to the refuge will be allowed only between sunrise and sunset unless a special use permit is 

obtained from the project leader to engage in this use during alternative hours. 

The project leader will have the authority to close certain areas to interpretive programs, or to 

cancel activities as he or she deems necessary. 

Public access will be restricted to auto tour route and established roads and levees which will 

result in minimal impact to listed breeding and wintering species. 

The refuge currently has no law enforcement officers on staff to monitor this use. Refuge staff will 

periodically monitor activities of visitors participating in thus use to ensure compliance. In the 

event this use is not being adhered to and impacts associated with this use are observed, adaptive 

management measures will be taken. Some adaptive management measures taken will involve, but 

not be exclusive to, fencing the public from sensitive areas, reviewing signed areas and making 

appropriate changes, or closing specific areas to public access. 

Justification: The goals of the National Wildlife Refuge System include providing an 

understanding and appreciation of fish and wildlife ecology and the human role in the 

environment, and providing refuge visitors with high-quality, safe, wholesome, and enjoyable 

recreational experiences oriented toward wildlife, to the extent these activities are compatible 

with the purpose for which a refuge was established and the mission of the System. In addition, 

the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997 identifies environmental education 

and interpretation as wildlife dependent public uses for National Wildlife Refuges, along with 

hunting, fishing, wildlife observation and photography. As expressed priority public uses of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System, these uses take precedence over other potential public uses in 

refuge planning and management. The Service strives to provide priority public uses when 

compatible with the purpose of the refuge and the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

These uses, when conducted in accordance with the stipulations, would not be expected to result in 

adverse impacts to refuge resources, and may benefit these resources by helping increase public 

awareness of refuge resource. Proposed wildlife dependant public uses environmental education 

and interpretation conducted in accordance with the stipulations herein would be compatible with 

the refuge purpose and the System mission. 

Mandatory Re-evaluation Date (provide month and year):

2019 Mandatory 15 year Re-evaluation Date (for priority uses) 

_____ Mandatory 10 year Re-evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below): 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 
D-25

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 The 1985 Environmental Assessment addressed effects associated with the 

implementation of the Master Plan (1984) for the Kern NWR. * 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

* The refuge will work under the guidance of the signed Kern NWR Master Plan until the current 

planning process for the Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan is complete and witnessed. 

References Cited:

1955. Sowles, L.K. “Prairie Ducks.” Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C.

1985. D. F. Williams. A Review of the Population Status of the Tipton Kangaroo Rat, Dipodomys 

nitratoides nitratoides. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, Non-game Wildl. Invest., 

Final Rep. E-W-R, IV-10.0 48 pp. 

1986. S. G. Orloff, F. Hall, and L. Spiegel. Distribution and Habitat Requirements of the San 

Joaquin Kit Fox in the Northern Extreme of Their Range. Trans. West. Sect. Wildl. Soc. 22:60-70. 

1992. Korschgen, C. E. and R.B. Dahlgren. Human Disturbances of Waterfowl: Causes, Effects, 

and Management. USFWS, Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.2.15, pp 1-8. 

1993. D. J. Germano and D. F. Williams. Recovery of the Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard: Past 

Efforts, Present Knowledge, and future Opportunities. Trans. West. Sec. Wildl. Soc. 28:38-47. 

USFWS, Kern NWRC, biological files. Kern NWRC, Delano, California. 

USFWS. Kern NWR, 1984 Master Plan. 

USFWS. Mid-winter Waterfowl Survey. Results from 1980-2004. 
D-26

Refuge Determination

Prepared by: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

California/Nevada 

Operations Manager _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
D-27

Compatibility Determination

Use: Grazing program to provide suitable habitat for the endangered 

Tipton kangaroo rat, blunt-nosed leopard lizard, and San Joaquin 

kit fox. (Alternative C, Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan Environmental 

Assessment) 

Refuge Name: Kern National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authority:

The Kern National Wildlife Refuge, located in Kern County, 

California, was established November 18, 1960, under the 

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

 (16 U.S.C. § 715d). 

Refuge Purpose(s): 

Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, 

or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (16 

U.S.C.S. §71sd) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The mission of the National Wildlife 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 Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee)] 

Description of Use: The Kern National Wildlife Refuge (refuge) would administer a grazing 

program, which occurs on approximately 2,377 acres of upland habitat on the western side of the 

refuge, in the grassland areas of units 11 and 12 (see attached map). This use has been occurring 

on the refuge since 1962 (Kern NWRC files). The refuge would continue to administer this use as 

outlined in this Compatibility Determination. Although grazing is not identified as a wildlife 

dependent public use by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, grazing 

would allow the refuge to manage grassland and forb habitats through the creation of short-grass 

environments. This use would provide short sparse vegetation to provide suitable foraging and 

denning habitat for endangered San Joaquin kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica), blunt-nosed 

leopard lizards (Gambelia silus), and Tipton kangaroo rats (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides).

Habitat is provided in the form of introduced and native grasses as well as associated native plant 

food resources, introduced grasses making up a higher overall percentage of the short-grass 

environment.

The optimal time for grazing begins in November and given winter and spring rainfall, may last 

through late April. Prior to the beginning of the grazing season, an assessment is made to 

determine the amount of residual dry matter (RDM) available to the cattle. The number of cattle 

allowed to graze on the refuge, for a specific amount of time, varies with the amount of local 

rainfall. Because grazing on the Refuge supports endangered species, this RDM level is linked to 

the needs of the endangered species and not the needs of the cattle. This RDM is determined by 
D-28

clipping, drying, then weighing the amount of RDM in representative samples of the unit cattle 

are to graze and varies upon temperature, monthly rainfall, and the density of new grass/forb 

growth. Provided that the amount of RDM is less than 750 lbs./acre, prior to or anytime during 

the grazing season, the refuge manager may request that the permit holder reduce the number of 

cattle grazing in that unit or remove them all together in order to prevent degradation of the 

resources in the unit. 

Only the grazing of cattle is to be considered on the refuge; grazing by sheep, goats, or other 

creatures such as bison would not be considered. During drought years or years of low rainfall, 

cattle will not be allowed to graze on the refuge. 

The timing of the placing of cattle on the refuge are termed turn in dates (November 1 or slightly 

later) and are adjusted year to year based upon the date of the first effective germinating rainfall, 

and the amount of dry forage available in the fall (Stechman 1995). The timing of removing cattle 

from the refuge is termed turn out dates and is determined solely on the amount of RDM within 

the unit. If and when 750 lbs per acre or less is achieved cattle will be removed from the unit. 

The unit of measure used to summarize the quantity of cattle grazing on the refuge is termed 

Animal Unit Month (AUM). AUM is defined as the amount of forage needed by an “animal unit” 

(AU) grazing for one month. An AU is defined as one mature 1,000 pound cow and her sucking 

calf. An assumption in this definition is that a cow nursing her calf will consume about 26 pounds 

of dry matter per day. Other types of livestock are assigned AUM equivalents based on size and 

consumption.

The grazing cooperator is chosen following guidance in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge 

Manual under heading 5 RM 17. At the time of this writing, there are no anticipated changes to 

grazing on the refuge. 

Availability of Resources: Assistant refuge managers, under the direction of the project leader, 

would manage the grazing program. The permittee, working under a Cooperative Land 

Management Agreement, would accomplish certain facility management and improvement 

projects under the direction of the assistant manager. Accomplishments would be in direct 

support to the refuge grazing program, these projects may include maintenance or improvements 

of existing facilities or installation of new facilities. Projects may include installing and/or 

maintaining water control structures; fence installation, repair, or removal; sign repair, removal, 

or installation; gate installation, road, building, or deep well maintenance as well as vegetation 

control around facilities. The permittee is responsible for the cost of maintenance and/or 

installation of edifices associated with their grazing permit. Facilities that are installed primarily 

for refuge purposes are constructed or maintained at refuge expense. All projects would be 

agreed upon before the beginning of the grazing season and would directly support the unit being 

grazed.
D-29

Rates charged per AUM are based on a grazing rate survey of comparable grazing pastures that 

was conducted in 1995. Each year the current rate is established by adjusting the base rate using 

a formula created by LaCuesta Consulting that incorporates the average California beef cattle 

price from the previous year (Stechman 2003). This report was completed in March of 2003 and is 

updated every five years, all grazing fees are adjusted on a year to year basis based on 

fluctuations in annual beef prices. Receipts received from permittee(s) at the end of the grazing 

season are submitted to the General Fund. 

At the end of each grazing season, the permittee submits information sufficient for refuge 

managers to calculate total AUM’s for that particular grazing period. When AUM’s are calculated, 

a bill is then submitted to the permittee for collection. Final billing would also take into 

consideration funds and in kind contributions furnished by each permittee as outlined in their 

individual Cooperative Land Management Agreements. These work contributions would be 

deducted on the permittee’s final bill with proof of receipt or performed labor. Work contributions 

of this type would be associated with improvement projects for the particular grazed unit. 

The refuge receives adequate funding to cover the costs associated with management of the 

grazing program including the RDM assessment conducted at the end of every grazing season. 

Staff costs associated with this use emanates from the annual review of Special Use Permits, 

Cooperative Land Management Agreement, and monitoring the impacts of this use as outlined in 

the Grazing Plan. Annual costs for this use averages $3,000.00. Management of this use also 

involves monitoring resource impacts associated with this use on the short-grass environments as 

well as to endangered species. 

For a more in depth review of costs associated with this use, the reader is referred to the cost 

analysis in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: To provide this use, the refuge has adequate staff which 

includes biological, administrative, and managerial. The grazing program results in both long and 

short term effects, both negative and positive. The Biological Opinion (BO) for Kern National 

Wildlife Refuge 1984 Master Plan, identified the following short and long-term negative impacts 

to wildlife resources from grazing: Trampling of desirable vegetation, disturbances to ground 

nesting species, trampling of rodent burrows, fencing that may restrict the movements of large 

animals, soil compaction especially during wet periods. The BO recommended the following 

activities to minimize negative impacts associated with grazing: Acquiring additional land with 

suitable habitat, allowing the use in years of adequate rainfall only, and supporting grazing within 

the same unit areas and not moving animals to un-grazed or sensitive areas. Conversely, short 

and long-term positive impacts include an overall reduction of undesirable, non-native vegetation, 

as well as the re-establishment of native grass, forb, and shrub communities. The refuge was 

established on land which was previously used for the grazing of cattle and other ungulates. To 

provide adequate food for the grazing livestock, non-native grasses were seeded and encouraged. 

At the time of purchase, it was estimated that 85% of the refuge was covered in non-native 

grasslands. Impacts of cattle to existing water supplies is negligible. Water is brought in to cattle 

from a well located off refuge and water is brought, via buried plastic pipe to a large, 1000 gallon 

water tank then gravity fed to cattle troughs. To minimize negative impacts, the location of plastic 

pipe would not change. 
D-30

While studies to determine the effects of grazing on local threatened and endangered species have 

been conducted on the refuge and surrounding lands in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, and 

these studies have indicated a benefit from decreased vegetation to these species (Williams 1985 

and O’Farrell 1983), the duration and timing needed for optimal benefits is poorly understood. 

These studies have been conducted annually on lands surrounding the refuge, but strong evidence 

to support a result which indicate a positive correlation have not been forthcoming. Part of the 

blame for a lack of strong correlative evidence is placed on an inconsistent annual rainfall, where a 

consistent average rainfall would support data indicating either positive or negative impacts to 

local species from grazing. 

Another endangered species which resides on the refuge, the Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew 

(Sorex ornatus relictus). The areas in which this species of shrew resides in is riparian habitats. 

On the refuge, riparian habitat areas are not grazed by cattle and are not located in the upland 

areas of the refuge where cattle would graze. Periodic surveys would provide presence/absence 

data for this species throughout the refuge. 

Additionally, cattle are grazed in areas which are closed to the public and also are out of direct 

view of the general public. These areas are fixed and will not occur in areas open to the public or in 

areas outside of the fixed area. 

Impacts to known cultural resources from this use are negligible. Arguelles and Moratto (1982) 

identified and reviewed known new and previously known sites containing cultural resources on 

the refuge. Sites containing human remains are out of the area of impact and are similarly closed 

to public access. An additional study conducted by Fish and Wildlife Service in 2000 in conjunction 

with the Comprehensive Conservation Planning process. 

The 1984 Master Plan identifies the need to develop additional information relating to the effects 

of grazing on local endangered species. While the effects have been determined to be negligible in 

negative impacts when the timing and conditions regarding cattle turn in and turn out dates are 

adhered to, additional research and evaluation would allow the refuge to refine its management 

strategies and objectives for grassland management. 

Public Review and Comment: During completion of the Master Planning process of 1984, the 

grazing program underwent public review. A notice of Proposed Action was issued as well as 

informational news letters and four news releases. Public open houses have been held at various 

times to accept comments on the grazing program. As part of the Comprehensive Conservation 

Planning process, a public review and comment period will be included during which time the 

current grazing program and proposed minor changes will undergo public scrutiny. 

Determination: (Check One Below)

 Use is not compatible X Use is compatible, with Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The Cooperator is operating under the terms 

and conditions of a Cooperative Land Management Agreement, Special Use Permit, and an 

existing Refuge Grazing Plan. These documents provide the necessary information and assistance 

from the refuge to determine start and end dates for cattle placement and removal. 
D-31

Additional Stipulations are as follows: 

It is the responsibility of the refuge manager to determine fair market value of grazing, to issue 

special use permits, monitor permittee compliance, and maintain up-to-date files on all grazing 

activities.

In order to minimize the amount of new noxious weeds being introduced to the refuge, cattle 

brought to the refuge to graze from within Kern County, California, will be allowed immediate 

access to the refuge with no period of containment. Animals brought from areas outside of Kern 

County will be subject to a 7 day containment period where grazing cooperator will be required to 

feed weed free hay. 

Monitoring

A monitoring program would be established to provide data on stubble height, residual dry 

matter, and apparent cover density. This data would establish guidelines for making management 

decisions concerning the grazing program. 

One monitoring site would be established in each management unit on the refuge that is grazed. 

Each monitoring site selected would be representative of the unit. It would not be near water 

troughs, salt blocks, roads or fence lines. Once a year, between September 15 and October 15, a 

monitoring photo would be taken, one 300 foot transect would be run to determine average stubble 

height, apparent cover density and approximate residual dry matter. 

Rainfall would be monitored to determine when enough precipitation has been received to effect 

germination. This data would be collected at the Kern NWR Complex headquarters weather 

station and compared with records at the weather monitoring station in Corcoran, California. 

Transects would be monitored periodically during the season and near the scheduled turn-off date 

for stubble height and cover volume. 

The monitoring of the habitat along with close adherence to stocking rates and grazing season 

would provide a sound management program to benefit the species of concern. 

Justification: The primary management goals of the refuge are to provide wintering and 

migration habitat for waterfowl and waterbirds; and to maintain populations and habitats for 

native plants and animals; and to preserve and improve habitats that support the endangered 

blunt-nosed leopard lizard, San Joaquin kit fox, and Tipton kangaroo rat. The grazing program is 

designed to enhance habitat for endangered species, in particular the previously mentioned, 

residing on the refuge. 

While the duration and timing of grazing required for optimal benefits to these species is not fully 

understood, the decreased vegetation density and removal on non-native plant material are 

believed to be beneficial. It has been suggested that up to 98% of the biomass comprising 

California’s grassland communities are of non-native plant origin (Menke 1992). Studies on the 

requirements of Tipton kangaroo rat habitat found that they prefer areas with sparsely scattered 

woody shrubs with scant to moderate ground cover of grasses and forbs (Williams 1985). 
D-32

Additionally, San Joaquin kit fox have been found primarily in habitats made of annual grasslands 

and sparsely vegetated shrubs (O’ Farrell 1983). Tollustrup (1983) found that blunt-nosed leopard 

lizards are found in highest abundance within habitats categorized as San Joaquin saltbush and 

California prairie plant communities which are comprised of sparse vegetation allowing open 

areas for basking and searching for prey. With the dramatic change to the plant communities in 

California over the past 150 years, has come an increase in the density of ground cover due to the 

introduction of introduced plants (Kuchler 1988). These exotic annual plants have replaced many 

native bunch grass species, which grew in a more open manner, eliminating small openings native 

animal species, such as the Tipton kangaroo rat and blunt-nosed leopard lizard, depended for 

keeping watch for predators and foraging. Declines in rodent populations could also have a 

negative effect on San Joaquin kit fox which depend on them for food. Moderate grazing of these 

annual grasslands may be needed to help maintain this habitat in a more open structure which 

these species require. A limited grazing season (less than 6 months) will also greatly benefit the 

recovery of native perennials. The benefit of grazing to reduce exotic plant biomass as well as 

increased seed production and stimulation of native perennial production is well documented 

(Engler 1995). Stechman (2003) recommends removing cattle no latter than April 30 to reduce 

selective grazing on the native perennials and native annuals during the seed development stage. 

Mandatory Re-evaluation Date (provide month and year):

 Mandatory 15 year Re-evaluation Date (for priority uses) 

2013 Mandatory 10 year Re-evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below): 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

The 1985 Environmental Assessment addressed effects associated with the 

implementation of the Master Plan (1984) for the Kern NWR. * 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

* The refuge will work under the guidance of the signed Kern NWR Master Plan until the current 

planning process for the Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan is complete and witnessed. 

Literature Cited

1962. Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex Annual Narrative. Kern NWRC files. 

1982. Overview of Cultural Resources, Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges, California. 

Marcus R. Arguelles and Michael J. Moratto. Infotec. Kern NWRC files. 
D-33

1983. K. Tollestrup. The social Behavior of Two closely Related Leopard Lizards, Gambelia silus

and Gambelia wislizenii. J. Tierpsychol. 62:307-320pp. 

1985. Master Plan, Kern National Wildlife Refuge. 

1985. Biological Opinion, Master Plan, Kern National Wildlife Refuge. 

1988. A. W. Kuchler. The Map of the Natural Vegetation of California. 909-938 pp. In: M.G. 

Barbour and J. Major (editors); Terrestrial Vegetation of California. Calif. Native Plant Society 

Special publication No. 9. 

1992. J. W. Menke. Presentation from USFWS Biodiversity Workshop. Region 1 Refuge 

Biologists Workshop, Corvallis, Oregon. 

1995. J. D. Engler and K. A. Chapin. Effects of Grazing/Non-grazing/Prescribed Burning on Flora 

Regimes at Pixley National Wildlife Refuge. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kern NWRC files. 

1998. Effects of Grazing/Non-Grazing Regimes on Fauna and Flora. Joseph Engler, Kern NWRC 

files.

2000. Cultural Resources Review for Comprehensive Conservation Planning. US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 1, Cultural Resources Team. Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

files.

2000. Results of Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew and Tipton kangaroo Rat Trapping at the Kern 

National Wildlife Refuge. Kern NWRC files. 

2000. Effects of Grazing on Endangered and Threatened Species in Southern Kern County, 

California. Endangered Species Recovery Program. 

2003. J. V. Stechman. Periodic Reappraisal of Beef Cattle and Grazing Fee Base Rate Prices and 

Recommendations for Monitoring. Prepared for Kern NWR by John V. Stechman, Certified 

Consultant. Consulting in the Natural Environmental and Agricultural Resources, Avila Beach, 

California.

2003. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex. 
D-34

Refuge Determination

Prepared by: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

California/Nevada 

Operations Manager _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
D-35

Compatibility Determination

Use: Grazing program to provide suitable habitat for the endangered 

Tipton kangaroo rat, Blunt-nosed leopard lizard, and San Joaquin 

kit fox.(Alternative C, Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan Environmental 

Assessment) 

Refuge Name: Pixley National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

The Pixley National Wildlife Refuge, located in Tulare County, 

California was established in 1959 under provisions of the 

Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (U.S.C. § 1101), Secretarial 

Order 2843, and the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 

1534). 

Refuge Purpose (s):

Bankhead -Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. § 1011)” for purposes 

of a land conservation and land-utilization program”. 

Secretarial Order 2843, dated November 17, 1959 “as a refuge for 

migratory birds and other wildlife”. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1534), “to conserve 

fish, wildlife and plants including those which are listed as 

endangered species or threatened species”. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The Mission of the National Wildlife 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 Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee)] 

Description of Use: The Pixley National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) would administer a grazing 

program on approximately 4,600 acres on 10 units (see attached map). This use has been occurring 

on the refuge since 1960 (Kern NWRC files). The Refuge would continue to administer this use as 

outlined in this Compatibility Determination. Although grazing is not identified as a wildlife 

dependent public use by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, grazing 

would allow the Refuge to manage the cover of the non-native grasslands . This use would provide 

short sparse vegetation to provide suitable foraging and denning habitat for endangered San 

Joaquin kit foxes (Vulpes macrotis mutica), blunt-nosed leopard lizards (Gambelia silus), and 

Tipton kangaroo rats (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides). Habitat is provided in the form of 

native and introduced grasslands and associated food resources, introduced grasses making up the 

a higher overall percentage of the short-grass environment. 
D-36

The optimal time for grazing begins in November and given winter and spring rainfall, may last 

through late April. Prior to the beginning of the grazing season, an assessment is made by refuge 

staff to determine the amount of residual dry matter (RDM) available to the cattle. Because 

grazing on the Refuge benefits endangered species, this RDM level is linked to the needs of the 

endangered species and not the needs of the cattle. The RDM is determined by clipping, drying, 

then weighing representative samples of a given unit. RDM values can vary depending on 

temperature, annual rainfall, and the density of new grass/forb growth. Provided that the amount 

of RDM is less than [CCP uses 800 lbs/ac]750 lbs./acre, prior to or anytime during the grazing 

season, the Refuge Manager may request that the permit holder reduce the number of cattle 

grazing in that unit or remove them all together in order to prevent degradation of the resources 

in the unit. 

Only the grazing of cattle would be considered on the Refuge with the exception of Horse Pasture 

Unit 1 where horses and mules are grazed through an agreement with National Park Service. 

Grazing by sheep, goats, or other creatures such as bison would not be considered. During 

drought years or years of low rainfall, horses, mules, and cattle would not be allowed to graze on 

the Refuge. 

The timing of the placing of cattle on the Refuge, also known as turn in dates (November 1 or 

slightly later) are adjusted each year based upon the date of the first effective germinating 

rainfall, and the amount of dry forage available in the fall (Stechman 1995). The timing of 

removing cattle from the Refuge (turn out dates) is determined solely on the amount of RDM 

within the unit. If and when 750 lbs[800?] per acre or less is achieved cattle will be removed from 

the unit.

The unit of measure used to summarize the quantity of cattle grazing on the Refuge is termed 

Animal Unit Month (AUM). AUM is defined as the amount of forage needed by an “animal unit” 

(AU) grazing for one month. An AU is defined as one mature 1,000 pound cow and her sucking 

calf. An assumption in this definition is that a cow nursing her calf will consume about 26 pounds 

of dry matter per day. Other types of livestock are assigned AUM equivalents based on size and 

consumption.

The grazing cooperator is chosen following guidance in U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Refuge 

Manual under heading 5 RM 17. At the time of this writing, there are no anticipated changes to 

grazing on the refuge. 
D-37

Availability of Resources: Assistant refuge managers, under the direction of the project leader, 

would manage the grazing program. The permittee, working under a Cooperative Land 

Management Agreement, would accomplish certain facility management and improvement 

projects under the direction of the assistant manager. Accomplishments would be in direct 

support to the refuge grazing program and may include maintenance or improvements of existing 

facilities or installation of new facilities. Projects may include installing and/or maintaining water 

control structures; fence installation, repair, or removal; sign repair, removal, or installation; gate

installation, road, building, or deep well maintenance as well as vegetation control around 

facilities. The permittee is responsible for the cost of maintenance and/or installation of edifices 

associated with their grazing permit. Facilities that are installed primarily for refuge purposes are 

constructed or maintained at refuge expense. 

Rates charged per AUM are based on a grazing rate survey of comparable grazing pastures that 

was conducted in 1995. Each year the current rate is established by adjusting the base rate using 

a formula created by LaCuesta Consulting that incorporates the average California beef cattle 

price from the previous year (Stechman 2003). This report was completed in March of 2003 and is 

updated every five years, all grazing fees are adjusted on a year to year basis based on 

fluctuations in annual beef prices. Receipts received from permittee(s) at the end of the grazing 

season are submitted to the General Fund. 

At the end of each grazing season, the permittee submits information sufficient for refuge 

managers to calculate total AUM’s for that particular grazing period. When AUM’s are calculated, 

a bill is then submitted to the permittee for collection. Final billing would also take into 

consideration funds and in kind contributions furnished by each permittee as outlined in their 

individual Cooperative Land Management Agreements. These work contributions would be 

deducted on the permittee’s final bill with proof of receipt or performed labor. Work contributions 

of this type would be associated with improvement projects for the particular grazed unit. 

The Refuge receives adequate funding to cover the costs associated with management of the 

grazing program including the RDM assessment conducted at the end of every grazing season. 

Staff costs associated with this use emanates from the annual review of Special Use Permits, 

Cooperative Land Management Agreement, and monitoring the impacts of this use as outlined in 

the Grazing Plan. Annual costs for this use averages $3,000.00. Management of this use also 

involves monitoring resource impacts associated with this use on the short-grass environments as 

well as to endangered species. 

For a more in depth review of costs associated with this use, the reader is referred to the cost 

analysis in the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. [I don’t think the CCP has any costs 

associated with this use] 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: To provide this use, the Refuge has adequate biological, 

administrative, and managerial staff. The grazing program results in both long and short term 

effects, both negative and positive. The Biological Opinion (BO) for Kern National Wildlife Refuge 

1984 Master Plan, identified the following short and long-term negative impacts to wildlife 

resources from grazing: Trampling of desirable vegetation, disturbances to ground nesting 

species, trampling of rodent burrows, fencing that may restrict the movements of large animals, 

and soil compaction especially during wet periods. The BO recommended the following activities 

to minimize negative impacts associated with grazing: Acquiring additional land with suitable 
D-38

habitat, allowing the use in years of adequate rainfall only, and supporting grazing within the 

same unit areas and not moving animals to un-grazed or sensitive areas. Conversely, short and 

long-term positive impacts include an overall reduction of undesirable, non-native vegetation, as 

well as the re-establishment of native grass, forb, and shrub communities[is this really an impact 

of grazing?]. The Refuge was established on land which was previously used for the grazing of 

cattle and other ungulates. To provide adequate food for the grazing livestock, non-native grasses 

were seeded and encouraged. At the time of purchase, it was estimated that 85% of the refuge was 

covered in non-native grasslands. Impacts of cattle to existing water supplies is negligible. 

Cattle receive water on the refuge in the following manner as relates to the separate units: 

Cattle feeding in the Los Feliz unit receive water which is piped into cement water troughs; 40 

acre unit cattle receive water through a water tank located within the grazing unit, water is 

brought in via truck to pipelines located off refuge which feed the tank; Dickey Tract cattle have 

water supplied from a well off refuge brought in through a pipeline to a cattle trough; Horse 

Pasture units 1 and 2, Centerfield, Two Well, 200 Acre, and Deer Creek units West and East 

obtain water from refuge owned wells and piped into a series of cement water troughs. 

While studies to determine the effects of grazing on local threatened and endangered species have 

been conducted on the Refuge and surrounding lands in the Southern San Joaquin Valley, and 

these studies have indicated a benefit from decreased vegetative cover to these species (Williams 

1985 and O’Farrell 1983), the duration and timing needed for optimal benefits is poorly 

understood. These studies have been conducted annually on lands surrounding the refuge, but 

strong evidence to support a result which indicate a positive correlation have not been 

forthcoming. [not sure what this means] Part of the blame for a lack of strong correlative evidence 

is placed on an inconsistent annual rainfall, where a consistent average rainfall would support data 

indicating either positive or negative impacts to local species from grazing. 

Vernal pools are of a special concern on the Refuge. Cattle and horses would be excluded from 

these habitats

Additionally, cattle are grazed in areas which are open to the public and also in direct view of the 

general public. The use of grazing as a management tool on the Refuge is described in an 

interpretive pamphlet accessible to the public at the Refuge. 

The 1984 Master Plan identifies the need to develop additional information relating to the effects 

of grazing on local endangered species. While the effects have been determined to be positive, 

additional research and evaluation would allow the refuge to refine its management strategies and 

objectives for grassland management. 

Public Review and Comment: During completion of the Master Planning process of 1984, the 

grazing program underwent public review. A notice of Proposed Action was issued as well as 

informational news letters and four news releases. Public open houses have been held at various 

times to accept comments on the grazing program. As part of the Comprehensive Conservation 

Planning process, a public review and comment period will be included during which time the 

current grazing program and proposed minor changes will undergo public scrutiny. 
D-39

Determination (Check one Below) 

______ Use is not compatible _____X____ Use is compatible, with Stipulations

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility: The Cooperator is operating under the terms 

and conditions of a Cooperative Land Management Agreement, Special Use Permit, and an 

existing Refuge Grazing Plan. These documents provide the necessary information and assistance 

from the refuge to determine start and end dates for cattle placement and removal. 

Additional Stipulations are as follows: 

It will be the responsibility of the refuge manager to determine fair market value of grazing, to 

issue special use permits, monitor permittee compliance, and maintain up-to-date files on all 

grazing activities. 

In order to minimize the amount of new noxious weeds being introduced to the refuge, cattle, 

horses, and mules brought to the refuge to graze from within Tulare County, California, will be 

allowed immediate access to the refuge with no period of containment. Animals brought from 

areas outside of Tulare County will be subject to a 7 day containment period where grazing 

cooperator will be required to feed weed free hay. 

Cattle and horses will be fenced out of vernal pools on the refuge to eliminate any adverse 

impacts.

Monitoring

A monitoring program will be established to provide data on stubble height, residual dry matter, 

and apparent cover density. This data would establish guidelines for making management 

decisions concerning the grazing program. 

Depending on the total acreage of each grazing unit, an minimum of 2 monitoring sites will be 

established in each management unit on the Refuge that is grazed. Each monitoring site selected 

will be representative of the unit. It will not be near water troughs, salt blocks, roads or fence 

lines. Once a year, between September 15 and October 15, a monitoring photo will be taken, one 

300 foot transect will be run to determine average stubble height, apparent cover density and 

approximate residual dry matter. 

Rainfall will be monitored to determine when enough precipitation has been received to effect 

germination. This data will then be collected at the Kern NWR Complex headquarters weather 

station and compared with records at the weather monitoring station in Corcoran, California. 

Transects will be monitored periodically during the season and near the scheduled turn-off date 

for stubble height and cover volume. 

The monitoring of the habitat along with close adherence to stocking rates and grazing season 

would provide a sound management program to benefit the species of concern. 
D-40

Justification: The primary management goals of the refuge are to provide wintering and 

migration habitat for waterfowl and waterbirds; provide for public use which is compatible with 

refuge and US. Fish and Wildlife Service objectives and to encourage environmental education for 

visitors; to maintain populations and habitats for native plants and animals; and to preserve and 

improve habitats that support the endangered blunt-nosed leopard lizard, San Joaquin kit fox, and 

Tipton kangaroo rat. The grazing program is designed to enhance habitat for endangered species, 

in particular the previously mentioned, residing on the refuge. 

While the duration and timing of grazing required for optimal benefits to these species is not fully 

understood, the decreased vegetation density and removal on non-native plant material are 

believed to be beneficial. It has been suggested that up to 98% of the biomass comprising 

California’s grassland communities are of non-native plant origin (Menke 1992). Studies on the 

habitatrequirements of Tipton kangaroo rat habitat found that they prefer areas with sparsely 

scattered woody shrubs with scant to moderate ground cover of grasses and forbs (Williams 1985). 

Additionally, San Joaquin kit fox have been found primarily in habitats made of annual grasslands 

and sparsely vegetated shrubs (O’ Farrell 1983). Tollustrup (1983) found that blunt-nosed leopard 

lizards are found in highest abundance within habitats categorized as San Joaquin saltbush and 

California prairie plant communities which are comprised of sparse vegetation allowing open 

areas for basking and searching for prey. With the dramatic change to the plant communities in 

California over the past 150 years, has come an increase in the density of ground cover due to the 

introduction of introduced plants (Kuchler 1988). These exotic annual plants have replaced many 

native bunch grass species, which grew in a more open manner, eliminating small openings native 

animal species, such as the Tipton kangaroo rat and blunt-nosed leopard lizard, depended for 

keeping watch for predators and foraging. Declines in rodent populations could also have a 

negative effect on San Joaquin kit fox which depend on them for food. Moderate grazing of these 

annual grasslands may be needed to help maintain this habitat in a more open structure which 

these species require. A limited grazing season (less than 6 months) will also greatly benefit the 

recovery of native perennials. The benefit of grazing to reduce exotic plant biomass as well as 

increased seed production and stimulation of native perennial production is well documented 

(Engler 1995). Stechman (2003) recommends removing cattle no latter than April 30 to reduce 

selective grazing on the native perennials and native annuals during the seed development stage. 

Mandatory Re-evaluation Date (provide month and year):

 Mandatory 15 year Re-evaluation Date (for priority uses) 

2013 Mandatory 10 year Re-evaluation (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below): 

 Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

The 1985 Environmental Assessment addressed effects associated with the 

implementation of the Master Plan (1984) for the Kern NWR. * 
D-41

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

* The refuge will work under the guidance of the signed Kern NWR Master Plan until the current 

planning process for the Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan is complete and witnessed. 

Literature Cited

1962. Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex Annual Narrative. Kern NWRC files. 

1982. Overview of Cultural Resources, Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges, California. 

Marcus R. Arguelles and Michael J. Moratto. Infotec. Kern NWRC files. 

1985. Master Plan, Kern National Wildlife Refuge. 

1985. Biological Opinion, Master Plan, Kern National Wildlife Refuge. 

1998. Effects of Grazing/Non-Grazing Regimes on Fauna and Flora. Joseph Engler, Kern NWRC 

files.

2000. Cultural Resources Review for Comprehensive Conservation Planning. US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 1, Cultural Resources Team. Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

files.

2000. Results of Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew and Tipton kangaroo Rat Trapping at the Kern 

National Wildlife Refuge. Kern NWRC files. 

2000. Effects of Grazing on Endangered and Threatened Species in Southern Kern County, 

California. Endangered Species Recovery Program. 

2003. Periodic Reappraisal of Beef Cattle and Grazing Fee Base Rate Prices and 

Recommendations for Monitoring. Prepared for Kern NWR by John V. Stechman, Certified 

Consultant. Consulting in the Natural Environmental and Agricultural Resources, Avila Beach, 

California.

2003. Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex. 
D-42

Refuge Determination:

Prepared by: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

California/Nevada 

Operations Manager 

(for CA and NV) _________________________ ____________ 

(Signature) (Date)
D-43

Compatibility Determination

Use: Research (Alternative C, Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex comprehensive Conservation Plan Environmental 

Assessment) 

Refuge Name: Kern National Wildlife Refuge 

 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

 

The Kern National Wildlife Refuge, located in Kern County, 

California, was established November 18, 1960, under the 

provisions of the Migratory Bird Conservation Act 

 (16 U.S.C.§ 715d). 

Refuge Purpose (s):

Migratory Bird Conservation Act “for use as an inviolate sanctuary, 

or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” (16 

U.S.C.§71sd) 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(NWRS) 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 Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee)] 

Description of Use: The Kern National Wildlife Refuge (refuge), receives periodic requests to 

conduct research from various universities, research groups; federal, state, and county agencies; 

as well as environmental consulting firms. Although research is not identified as a wildlife 

dependent public use by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, scientific 

research can benefit refuge resources and support the purpose of the refuge and mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. The refuge proposes to give priority to studies that contribute 

to the enhancement, protection, use, preservation, and management of native refuge wildlife 

populations and their habitats specifically that of the endangered Tipton kangaroo rat 

(Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides), Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus), 

San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), and blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila). 

Other researchers conducting studies and investigations on the Refuge include those from 

universities, graduate students collecting data, as well as other Fish and Wildlife Service 

personnel from other offices and stations. Research conducted to collect baseline information 

would include, but is not limited to, mist netting and banding avian species; census counts via 

transects, mark-recapture using small mammal traps, pit traps for reptiles, or determining 

habitat suitability through various vegetation sampling methods. 

Research activities would occur on the refuge throughout the year and during daylight and night 

time hours. All habitat types of the refuge would be open to research including upland areas, moist 

soil, seasonal wetland, and riparian. The duration of research studies would vary as length of 
D-44

investigations would be dependant upon the type of question being posed and impacts to areas 

resulting in extended human traffic. 

All research applicants would be required to submit a proposal summarizing the following: 

1. Objectives of the study; 

2. Justification for the study; 

3. Detailed study methodology and schedule; 

4. Potential impact on refuge wildlife and/or habitats, including short- and long-term 

disturbance, injury, and mortality; and measures taken in designing the study to avoid and 

minimize these impacts: 

5. Research personnel required and their qualifications/experience; 

6. Status of necessary permits (i.e., scientific collecting permits, migratory bird, as well as 

federal and state endangered species permit); 

7. Costs to refuge and refuge staff time requested, if any; and 

8. Anticipated end products (i.e., reports, publications). 

Research proposals would be reviewed by refuge staff and others, as appropriate. The following 

criteria would be used to assess research proposals: 
D-45

1. Research that would contribute to enhancing refuge management would have higher 

priority than other requests. 

2. Research that would conflict with other ongoing research, monitoring, or management 

programs would not be approved. 

3. Research projects that can be carried out elsewhere (off-refuge) would be less likely to be 

approved. 

4. Research that causes undue disturbance or is intrusive would not be approved. The degree 

and type of disturbance would be carefully weighed when evaluating a research request; 

many threatened and endangered species as well as migratory birds, and other species 

residing on the refuge, such as Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew, are sensitive to 

disturbance and habitats, in particular their habitat of woodland litter in riparian areas. 

5. Evaluation of research requests would determine whether any effort has been made to 

minimize disturbance through study design (for example, by considering adjustments in 

the location, timing, or scope of the study; the number of participants, study methods, the 

number of study sites, etc.). 

6. If it would be impossible for the Refuge to monitor researcher activities because of staffing 

or logistical constraints, requests for research may be denied, depending on the 

circumstances.

7. The duration of the project would be considered and agreed upon before approval. All 

projects would be reviewed annually to assess whether they continue to meet these criteria 

(and others as deemed necessary), will continue to operate as originally proposed, and are 

contributing to the objectives of the study. 

Approved research projects would be conducted under a refuge-issued Special Use Permit with 

case-specific stipulations. 

Availability of Resources: Adequate funding and staff exists to monitor and oversee research at 

the refuge. Administrative staff costs associated with this use consist of refuge staff time to review 

research proposals, collected data, special use permits, research summaries, and to evaluate 

impacts and that researchers are in compliance. Other staff time includes monitoring the use of 

the refuge temporary quarters where researchers are allowed to stay during their data collection 

period if space is available. Annual monetary costs expended by the refuge to administer this use 

averages $1,000.00. Most of the research conducted on the refuge in the past has been funded 

from outside sources and for purposes of this proposed use is likely to remain the same. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Threatened and Endangered: Human activity has had adverse impacts on threatened and 

endangered species found in the Southern San Joaquin Valley (Germano and Williams, 1993, 

Williams 1995, and Orloff et al. 1986). These studies identified adverse impacts to these species as 

a result of increased agriculture, urbanization, and changes in water use within the species range; 
D-46

disturbances of a small number of humans working near areas of endangered species, as would be 

the case pertaining to this use, would be inconsequential. 

Resident wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, could be temporarily disturbed 

which may be due to the placing and/or retrieval of investigative equipment, working in close 

proximity to the species, and the temporary handling of species. As studies will follow an approved 

investigative or current protocol method, as stated in the Stipulations section of this document, 

impacts to wildlife would be considered minimal. 

Migratory Birds: Human activity involved with this use may disturb migratory birds utilizing the 

refuge’s habitats primarily during feeding and breeding activities (Korschgen and Dahlgren 1992). 

Human motion near wetland habitats could disturb migratory birds, including black-necked stilt 

(Himantopus mexicanus), American avocet (Recurvirostra americana), and various waterfowl 

species (Anas spp.) which choose to breed on the refuge. Refuge staff as well as researchers 

permitted on the refuge are trained to minimize disturbances to resident and migratory wildlife. 

Training includes avoiding active nest areas and areas favorable to loafing during waterfowl hunt 

season, as well as reducing impacts to habitats. 

Habitats: Minimal impact on the Refuge wildlife and habitats is anticipated during research 

studies. Some level of disturbance is expected with research activities, because most researchers 

would possibly be entering areas that are normally closed to the public and likely collecting 

samples or handling plants or wildlife. Special Use Permits would include conditions to ensure 

that impacts on wildlife and habitats are reduced as much as possible. Impacts to vegetation would 

be minimal and would not involve earthwork or cutting associated with reducing obstacles that 

impedes movement to and from data collection sites. Movement to and from data collection sites 

would remain the same throughout the study period. 

Cultural Resources: Research studies are not likely to impact cultural resources on the refuge. 

Most sites containing cultural resources are known to refuge management and would be 

considered when reviewing of research proposals in order to insure activities associated with this 

use does not result in negative impacts. 

Public Review and Comment: During completion of the Master Planning process of 1984, this 

use underwent public review. A notice of Proposed Action was issued as well as informational 

news letters and four news releases. As part of the Comprehensive Conservation Planning 

process, a public review and comment period will be included during which time this use and 

proposed minor changes will undergo public scrutiny. 

Determination (Check one Below) 

 _______ Use is not compatible _____X____ Use is compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Any researcher requesting to conduct research on the refuge will be required to submit a study 

proposal. 

All work will be coordinated with the project leader, or designated refuge staff, and researcher. 
D-47

Vehicles will be operated only on established and designated refuge roads and operated at the 

posted speed limit. 

Research will adhere to current protocol for the data on particular individual species collected.

Proposed research methods which will adversely affect, or would have the potential to adversely 

affect refuge resources will require the researcher to develop mitigation measures to minimize 

potential impacts; mitigation measures will be listed as a condition in the Special Use Permit. 

Refuge staff will be free to accompany researchers at any time to assess potential impacts; to 

insure Special Use Permits are adhered to; and to determine if approved research proposals and 

Special Use Permits should be terminated because of adverse impacts. 

All refuge rules and regulations must be followed unless otherwise excepted, in writing, by project 

leader.

Special Use Permits are valid for only one year. Renewal of such permits will be granted once 

refuge management has reviewed the validity of previously collected data, as well insuring all 

necessary permits have been updated. 

The researcher will be responsible for acquiring all necessary permits, both from the State of 

California or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, if applicable, and to demonstrate that these permits 

are up to date prior to the beginning of research approval. 

All research studies undertaken will provide current biological information on the needs and 

limitations of refuge resources (wildlife or habitats). 

Justification: Information will be directly applicable to management and recovery of threatened 

and endangered species of the Southern San Joaquin Valley found on the refuge. The anticipated 

level of research to be conducted on the Refuge at any given time would be compatible because the 

refuge would ensure that research proposals support the purpose of the refuge and mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. In view of the impacts research activities may have on the U. S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service’s ability to achieve the refuge purpose, sufficient restrictions will be 

placed on the researcher to ensure that disturbance is kept to an acceptable level. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year):

________ Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation Date (for priority public uses) 

___2014_ Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation Date (for all uses other priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

________ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

________ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 
D-48

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 The 1985 Environmental Assessment addressed effects associated with the 

implementation of the Master Plan (1984) for the Kern NWR. * 

________ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

* The refuge will work under the guidance of the signed Kern NWR Master Plan until the current 

planning process for the Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan is complete and witnessed. 

Literature Cited:

1982. Overview of Cultural Resources, Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges, California. 

Marcus R. Arguelles and Michael J. Moratto. Infotec. Kern NWRC files. 

1985. A Review of the Population Status of the Tipton Kangaroo Rat, Dipodomys nitratoides 

nitratoides. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Sacramento, Non-game Wildl. Invest., Final Rep. EW-R, IV-10.0 48 pp. 

1986. S. G. Orloff, F. Hall, and L. Spiegel. Distribution and Habitat Requirements of the San 

Joaquin Kit Fox in the Northern Extreme of Their Range. Trans. West. Sect. Wildl. Soc. 22:60-70. 

1992. C. E. Korschgen and R. B. Dahlgren. Human Disturbances of Waterfowl: Causes, Effects, 

and Management. 

1993. D. J. Germano and D. F. Williams. Recovery of the Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard: Past 

Efforts, Present Knowledge, and future Opportunities. Trans. West. Sec. Wildl. Soc. 28:38-47. 

2000. Cultural Resources Review for Comprehensive Conservation Planning. US Fish and 

Wildlife Service, Region 1, Cultural Resources Team. Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

files.
D-49

Refuge Determination:

Prepared by: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

California/Nevada 

Operations Manager _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
D-50
D-51

Compatibility Determination

Use: Research (Alternative C, Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex comprehensive Conservation Plan Environmental 

Assessment) 

Refuge Name: Pixley National Wildlife Refuge 

Establishing and Acquisition Authorities:

The Pixley National Wildlife Refuge, located in Tulare County, 

California, was established on November 17, 1959, under the 

provisions of the Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (U.S.C. § 1101), 

Secretarial Order 2843, and the Endangered / Species Act of 1973 

(16 U.S.C. § 1534). 

Refuge Purpose (s):

Bankhead -Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. § 1011 “for purposes 

of a land conservation and land-utilization program”. 

Secretarial Order 2843, dated November 17, 1959 “as a refuge for 

migratory birds and other wildlife”. 

Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. § 1534) “to conserve 

fish, wildlife and plants including those which are listed as 

endangered species or threatened species”. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

(NWRS) 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 Administration Act of 1966, as amended (16 U.S.C. 668dd-668ee)) 

Description of Use: The Pixley National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge), receives periodic requests to 

conduct research from various universities, research groups; federal, state, and county agencies; 

as well as environmental consulting firms. Although research is not identified as a wildlife 

dependent public use by the National Wildlife Refuge System Improvement Act of 1997, scientific 

research can benefit Refuge resources and support the purpose of the Refuge and mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. The refuge proposes to prioritize studies that contribute to the 

enhancement, protection, use, and management of native refuge wildlife populations and their 

habitats specifically that of the endangered Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides 

nitratoides), San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), and blunt-nosed leopard lizard 

(Gambelia sila).

While the Refuge has received requests to conduct research from various entities, the vast 

majority of research conducted is done by the Endangered Species Recovery Program (ESRP). 

ESRP is a research group which started in 1992 primarily to conduct research on endangered 
D-52

plants and animals in the San Joaquin Valley and surrounding areas and to identify population 

trends. This overall program is part of mitigation required of the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) by 

the USFWS for renewal by BORs water contracts in the Friant Water Service Area of the eastern 

San Joaquin Valley. Part of the primary focus of this program is to gather seasonal data on the 

endangered Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides) and blunt-nosed leopard 

lizard (Gambelia sila) on the refuge. 

Other researchers conducting studies and investigations on the Refuge include those from 

universities, graduate students collecting data, as well as Fish and Wildlife Service personnel from 

other offices and stations. Research conducted to collect baseline information would include, but is 

not limited to: mist netting and banding avian species, census counts via transects, markrecapture using small mammal traps, pit traps for reptiles, or determining habitat suitability 

through various vegetation sampling methods. 

Research activities would occur on the Refuge throughout the year and during daylight and night 

time hours. All habitat types of the Refuge would be open to research including upland areas, 

moist soil, seasonal wetland, and riparian. The duration of research studies would vary as length 

of investigations would be dependant upon the type of question being posed and impacts to areas 

resulting in extended human traffic. 

All research applicants would be required to submit a proposal summarizing the following: 

1. Objectives of the study; 

2. Justification for the study; 

3. Detailed study methodology and schedule; 

4. Potential impact on Refuge wildlife and/or habitats, including short- and long-term 

disturbance, injury, and mortality; and measures taken in designing the study to avoid and 

minimize these impacts: 

5. Research personnel required and their qualifications/experience; 

6. Status of necessary permits (i.e., scientific collecting permits, migratory bird, as well as 

federal and state endangered species permit); 

7. Costs to Refuge and Refuge staff time requested, if any; and 

8. Anticipated end products (i.e., reports, publications). 

Research proposals would be reviewed by refuge staff or others, as appropriate. The following 

criteria would be used to assess research proposals: 
D-53

1. Research that would contribute to enhancing refuge management would have higher 

priority than other requests. 

2. Research that would conflict with other ongoing research, monitoring, or management 

programs would not be approved. 

3. Research projects that can be carried out elsewhere (off-refuge) would be less likely to be 

approved. 

4. Research that causes undue disturbance or is intrusive would not be approved. The degree 

and type of disturbance would be carefully weighed when evaluating a research request. 

Threatened and endangered species, and special status species such as the spadefoot toad 

(Spea hammondii), as well as feeding and breeding birds are sensitive to disturbance and 

would require special attention. . 

5. Evaluation of research requests would determine whether efforts will be made to minimize 

disturbance through study design (for example, by considering adjustments in the 

location, timing, or scope of the study; the number of participants, study methods, the 

number of study sites, etc.). 

6. If it would be impossible for refuge staff to monitor researcher activities because of 

staffing or logistical constraints, requests for research may be denied, depending on the 

circumstances.

7. The duration of the project would be considered and agreed upon before approval. All 

projects would be reviewed annually to assess whether they continue to meet these criteria 

(and others as deemed necessary), continue to operate as originally proposed, and are 

contributing to the objectives of the study. 

Approved research projects would be conducted under a refuge-issued Special Use Permit with 

case-specific stipulations. 

Availability of Resources: Adequate funding and staff exists to manage for research at Pixley 

National Wildlife Refuge. Administrative staff costs associated with this use consists of Refuge 

staff time to review research proposals, collected data, special use permits, research summaries, 

and to evaluate impacts and that researchers are in compliance. Other staff time includes 

monitoring the use of the Refuge temporary quarters where researchers are allowed to stay 

during their data collection period if space is available. Annual monetary costs expended by the 

Refuge to administer this use averages $1,000.00. Most of the research conducted on the Refuge in 

the past has been funded from outside sources and this trend is expected to continue. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use:

Threatened and Endangered: Human activity has had adverse impacts on threatened and 

endangered species found in the southern San Joaquin Valley (Germano and Williams, 1993, 

Williams 1995, and Orloff et al. 1986). These studies identified adverse impacts to these species as 

a result of increased agriculture, urbanization, and changes in water use within the species range; 

disturbances of a small number of humans working near areas of endangered species, as would be 

the case pertaining to this use, would be inconsequential. 
D-54

Resident wildlife, including threatened and endangered species, could be temporarily disturbed 

which may be due to the placing and/or retrieval of equipment, working in close proximity to the 

species, and the temporary handling of species. As studies will follow an approved investigative or 

current protocol method, as stated in the Stipulations section of this document, impacts to wildlife 

would be considered minimal. 

Vernal Pools: The potential for researchers to trample and destroy vernal pool habitats in of 

concern, particularly during wet season, when vernal pools are at their most productive. To 

eliminate this type of impact, vernal pools are fenced from human entry. 

Migratory Birds: Human activity may disturb migratory birds utilizing the Refuge’s habitats 

primarily during feeding and breeding activities (Korschgen and Dahlgren 1992). Human 

activities near the wetland habitats could disturb feeding and nesting migratory birds, including 

sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis), mountain plovers (Charadrius montanus), black-necked stilt 

(Himantopus mexicanus), American avocet (Recurvirostra americana), and various waterfowl 

species (Anas spp.) which choose to breed on the refuge. Refuge staff as well as researchers 

permitted on the refuge are trained to minimize disturbances to resident and migratory wildlife. 

Training includes avoiding active nest areas, areas favorable to loafing during waterfowl hunt 

season, and reducing impacts to habitats. 

Habitats: Minimal impact on the Refuge’s wildlife and habitats is anticipated during research 

studies. Some level of disturbance is expected with research activities, because most researchers 

would possibly be entering areas that are normally closed to the public and likely collecting 

samples or handling plants or wildlife. Special Use Permits would include conditions to ensure 

that impacts on wildlife and habitats are reduces as much as possible. Impacts to vegetation would 

be minimal and would not involve earthwork or cutting associated with reducing obstacles that 

impedes movement to and from data collection sites. Movement to and from data collection sites 

would remain the same throughout the study period. 

Cultural Resources: This use is not likely to impact cultural resources on the refuge. Most sites 

containing cultural resources are known to refuge management and would be considered when 

reviewing of research proposals in order to insure activities associated with this use does not 

result in negative impacts. 

Public Review and Comment: During completion of the Master Planning process of 1984, this 

use underwent public review. A notice of Proposed Action was issued as well as informational 

news letters and four news releases. As part of the Comprehensive Conservation Planning 

process, a public review and comment period will be included during which time this use and 

proposed minor changes will undergo public scrutiny. 

Determination (Check one Below) 

 _______ Use is not compatible _____X____ Use is compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

Any researcher will be required to submit a study plan. 

All work will be coordinated with the project leader, or designated refuge staff, and researcher. 
D-55

Vehicles will be operated only on established and designated refuge roads and operated at the 

posted speed limit. 

Research will adhere to current protocol for the data to be collected. 

Proposed research methods which will adversely affect, or would have the potential to adversely 

affect refuge resources will require the researcher to develop mitigation measures to minimize 

potential impacts; mitigation measures will be listed as a condition in the Special Use Permit. 

Refuge staff will be free to accompany researchers at any time to assess potential impacts; to 

insure Special Use Permits are adhered to; and to determine if approved research proposals and 

Special Use Permits should be terminated because of adverse impacts. 

All refuge rules and regulations must be followed unless otherwise excepted, in writing, by project 

leader.

Special Use Permits are valid for only one year. Renewal of such permits will be granted once 

refuge management has reviewed the validity of previously collected data, as well insuring all 

necessary permits have been updated. 

The researcher will be responsible for acquiring all necessary permits, both from the State of 

California or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, if applicable, and to demonstrate that these permits 

are up to date prior to the beginning of research approval. 

All research studies undertaken to provide current biological information on the needs and 

limitations of refuge resources (wildlife or habitats). 

Justification: Information will be directly applicable to management and recovery of threatened 

and endangered species of the Southern San Joaquin Valley found on the Refuge. The anticipated 

level of research to be conducted on the Refuge at any given time would be compatible because the 

Refuge would ensure that research proposals support the purpose of the Refuge and mission of 

the System. In view of the impacts research activities may have on the Service’s ability to achieve 

the Refuge purpose, sufficient restrictions will be placed on the researcher to ensure that 

disturbance is kept at an acceptable level. 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year):

________ Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation Date (for priority public uses) 

___2014_ Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation Date (for all uses other priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

_______ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

_______ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X___ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 
D-56

 The 1985 Environmental Assessment addressed effects associated with the 

implementation of the Master Plan (1984) for the Kern NWR. * 

_______ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

* The refuge will work under the guidance of the signed Kern NWR Master Plan until the current 

planning process for the Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan is complete and witnessed. 

Literature Cited:

Arguelles, Marcus R. and Michael J. Moratto. 1982. Overview of Cultural Resources, Kern and 

Pixley National Wildlife Refuges, California.Kern NWRC files. 

U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1985. A Review of the Population Status of the Tipton Kangaroo 

Rat, Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides. Non-game Wildl. Invest., Final Rep. E-W-R, IV-10.0 48 

pp.

Orloff, S.G., F. Hall, and L. Spiegel. 1986. Distribution and Habitat Requirements of the San 

Joaquin Kit Fox in the Northern Extreme of Their Range. Trans. West. Sect. Wildl. Soc. 22:60-70. 

Korschgen, C.E. and R. B. Dahlgren. 1992. Human Disturbances of Waterfowl: Causes, Effects, 

and Management. 

Germano, D. J. and D. F. Williams. 1993. Recovery of the Blunt-nosed Leopard Lizard: Past 

Efforts, Present Knowledge, and future Opportunities. Trans. West. Sec. Wildl. Soc. 28:38-47. 

US Fish and Wildlife Service. 2000. Cultural Resources Review for Comprehensive Conservation 

Planning. Region 1, Cultural Resources Team. Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex files. 
D-57

Refuge Determination:

Prepared by: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

California/Nevada 

Operations Manager _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
D-58
D-59

Compatibility Determination

Use: Monitor and control mosquitoes 

Refuge Name: Kern National Wildlife Refuge (Established November 18, 1960) 

Establishing and The Kern National Wildlife Refuge, located in Kern County, California 

Acquisitiion was established in 1960 under provisions of the Migratory Bird 

Authority: Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. ‘ 715d). 

Refuge Purpose(s): Migratory Bird Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. ‘ 715d) “...inviolate 

 sanctuary, or for any other management purpose, for migratory birds.” 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The Mission of the National Wildlife 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”. 

Description of Use: The Kern Mosquito Vector Control District (KMVCD) proposes to continue 

using Kern National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) for monitoring and controlling mosquitoes to 

address human health concerns of neighboring communities. The Refuge is located in the 

Southern San Joaquin Valley and within the historic Tulare Lake Basin. The community of Lost 

Hills lies 6 miles southwest of the Refuge, the community of Delano lies 16 miles east of the 

Refuge, the community of Wasco lies 16 miles to the southeast, and the community of Corcoran 

lies 20 miles to the north. The city of Bakersfield is about 40 miles to the southeast. Nearer to the 

refuge there are small private duck clubs which are occupied on a fairly constant basis from late 

summer into early spring. Private residences for ranchers and farm workers are scattered in this 

rural area. Residents of Kern County have voiced concern about biting mosquitoes and mosquitoborne disease. To address these concerns the KMVCD has been monitoring and controlling 

mosquitoes on the refuge since 1983. 

While mosquitoes are considered a nuisance because of their biting, many species are known 

vectors of serious diseases in California. Although 12 mosquito-borne viruses are known to occur 

in California, only western equine encephalomyelitis virus (WEE) and St. Louis encephalitis virus 

(SLE) have caused significant outbreaks of human disease (CA Dept. of Health Services 2003). 

California is also at risk for West Nile virus (WNV) which was first detected in the summer of 

2003 in adult mosquitoes in Imperial County, and in crows in Orange County. 

WEE tends to be most serious in very young children, whereas elderly people are most at risk to 

SLE and WNV (CA Dept. of Heath Services 2003). WEE and WNV can cause serious diseases in 

horses and emus, and WNV kills a wide variety of endemic and imported birds. Mosquito control 

is the only known practical method of protecting people and animals from WEE, SLE, and WNV 

(CA Dept. of Health Services 2003). 

The mosquito species identified by KMVCD for monitoring and control are Culex erythrothorax,

Cx. pipiens, Cx. tarsalis; Ochlerotatus dorsalis, Oc. melanimon, Oc. nigromaculis, and Aedes

vexans. Culex tarsalis is the primary vector of WEE and SLE in California and is also considered

to be a significant vector of WNV (CA Dept. of Health Services 2003). Culex pipiens, Cx. 

erythrothorax, Ochlerotatus melanimon, Oc. dorsalis, and Aedes vexans may also contribute to 

disease transmission (Goddard 2002). 
D-60

Mosquito Monitoring

KMVCD monitoring activities are designed to estimate the abundance of immature (larvae and 

pupae) and adult mosquito populations. During an average mosquito monitoring period, typically 

between the months of April through October, KMVCD assesses larval mosquito populations by 

using the ‘dipper’ method in various wetlands, moist soil, and riparian areas. Adults are 

monitored using carbon dioxide (CO2) and light traps. Monitoring is conducted through a Special 

Use Permit (SUP) between KMVCD and the Refuge. 

KMVCD monitors larval stage mosquito populations and identifies species using the dipper 

method. This entails using a long-handled ladle (ca 500 ml) called a dipper to collect water 

samples from pools potentially serving as mosquito sources. Dipping would occur about every two 

weeks wherever there are pools of water. Whenever water levels are changing on the Refuge, due 

to flooding-up or drawing-down specific units, dipping occurs weekly. Dip counts are used to 

estimate the numbers of immature mosquitoes and to determine the need for mosquito control. 

Captured immature mosquitoes would be identified taxonomically by skilled technicians.

All Refuge wetland units could potentially be monitored using the dipper method. However, the 

areas of Refuge wetland units that are potential mosquito habitat would be targeted. Target areas 

would include wetland margins, shorelines, and riparian areas. 

KMVCD proposes to use carbon dioxide (CO2 ) baited traps to monitor density of adult 

mosquitoes and to identify adults to species. The trap used is baited with 1-2 kg of dry ice next to 

the trap. A motor and fan on the 3 inch diameter trap sucks mosquitoes down into a container like 

a modified gallon ice cream carton with tubular surgical stockinet attached to the bottom of the 

motor housing unit to retain the collected mosquitoes. The trap uses a 6v battery. 

Placement of CO2 baited traps on the Refuge depends on host-seeking patterns of the target 

species. Culex tarsalis primarily bloodfeed on birds and mammals, and therefore hunt along 

vegetative borders and tree canopies where birds roost and nest. Culex erythrothorax are best 

collected within wetland areas near dense stands of tules and cattails. Ochlerotatus melanimon 

and Oc. nigromaculis are mammal feeders and typically hunt over open fields. 

Six traps are deployed from April through October. In 2003 traps were monitored from March 

through November. In 2004, traps were set up at the beginning of March and may be run through 

the entire year. Traps are checked at least every two weeks. During peak mosquito activity traps 

would be checked more frequently. 

A single light trap has been run at Refuge headquarters, and checked weekly throughout the year. 

Light traps are cylinders with a light, fan, and collecting jar. The mosquitoes are attracted to the 

light and enter the cylinder. The fan creates an air current that moves the mosquitoes into the 

collecting jar. The light trap is mounted on the shop building at headquarters. 

As part of monitoring conducted by KMVCD for the presence of these viruses, a sentinel chicken 

flock is maintained in a pen on the Refuge. Sentinel chickens are exposed to the environment and 

to mosquitoes moving through the area that may choose to feed on them. Regular blood samples 

are periodically taken from the chickens to detect any mosquito-vector pathogen activity. 
D-61

The monitoring activities described above are conducted under a SUP between the Refuge and 

KMVCD. The Refuge proposes to allow the KMVCD to continue these activities under an annual 

SUP.

In addition, the Refuge has an SUP with the Bakersfield arbovirus field station of the U.C. Davis 

Center for Vector-borne Disease Research. Staff of the field center periodically mist-net in 

designated areas to monitor resident, transient, and migratory birds, mainly small passerine 

species. Mist-netted avian species are banded and also have blood taken to detect the presence of 

any mosquito-vector pathogen activity. Mist netting/banding activities are conducted under this 

SUP. The Refuge proposes to allow the U.C. Davis arbovirus field station to continue these 

activities under an annual SUP. 

Mosquito Control with larvicides:

The KMVCD proposes to control mosquitoes by treating areas infested with larval stages of 

Culex erythrothorax, Cx. pipiens, Cx. tarsalis; Ochlerotatus dorsalis, Oc. melanimon, Oc.

nigromaculis, and Aedes vexans. Mosquito control would be initiated with the use of larvicides 

when an average of one or more larvae are captured per dip. KMVCD proposes to treat larval 

mosquitoes using Bacillus thuringiensis serovar. israelensis (Bti) and methoprene, which would 

be applied in multiple treatments using aerial and ground application methods. 

Bti is a microbial insect pathogen used to control larval stages of mosquitoes and black flies. It is 

a naturally occurring anaerobic spore forming bacteria that is mass produced using modern 

fermentation technology. Bti produces protein endotoxins that are activated in the alkaline midgut of insect species and subsequently bind to protein specific receptors of susceptible insect 

species resulting in the lethal response (Lacey and Mulla 1990). Bti must therefore be ingested by 

the target insect to be effective. It is most effective on younger mosquito larval instars but does 

not affect pupae or adult mosquitoes. KMVCD prefers to use Bti because of the low impacts to 

the environment and non-target organisms and its effectiveness in reducing the numbers of target 

pests. KMVCD proposes to use the formulated Bti product Teknar HP-D at rates of 0.5-1.0 

pt/acre, and Vectobac 12AS at rates of 0.25-1 pt/acre. 

Methoprene is a synthetic insect growth regulator (IGR) that mimics juvenile hormones (Tomlin, 

1994). It interferes with the insect’s maturation stages preventing the insect from transforming 

into the adult stage, thereby precluding reproduction. Methoprene is a contact insecticide that 

does not need to be ingested. It is most effective on early larval instars but does not affect pupae 

or adult mosquitoes (Extension Toxicology Network, 1996). Treated larvae will pupate, but will 

not emerge as adults. KMVCD proposes to use the formulated methoprene product Altosid 

Liquid Larvicide Concentrate at a rate of 0.75-1.0 oz/acre. 

During the early stages of larval growth, typically stages 2-4, Bti is most effective as larvae at 

these stages of life tends to feed on bacteria and consequently, Bti, that effectively chokes them to 

death. Altosid is used at later stages of larval growth when feeding ceases. Altosid is absorbed into 

the bodies of larvae, inhibiting their growth into adults. When larvae of various stages are 

encountered in large numbers, Bti and Altosid are used to form Duplex which is applied adhering 

to the same application rates stated above. 

Treatment has been conducted mainly by aerial application in areas where monitoring has 

documented high mosquito larval densities or high concentrations of a specific vector bearing 
D-62

mosquito species. Aerial application has been done using fixed-wing aircraft flown at an altitude 

of 10-20 feet above the vegetation and at airspeeds of 130-140 miles per hour. Treatment duration 

would average 20 minutes, but would vary given the size of the treatment area. Aerial pass 

distance would vary depending on the treatment area, but would average 70 feet. The pilot would 

use a map of units to be treated as well as utilizing a GPS system as an additional guide. 

Applications of larvicides may occur anywhere in the wetland and moist soil units of the Refuge. 

The potential wetland areas for mosquito breeding and consequently mosquito treatment is 7,900 

acres. Most the Refuge’s moist soil and winter wetland areas are devoid of water during the 

summer months. Fall flooding for migrating and wintering waterfowl habitat begins in August. 

Spring draining starts in March. Mosquito control applications can occur anytime between April 

through November, depending on environmental conditions, but normally occur during August, 

September, and October when water is being added to the wetland units. In the last five years, 

mosquito control treatments have occurred from August through October, except for once in June 

(6/15/99), once in July (7/23/02), and twice in November (11/2/99 and 11/1/01). 

Annual precipitation amounts have a direct effect on mosquito populations. During drought years 

(seasons having low precipitation) mosquito populations tend to be low, and during wet years 

(seasons with high precipitation) mosquito populations tend to be high. Mosquito control is 

consequently conducted as a response to seasonality and/or climatic cycles. 

The total area of the Refuge that is treated varies with the conditions of each year. The range in 

area treated in the last five years varied from a low of 1677 acres in 2003 to a high of 2468 acres in 

2002. Some of these areas are treated more than once, resulting in the total acres treated ranging 

from 2525 acres sprayed in 1999 to 4570 acres sprayed in 2002. The average number of 

applications to units that were treated was about two, but applications may occur up to 4 times 

during the year at a specific site. Between 1988 and 2000, 5 to 10 treatments occurred per season. 

More recently the number of treatments required has risen to 13 in 2001, 19 in 2002, and 16 in 

2003. The average area covered per treatment is 263 acres (124 acres standard deviation), but 

coverage has varied from 30 to 610 acres. 

KMVCD has been controlling mosquito populations with larvicides on the Refuge for over 20 

years. During the last 5 of those years KMVCD has accomplished mosquito control through the 

use of fixed-wing aircraft as well as ground application methods. . 

Mosquito control with adulticides

If efforts to control immature mosquitoes fail to prevent adult trap counts from exceeding 150 per 

night, and WNV and/or WEE or SLE are detected within or near the Refuge, KMVCD proposes 

to treat infested areas with a mosquito adulticide. KMVCD proposes to use the adulticides 

Pyrocide or Pyrenone, which have natural pyrethrins as the active ingredient. 

Pyrethrins are naturally occurring compounds produced by certain species of chrysanthemum 

flowers. The flowers of the plant are harvested shortly after blooming and are either dried and 

powdered, or oils within the flowers are extracted by solvents. 

Pyrethrins are non-systemic contact poisons which quickly penetrate the nerve system of the 

insect and cause paralysis and subsequent death (EXTOXNET 1994, Tomlin 1994). A few minutes 

after application, the insect cannot move or fly away. But, a "knockdown dose" does not mean a 
D-63

killing dose. Pyrethrins are swiftly detoxified by enzymes in the insect. Thus, some pests will 

recover. To delay the enzyme action so a lethal dose is assured, commercial products are 

formulated with synergists such as piperonyl butoxide, which inhibit detoxification (Tomlin, 1994). 

Both products KMVCD proposes, Pyrocide and Pyrenone, are composed of 5% pyrethrins and 

25% piperonyl butoxide, They are applied as an ultra-low volume (ULV) fog at a rate of 0.1 fluid 

oz/ac (0.0025 lbs ai/ac pyrethrin) by air and/or ground. 

Availability of Resources: Monitoring and control will not require refuge personnel. The 

KMVCD and U.C. Davis arbovirus field station are responsible for coordination of monitoring and 

control through the Refuge Manager or the Assistant Refuge Manager. In order to monitor 

treatment of wetland, moist soil, and riparian areas, it is estimated that 5% of a full-time 

employee’s time would be required. Monitoring of treatments would include observations of 

sprayed areas before and after treatment and coordination of permitting, documentation, and 

record keeping.. Additional funding would be required if a detailed, long-term study were to be 

conducted to determine effects of mosquito treatment on Refuge resources. 

Up to the present we have not been required by Kern County to pay for mosquito control, and we 

have sufficient funds to cover our obligations. If costs of monitoring and control increase 

significantly in the future the County may ask for reimbursement. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The impacts of monitoring will be confined to pathways to 

shorelines where dip net samples will be taken. Small areas of vegetation may be crushed in 

transit to pools of water, but the vegetation will likely spring back after it has been bent under 

foot. There will be relatively little of this impact, as dipping is done at most once a week. Placing 

and checking of CO2 traps might also create a transient impact from footsteps on the vegetation 

going to and from the traps. Again, this is done at most once a week. There will be no disturbance 

of habitat associated with the single light trap, as it is in the maintenance yard at headquarters 

.

Toxicity and Effects to Non-target Organisms

The dominant impact of mosquito control will relate to the toxicity and effects of the treatments 

on non-target organisms. The possible effects of the larvicides Bti and methoprene and the 

pyrethroid adulticides will be discussed separately. 

Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis (Bti)

Bti has practically no acute or chronic toxicity to mammals, birds, fish, or vascular plants (U.S. 

U.S. EPA, 1998). Extensive acute toxicity studies indicated that Bti is virtually innocuous to 

mammals (Siegel and Shadduck, 1992). These studies exposed a variety of mammalian species to 

Bti at moderate to high doses and no pathological symptoms, disease, or mortality were observed. 

Laboratory acute toxicity studies indicated that the active ingredient of Bti formulated products is 

not acutely toxic to fish, amphibians or crustacaceans (Brown et al. 2002, Brown et al. 2000, Garcia 

et al. 1980, Lee and Scott 1989, and Wipfli et al. 1994). However, other ingredients in formulated 

Bti products are potentially toxic. The acute toxicity response of fish exposed to the formulated 

Bti product Teknar® HPD was attributed to xylene (Fortin et al. 1986, Wipfli et al. 1994). Field 

studies indicated no acute toxicity to several fish species exposed to Bti (Merritt et al. 1989, 

Jackson et al. 2002); no detectable adverse effects to breeding red-winged blackbirds using and 

nesting in Bti treated areas (Niemi et al. 1999, Hanowski 1997); and no detectable adverse effects 

to tadpole shrimp 48 hours post Bti treatment (Dritz et al. 2001). 
D-64

In addition to mosquitoes (Family Culicidae), Bti affects some other members of the suborder 

Nematocera within the order Diptera. Also affected are members of the Family Simuliidae (black 

flies) and some chironomids midge larvae (Boisvert and Boisvert 2000, Garcia et al. 1980). The 

most commonly observed Bti effects to non-target organisms were to larvae of some chironomids 

in laboratory settings when exposed to relatively high doses (Boisvert and Boisvert 2000, Lacey 

and Mulla 1990, Miura et al. 1980). In field studies, effects to target and susceptible nontarget 

invertebrates have been variable and difficult to interpret. Field study results are apparently 

dependent on the number, frequency, rate and aerial extent of Bti applications; the Bti 

formulation used; the sample type (e.g. benthic, water column or drift); the sampling interval (e.g. 

from 48 hrs to one or more years after treatment); the habitat type (e.g. lentic or lotic); the biotic 

(e.g. aquatic communities), and abiotic factors (e.g. suspended organic matter or other suspended 

substrates, temperature, water depth); the mode of feeding (e.g. filter feeder, predator, scraper or 

gatherer); the larval development stage and larval density (Ali, 1981, Boisvert and Boisvert 2000, 

Lacey and Mulla,1990). Bti activity against target and susceptible nontarget invertebrates is also 

related to Bti persistence and environmental fate which are in turn affected by the factors 

associated with field study results (Dupont and Boisvert 1986, Mulla 1992). Simulated field studies 

resulted in the suppression of two unicellular algae species, Closterium sp. and Chlorella sp. 

resulting in secondary effects to turbidity and dissolved oxygen of aquatic habitats, with potential 

trophic effects (Su and Mulla, 1999). For these reasons, Bti effects to target and susceptible 

nontarget organisms, and potential indirect trophic impacts in the field are difficult to predict. 

Methoprene

Methoprene has moderate acute fish toxicity, slight acute avian toxicity, and practically no acute 

mammalian toxicity (U.S. EPA 2000, and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). In mallard ducks, 

dietary concentrations of 30 parts per million (ppm) caused some reproductive impairment (U.S. 

EPA 1991). This figure exceeds the estimated environmental concentration by a factor 10 (Table 

1). Methoprene residues have been observed to bioconcentrate in fish and crayfish by factors of 

457 and 75, respectively (U.S. EPA 1991). Up to 95 % of the residue in fish was excreted within 14 

days (U.S. EPA 1991). Risk quotients for birds, fish and mammals are below EPA levels of 

concern for endangered species indicating negligible risk to those taxa resulting from direct 

exposure using maximum labeled rates for mosquito control (Table 1) (Urban et al. 1986). In field 

studies no detectable adverse effects to breeding red-winged blackbirds using and nesting in areas 

treated with methoprene were observed (Niemi et al. 1999). 

Table 1. Risk assessment for Methoprene.

Animal Acute Tox (ppm) EEC (ppm) RQ LOC (ES) 

Bird > 4640 (8 D LC 50) 3.0 (short grass) 0.0006 0.1 

Fish 0.4 (96 hr LC 50) 0.01 (6 inches) 0.025 0.05 

Mammal > 34,000 (LD 50) 3.0 (short grass) 0.00001 0.1 

EEC calculated using a rate of 0.013 lbs ai/ac (1.0 fluid oz/ac Altosid 20 % methoprene) 

LD 50 for mammals converted to 1 Day LC50 using a conversion factor of 0.1 for RQ calculation 

Methoprene affects terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates and is used to control fleas, sciarid flies 

in mushroom houses; cigarette beetles and tobacco moths in stored tobacco; Pharaoh's ants; leaf 

miners in glasshouses; and midges (Tomlin 1994). Methoprene may also be fed to livestock in a 

premix food supplement for control of hornfly (WHO, undated). Methoprene is highly toxic to 

aquatic invertebrates with a 48 hour EC50 of 0.89 ppm for Daphnia magna (U.S. EPA, 1991). 
D-65

Laboratory studies show that methoprene is acutely toxic to chironomids, cladocerans, and some 

decapods, (Horst and Walker 1999, Celestial and McKenney 1994, McKenney and Celestial 1996, 

Chu et al. 1997). In field studies, significant declines of aquatic invertebrate, mollusk and 

crustacean populations have been directly correlated to methoprene treatments for mosquito 

control (Breaud et al. 1977, Miura and Takahashi 1973, Niemi et al. 1999, and Hershey et al., 

1998). 

Methoprene has a ten day half life in soil, a photolysis half life of ten hours, and solubility in water 

is 2 ppm (Zoecon 2000). Degradation in aqueous systems is caused by microbial activity and 

photolysis (U.S. EPA 1991). Degradation rates are roughly equal in freshwater and saltwater 

systems and are positively correlated to temperature (U.S. EPA 1991). 

Pyrethroids

There are only two general classes of adulticides, organophosphates and pyrethroids. The 

pyrethroids include both natural products called pyrethrins and synthetic molecules that mimic 

the natural pyrethrins, such as permethrin, resmethrin, and sumithrin. 

In general, pyrethroids have lower toxicity to terrestrial vertebrates than organophosphates. 

Although not toxic to birds and mammals, pyrethroids are very toxic to fish and aquatic 

invertebrates (Anderson 1989, Siegfried 1993, Milam et al. 2000). The actual toxicity of 

pyrethroids in aquatic habitats, however, is less than may be anticipated because of the propensity 

of these pesticides to adsorb organic particles in water (Hill et al. 1994). KMVCD proposes to use 

only natural pyrethrins. 

Threatened and Endangered Species:

The Refuge is habitat for four endangered species: blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), 

Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides), Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew (Sorex

ornatus relictus), and San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica). Three of these endangered 

species, the leopard lizard, kangaroo rat, and kit fox, use upland habitats that are concentrated on 

the west side of the Refuge and out of the potential spray zone. However, transient individuals 

could occur on levees on the east side of the refuge that is within the potential spray zone. The 

preferred habitat for the Buena Vista Lake ornate shrew is within the riparian areas of the 

Refuge which has, in the past, been subject to slight drift from aerial treatment flights. In an 

extensive literature review on the effects of Bti on mammals, Siegel and Shadduck (1992) found 

the bacterium to be innocuous. These studies exposed a variety of mammalian species to Bti at 

moderate to high doses and observed no pathological symptoms, nor disease, or mortality. 

Continued use of the bacterium, Bti, at moderate rates is likely to have a negligible effect on 

threatened and endangered species residing on the Refuge. 

Fish

Screens across the water intake for the Refuge prevent any large fish from entering the refuge. 

However, very small individuals of carp, catfish, and bullheads may move through the screens. All 

these fish die when the ponds are drawn done in early spring. The water released from the refuge 

goes directly to irrigation either on the Refuge or adjacent lands; it does not return to any streams 

or lakes. Thus, the toxicity of any of these pesticides to fish populations would not be an issue, 
D-66

since fish rarely occur on the Refuge, could not survive the draw-down in spring, and cannot move 

from the refuge to any other bodies of water. 

Wetlands and Waterfowl:

The Refuge was established to provide habitat for migratory birds, in particular waterfowl which 

includes geese, swans, ducks, and coots. These species occur on the refuge during August, 

September, and October when newly flooded wetlands are being treated to control mosquitoes, so 

there is a potential impact on them. 

There is not likely to be much impact on geese and swans are year round herbivores. Geese feed 

mainly on grasses and agricultural lands, while swans feed mainly on roots, tubers, stems, and 

leaves of submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation. While applications of Bti and Altosid would 

be likely to occur over areas of vegetation which may be used by geese and swans, it has been 

found that birds are not negatively affected by utilizing foods exposed to Bti or methoprene 

(Niemi et al. 1999). 

In contrast, ducks are known to be opportunistic feeders on both plants and invertebrates, 

utilizing the most readily available food sources. Invertebrates, plants, and seeds compose the 

majority of their diet, varying with the season and the geographic location. A study in California’s 

Sacramento Valley has shown that plant foods are dominant in fall diets of northern pintails, while 

invertebrate use increases in February and March (Miller 1987). Seeds of swamp timothy 

comprise the most important duck food in the summer-dry habitats of the San Joaquin Valley 

(Miller 1987). At the Kern National Wildlife Refuge, the fall diet of northern pintails and greenwinged teal was composed of over two-thirds seeds (Euliss and Harris 1987). Thus any food chain 

impacts resulting from larvicide and adulticide treatment will have limited impacts to the mainly 

seed diet of newly arriving ducks. Their diet shifts to invertebrates after mosquito treatments are 

expected to be reduced in frequency, thereby allowing the invertebrate populations to recover. 

Recent studies have shown that aquatic invertebrates are a dominant food of non-breeding 

waterfowl during the summer molt, and the fall and winter periods (Heitmeyer 1988). 

Invertebrates are also critical for egg production during the spring (Swanson et al. 1979), and 

duckling growth during the summer rearing period (Krapu and Swanson 1978). Mosquitoes and 

chironomids make an important contribution to invertebrate food resources throughout the year. 

Other significant food resource contributors of the invertebrate community are Coleoptera, 

Odonata, and Trichoptera. 

However, during fall flood-up and peak mosquito populations, ducks tend to feed on seed and 

other plant material. Waterfowl in general tend to feed on seeds when they reach their wintering 

areas, perhaps to regain energy lost during long flights (Heitmeyer 1988, Miller 1987). Thus any 

food chain impacts resulting from larvicide and adulticide treatment will have limited impacts to 

the mainly seed diet of newly arriving ducks. Their diets shift to invertebrates after treatments 

are expected to be reduced in frequency thereby allowing invertebrate populations to recover. 

Other Migratory Birds:

Shorebirds feed on a wide variety of invertebrates all year, feeding which intensifies at the onset 

of spring migration. Documentation of indirect food-chain effects have not come to light. 

Hanowski et al. (1997) studied 19 different bird species after collecting data on wetlands 2 years 
D-67

before treatment and 3 years after treatment of both Bti and methoprene applications and found 

no negative effects. Niemi et al. found the same results from the same study site of a 3 year study 

on zooplankton or breeding birds. 

There are primarily two California State Species of Concern which forage and nest on the Refuge, 

they are tri-colored blackbirds, and white-faced ibis. Both species are associated with wetland 

habitat that has been identified, through monitoring by KMVCD, to contain mosquitos targeted 

for control. While resident endangered species are limited to upland habitat on the Refuge, these 

sensitive species prefer wetland habitat or habitat bordering wetlands. While Hanowski et al. 

(1997) found no direct evidence to indicate Bti or methoprene negatively impacted the 

reproduction, growth, or foraging of red-winged blackbirds, to minimize impacts to these species, 

in particular, during their breeding season, no applications will occur where tri-colored blackbirds 

or white-faced ibis are nesting. 

Public Review and Comment: If, through monitoring it is determined that targeted mosquito 

species that: 1) are known carriers of Encephalitis, and 2) that they occur in densities that 

warrant control, the public will be notified. However, given the nature of potential serious health 

risks and the rapid development of mosquito larvae, applications may occur simultaneously with 

public notification or before. As part of the Comprehensive Conservation Plan process, a public 

review and comment period will be conducted during which time the current mosquito 

management guidelines will be reviewed by the public. 

Determination (Check one Below) 

_______ Use is not compatible _____X____ Use is compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. All application of pesticides/biological agents must be coordinated and approved by the 

Refuge Manger or Assistant Refuge Manager to avoid conflicts with nesting birds, public 

use, Refuge management activities, etc. Refuge staff will be present during all ground 

and aerial applications. Prior to all applications, KMVCD will provide a map and dip net 

counts to the Refuge Manager or Assistant Manger and obtain verbal approval. If Refuge 

Manager or Assistant Manager is not in the office, leave map and counts with clerk and 

call for approval later. In addition to verbal permission, the permittee or designated 

representative form the Bakersfield office will call and confirm flight and conditions. 

2. A threshold level of 1 larva per dip average will be instituted for mosquito control. 

3. Screens will be placed on and around the bottom of the chicken coop to exclude other 

wildlife.

4. The KMVCD will notify the Refuge Manager immediately if chickens die, disappear, or if 

blood samples exhibit disease conversion. All dead birds will be sent to the USFWS 

National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) in Madison, WI., if requested by the Refuge 

Manager. 

5. KMVCD will provide the Refuge with interim and final reports regarding the arbovirus 
D-68

studies on the Refuge and in Kern County, including data on dip netting and CO2 and light 

traps. KMVCD will also provide these reports to the NWHC. Maintaining careful records 

of immature mosquito occurrence, developmental stages treated, source size, and control 

effectiveness can provide an early warning to forecast the size of the adult population. 

6. KMVCD will notify the Refuge Manager immediately if an arborvirus-induced mortality is 

observed in wild birds in Kern County. 

7. Spray applications will occur only on designated refuge lands east of Goose Lake Canal 

and within Unit 9 and 14 west of this canal. Spraying will not be conducted on ephemeral 

pools or other such water basins resulting from rainwater accumulations in upland sites. 

8. KMVCD has and will continue to consider environmental conditions, including water 

temperature, density of mosquito larvae, and presence of mosquito predators, when 

deciding mosquitoes on the Refuge pose a serious threat to human health and whether to 

treat. 

9. Mosquito adulticides will only be allowed in cases of a human health emergency, following 

a specific request to the Refuge and written concurrence from appropriate Service or 

Department bureaus. A human-health emergency is defined by the presence of human 

disease virus-positive mosquitoes or virus-positive birds in Kern County or adjacent 

counties. Treatment may be allowed only when entomological surveys determine the 

presence of mosquitoes on Refuge pose a human health emergency. 

10. At the end of the permitting period, KMVCD will provide the Refuge Manager with a list 

of all pesticides/biological agents used, and the quantities of each that were applied. 

11. Access will be prohibited in closed areas on Wednesdays and Saturdays during the 

waterfowl hunt season. 

12. Application of mosquito control measures is to be conducted in accordance with approved 

Pesticide Use Proposals. 

13. Mosquito control will be authorized on an annual basis by a Special Use Permit (SUP). 

SUP condition will stipulate that all mosquito control work will be carried out under the 

guidance of pre-approved Pesticide Use Proposals. 

Justification:

For many years the Refuge has worked cooperatively with KMVCD and its associated mosquito 

control activities. After a review of these activities, the Refuge has determined that allowing these 

uses to continue would not interfere or derogate from the purpose for the Refuge, nor the mission 

of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

As previously mentioned, the Refuge has, within a 20 mile radius, communities of various 

populations surrounding it. Species of mosquito like Culex tarsalis, Aedes vexans, Ochlerotatus

melanimon, and O. nigromaculis, which are found on the Refuge, are capable of dispersing 

various miles to obtain a blood meal. With the exception of Culex tarsalis, the remaining fore 

mentioned species are capable of dispersing 5-10 miles; Culex tarsalis is known to disperse 25+ 
D-69

miles. All species are known to be vectors for Saint Louis encephalitis, California encephalitis, and 

western equine encephalitis; additionally, C. tarsalis is particularly known to transmit West Nile 

virus. In 1989 and 1990, sentinel chickens tested positive for Saint Louis encephalitis and in 1996, 

1997, and 1998 (Kern Refuge files), tested positive for western equine encephalitis. Additionally, 

mosquitoes sampled during 1989 and 1998 tested positive for Saint Louis and western equine 

encephalitis respectively. Reisen et. al. (1992) found that the significant 1989 outbreak of Saint 

Louis encephalitis in the Southern San Joaquin Valley was tied directly to especially large 

numbers of C. tarsalis. Some factors which led to a greater than normal numbers of C. tarsalis in 

this area in 1989 were an unseasonably mild spring which allowed the species to successfully over 

winter, further amplifying their numbers when warmer weather set in. This same study also 

indicated that many of the overwintering population were found on the Refuge. In order to protect 

neighboring communities from potential health threats from vector carrying mosquitoes, the 

Refuge will continue to allow mosquito control to take place on Refuge following the guidance of 

the stipulations within this document. In the event that a human health emergency has been 

declared, perhaps as a consequence of West Nile virus, the use of adulticides may be permitted 

with the concurrence of the refuge manager.. 

Because mosquito treatment occurs during the early weeks of fall flood-up, and frequency of 

treatments are low and spaced apart on a per unit basis, overall effects to non-target organisms 

are not expected to be significant. Treatments will further minimize adverse impacts to wildlife by 

being conducted during the early morning hours of 0600-0900, flight durations averaging 30 

minutes to 2 hours depending on the treatment area. Treated areas are not overlapped and are 

treated, on average, twice a year during the breeding season. Breeding seasons vary for two 

targeted mosquito species Culex tarsalis and Ochlerotatus melanimon, the fore mentioned 

species breeds in standing water year round while the latter species is primarily a flood water 

breeder. Treatments for Culex tarsalis occurs year round, given the abundance of the species, and 

tends to be ground application during the summer months while treatments for Ochlerotatus

melanimon occurs during late summer through late fall when the Refuge begins winter flood up. 

While treatment on the ground may seem ideal because the impact area is small and can be 

accomplished from existing roads and levees, aerial treatment is preferred as the impacts to the 

ground are non-existent and the amount of coverage is larger, less time consuming, and effective 

over a large area. 

Low flying aircraft will undoubtedly cause disturbances to wildlife. However, the number of 

treatment days per year is fairly low, and if the applicator (pilot or ground) follows the stipulations 

previously outlined and within the SUP, mosquito abatement practices should not materially 

interfere with or detract from the Refuge purpose or the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge 

System. If additional biological monitoring of this activity documents substantial negative impacts 

to migratory birds or other wildlife, this determination would be re-analyzed on the basis on new 

evidence.

Literature Cited:

Ali, A. 1981. Bacillus thuringiensis serovar israelensis against chironomids and some non-target 

aquatic invertebrates. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 38: 264-272. 

Anderson, R.L. 1989. Toxicity of synthetic pyrethroids to freshwater invertebrates. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 8: 403-410. 
D-70

Boisvert, M., and J. Boisvert. 2000. Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis on target and 

nontarget organisms: a review of laboratory and field experiments. Biocontrol Science and 

Technology 10: 517-561. 

Breaud, T.P., J.E. Farlow, C.D. Steelman, and P.E. Schilling. 1977. Effects of the insect growth 

regulator methoprene on natural populations of aquatic organisms in Louisiana 

intermediate marsh habitats. Mosquito News. 37(4); 704-712. 

Brown, M.D., T.M. Watson, S. Green, J.G. Greenwood, D. Purdie, and B.H. Kay. 2000. Toxicity of 

insecticides for control of freshwater Culex annulirostris (Diptera: Culicidae) to the 

nontarget shrimp, Caradina indistincta (Decapoda: Atyidae). Journal of Economic 

Entomology. 93(3): 667-672. 

Brown, M.D., J. Carter, D. Purdie, D. Thomas, D.M. Purdie, and B.H. Kay. 2002. Pulse-exposure 

effects of selected insecticides to juvenile Australian Crimson-Spotted Rainbowfish 

(Melanotaenia duboulayi). Journal of Economic Entomology 95(2):294-298. 

California Department of Health Services. 2003. California mosquito-borne virus surveillance and 

response plan. 

Celestial, D.M and C.L. McKenney, Jr. 1994. The influence of an insect growth regulator on the 

larval development of the mud crab Rhithropanopeus harrisii. Environmental Pollution. 

85: 169-173. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1999. Epidemic/Epizootic West Nile virus in the 

United States: Guidelines for Surveillance, Prevention, and Control. From a workshop cosponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, and the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture. Fort Collins, Colorado, November 8-9, 1999. 

Chu, K.H., Wong, C.K., and Chiu, K.C. 1997. Effects of the insect growth regulator (S)-

methoprene on survival and reproduction of the freshwater cladoceran Moina macrocopa. 

Environmental Pollution. 96: 173-178. 

Dritz, D.A., S.P. Lawler, J. Albertson, W. Hamersky, and J.R. Rusmisel. 2001. The impact of Bti 

on survival of the endangered tadpole shrimp Lepidurus packardi. In Proceeding and 

Papers of the Sixty-ninth Annual Conference of the Mosquito and Vector Control 

Association of California. Jan. 21-24. pp. 88-91. 

Dupont, C. and J. Boisvert. 1986. Persistence of Bacillus thuringiensis serovar. israelensis toxic 

activity in the environment and interaction with natural substrates. Water, Air, and Soil 

Pollution 29:425-438. 

Euliss, N.H., and S.W. Harris. 1987. Feeding ecology of northern pintails and greenwinged teal wintering in California. Journal of Wildlife Management 51(4): 724-732. 

Extension Toxicology Network. 1994. Pyrethrin Pesticide information profile. 

http://ace.ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/ghindex.html 
D-71

Extension Toxicology Network. 1996. Methoprene Pesticide information profile. 

http://ace.ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/methopre.htm 

Fortin, C, D. Lapointe, and G. Charpentier. 1986. Susceptibility of brook trout (Salvelinus 

fontinalis) fry to a liquid formulation of Bacillus thuringiensis serovar. Israelensis

(Teknar®) used for blackfly control. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 

43:1667-1670. 

Garcia, R., B. Des Rochers, amd W. Tozer. 1980. Studies on the toxicity of Bacillus

thuringiensis var. israelensis against organisms found in association with mosquito larvae. 

California Mosquito and Vector Control Association Proceedings and Papers 48:33-36. 

Goddard, L.B., A.E. Roth, W.K Reisen, and T.W. Scott. 2002. Vector competence of California 

mosquitoes for West Nile virus. Emerging Infectious Diseases 8/12 1385-1391.

Hanowski, J. M., G. J. Niemi, A. R. Lima, and R. R. Regal. 1997. Do mosquito control treatments 

of wetlands affect red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) growth, reproduction, or 

behavior? Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 16( 5):1014-1019. 

Hershey, A. E., A. R. Lima, G. J. Niemi, and R R. Regal. 1998. Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis 

israelensis (Bti) and methoprene on non-target macroinvertebrates in Minnesota wetlands. 

Ecological Applications 8:41-60. 

Horst, M.N., and A.N. Walker. 1999. Effects of the pesticide methoprene on morphogenesis and 

shell formation in the blue crap Callinectues sapidus. Journal of Crustacean Biology 19: 

699-707. 

Jackson, J. K., R.J. Horowitz, and B.W. Sweeny. 2002. Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis 

israelensis on black flies and nontarget macroinvertebratess and fish in a large river. 

Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:910-930. 

Lacey, L.A., and Mulla, M.S. 1990. Safety of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis and Bacillus

sphaericus to non-target organisms in the aquatic environment. In Laird, M., L.A. Lacey, 

E.W. Davidson, eds. Safety of microbial insecticides. CRC Press. 

Lee, B. M. And G. I. Scott. 1989. Acute toxicity of temephos, fenoxycarb, diflubenzuron, and 

methoprene and Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis to the mummichog (Fundulus

heteroclitus). Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 43:827-832. 

McKenney, C.L., Jr., and D.M. Celestial. 1996. Modified survival, growth, and reproduction in an 

estuarine mysid (Mysidoposis bahia) exposed to a juvenile hormone analogue through a 

complete life cycle. Aquatic Toxicology 35:11-20.

Merritt, R. W., E. D. Walker, M. A. Wilzbach, K. W. Cummings, and W. T. Morgan. 1989. A broad 

evaluation of Bti for black fly (Diptera: Simuliidae) control in a Michigan River: Efficacy, 

carry, and non-target effects on invertebrates and fish. Journal of the American Mosquito 

Control Association 5:397-415. 
D-72

Millam, D.C., J.L. Farris, and J.D. Wilhide. 2000. Evaluating mosquito control pesticides for 

effect on target and nontarget organisms. Mosquito News 40:619-622. 

Miller, M. R. 1987. Fall and winter foods of northern pintails in the Sacramento Valley, California. 

Journal of Wildlife Management. 51:405-414. 

Miura, T., and R.M. Takahashi. 1973. Insect development inhibitors. 3. Effects on nontarget 

aquatic organisms. Journal of Economic Entomology. 66(4):917-922. 

Miura, T.; Takahashi, R. M.; and Mulligan, F.S. 1980. Effects of the bacterial mosquito larvicide 

Bacillus thuringiensis stereotype H-14 on selected aquatic organisms. Mosquito News. 

40:619-622. 

Mulla, M.S. 1992. Activity, Field Efficacy, and Use of Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis against 

Mosquitoes. Pp. 134-160 in de Barjac, Hugette and Donald J. Sutherland, eds. Bacterial 

Control of Mosquitoes and Blackflies: Biochemistry, Genetics, and Applications of Bacillus

thuringiensis israelensis and Bacillus sphaericus. Kluwer Academic. 

Niemi, G. J., A. E. Hershey, L. Shannon, J. M. Hanowski, A. Lima, R. P. Axler, and R. R. Regal. 

1999. Ecological Effects of Mosquito Control on Zooplankton, Insects, and Birds. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry, 18(3):549-559. 

Reisen, W. K.; R. P. Meyer; M.M. Milby; S. B. Presser; R. W. Emmons; J. L. Hardy; and W. C. 

Reeves. 1992. Ecological Observations on the 1989 outbreak of St. Louis encephalitis virus 

in the Southern San Joaquin Valley of California. Entomological Society of America. 

29(3):472-482. 

Siegel, Joel, P. and J. A. Shadduck. 1992. Mammalian safety of Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis

and Bacillus sphaericus. Pp. 202-217 in de Barjac, Huguette and Donald J. Sutherland, 

eds. Bacterial control of mosquitoes and blackflies: biochemistry, genetics, and 

applications of Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis and Bacillus sphaericus. Kluwer 

Academic.

Su. T., and M.S. Mulla. 1999. Microbial agents Bacillus thuringiensis ssp. israelensis and 

Bacillus sphaericus suppress eutrophication, enhance water quality, and control 

mosquitoes in microcosms. Environmental Entomology 28:761-767. 

Swanson, G.A., G.L. Krapu, and J.R. Serie. 1979. Foods of laying female dabbling ducks on the 

breeding grounds. Pages 47-57 in T.A. Bookhout, ed. Waterfowl and wetlands-An 

integrated review. Proc. Symp. North Cent. Sect., The Wildl. Soc. 

Tomlin, C. 1994. The Pesticide Manual. Farnham: British Crop Protection Council/Cambridge: 

Royal Society of Chemistry. 

Urban, J. D. and N.J. Cook. 1986. Standard evaluation procedure: Ecological risk assessment. 

U. S. EPA. Office of Pesticide Programs. Hazard evaluation division 
D-73

U.S. EPA. 1991. Re-registration eligibility document. Isopropyl (2E, 4E)-11-methoxy-3,7,11-

trimethyl-2,4-dodecadienoate (Referred to as methoprene). List A. Case 0030. Office of 

pesticide Programs. Special Review and Registration Division. 

U.S. EPA. 1998. Re-registration eligibility document. Bacillus thuringiensis. Office of 

Prevention, Pesticides and Toxic Substances. EPA738-R-98-004. 

U.S. EPA. 2000. Ecotoxicity onliner database. Division of Environmental Fate and Effects. Office 

of Pesticide Programs. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Acute toxicity rating scales. Research Information Bulletin 

No. 84-78. 

WHO. Undated. Data sheet on pesticides no. 47. Methoprene. World Health Organization. Food 

and Agriculture Organization. http://www.inchem.org/documents/pds/pds/pest47_e.htm

Wipfli, M.S., R.W. Merritt. And W.W. Taylor. 1994. Low toxicity of the blackfly larvicide Bacillus 

thuringiensis var. israelensis to early stages of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis), brown 

trout (Salmo trutta), and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) following direct and 

indirect exposure. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Science 41:1451-1458. 

Zoecon. 2000. MSDS Altosid Liquid Larvicide Concentrate 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year):

________ Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation Date (for priority public uses) 

___2013_ Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation Date (for all uses other than priority public uses) 

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

____X__ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

________ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

_______ _Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

________ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 
D-74

Refuge Determination:

Prepared by: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

California/Nevada 

Operations Manager _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 
D-75

Compatibility Determination

Use: Monitor and control mosquitoes 

Refuge Name: Pixley National Wildlife Refuge (Established November 17, 1959) 

Establishing and The Pixley National Wildlife Refuge, located in Tulare County, 

Acquisition California was established in 1959 under provisions of the 

Authorities: Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (U.S.C. ‘ 1101), Secretarial 

 Order 2843, and the Endangered / Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 

 ‘ 1534). 

Refuge Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. ‘ 1101) for purposes 

Purpose(s): of a land conservation and land-utilization program. 

 Secretarial Order 2843, dated November 17, 1959 as a refuge for 

 Migratory birds and other wildlife. 

 Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. ‘ 1534), to conserve 

 fish, wildlife and plants which are listed as endangered or 

 threatened species. 

National Wildlife Refuge System Mission: The Mission of the National Wildlife 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. 

Description of Use: The Tulare Mosquito Abatement District (TMAD) proposes to 

continue using Pixley National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) for monitoring and controlling 

mosquitoes to address human health concerns of neighboring communities. The

Community of Earlimart lies 10 miles south-east of the Refuge, the community of Pixley 6 

miles due west, and the community of Alpaugh 8 miles south-west. Within a 20 mile radius 

of the Refuge are small to large dairies. Residents of Tulare County have voiced concern 

about biting mosquitoes and mosquito-borne disease. To address these concerns, TMAD 

has been monitoring and controlling mosquitoes on the Refuge since 1963 when the 

wetland basins were constructed, in years when ponds of water are present. 

While mosquitoes are considered a nuisance because of their biting, many species are 

known vectors of serious diseases in California. Although 12 mosquito-borne viruses are 

known to occur in California, only western equine encephalomyelitis virus (WEE) and St. 

Louis encephalitis virus (SLE) have caused significant outbreaks of human disease (CA 

Dept. of Health Services, 2003). California is also at risk for West Nile virus (WN) which 

has been detected in 2003 in adult mosquitoes in Imperial County and crows in Orange 

County.

WEE tends to be most serious in very young children, whereas elderly people are most at 

risk to SLE and WN (CA Dept. of Health Services, 2003). WEE and WN can cause serious 
D-76

diseases in horses and emus, and WN kills a wide variety of endemic and imported birds. 

Mosquito control is the only known practical method of protecting people and animals from 

WEE, SLW, and WN (CA Dept. of Health Services, 2003). With the exception of available 

vaccines to protect horses against WEE and WN, there are no known specific treatments 

or cures for diseases caused by these viruses (CA Dept. of Health Services, 2003). 

The mosquito species identified by TMAD for monitoring and control are Culex

erythrothorax, Cx. pipiens, Cx. tarsalis; Ochlerotatus dorsalis, Oc. melanimon, Oc.

nigromaculis, and Aedes vexans. Culex tarsalis is the primary vector of WEE and SLE 

in California and is also considered to be a significant vector of WN (CA Dept. of Health 

Services, 2003). Culex pipiens, Cx. erythrothorax, and Oc. melanimon, Oc. dorsalis, and 

Aedes vexans may also contribute to disease transmission (Goddard, 2002).

Mosquito Monitoring

TMAD monitoring activities are designed to estimate the abundance of immature (larvae 

and pupae) and adult mosquito populations. TMAD proposes to use the “dipper,” method 

to monitor immature mosquito populations. A dipper is simply a long-handled ladle (ca 500 

ml) used to collect water samples from pools potentially serving as mosquito sources. 

Using the dipper method, the number of immature mosquitoes per “dip” can be estimated. 

Dip counts are also used to determine the need for mosquito control, and captured 

immature mosquitoes would be identified taxonomically by skilled technicians. 

Only a small portion of the Refuge, 950 acres (15% of the total 6389 acres) has been set 

aside for wetland units (Figure 1), and only 300 acres (Units 2-4, Figure 2) are regularly 

flooded from mid-August to March for waterfowl habitat. Sampling would be conducted in 

these areas, and in any standing water in shallow ponds or ditches, such as the Deer Creek 

channel on the south edge of the Refuge. 

During an average year, TMAD would assess mosquito populations between the months of 

April and November. However, because the wetlands are dry throughout the late spring 

and summer, sampling usually begins in mid-August with the exception of very wet years 

when there may be standing water during April, May, or even June. Dip samples will be 

taken about once a week, depending on presence or absence of water. 

TMAD proposes to use carbon dioxide (CO2) baited traps to monitor adult mosquito 

populations. There are two types of CO2-baited traps used in California, the CDC trap and 

the EVS trap. Both traps are baited either with an insulated container holding 1-2 kg of 

dry ice or with a cylinder containing compressed CO2 gas with a regulator that releases 

0.5 - 1.0 liters/minute. Both traps use a screened collection bag or a modified gallon ice 

cream carton with tubular surgical stockinet attached to the bottom of the motor housing 

unit to retain the collected mosquitoes. The CDC trap uses a rechargeable 6v battery 

power source whereas the EVS trap uses three 1.5v D cell batteries. The CO2 trap 

nearest Pixley Refuge is at a private residence one block south of Allensworth State 

Historic Park, about 2.5 miles to the south. Adults are sampled weekly from April through 

November and individuals collected would be identified taxonomically by skilled 

technicians and, could also be tested for WEE, SLE, and WN. 
D-77

The monitoring activities described above are conducted under a Special Use Permit 

(SUP) between the Refuge and TMAD. The Refuge proposes to allow the TMAD to 

continue these activities under an annual SUP. 

 Mosquito Control with Larvicides

The TMAD proposes to control mosquitoes by treating areas infested with larval states of 

Culex erythrothorax, Cx. pipiens, Cx. tarsalis; Ochlerotatus dorsalis, Oc. melanimon, Oc. 

nigromaculis, and Aedes vexans. Mosquito control would be initiated with the use of 

larvicides when an average of two or more larvae is captured per dip. TMAD proposes to 

treat larval mosquitoes using Bacillus thuringiensis serovar israelensis (Bti) and 

methoprene, which will be applied in multiple treatments using aerial and ground 

application methods.

Bti is a microbial insect pathogen used to control larval stages of mosquitoes and black 

flies. It is a naturally occurring anaerobic spore forming bacteria that is mass produced 

using modern fermentation technology. Bti produces protein endotoxins that are activated 

in the alkaline mid-gut of insect species and subsequently bind to protein specific receptors 

of susceptible insect species resulting in the lethal response (Lacey and Mulla 1990). Bti 

must therefore be ingested by the target insect to be effective. It is most effective on 

younger mosquito larval instars but does not affect pupae or adult mosquitoes. TMAD 

prefers to use Bti because of the low impacts to the environment and non-target organisms 

and its effectiveness in reducing the numbers of target pests. TMAD proposes to use the 

formulated Bti product Teknar HP-D at rates of 0.5-1.0 pt/acre. 

Methoprene is a synthetic insect growth regulator (IGR) that mimics juvenile hormones 

(Tomlin, 1994). It interferes with the insect’s maturation stages preventing the insect 

from transforming into the adult stage, thereby precluding reproduction. Methoprene is a 

contact insecticide that does not need to be ingested. It is most effective on early larval 

instars but does not affect pupae or adult mosquitoes (Extension Toxicology Network, 

1996). Treated larvae will pupate, but will not emerge as adults. TMAD proposes to use 

the formulated methoprene product Altosid Liquid Larvicide Concentrate at a rate of 0.75-

1.0 oz/acre. 

Bti is most effective during the early stages of larval growth, typically stages 2-4. Larvae 

at these stages of life tend to feed on bacteria, and consequently, Bti, which effectively 

chokes them to death. Altosid is used at later stages of larval growth when feeding ceases. 

Altosid is absorbed into the bodies of larvae, inhibiting their growth into adults. 

Annual precipitation amounts have a direct effect on mosquito populations. During 

drought years (seasons having low precipitation) mosquito populations tend to be low, and 

during wet years (seasons with high precipitation) mosquito populations tend to be high. 

Mosquito control is consequently conducted as a response to seasonality and/or climatic 

cycles.

Treatment will be conducted mainly by aerial application in areas where monitoring has 

documented high mosquito larval densities or high concentrations of a specific vector 

bearing mosquito species. Aerial application has been done using fixed-wing aircraft flown 

at an altitude of 10-20 feet above the vegetation and at airspeeds of 130-140 miles per hour. 
D-78

Treatment duration would average 20 minutes, but would vary given the size of the 

treatment area. Aerial pass distance would vary depending on the treatment area, but 

would average 70 feet. The pilot would use a map of units to be treated as well as utilizing 

a GPS system as an additional guide. 

Applications of larvicides may occur anywhere in the wetland and moist soil units of the 

Refuge. The potential wetland areas for mosquito breeding and consequently mosquito 

treatment are 450 acres. Most the Refuge’s moist soil and winter wetland areas are 

devoid of water during the summer months. Fall flooding for migrating and wintering 

waterfowl habitat begins in August. Spring draining starts in March. Mosquito control 

applications can occur anytime from April through November, depending on 

environmental conditions, but normally occur during from mid-August through October, 

when water is being added to the wetland units. 

TMAD proposes to apply larvicides when the threshold of an average of two larvae per dip 

is exceeded. Mosquito treatments on the Refuge have been rare; there have been no 

treatments since 1995. 

Mosquito Control with Adulticides

If efforts to control immature mosquitoes fail to prevent adult trap counts from exceeding 

150 per night, and WN, WEE, or SLE are detected within or near the Refuge, and a public 

health emergency is declared by the state or county, TMAD proposes to treat infested 

areas with a mosquito adulticide. 

There are only two general classes of adulticides, organophosphates and pyrethroids. The 

organophosphates proposed for use is naled. The pyrethroids include both natural 

products called pyrethrins and synthetic molecules that mimic the natural pyrethrins, 

such as permethrin, resmethrin, and sumithrin. 

TMAD proposes to use the adulticide naled to control adult mosquitoes. Naled is a nonsystemic, broad spectrum organophosphate insecticide and acaricide (kills mites and 

ticks), with contact and stomach action, respiratory action, and cholinesterase inhibition. 

TMAD proposes to use the formulated naled product Trumpet EC at a rate of 0.24 fluid 

oz/acre by ground and/or 0.6-1.2 fluid oz/acre by air. 

The Refuge suggests that TMAD uses Pyrocide or Pyrenone, in which the active 

ingredient, pyrethrins, are non-systemic contact poisons which quickly penetrate the nerve 

system of the insect, causing paralysis and subsequent death (EXTOXNET 1994, Tomlin 

1994). Pyrethrins are naturally occurring compounds produced by certain species of 

chrysanthemum plants. The flowers of the plant are harvested shortly after blooming and 

are dried and powdered, or oils within the flowers are extracted by solvents. These active 

insecticidal components are collectively known as pyrethrins. Two pyrethrins are most 

prominent, pyrethrin-I and pyrethrin-II. The pyrethrins have another four different 

active ingredients, Cinerin I and II and Jasmolin I and II (EXTOXNET, 1994). 

A few minutes after application, the insect cannot move or fly away. But, a "knockdown 

dose" does not mean a killing dose. Pyrethrins are swiftly detoxified by enzymes in the 

insect. Thus, some pests will recover. To delay the enzyme action so a lethal dose is 
D-79

assured, commercial products are formulated with synergists such as pepperoni butoxide, 

which inhibit detoxification (Tomlin, 1994). Both products TMAD proposes to use are 

composed of 5% pyrethrins and 25% piperonyl butoxide. They are applied as an ultra-low 

volume (ULV) fog at a rate of 0.0025 lbs/acre for pyrethrin and 0.0125 lbs/acre piperonyl 

butoxide. 

The Refuge suggests the use of pyrethrins rather than naled because lower overall 

toxicity. Among other characteristics, pyrethroids are in a lower skin and eye toxicity 

class (class IV) than is naled (class I). In addition, naled is a class II toxic chemical, while 

pyrethroids, although not EPA listed, can be considered a class III toxicity class, on the 

basis of LD50 data (New York State Department of Health on the web). 

TMAD proposes to apply adulticides using ground and/or aerial equipment consisting of 

an ultra-low volume (ULV) non-thermal aerosol device mounted on a truck or fixed wing 

aircraft. Adulticide application may occur only after a human health emergency has been 

declared by the state or county. Adulticides have never been sprayed on Pixley Refuge. 

Availability of Resources: Monitoring and control will not require Refuge personnel. 

The TMAD is responsible for coordination of monitoring and control through the Refuge 

Manager. In order to monitor treatment of wetland, moist soil, and riparian areas, it is 

estimated that 5% of a full-time employee’s time would be required. Monitoring of 

treatments would include observations of sprayed areas before and after treatment and 

coordination of permitting, documentation, and record keeping with TMAD. 

If larvae are detected at sufficient density to create a problem, TMAD proposes to treat 

the area where the larvae are found on two occasions. Any control necessary beyond these 

initial treatments would need to be funded by another source. Additional funding would 

also be required if detailed long-term studies were to be conducted to determine effects of 

mosquito treatment on Refuge resources. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use

The impacts of monitoring will be confined to pathways and shorelines where dip net 

samples will be taken. Small areas of vegetation may be crushed in transit to the 

shoreline, but the vegetation will likely spring back after it has been bent under foot. 

There will be relatively little of this impact, as dipping is done at most once a week. 

Toxicity and Effects to Non-target Organisms

The dominant impact of mosquito control will relate to the toxicity and effects of the 

treatments on non-target organisms. The possible effects of the larvicides Bti and 

methoprene and the pyrethroid adulticides will be discussed separately. 

Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis (Bti)

Bti has practically no acute or chronic toxicity to mammals, birds, fish, or vascular plants 

(U.S. EPA, 1998). Extensive acute toxicity studies indicated that Bti is virtually innocuous 

to mammals (Siegel and Shadduck, 1992). These studies exposed a variety of mammalian 

species to Bti at moderate to high doses and no pathological symptoms, disease, or 

mortality were observed. Laboratory acute toxicity studies indicated that the active 

ingredient of Bti formulated products is not acutely toxic to fish, amphibians or 
D-80

crustaceans (Brown et al. 2002, Brown et al. 2000, Garcia et al. 1980, Lee and Scott 1989, 

Wipfli et al. 1994). However, other ingredients in formulated Bti products are potentially 

toxic. The acute toxicity response of fish exposed to the formulated Bti product Teknar® 

HPD was attributed to xylene (Fortin et al. 1986, Wipfli et al. 1994). Field studies 

indicated no acute toxicity to several fish species exposed to Bti (Merritt et al. 1989, 

Jackson et al. 2002); no detectable adverse effects to breeding red-winged blackbirds using 

and nesting in Bti treated areas (Niemi et al. 1999, Hanowski et al.1997); and no detectable 

adverse effects to tadpole shrimp 48 hours post Bti treatment (Dritz et al. 2001). 

In addition to mosquitoes (Family Culicidae), Bti affects some other members of the 

suborder Nematocera within the order Diptera. Also affected are members of the Family 

Simuliidae (black flies) and some chironomid midge larvae (Boisvert and Boisvert 2000, 

Garcia et al. 1980). The most commonly observed Bti effects to non-target organisms 

were to larvae of some chironomids in laboratory settings when exposed to relatively high 

doses (Boisvert and Boisvert 2000, Lacey and Mulla 1990, Miura et al. 1980). In field 

studies, effects to target and susceptible nontarget invertebrates have been variable and 

difficult to interpret. Field study results are apparently dependent on the number, 

frequency, rate and aerial extent of Bti applications; the Bti formulation used; the sample 

type (e.g. benthic, water column or drift); the sampling interval (e.g. from 48 hrs to one or 

more years after treatment); the habitat type (e.g. lentic or lotic); the biotic (e.g. aquatic 

communities), and abiotic factors (e.g. suspended organic matter or other suspended 

substrates, temperature, water depth); the mode of feeding (e.g. filter feeder, predator, 

scraper or gatherer); the larval development stage and larval density (Ali 1981, Boisvert 

and Boisvert 2000, Lacey and Mulla 1990). Bti activity against target and susceptible 

nontarget invertebrates is also related to Bti persistence and environmental fate which are 

in turn affected by the factors associated with field study results (Dupont and Boisvert 

1986, Mulla 1992). Simulated field studies resulted in the suppression of two unicellular 

algae species, Closterium sp. and Chlorella sp. resulting in secondary effects to turbidity 

and dissolved oxygen of aquatic habitats, with potential trophic effects (Su and Mulla 

1999). For these reasons, Bti effects to target and susceptible nontarget organisms, and 

potential indirect trophic impacts in the field are difficult to predict. 

Methoprene

Methoprene has moderate acute fish toxicity, slight acute avian toxicity, and practically no 

acute mammalian toxicity (U.S. EPA 2000, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1984). In 

mallard ducks, dietary concentrations of 30 parts per million (ppm) caused some 

reproductive impairment (U.S. EPA 1991). This figure exceeds the estimated 

environmental concentration by a factor 10 (Table 1). Methoprene residues have been 

observed to bioconcentrate in fish and crayfish by factors of 457 and 75, respectively (U.S. 

EPA 1991). Up to 95 % of the residue in fish was excreted within 14 days (U.S. EPA 1991). 

Risk quotients for birds, fish and mammals are below EPA levels of concern for 

endangered species indicating negligible risk to those taxa resulting from direct exposure 

using maximum labeled rates for mosquito control (Table 1) (Urban et al. 1986). In field 

studies no detectable adverse effects to breeding red-winged blackbirds using and nesting 

in areas treated with methoprene were observed (Niemi et al. 1999). 
D-81

Table 1. Risk assessment for Methoprene.

Animal Acute Tox (ppm) EEC (ppm) RQ LOC (ES) 

Bird > 4640 (8 D LC 50) 3.0 (short grass) 0.0006 0.1 

Fish 0.4 (96 hr LC 50) 0.01 (6 inches) 0.025 0.05 

Mammal > 34,000 (LD 50) 3.0 (short grass) 0.00001 0.1 

EEC calculated using a rate of 0.013 lbs ai/ac (1.0 fluid oz/ac Altosid 20 % methoprene) 

LD 50 for mammals converted to 1 Day LC50 using a conversion factor of 0.1 for RQ calculation 

Methoprene affects terrestrial and aquatic invertebrates and is used to control fleas, 

sciarid flies in mushroom houses; cigarette beetles and tobacco moths in stored tobacco; 

Pharaoh's ants; leaf miners in glasshouses; and midges (Tomlin 1994). Methoprene may 

also be fed to livestock in a premix food supplement for control of hornfly (WHO, undated). 

Methoprene is highly toxic to aquatic invertebrates with a 48 hour EC50 of 0.89 ppm for 

Daphnia magna (U.S. EPA 1991). Laboratory studies show that methoprene is acutely 

toxic to chironomids, cladocerans, and some decapods (Horst and Walker 1999, Celestial 

and McKenney 1994, McKenney and Celestial 1996, Chu et al. 1997). In field studies, 

significant declines of aquatic invertebrate, mollusk and crustacean populations have been 

directly correlated to methoprene treatments for mosquito control (Breaud et al. 1977, 

Miura and Takahashi 1973, Niemi et al. 1999, Hershey et al. 1998). 

Methoprene has a ten day half life in soil, a photolysis half life of ten hours, and solubility 

in water is 2 ppm (Zoecon 2000). Degradation in aqueous systems is caused by microbial 

activity and photolysis (U.S. EPA 1991). Degradation rates are roughly equal in 

freshwater and saltwater systems and are positively correlated to temperature (U.S. EPA 

1991). 

Naled

The organophosphate naled is toxic to fish, aquatic invertebrates, wildlife, and bees (see 

label). Naled has high acute mammalian toxicity, slight acute avian toxicity, high acute 

fish toxicity, and super acute aquatic invertebrate toxicity (U.S. EPA 2000 and U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service 1984). The adulticide Trumpet, with the active ingredient naled, that 

TMAD proposes for possible use in case of a public health emergency, has the word 

“Danger” on the label. The “Danger” label indicates that the chemical is highly toxic. The 

amount of such chemicals that could kill an average adult person lies somewhere between 

a taste and a teaspoonful. Naled is also in the highest (most potent) of four categories for 

irritation to the skin and eyes (New York State Department of Health on the web). 

Pyrethroids

In general, pyrethroids have lower toxicity to terrestrial vertebrates than 

organophosphates. Although not toxic to birds and mammals, pyrethroids are very toxic 

to fish and aquatic invertebrates (Anderson 1989, Siegfried 1993, Milam et al. 2000). The 

actual toxicity of pyrethroids in aquatic habitats, however, is less than may be anticipated 

because of the propensity of these pesticides to adsorb organic particles in water (Hill et 

al. 1994). The adulticides Pyrocide and Pyrenone, which the Refuge proposes for use in 

case of a public health emergency, have the word “Caution” on the label. The “Caution” 

label indicates that it would require more than an ounce and perhaps as much as a pint to 
D-82

kill the average adult. Pyrethroids are also in the lowest (least potent) of four categories 

for irritation to the skin and eyes (New York State Department of Health on the web). 

Threatened and Endangered Species:

The Refuge is habitat for four endangered species: blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia

sila), Tipton kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides), San Joaquin kit fox 

(Vulpes macrotis mutica). These species use upland habitats that are concentrated on the 

east and north sides of wetlands on the Refuge and out of the potential spray zone. 

However, transient individuals could occur on levees surrounding the wetlands and thus 

fall within the potential spray zone. In an extensive literature review on the effects of Bti 

on mammals, Siegel and Shadduck (1992) found the bacterium to be innocuous. These 

studies exposed a variety of mammalian species to Bti at moderate to high doses and 

observed no pathological symptoms, nor disease, or mortality. Continued use of the 

bacterium, Bti, at moderate rates is likely to have a negligible effect on threatened and 

endangered species residing on the Refuge. 

Fish

Screens across the water intake for the Refuge prevent any large fish from entering the 

Refuge. However, very small individuals of carp, catfish, and bullheads may move through 

the screens. All these fish die when the ponds are drawn done in early spring. The water 

released from the Refuge goes directly to irrigation either on the Refuge or adjacent 

lands; it does not return to any streams or lakes. Thus, the toxicity of any of these 

pesticides to fish populations would not be an issue, since fish rarely occur on the Refuge, 

could not survive the draw-down in spring, and cannot move from the Refuge to any other 

bodies of water. 

Wetlands and Waterfowl:

The Refuge was established to provide habitat for migratory birds, in particular 

waterfowl, including geese, swans, ducks, and coots. These species occur on the Refuge 

during August, September, and October when newly flooded wetlands are being treated to 

control mosquitoes, so there is a potential impact on them. 

There is not likely to be much impact on geese and swans are year round herbivores. 

Geese feed mainly on grasses and agricultural lands, while swans feed mainly on roots, 

tubers, stems, and leaves of submerged and emergent aquatic vegetation. While 

applications of Bti and Altosid would be likely to occur over areas of vegetation which may 

be used by geese and swans, it has been found that birds are not negatively affected by 

utilizing foods exposed to Bti or methoprene (Niemi et al. 1999). 

In contrast, ducks are known to be opportunistic feeders on both plants and invertebrates, 

utilizing the most readily available food sources. Invertebrates, plants, and seeds compose 

the majority of their diet, varying with the season and the geographic location. Studies in 

California’s Sacramento Valley have shown that plant foods are dominate in fall diets of 

northern pintails, while invertebrate use increases in February and March (Miller 1987). 

Seeds of swamp timothy comprise the most important duck food in the summer-dry 

habitats of the San Joaquin Valley (Miller 1987). At the Kern National Wildlife Refuge, 

the fall diet of northern pintails and green-winged teal was composed of over two-thirds 

seeds (Euliss and Harris 1987). Thus any food chain impacts resulting from larvicide and 
D-83

adulticide treatment will have limited impacts to the mainly seed diet of newly arriving 

ducks. Their diets shift to invertebrates after treatments are expected to be reduced in 

frequency thereby allowing invertebrate populations to recover. 

Other Migratory Birds:

Shorebirds feed on a wide variety of invertebrates all year, feeding which intensifies at the 

onset of spring migration. Documentation of indirect food-chain effects have not come to 

light. Hanowski et al. (1997) studied 19 different bird species after collecting data on 

wetlands 2 years before treatment and 3 years after treatment of both Bti and methoprene 

applications and found no negative effects. Niemi et al. found the same results from the 

same study site of a 3 year study on zooplankton or breeding birds. 

When water is available, up to 5,000 sandhill cranes (Grus canadensis) are known to roost 

on the wetlands on the Refuge during the winter. The shallow water of the Refuge gives 

roosting cranes protection from ground predators such as coyotes. They forage during the 

day mainly in upland habitats. When available, cultivated grains are a major food item. In 

addition, they capture invertebrates and small mammals from the surface of the ground or 

by probing into the ground. The cranes are present from October through March, with 

peak numbers occurring in December and January. Since most of their foraging is done 

off the Refuge and their presence overlaps with possible mosquito treatments for only a 

short time, it is not expected that there will be any effect on the cranes. 

Public Review and Comment

If, through monitoring it is determined that targeted mosquito species: (1) are known 

carriers of encephalitis or West Nile Virus, and (2) that they occur in densities that 

warrant control, the public will be notified. However, given the nature of potential serious 

health risks and the rapid development of mosquito larvae, applications may occur 

simultaneously with or before public notification. As part of the CCP process, a public 

review and comment period will be conducted during which time the current mosquito 

management guidelines will be reviewed by the public. 

Determination (Check one Below) 

_______ Use is not compatible _____X____ Use is compatible 

Stipulations Necessary to Ensure Compatibility:

1. Access to Pixley NWR is restricted to levees within sections 21 and 22, via Road 88. 

2. All application of pesticides/biological agents must be coordinated and approved by 

the Refuge Manager or Assistant Manager in order to avoid conflicts with nesting 

birds, public use, Refuge management activities, etc. Prior to all applications, 

TMAD will provide a map and dip net counts to the Refuge Manager or Assistant 

Manager and obtain verbal approval. If Refuge Manager or Assistant Manager is 

not in the office, leave map and counts with clerk and call for approval later. In 

addition to verbal permission, the permittee or designated representative from the 
D-84

TMAD office will call and confirm flight and conditions. Access is limited to 

weekdays, Monday-Friday, only unless prior approval has been granted by the 

Refuge Manager for access during the weekend, Saturday and Sunday. 

3. A threshold level of 2 larvae per dip average will be instituted for mosquito control. 

At this dip rate, frequency of application should decrease. 

4. Monitoring operations are restricted to dip netting, CO2 traps light traps. 

5. TMAD will provide the Refuge with interim and final reports on dipping for larval 

mosquitoes. Data is to include species and number from each sample. Maintaining 

careful records of immature mosquito occurrence, developmental stages treated, 

source size, and control effectiveness can provide and early warning to forecast the 

size of adult populations. 

6. TMAD will notify the Refuge Manager immediately if an arbovirus-induced 

mortality is observed in wild birds in Tulare County. 

7. TMAD has and will continue to consider environmental conditions including water 

temperature, density of mosquito larvae, and presence of mosquito predators when 

deciding mosquitoes present pose a serious threat to human health and whether to 

treat. 

8. Treatment for the general control of mosquitoes would be limited to Bti and 

Altosid.

9. The use of mono-molecular films is to be dissuaded at all expense unless other 

larvicides utilized fail to control mosquitoes, a human health concern exists, and if 

the majority of larvae present are species which are vectors of arboviruses 

transmittable to humans. A determination for the use of mono-molecular films 

would be made with the Refuge and TMAD along with the appropriate health 

authorities. Notification would be given to appropriate divisions within the U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service for agreement to treat with larvicides other than Bti and 

Altosid. Frequent monitoring would be normal operating procedures to avert the 

use of mono-molecular films. The use of mono-molecular films has not occurred on 

the Refuge since the 1960’s. 

10. Mosquito adulticides will only be allowed in cases of a human health emergency, 

following a specific request to the Refuge and written concurrence from 

appropriate Service or Department bureaus. A human-health emergency is defined 

by the presence of human disease virus-positive mosquitoes or virus-positive birds 

in Tulare County or adjacent counties. Treatment may be allowed only when 

entomological surveys determine the presence of mosquitoes on Refuge pose a 

human health emergency. 

11. Spray applications will not be conducted on ephemeral (vernal) pools or other such 

water basins resulting form rainwater accumulations in upland sites. 
D-85

12. At the end of the permitting period, TMAD will provide the Refuge manager with a 

list of all pesticides/biological agents used, and the quantities of each that were 

applied.

13. Application of mosquito control measures is to be conducted in accordance with 

current approved Pesticide Use Proposals. 

14. Mosquito control will be authorized on an annual basis by a Special Use Permit 

(SUP). SUP condition will stipulate that all mosquito control work will be carried 

out under the guidance of pre-approved Pesticide Use Proposals. 

Justification

For many years the Refuge has worked cooperatively with TMAD and its associated 

mosquito control activities. After a review of these activities, the Refuge has determined 

that allowing those uses to continue would not interfere or derogate from the purpose for 

the Refuge, nor the mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System. 

As previously mentioned, the Refuge has, within a 20 mile radius, communities of various 

populations and a number of commercial dairy operations. Species of mosquito like Culex 

tarsalis, Aedes vexans, Ochlerotatus melanimon, and Oc. nigromaculis, which are found 

on the Refuge, are capable of dispersing various miles to obtain a blood meal. With the 

exception of Culex tarsalis, the remaining fore mentioned species are capable of 

dispersing 5-10 miles, Culex tarsalis is known to disperse 25+ miles. All species are known 

to be vectors for Saint Louis encephalitis, California encephalitis, and western equine 

encephalitis; additionally, C. tarsalis is particularly known to transmit West Nile Virus. 

Reisen et. al. (1992) found that the significant 1989 outbreak of Saint Louis encephalitis in 

the Southern San Joaquin Valley was tied directly to especially large numbers of C.

tarsalis. Some factors which led to a greater than normal numbers of C. tarsalis in this 

area in 1989 were an unseasonably mild spring which allowed the species to successfully 

over winter, further amplifying their numbers when warmer weather set in. This same 

study also indicated that many of the overwintering population were found on the Refuge. 

In order to protect neighboring communities from potential health threats from vector 

carrying mosquitoes, the Refuge will continue to allow mosquito control to take place on 

Refuge following the guidance of the stipulations within this document. In a case of a large 

scale human health emergency, perhaps as a consequence of West Nile Virus, mosquito 

control would not demand thresholds. In the event that a human health emergency has 

been declared, perhaps as a consequence of West Nile virus, the use of adulticides may be 

permitted with the concurrence of the Refuge manager.

Because mosquito treatment occurs during the early weeks of fall flood-up, and frequency 

of treatments are low and spaced apart on a per unit basis, overall effects to non-target 

organisms are not expected to be significant. Treatments will further minimize adverse 

impacts to wildlife by being conducted during the early morning hours of 0600-0900, with 

flight durations averaging 30 minutes to 2 hours depending on the treatment area. Treated 

areas are not overlapped and are treated, on average, twice a year during the breeding 

season. Breeding seasons vary for two targeted mosquito species Culex tarsalis and 
D-86

Ochlerotatus melanimon; the fore mentioned species breeds in standing water year round 

while the latter species is primarily a flood water breeder. Treatments for Culex tarsalis

occur year round, given the abundance of the species, while treatments for Oc.

melanimon occur during late summer through late fall when the Refuge begins winter 

flood up. 

Low flying aircraft will undoubtedly cause disturbances to wildlife. However, the number 

of treatments per year is fairly low, and if the applicator (pilot or ground) follows the 

stipulations previously outlined and within the SUP, mosquito abatement practices should 

not materially interfere with or detract from the Refuge purpose or the mission of the 

National Wildlife Refuge System. If additional biological monitoring of this activity 

documents substantial negative impacts to migratory birds or other wildlife, this 

determination would be re-analyzed on the basis on new evidence. 

Literature Cited:

Ali, A. 1981. Bacillus thuringiensis serovar israelensis against chironomids and some nontarget aquatic invertebrates. Journal of Invertebrate Pathology 38:264-272. 

Anderson, R.L. 1989. Toxicity of synthetic pyrethroids to freshwater invertebrates. 

Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 8: 403-410. 

Boisvert, M., and J. Boisvert. 2000. Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis on 

target and nontarget organisms: a review of laboratory and field experiments. 

Biocontrol Science and Technology 10: 517-561. 

Breaud, T.P., J.E. Farlow, C.D. Steelman, and P.E. Schilling. 1977. Effects of the insect 

growth regulator methoprene on natural populations of aquatic organisms in 

Louisiana intermediate marsh habitats. Mosquito News 37(4): 704-712. 

Brown, M.D., T.M. Watson, S. Green, J.G. Greenwood, D. Purdie, and B.H. Kay. 2000. 

Toxicity of insecticides for control of freshwater Culex annulirostris (Diptera: 

Culicidae) to the nontarget shrimp, Caradina indistincta (Decapoda: Atyidae). 

Journal of Economic Entomology. 93(3): 667-672. 

Brown, M.D., J. Carter, D. Purdie, D. Thomas, D.M. Purdie, and B.H. Kay. 2002. Pulseexposure effects of selected insecticides to juvenile Australian Crimson-Spotted 

Rainbowfish (Melanotaenia duboulayi). Journal of Economic Entomology 

95(2):294-298. 

California Department of Health Services. 2003. California mosquito-borne virus 

surveillance and response plan. 

Celestial, D.M, and C.L. McKenney, Jr. 1994. The influence of an insect growth regulator 

on the larval development of the mud crab Rhithropanopeus harrisii.

Environmental Pollution 85: 169-173. 
D-87

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 1999. Epidemic/Epizootic West Nile virus in 

the United States: Guidelines for Surveillance, Prevention, and Control. From a 

workshop co-sponsored by the Department of Health and Human Services, CDC, 

and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Fort Collins, Colorado, November 8-9, 

1999. 

Chu, K.H., Wong, C.K., and Chiu, K.C. 1997. Effects of the insect growth regulator (S)-

methoprene on survival and reproduction of the freshwater cladoceran Moina 

macrocopa. Environmental Pollution 96: 173-178. 

Dritz, D.A., S.P. Lawler, J. Albertson, W. Hamersky, and J.R. Rusmisel. 2001. The impact 

of Bti on survival of the endangered tadpole shrimp Lepidurus packardi. In

Proceeding and Papers of the Sixty-ninth Annual Conference of the Mosquito and 

Vector Control Association of California. Jan. 21-24. pp. 88-91. 

Dupont, C., and J. Boisvert. 1986. Persistence of Bacillus thuringiensis serovar. 

israelensis toxic activity in the environment and interaction with natural 

substrates. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 29:425-438. 

Euliss, Ned H., and Stanley W. Harris. 1987. Feeding ecology of northern pintails and 

 green-winged teal wintering in California. J. Wild. Manage. 51(4):724-732. 

Extension Toxicology Network. 1994. Pyrethrin Pesticide information profile. 

http://ace.ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/ghindex.html 

Extension Toxicology Network. 1996. Methoprene Pesticide information profile. 

http://ace.ace.orst.edu/info/extoxnet/pips/methopre.htm 

Fortin, C., D. Lapointe, and G. Charpentier. 1986. Susceptibility of brook trout (Salvelinus 

fontinalis) fry to a liquid formulation of Bacillus thuringiensis serovar. 

Israelensis (Teknar®) used for blackfly control. Canadian Journal of Fisheries 

and Aquatic Science 43:1667-1670. 

Garcia, R., B. Des Rochers, and W. Tozer. 1980. Studies on the toxicity of Bacillus

thuringiensis var. israelensis against organisms found in association with 

mosquito larvae. California Mosquito and Vector Control Association Proceedings 

and Papers 48:33-36. 

Goddard, L.B., A.E. Roth, W.K Reisen, and T.W. Scott. 2002. Vector competence of 

California mosquitoes for West Nile virus. Emerging Infectious Diseases 8(12): 

1385-1391. 

Hanowski, J. M., G. J. Niemi, A. R. Lima, and R. R. Regal. 1997. Do mosquito control 

treatments of wetlands affect red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus) growth, 

reproduction, or behavior? Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 16(5):1014-

1019. 
D-88

Heitmeyer, M. E. 1988. Body composition of female mallards in winter in relation to 

annual cycle events. Condor 90:669-680. 

Hershey, A. E., A. R. Lima, G. J. Niemi, and R R. Regal. 1998. Effects of Bacillus 

thuringiensis israelensis (Bti) and methoprene on non-target macroinvertebrates 

in Minnesota wetlands. Ecological Applications 8:41-60. 

Hill, I.R., J.L. Shaw, S.J. Maund, F. Heimbach, P. Leeuwangh, and P. Matthiesen, eds. 

1994. Review of the aquatic field tests with pyrethroid insecticides. Lewis 

Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida 

Horst, M.N., and A.N. Walker. 1999. Effects of the pesticide methoprene on 

morphogenesis and shell formation in the blue crap Callinectues sapidus. Journal 

of Crustacean Biology 19: 699-707. 

Jackson, J. K., R.J. Horowitz, and B.W. Sweeny. 2002. Effects of Bacillus thuringiensis 

israelensis on black flies and nontarget macroinvertebrates and fish in a large 

river. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 131:910-930. 

Lacey, L.A., and Mulla, M.S. 1990. Safety of Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis and 

Bacillus sphaericus to non-target organisms in the aquatic environment. In Laird, 

M., L.A. Lacey, E.W. Davidson, eds. Safety of microbial insecticides. CRC Press. 

Lee, B. M., and G. I. Scott. 1989. Acute toxicity of temephos, fenoxycarb, diflubenzuron, 

and methoprene and Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis to the mummichog 

(Fundulus heteroclitus). Bulletin of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 

43:827-832. 

McKenney, C.L., Jr., and D.M. Celestial. 1996. Modified survival, growth, and 

reproduction in an estuarine mysid (Mysidopsis bahia) exposed to a juvenile 

hormone analogue through a complete life cycle. Aquatic Toxicology 35:11-20. 

Merritt, R. W., E. D. Walker, M. A. Wilzbach, K. W. Cummings, and W. T. Morgan. 1989. 

A broad evaluation of Bti for black fly (Diptera: Simuliidae) control in a Michigan 

River: Efficacy, carry, and non-target effects on invertebrates and fish. Journal of 

the American Mosquito Control Association 5:397-415. 

Millam, D.C., J.L. Farris, and J.D. Wilhide. 2000. Evaluating mosquito control pesticides 

for effect on target and nontarget organisms. Mosquito News 40:619-622. 

Miller, M. R. 1987. Fall and winter foods of northern pintails in the Sacramento Valley, 

California. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:405-414. 

Miura, T., and R.M. Takahashi. 1973. Insect development inhibitors. 3. Effects on 

nontarget aquatic organisms. Journal of Economic Entomology 66(4):917-922. 
D-89

Miura, T., Takahashi, R. M.; and Mulligan, F.S. 1980. Effects of the bacterial mosquito 

larvicide Bacillus thuringiensis stereotype H-14 on selected aquatic organisms. 

Mosquito News 40:619-622. 

Mulla, M.S. 1992. Activity, Field Efficacy, and Use of Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis

against Mosquitoes. Pp. 134-160 in de Barjac, Hugette and Donald J. Sutherland, 

eds. Bacterial Control of Mosquitoes and Blackflies: Biochemistry, Genetics, and 

Applications of Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis and Bacillus sphaericus.

Kluwer Academic. 

New York State Department of Health. No date. Appendix C-1, Technical data on 

mosquito adulticides. www.health.state.ny.us/nysdoh/westnile/final/c1/table2.html

Niemi, G. J., A. E. Hershey, L. Shannon, J. M. Hanowski, A. Lima, R. P. Axler, and R. R. 

Regal. 1999. Ecological Effects of Mosquito Control on Zooplankton, Insects, and 

Birds. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 18(3):549-559. 

Siegel, Joel P., and J. A. Shadduck. 1992. Mammalian safety of Bacillus thuringiensis

israelensis and Bacillus sphaericus. Pp. 202-217 in de Barjac, Huguette and 

Donald J. Sutherland, eds. Bacterial control of mosquitoes and blackflies: 

biochemistry, genetics, and applications of Bacillus thuringiensis israelensis and 

Bacillus sphaericus. Kluwer Academic. 

Siegfried, B.D. 1993. Comparative toxicity of pyrethroid insecticides to terrestrial and 

aquatic insects. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry 12:1683-1689. 

Su, T., and M.S. Mulla. 1999. Microbial agents Bacillus thuringiensis ssp. israelensis and 

Bacillus sphaericus suppress eutrophication, enhance water quality, and control 

mosquitoes in microcosms. Environmental Entomology 28:761-767. 

Tomlin, C. 1994. The Pesticide Manual. Farnham: British Crop Protection 

Council/Cambridge: Royal Society of Chemistry. 

Urban, J. D., and N.J. Cook. 1986. Standard evaluation procedure: Ecological risk 

assessment. U. S. EPA. Office of Pesticide Programs. Hazard Evaluation 

Division.

U.S. EPA. 1991. Re-registration eligibility document. Isopropyl (2E, 4E)-11-methoxy3,7,11-trimethyl-2,4-dodecadienoate (Referred to as methoprene). List A. Case 

0030. Office of pesticide Programs. Special Review and Registration Division. 

U.S. EPA. 2000. Ecotoxicity onliner database. Division of Environmental Fate and 

Effects. Office of Pesticide Programs. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1984. Acute toxicity rating scales. Research Information 

Bulletin No. 84-78. 
D-90

WHO. Undated. Data sheet on pesticides no. 47. Methoprene. World Health 

Organization. Food and Agriculture Organization. 

http://www.inchem.org/documents/pds/pds/pest47_e.html

Wipfli, M.S., R.W. Merritt. And W.W. Taylor. 1994. Low toxicity of the blackfly larvicide 

Bacillus thuringiensis var. israelensis to early stages of brook trout (Salvelinus

fontinalis), brown trout (Salmo trutta), and steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus 

mykiss) following direct and indirect exposure. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and 

Aquatic Science 41:1451-1458. 

Zoecon. 2000. MSDS Altosid Liquid Larvicide Concentrate 

Mandatory Re-Evaluation Date (provide month and year):

________ Mandatory 15-year Re-Evaluation Date (for priority public uses) 

___2013_ Mandatory 10-year Re-Evaluation Date (for all uses other than priority public 

uses)

NEPA Compliance for Refuge Use Decision (check one below):

____ ____ Categorical Exclusion without Environmental Action Statement 

________ Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

___X____ Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

________ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 
D-91

Refuge Determination:

Prepared by: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Refuge Manager/ 

Project Leader 

Approval: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Concurrence

Refuge Supervisor: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Regional Chief, 

National Wildlife 

Refuge System: _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

California/Nevada 

Operations Manager _________________________ ____________ 

 (Signature) (Date) 

Appendix E. 

Species Lists 

E-1

Species Lists: 

Kern Refuge 

Birds

ORDER ANSERIFORMES (SWANS, GEESE & 

DUCKS)

ANATIDAE (WATERFOWL FAMILY) 

Aix sponsa (wood duck)

Anas acuta (northern pintail)*

Anas americana (American wigeon)*

Anas crecca (green-winged teal)*

Anas cyanoptera (cinnamon teal)*

Anas clypeata (northern shoveler)*

Anas discors (blue-winged teal)*

Anas penelope (Eurasian wigeon)

Anas platyrhynchos (mallard)* 

Anas strepera (gadwall)*

Anser albifrons (greater white-fronted goose)

Aythya affinis (lesser scaup)

Aythya americana (redhead)* 

Aythya collaris (ring-necked duck)*

Aythya marila (greater scaup)

Aythya valisineria (canvasback)*

Branta bernicla (brant) 

Branta canadensis (Canada goose)

Bucephala albeola (bufflehead)

Bucephala clangula (common goldeneye)

Bucephala islandica (barrow’s goldeneye) 

Chen caerulescens (snow goose)

Chen rossii (Ross’ goose)

Cygnus columbianus (tundra swan) 

Dendrocygna bicolor (fulvous whistling-duck) 

Lophodytes cucullatus (hooded merganser)

Mergus merganser (common merganser)

Mergus serrator (red-breasted merganser)

Oxyura jamaicensis (ruddy duck)*

ORDER APODIFORMES (SWIFTS & 

HUMMINGBIRDS)

APODIDAE (SWIFT FAMILY) 

Chaetura vauxi (Vaux’s swift) 

TROCHILIDAE (HUMMINGBIRD FAMILY) 

Archilochus alexandri (black-chinned 

hummingbird)

Calypte anna (Anna’s hummingbird)* 

Calypte costae (Costa’s hummingbird) 

Selasphorus rufus (rufous hummingbird) 

ORDER CAPRIMULGIFORMES (GOATSUCKERS)

CAPRIMULGIDAE (GOATSUCKER FAMILY) 

Chordeiles acutipennis (lesser nighthawk) 

Phalaenoptilus nuttallii (common poorwill) 

ORDER CHARADRIIFORMES (SHOREBIRDS) 

CHARADRIIDAE (PLOVER FAMILY) 

Charadrius alexandrinus (snowy plover) 

Charadrius montanus (mountain plover) 

Charadrius semipalmatus (semipalmated plover) 

Charadrius vociferus (killdeer)* 

Pluvialis squatarola (black-bellied plover) 

RECURVIROSTRIDAE (STILT & AVOCET 

FAMILY)

Himantopus mexicanus (black-necked stilt)* 

Recurvirostra americana (American avocet)* 

SCOLOPACIDAE (SANDPIPER FAMILY) 

Actitis macularia (spotted sandpiper) 

Arenaria interpres (ruddy turnstone) 

Calidris acuminata (sharp-tailed sandpiper) 

Calidris alpina (dunlin) 

Calidris bairdii (Baird’s sandpiper) 

Calidris canutus (red knot) 

Calidris himantopus (stilt sandpiper) 

Calidris mauri (western sandpiper) 

Calidris melanotos (pectoral sandpiper) 

Calidris minutilla (least sandpiper) 

Calidris pusilla (semipalmated sandpiper) 

Catoptrophorus semipalmatus (willet) 

Gallinago gallinago (common snipe) 

Heteroscelus incanus (wandering tattler) 

Limnodromus griseus (short-billed dowitcher) 

Limnodromus scolopaceus (long-billed dowitcher) 

Limosa fedoa (marbled godwit) 
E-2

Numenius americanus (long-billed curlew) 

Numenius phaeopus (whimbrel) 

Phalaropus lobatus (red-necked phalarope) 

Phalaropus tricolor (Wilson’s phalarope) 

Tringa flavipes (lesser yellowlegs) 

Tringa melanoleuca (greater yellowlegs) 

Tringa solitaria (solitary sandpiper) 

LARIDAE (JAEGER, GULL, & TERN 

FAMILY)

Chlidonias niger (black tern) 

Larus argentatus (herring gull) 

Larus californicus (California gull) 

Larus delawarensis (ring-billed gull) 

Larus philadelphia (Bonaparte’s gull) 

Sterna antillarum (least tern) 

Sterna caspia (Caspian tern)* 

Sterna forsteri (Forster’s tern) 

Sterna hirundo (common tern) 

ORDER CICONIIFORMES (HERONS, IBIS, & NEW 

WORLD VULTURES) 

ARDEIDAE (HERON FAMILY) 

Ardea alba (great egret)

Ardea herodias (great blue heron)* 

Botaurus lentiginosus (American bittern)* 

Bubulcus ibis (cattle egret)* 

Butorides virescens (green heron) 

Egretta caerulea (little blue heron) 

Egretta thula (snowy egret)* 

Ixobrychus exilis (least bittern) 

Nycticorax nycticorax (black-crowned nightheron)*

CATHARTIDAE (NEW WORLD VULTURE 

FAMILY)

Cathartes aura (turkey vulture) 

 THRESKIORNITHIDAE (IBIS FAMILY) 

Plegadis chihi (white-faced ibis)* 

ORDER COLUMBIFORMES (DOVES) 

 COLUMBIDAE (DOVE FAMILY) 

Columba livia (rock dove) 

Zenaida macroura (mourning dove)* 

ORDER CORACIIFORMES (KINGFISHERS) 

Alcedinidae (Kingfisher Family) 

Ceryle alcyon (belted kingfisher)

ORDER CUCULIFORMES (CUCKOOS, 

ROADRUNNER & ANIS) 

CUCULIDAE (CUCKOO FAMILY)

Geococcyx californianus (greater roadrunner)

ORDER FALCONIFORMES (FALCONS)

ACCIPITRIDAE (EAGLE, KITE & HAWK 

FAMILY)

Accipiter cooperii (Cooper’s hawk)

Aquila chrysaetos (golden eagle)

Buteo jamaicensis (red-tailed hawk)*

Buteo lagopus (rough-legged hawk)

Buteo lineatus (red-shouldered hawk) 

Buteo regalis (ferruginous hawk)

Buteo swainsoni (Swainson’s hawk)

Circus cyaneus (northern harrier)*

Elanus leucurus (white-tailed kite)* 

Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle)

Pandion haliaetus (osprey) 

FALCONIDAE (FALCON FAMILY) 

Falco columbarius (merlin) 

Falco mexicanus (prairie falcon) 

Falco peregrinus (peregrine falcon)

Falco sparverius (American kestrel)* 

ORDER GALLIFORMES (GROUSE, TURKEY, & 

QUAIL)

ODONTOPHORIDAE (QUAIL FAMILY) 

Callipepla californica (California quail) 

PHASIANIDAE (GROUSE FAMILY) 

Phasianus colchicus (ringed-neck pheasant)* 

ORDER GRUIFORMES (RAILS, LIMPKIN & 

CRANES)

RALLIDAE (RAIL FAMILY) 

Fulica americana (American coot) 

Gallinula chloropus (common moorhen) 

Porzana carolina (sora)

Rallus limicola (Virginia rail) 

GRUIDAE (CRANE FAMILY)

Grus canadensis (sandhill crane) 

ORDER PASSERIFORMES (PERCHING BIRDS) 

TYRANNIDAE (FLYCATCHER FAMILY) 

Contopus cooperi (olive-sided flycatcher) 

Contopus sordidulus (western wood-pewee) 

Empidonax difficilis (Pacific-slope flycatcher) 

Empidonax hammondii (Hammond’s flycatcher) 

Empidonax oberholseri (dusky flycatcher) 

Empidonax traillii (willow flycatcher) 

Empidonax wrightii (gray flycatcher) 

Myiarchus cinerascens (ash-throated flycatcher) 
E-3

Pyrocephalus rubinus (vermilion flycatcher) 

Sayornis nigricans (black phoebe) 

Sayornis saya (Say’s phoebe) 

Tyrannus verticalis (western kingbird)* 

LANIIDAE (SHRIKE FAMILY) 

Lanius ludovicianus (loggerhead shrike)* 

VIREONIDAE (VIREO FAMILY) 

Vireo cassinii (Cassin’s vireo) 

Vireo gilvus (warbling vireo) 

CORVIDAE (JAY & CROW FAMILY) 

Corvus corax (common raven)* 

Corvus brachyrhynchos (American crow) 

Nucifraga columbiana (Clark’s nutcracker) 

ALAUDIDAE (LARK FAMILY) 

Eremophila alpestris (horned lark)

HIRUNDINIDAE (SWALLOW FAMILY) 

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota (cliff swallow)* 

Hirundo rustica (barn swallow)* 

Riparia riparia (bank swallow) 

Stelgidopteryx serripennis (northen rough-winged 

swallow)

Tachycineta bicolor (tree swallow) 

Tachycineta thalassina (violet-green swallow) 

AEGITHALIDAE (BUSHTIT FAMILY) 

Psaltriparus minimus (bushtit)

TROGLODYTIDAE (WREN FAMILY) 

Cistothorus palustris (marsh wren)* 

Salpinctes obsoletus (rock wren) 

Troglodytes aedon (house wren) 

Thryomanes bewickii (Bewick’s wren) 

REGULIDAE (KINGLET FAMILY) 

Regulus calendula (ruby-crowned kinglet) 

Regulus satrapa (golden-crowned kinglet) 

SYLVIIDAE (GNATCATCHER FAMILY) 

Polioptila caerulea (blue-gray gnatcatcher) 

TURDIDAE (THRUSH FAMILY) 

Sialia mexicana (western bluebird) 

Catharus guttatus (hermit thrush) 

Catharus ustulatus (Swainson’s thrush) 

Turdus migratorius (American robin) 

Ixoreus naevius (varied thrush) 

MIMIDAE (MOCKINGBIRD & THRASHER 

FAMILY)

Mimus polyglottos (northern mockingbird)* 

Oreoscoptes montanus (sage thrasher) 

Toxostoma redivivum (California thrasher) 

STURNIDAE (STARLING FAMILY) 

Sturnus vulgaris (European starling) 

MOTACILLIDAE (WAGTAIL & PIPIT 

FAMILY)

Anthus rubescens (American pipit) 

BOMBYCILLIDAE (WAXWING FAMILY) 

Bombycilla cedrorum (cedar waxwing) 

Bombycilla garrulus (bohemian Waxwing) 

PARULIDAE (WARBLER FAMILY) 

Dendroica coronata (yellow-rumped warbler) 

Dendroica nigrescens (black-throated gray 

warbler)

Dendroica occidentalis (hermit warbler) 

Dendroica petechia (yellow warbler) 

Dendroica townsendi (Townsend’s warbler) 

Geothlypis trichas (common yellowthroat) 

Oporornis tolmiei (MacGillivray’s warbler) 

Vermivora celata (orange-crowned warbler) 

Vermivora ruficapilla (Nashville warbler) 

Wilsonia pusilla (Wilson’s warbler) 

THRAUPIDAE (TANAGER FAMILY ) 

Piranga ludoviciana (western tanager) 

EMBERIZIDAE (TOWHEE & SPARROW 

FAMILY)

Calamospiza melanocorys (lark bunting) 

Junco hyemalis (dark-eyed junco) 

Melospiza georgiana (swamp sparrow) 

Melospiza lincolnii (Lincoln’s sparrow) 

Melospiza melodia (song sparrow) 

Passerella iliaca (fox sparrow) 

Passerculus sandwichensis (savannah sparrow) 

Pipilo maculatus (spotted towhee) 

Pooecetes gramineus (vesper sparrow) 

Spizella passerina (chipping sparrow) 

Zonotrichia atricapilla (golden-crowned sparrow) 

Zonotrichia leucophrys (white-crowned sparrow) 

CARDINALIDAE (GROSBEAK & BUNTING 

FAMILY)

Guiraca caerulea (blue grosbeak) 

Pheucticus melanocephalus (black-headed 

grosbeak)

Passerina amoena (Lazuli bunting) 
E-4

ICTERIDAE (BLACKBIRD & ORIOLE 

FAMILY)

Agelaius phoeniceus (red-winged blackbird)* 

Agelaius tricolor (tricolored blackbird)* 

Euphagus cyanocephalus (Brewer’s blackbird)* 

Icterus bullockii (Bullock’s oriole)* 

Icterus cucullatus (hooded oriole) 

Molothrus ater (brown-headed cowbird)* 

Quiscalus mexicanus (great-tailed grackle)* 

Sturnella neglecta (western meadowlark)* 

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus (yellow-headed 

blackbird)*

FRINGILLIDAE FAMILY (FINCH FAMILY) 

Carpodacus mexicanus (house finch) 

Carduelis pinus (pine siskin) 

Carduelis psaltria (lesser goldfinch) 

Carduelis tristis (American goldfinch) 

PASSERIDAE (OLD WORLD SPARROW 

FAMILY)

Passer domesticus (house sparrow)* 

ORDER PELECANIFORMES (PELICANS & 

CORMORANTS)

PELECANIDAE (PELICAN FAMILY) 

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos (American white 

pelican) 

PHALACROCORACIDAE (CORMORANT 

FAMILY)

Phalacrocorax auritus (double crested cormorant) 

ORDER PICIFORMES (WOODPECKERS)

PICIDAE (WOODPECKER FAMILY) 

Colaptes auratus (northern flicker) 

Melanerpes formicivorus (acorn woodpecker) 

Picoides nuttallii (Nuttall’s woodpecker) 

Picoides pubescens (downy woodpecker) 

ORDER PODICIPEDIFORMES (GREBES) 

PODICIPEDIDAE (GREBE FAMILY) 

Aechmophorus clarkii (Clark’s grebe)* 

Aechmophorus occidentalis (western grebe)* 

Podiceps auritus (horned grebe)

Podiceps grisegena (red-necked grebe)*

Podiceps nigricollis (eared grebe)*

Podilymbus podiceps (pied-billed grebe)* 

ORDER STRIGIFORMES (OWLS) 

TYTONIDAE (BARN OWL FAMILY) 

Tyto alba (barn owl)* 

STRIGIDAE (OWL FAMILY) 

Asio flammeus (short-eared owl)* 

Asio otus (long-eared owl)* 

Bubo virginianus (great horned owl)* 

Otus kennicottii (western screech-owl) 

Athene cunicularia (burrowing owl)* 

Asterisk (*) indicates breeding records for the Refuge
E-5

Mammals

ORDER ARTIODACTYLA

BOVIDAE (CATTLE & SHEEP FAMILY) 

Bos taurus (cattle) 

ORDER CARNIVORA (CARNIVORES) 

CANIDAE (DOG FAMILY) 

Canis latrans (Coyote) 

Vulpes macrotis mutica (San Joaquin kit fox) 

FELIDAE (CAT FAMILY) 

Felis rufus (bobcat) 

MUSTELIDAE (WEASEL FAMILY) 

Spilogale gracilis (western spotted skunk) 

Mephitis mephitis (striped skunk) 

Mustela frenata (long-tailed weasel) 

Taxidea taxus (badger) 

PROCYONIDAE (RACOON FAMILY ) 

Procyon lotor (racoon) 

ORDER CHIROPTERA 

MOLOSSIDAE (FREE-TAILED BAT FAMILY) 

Eumops perotis (western mastiff bat)

Tadarida brasiliensis (Mexican free-tailed bat) 

ORDER INSECTIVORA 

SORICIDAE (SHREW FAMILY) 

Sorex ornatus (ornate shrew) 

Sorex ornatus relictus (Buena Vista Lake shrew) 

TALPIDAE (MOLE FAMILY) 

Scapanus latimanus (broad-footed mole) 

ORDER LAGOMORPHA 

LEPORIDAE (RABBIT & HARE FAMILY) 

Lepus californicus (black-tailed jackrabbit) 

Sylvilagus audubonii (desert cottontail) 

ORDER MARSUPIALIA 

DIDELPHIDAE (MARSUPIAL FAMILY) 

Didelphis virginiana (Virginia opossum) 

ORDER RODENTIA 

CASTORIDAE (BEAVER FAMILY) 

Castor canadensis (beaver) 

SCIURIDAE (SQUIRREL FAMILY) 

Ammospermophilus nelsoni (San Joaquin antelope 

squirrel)

Spermophilus beecheyi (California ground 

squirrel)

GEOMYIDAE (POCKET GOPHER FAMILY) 

Thomomys bottae (Botta’s pocket gopher) 

HETEROMYIDAE (POCKET MICE & 

KANGAROO RATS FAMILY) 

Chaetodipus californicus (California pocket 

mouse)

Dipodomys heermanni (Heermann’s kangaroo rat)

Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides (Tipton’s 

kangaroo rat) 

Perognathus inornatus (San Joaquin pocket 

mouse)

MURIDAE (RATS & MICE FAMILY) 

Microtus californicus (California vole) 

Mus musculus (house mouse) 

Ondatra zibethicus (muskrat) 

Onychomys torridus (southern grasshopper 

mouse)

Peromyscus boylii (brush mouse) 

Peromyscus californicus (California mouse) 

Peromyscus maniculatus (deer mouse) 

Peromyscus truei (pinyon mouse) 

Rattus norvegicus (Norway rat) 

Rattus rattus (black rat or roof rat) 

Reithrodontomys megalotis (western harvest 

mouse)
E-6

Reptiles and 

Amphibians

LIZARDS

Gambelia sila (blunt-nosed leopard lizard) 

Phrynosoma coronatum (coast horned lizard) 

Uta stansburiana elegans (California side-blotched 

lizard)

Cnemidophorus tigris (western (California) 

whiptail) 

SNAKES

Pituophis catenifer catenifer (Pacific gopher 

snake)

Lampropeltis getula californiae (California 

(common) kingsnakes) 

Rhinocheilus lecontei lecontei (western long-nosed 

snake) 

Tantilla hobartsmithi (southwestern black-headed 

snake)

Crotalus viridis oreganus (western (northern 

Pacific) rattlesnake) 

Arizona elegans occidentalis (California glossy 

snake)

Thamnophis sirtalis (common garter snake) 

AMPHIBIANS

Pseudacris regilla (pacific treefrog) 

Spea hammondii (western spadefoot toad) 

Rana catesbeiana (bullfrog) 
E-7

Invertebrates

CLASS INSECTA

ORDER COLEOPTERA (BEETLES AND WEEVILS) 

CARABIDAE 

Carabidae (ground beetle) 

Dryopidae (long-toed water beetles) 

CURCULIONIDAE (WEEVILS) 

Curculionidae spp. (weevils) 

DYTISCIDAE 

Agabus disintegratus 

Hygrotus spp.

Laccophilus decipiens 

Rhantus gutticollis 

Thermonectus basillaris (yellow-spotted water 

beetle)

HYDROPHILIDAE

Berosus ingeminatus 

Tropisternus lateralis

Paracymus sp.

ORDER COLLEMBOLA (SPRINGTAILS) 

ISOTOMIDAE

Isotomurus palustris

ORDER DIPTERA (FLYS) 

SUBORDER BRACHYCERA

DOLICHOPODIDAE (long-legged flies) 

EPHYDRIDAE (shore flies) 

Ephydra sp. 

CHIRONOMIDAE (water midges) 

Chironomus decorus (midge) 

Chironomus stigmaterus (midge) 

Cricotopus spp. (midge) 

Goeldichironomus holoprasinus (midge) 

Paralauterborniella subcincta (midge) 

Paratendipes albimanus (midge) 

Tanypus grodhausi (midge) 

CULICIDAE (MOSQUITOES) 

Culex erythrothorax 

Culex pipiens 

Culex tarsalis 

Ochlerotatus dorsalis 

Ochlerotatus melanimon 

Ochlerotatus nigromaculis 

Aedes vexans 

SYRPHIDAE (hover and flower flies) 

Eristalis sp.

Helophilus sp. 

ORDER EPHEMEROPTERA (MAYFLIES) 

BAETIDAE

Centroptilum spp. 

ORDER HEMIPTERA 

SUBORDER HETEROPTERA (true bugs) 

MACROVELIIDAE

Corisella spp. (note only one “s” in the genus 

name)

NOTONECTIDAE (note family ending “idae) 

Notonecta unifasciata (single-banded back 

swimmer)

SUBORDER HOMOPTERA (hoppers, aphids, 

scale insects) 

APHIDAE (aphids) 

CIXIIDAE (cixiid planthoppers) 

DELPHACIDAE (delphacid planthoppers) 

ORDER HOMOPTERA (SCALE INSECTS, 

TREEHOPPERS, WHITEFLIES) 

APHIDIDAE (APHIDS) 

Aphididae (aphid) 

Cixiidae (cixiid planthoppers) 

Delphacidae (delphacid planthoppers) 

Draeculacephala mollipes (leafhopper) 

ORDER LEPIDOPTERA (BUTTERLIES & MOTHS) 

ARCTIIDAE (TIGER MOTHS) 

Apantesis proxima (harnessed tiger moth)

Melipotis jucunda hadeniformis 

GEOMETRIDAE (INCH WORMS & LOOPER 

MOTHS)

Pero macdunnoughi (McDunnough’s leaf wing)

Pero meskaria 

Semiothisa irrotata irrorata 

Synchlora aerata liquoraria 

LASIOCAMPIDAE (TENT CATERPILLARS) 

Malacosoma disstria 
E-8

MICROLEPIDOPTERA (SMALL MOTH 

FAMILY) 

Achyra occidentalis 

Agriphila attenuata 

Amyelois transitella 

Archips argyrospila 

Bactra verutana chrysea 

Comadia suaedivora 

Crambus sperryellus 

Ephestiodes gilvescentella 

Epiblema strenuana 

Euchromius californicalis 

Euchromius ocelleus 

Galleria mellonella 

Hellula rogatalis 

Homoesoma electellum 

Hulstia undulatella 

Lipographis truncatella 

Mimoschinia rufofascialis 

Nomophila nearctica 

Ostrinia penitalis

Platynota stultana 

Saucrobotys futilalis inconcinnalis 

Suleima Helianthana 

Udea profundalis 

NOCTUIDAE (CUTWORM MOTHS) 

Abagrotis barnesi 

Acontia coquillettii 

Acontia sedata cacola 

Agrotis gravis 

Agrotis ipsilon 

Agrotis subterranea 

Agrotis venerabilis 

Amphipoerya brunneotra 

Apamea cinefacta cenefacta 

Apamea cuccilliformis 

Autographa californica 

Bagisara buxea 

Catabena lineolata 

Catacola irene 

Conochares acutus 

Copibryophila angelica 

Dargida procinta 

Euxoa olivia 

Euxoa selenis 

Euxoa silens 

Heliothis phloxiphagus 

Heliothis virescens 

Heliothis zea (corn earworm) 

Orthosia ferrigera 

Peridroma saucia 

Platyperigea extima 

Protorthodes alfkeni 

Protorthodes perforata 

Protorthodes texana 

Proxenus mindara 

Pseudaletia unipuncta 

Rynchagrotis exertistigma 

Schinia mortua 

Scotogramma deffessa 

Spaelotis havilae 

Spodoptera exigua 

Spodoptera praefica 

Stibadium spumosum 

Trichocosmia drasteroides 

Trichoclea antica 

Trichoclea decepta 

Tridepia nova 

Tripchoplusia ni (cabbage looper)

SPHINGIDAE (HAWKMOTH FAMILY) 

Hyles lineata (white-lined sphinx)

Manduca sexta (Carolina sphinx

Pachysphinx occidentalis (big poplar sphinx) 

ORDER ODONATA 

COENAGRIONIDAE

Ischnura perparva (damselfly) 

Aeshna interrupts (dragonfly) 

Anax junius (dragonfly) 

Libellula comanche (dragonfly) 

Tarnetrum corruptum (dragonfly) 

CLASS BRANCHIOPODA (FAIRY SHRIMP AND 

WATER FLEAS)

ORDER BRANCHIOPODO 

Eulimnadia thompsonii (clam shrimp) 

Phyllopod (tadpole shrimp) 

TRIOPSIDAE

Triops longicaudatus (tadpole shrimp) 

ORDER COPEDOA 

EUCOPEDODA

Copepods spp. 

CLASS OSTRACODA

ORDER PODOCOPIDA

CYLINDROLEBERIDAE 

Cypridopsis spp. (seed shrimp) 
E-9

CLASS GASTROPODA

ORDER LIMNOPHILA 

PLANORBIDAE 

Gyraulus spp. (orb snail) 

Physa spp. (pouch snail) 
E-10 

Plants

AIZOACEAE (ICE PLANT FAMILY) 

Sesuvium verrucosum (sea-purslane,) 

ALISMATACEAE (WATER-PLANTAIN OR 

ARROWHEAD FAMIY) 

Echinodorus berteroi (burhead) 

Sagittaria longiloba (lance-lobed tule potato) 

AMARANTHACEAE (PIGWEED FAMILY) 

Amaranthus albus (tumbleweed, white amaranth, 

tumble pigweed) 

APIACEAE (CARROT FAMILY) 

Conium maculatum (poison hemlock) 

ASCLEPIADACEAE (MILKWEED FAMILY) 

Asclepias fascicularis (narrow-leaf milkweed) 

ASTERACEAE (SUNFLOWER FAMILY) 

Aster subulatus (slender aster) 

Cirsium crassicaule (slough thistle) 

Gnaphalium palustre (everlasting, cudweed) 

Grindelia camporum (gumplant) 

Helianthus annus (sunflower) 

Hemizonia pungens (common spikeweed) 

Isocoma acradenia (pale-leaf golden bush) 

Lactuca serriola (prickly lettuce) 

Lasthenia californica (California goldfields) 

Lasthenia chrysantha (alkali goldfields) 

Lasthenia fremontii (Fremont’s goldfield) 

Lessingia spp. (wooly asters) 

Psilocarphus brevissimus (short woolly-heads) 

Sonchus oleraceus (common sow thistle) 

Xanthium strumarium (cocklebur) 

BORAGINACEAE (BORAGE FAMILY) 

Amsinckia menziesii (fiddleneck) 

Heliotropium curassavicum (wild heliotrope) 

Plagiobothrys leptocladus (alkai plagiobothrys) 

BRASSICACEAE (MUSTARD FAMILY) 

Capsella bursa-pastoris (shepherd’s purse) 

Guillenia lasiophylla (California mustard) 

Lepidium dictyota (alkali pepper-grass) 

Sisymbrium irio (desert mustard, London-rocket) 

Tropidocarpum gracile (slender tropidocarpum) 

CARYOPHYLLACEAE (PINK FAMILY) 

Spergularia atrosperma (sand-spurrey) 

CHENOPODIACEAE (GOOSEFOOT FAMILY) 

Allenrolfea occidentalis (idoine bush) 

Atriplex argenta (silverscale saltbush) 

Atriplex coronata (crownscale) 

Atriplex polycarpa (saltbush) 

Atriplex spinifera (saltbush) 

Bassia hyssopifolia (five-hook Bassia)

Monolepis nuttalliana (poverty plant) 

Salsola tragus (Russian-thistle, tumbleweed) 

Suaeda moquinii (bush-seepweed) 

CONVOLVULACEAE (MORNING-GLORY FAMILY) 

Cressa truxillensis (alkali weed) 

CRASSULACEAE (STONECROP FAMILY) 

Crassula connata (pygmy-weed) 

CUSCUTACEAE (DODDER FAMILY) 

Cuscuta spp. (dodder) 

CYPERACEAE (SEDGE FAMILY) 

Cyperus eragrostis (no common name) 

Cyperus erythrorhizos (red-rooted cyperus) 

Cyperus odoratus (fragrant flatsedge) 

Eleocharis macrostachya (common spike-rush) 

Scirpus acutus (hardstem bulrush) 

Scirpus americanus (Olney’s bulrush) 

Scirpus robustus (alkali bulrush) 

Scirpus saximontanus (Rocky Mountain rush) 

EUPHORBIACEAE (SPURGE FAMILY) 

Chamaesyce ocellata (Contura Creek spurge) 

Eremocarpus setigerus (turkey mullein) 

FABACEAE (LEGUME FAMILY) 

Astragalus didymocarpus (two-seeded milk-vetch) 

Lotus purshianus (Spanish clover) 

Lotus wrangelianus (calf lotus) 

Medicago polymorpha (California burclover) 

Melilotus indicus (sourclover) 

FRANKENIACEAE (FRANKENIA FAMILY) 

Frankenia salina (alkali heath) 

GERANIACEAE (GERANIUM FAMILY) 

Erodium cicutarium (red-stemmed filaree) 

HYDROPHYLLACEAE (WATERLEAF FAMILY) 

Phacelia ciliata (blue flower) 

JUNCACEAE (RUSH FAMILY) 
E-11

Juncus balticus (baltic rush) 

Juncus bufonius (toad rush) 

LAMIACEAE (MINT FAMILY) 

Stachys albens (white hedge-nettle) 

LILIACEAE (LILY FAMILY) 

Dichelostemma capitatum (blue dick or wild 

hyacinth)

LYTHRACEAE (LOOSESTRIFE FAMILY) 

Ammania coccinea (long-leaved (narrow) 

ammania)

Lythrum californicum (California loosestrife) 

MALVACEAE (MALLOW FAMILY) 

Eremalche parryi (Parry’s mallow) 

Malva parviflora (cheeseweed, bull mallow) 

Malvella leprosa (alkali-mallow) 

MARSILEACEAE (MARSILEA OR WATER 

CLOVER FAMILY) 

Marsilea vestita (hairy pepperweed, hairy water 

clover)

ONAGRACEAE (EVENING PRIMROSE FAMILY) 

Camissonia campestris (field primrose) 

PAPAVERACEAE (POPPY FAMILY) 

Eschscholzia californica (California poppy) 

Platystemon californicus (cream cups) 

POACEAE (GRASS FAMILY) 

Avena spp. (oats) 

Bromus arizonicus (Arizona brome) 

Bromus hordeaceus (soft brome) 

Bromus madritensis (foxtail brome) 

Crypsis schoenoides (swamp timothy) 

Crypsis vaginiflora (prickle grass) 

Cynodon dactylon (Bermuda grass) 

Deschampsia danthonioides (annual hairgrass) 

Distichlis spicata (salt grass) 

Echinochloa colona (jungle grass, small barnyard 

grass)

Echinochloa crus-galli (wild millet, watergrass, 

barnyard grass) 

Glyceria grandis (American mannagrass) 

Hordeum depressum (low barley) 

Hordeum murinum (barley) 

Hordeum vulgare (common barley) 

Leptochloa fascicularis (bearded sprangletop) 

Oryza sativa (rice) 

Paspalum distichum (knot grass) 

Poa annua (annual bluegrass) 

Polypogon monspeliensis (annual beardgrass) 

Puccinellia simplex (alkali grass) 

Sporobolus airoides (alkali sacaton) 

Vulpia bromoides (six weeks grass) 

Vulpia microstachys (few flowered fescue) 

Vulpia myuros (foxtail fescue) 

POLEMONIACEAE (PHLOX FAMILY) 

Gilia tricolor ssp. diffusa (birds’s eye gilia) 

PORTULACACEAE (PURSLANE FAMILY) 

Calandrinia ciliata (red maids) 

POLYGONACEAE (BUCKWHEAT FAMILY ) 

Polygonum argyrocoleon (Persian knotweed) 

Polygonum lapathifolium (willow-knotweed, 

nodding smartweed) 

Rumex crispus (curly dock) 

Rumex salicifolius (willow dock) 

Rumex violascens (Mexican dock) 

RANUNCULACEAE (BUTTERCUP OR CROWFOOT 

FAMILY)

Delphinium recurvatum (recurved larkspur) 

Myosurus sessilis

SALICACEAE (WILLOW FAMILY) 

Populus fremontii (Fremont cottonwood) 

Salix gooddingii (Gooding’s black willow)

SCROPHULARIACEAE (FIGWORT FAMILY) 

Bacopa eisenii (water-hyssop) 

Castilleja exserta (purple owl’s-clover) 

Castilleja attenuatus (valley tassels) 

Triphysaria eriantha (butter ‘n’ eggs) 

Veronica peregrina (purslane speedwell) 

SOLANACEAE (NIGHTSHADE FAMILY) 

Physalis lanceifolia (lance-leafed ground cherry) 

Solanum americanum (small flowered nightshade) 

Solanum elaeagnifolium (silverleaf-nettle, bull 

nettle)

Solanum sarrachoides (nightshade) 

TYPHACEAE (CATTAIL FAMILY) 

Typha angustifolia (narrow-leaved cattail) 

TAMARICACEAE (TAMARISK FAMILY) 

Tamarix aphylla (athel) 
E-12 

Tamarix chinensis (salt cedar) 

Tamarix gallica (summer tamarisk) 

VERBENACEAE (VERVAIN FAMILY) 

Verbena bracteata (bracted verbena) 

ZANNICHELLIACEAE (HORNED-PONDWEED 

FAMILY)

Zannichellia palustris (horned-pondweed)
E-13

Species Lists: 

Pixley Refuge 

Birds

ORDER ANSERIFORMES (SWANS, GEESE & 

DUCKS)

ANATIDAE (WATERFOWL FAMILY)

Anas acuta (northern pintail) 

Anas americana (American wigeon) 

Anas crecca (green-winged teal) 

Anas cylpeata (northern shoveler) 

Anas cyanoptera (cinnamon teal) 

Anas platyrhynchos (mallard) 

Anas strepera (gadwall) 

Anser albifrons (greater white-fronted goose) 

Aythya americana (redhead) 

Aythya collaris (ring-necked duck) 

Branta canadensis (Canada goose) 

Bucephala albeola (bufflehead) 

Chen caerulescens (snow goose) 

Chen rossii (Ross’ goose) 

Oxyura jamaicensis (ruddy duck) 

ORDER CAPRIMULGIFORMES (GOATSUCKERS)

CAPRIMULGIDAE (GOATSUCKER FAMILY) 

Chordeiles acutipennis (lesser nighthawk) 

ORDER CHARADRIIFORMES (SHOREBIRDS) 

CHARADRIIDAE (PLOVER FAMILY) 

Charadrius vociferus (killdeer) 

Charadrius montanus (mountain plover) 

Pluvialis squatarola (black-bellied plover) 

RECURVIROSTRIDAE (STILT & AVOCET 

FAMILY)

Himantopus mexicanus (black-necked stilt) 

Recurvirostra americana (American avocet) 

SCOLOPACIDAE (SANDPIPER FAMILY) 

Actitis macularia (spotted sandpiper) 

Calidris alpina (dunlin) 

Calidris mauri (western sandpiper) 

Calidris minutilla (least sandpiper) 

Gallinago gallinago (common snipe) 

Limnodromus scolopaceus (long-billed dowitcher 

Numenius americanus (long-billed curlew) 

Numenius phaeopus (whimbrel) 

Tringa flavipes (lesser yellowlegs) 

Tringa melanoleuca (greater yellowlegs) 

LARIDAE (JAEGER, GULL, & TERN 

FAMILY)

Childonias niger (black tern) 

Larus delawarensis (ring-billed gull) 

Sterna forsteri (Forster’s tern) 

ORDER CICONIIFORMES (HERONS, IBIS, & NEW 

WORLD VULTURES) 

ARDEIDAE (HERON FAMILY) 

Ardea alba (great egret) 

Ardea herodias (great blue heron) 

Bubulcus ibis (cattle egret) 

Egretta thula (snowy egret) 

Nycticorax nycticorax (black-crowned nightheron)

CATHARTIDAE (NEW WORLD VULTURE 

FAMILY)

Cathartes aura (turkey vulture) 

THRESKIORNITHIDAE (IBIS FAMILY) 

Plegadis chihi (white-faced ibis) 

ORDER COLUMBIFORMES (PIGEONS & DOVES) 

COLUMBIDAE (PIGEON & DOVE FAMILY) 

Columba livia (rock dove) 

Zenaida macroura (mourning dove) 

ORDER FALCONIFORMES (DIURNAL BIRDS OF 

PREY)

ACCIPITRIDAE (EAGLE, KITE & HAWK 

FAMILY)

Accipiter cooperii (Cooper’s hawk) 

Aquila chrysaetos (golden eagle) 

Buteo jamaicensis (red-tailed hawk) 

Buteo lineatus (red-shouldered hawk) 
E-14 

Buteo regalis (ferruginous hawk) 

Bueto swainsoni (Swainson’s hawk) 

Circus cyaneus (northern harrier) 

Elanus leucurus (white-tailed kite) 

FALCONIDAE (FALCON) 

Falco columbarius (merlin) 

Falco sparverius (American kestrel) 

Falco peregrinus (peregrine falcon) 

ORDER GALLIFORMES (GROUSE, TURKEY, & 

QUAIL)

PHASIANIDAE (GROUSE FAMILY)

Phasianus colchicus (ringed-neck pheasant) 

ORDER GRUIFORMES (RAILS, LIMPKIN & 

CRANES)

RALLIDAE (RAIL FAMILY) 

Fulica americana (American coot) 

GRUIDAE (CRANE FAMILY) 

Grus canadensis (sandhill crane) 

ORDER PASSERIFORMES (PERCHING BIRDS) 

TYRANNIDAE (FLYCATCHER FAMILY) 

Empidonax difficilis (Pacific-slope Flycatcher) 

Myiarchus cinerascens (ash-throated flycatcher) 

Sayornis nigricans (black phoebe) 

Tyrannus verticalis (western kingbird) 

LANIIDAE (SHRIKE FAMILY) 

Lanius ludovicianus (loggerhead shrike) 

CORVIDAE (JAY & CROW FAMILY) 

Aphelocoma californica (western scrub-jay) 

Corvus brachyrynchos (common crow) 

Corvus corax (American raven) 

ALAUDIDAE (LARK FAMILY) 

Eremophila alpestris (horned lark) 

HIRUNDINIDAE (SWALLOW FAMILY) 

Petrochelidon pyrrhonota (cliff swallow) 

Tachycineta bicolor (tree swallow) 

AEGITHALIDAE (BUSHTIT FAMILY) 

Psaltriparus minimus (bushtit) 

TROGLODYTIDAE (WREN FAMILY) 

Cistothorus palustris (marsh wren) 

Troglodytes aedon (house wren) 

REGULIDAE (KINGLET FAMILY) 

Regulus calendula (ruby-crowned kinglet) 

 TURDIDAE (THRUSH FAMILY) 

Catharus guttatus (hermit thrush) 

Turdus migratorius (American robin) 

MIMIDAE (MOCKINGBIRD & THRASHER 

FAMILY)

Mimus polyglottos (northern mockingbird) 

STURNIDAE (STARLING FAMILY) 

Sturnus vulgaris (European starling) 

MOTACILLIDAE (WAGTAIL & PIPIT 

FAMILY)

Anthus rubescens (American pipit) 

PARULIDAE (WARBLER FAMILY) 

Dendroica coronata (yellow-rumped warbler) 

Dendroica nigrescens (black-throated gray 

warbler) 

Vermivora celata (orange-crowned warbler) 

Vermivora ruficapilla (Nashville warbler) 

Wilsonia pusilla (Wilson’s warbler) 

EMBERIZIDAE (TOWHEE & SPARROW 

FAMILY) 

Junco hyemalis (dark-eyed junco) 

Melospiza lincolnii (Lincoln’s sparrow) 

Melospiza melodia (song sparrow) 

Passerella iliaca (fox sparrow) 

Passerculus sandwichensis (Savannah sparrow) 

Pipilo maculatus (spotted towhee) 

Spizella passerine (chipping sparrow) 

Zonotrichia atricapilla (golden-crowned sparrow) 

Zonotrichia leucophrys (white-crowned sparrow)

CARDINALIDAE (GROSBEAK & BUNTING 

FAMILY) 

Passerina amoena (Lazuli bunting)

Pheucticus melanocephalus (black-headed 

grosbeak)

ICTERIDAE (BLACKBIRD & ORIOLE 

FAMILY) 

Agelaius phoeniceus (red-winged blackbird)

Agelaius tricolor (tricolored blackbird) 

Icterus bullockii (Bullock’s oriole) 

Molothrus ater (brown-headed cowbird) 

Sturnella neglecta (western meadowlark) 

Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus (yellow-headed 

blackbird)
E-15

FRINGILLIDAE (FINCH FAMILY) 

Carduelis lawrencei (Lawrence’s goldfinch) 

Carduelis psaltria (lesser goldfinch) 

Carduelis tristis (American goldfinch) 

Carpodacus mexicanus (house finch) 

ORDER PICIFORMES (WOODPECKERS)

PICIDAE (WOODPECKER FAMILY) 

Colaptes auratus (northern flicker) 

Picoides pubescens (downy woodpecker) 

ORDER PODICIPEDIFORMES (GREBES) 

PODICIPEDIDAE (GREBE FAMILY) 

Podiceps nigricollis (eared grebe) 

Podilymbus podiceps (pied-billed grebe) 

ORDER STRIGIFORMES (OWLS) 

STRIGIDAE (OWL FAMILY) 

Athene cunicularia (burrowing owl) 

Bubo virginianus (great horned owl) 
E-16 

Mammals

ORDER CARNIVORA (CARNIVORES) 

CANIDAE (DOG FAMILY) 

Canis latrans (coyote) 

Vulpes macrotis mutica (San Joaquin kit fox) 

MUSTELIDAE (WEASEL FAMILY) 

Spilogale gracilis (western spotted skunk) 

Mephitis mephitis (striped skunk) 

Taxidea taxus (badger) 

Mustela frenata (long-tailed weasel) 

PROCYONIDAE (RACOON FAMILY ) 

Procyon lotor (racoon) 

ORDER CHIROPTERA 

MOLOSSIDAE (FREE-TAILED BAT FAMILY) 

Eumops perotis (western mastiff bat)

Tadarida brasiliensis (Mexican free-tailed bat) 

ORDER INSECTIVORA 

SORICIDAE (SHREW FAMILY) 

Sorex ornatus (ornate shrew) 

TALPIDAE (MOLE FAMILY) 

Scapanus latimanus (broad-footed mole) 

ORDER LAGOMORPHA

LEPORIDAE (RABBIT & HARE FAMILY) 

Lepus californicus (black-tailed jackrabbit) 

Sylvilagus audubonii (desert cottontail) 

ORDER RODENTIA 

SCIURIDAE (SQUIRREL FAMILY) 

Ammospermophilus nelsoni (San Joaquin antelope 

squirrel)

Spermophilus beecheyi (California ground 

squirrel)

GEOMYIDAE (POCKET GOPHER FAMILY) 

Thomomys bottae (Botta’s pocket gopher) 

HETEROMYIDAE (POCKET MICE & 

KANGAROO RATS FAMILY)

Dipodomys heermanni (Heermann’s kangaroo rat)

Dipodomys nitratoides (San Joaquin kangaroo rat)

Perognathus inornatus (San Joaquin pocket 

mouse)

MURIDAE (RATS & MICE FAMILY) 

Microtus californicus (California vole) 

Mus musculus (house mouse) 

Ondatra zibethicus (muskrat) 

Peromyscus maniculatus (deer mouse) 

Reithrodontomys megalotis (western harvest 

mouse)
E-17

Reptiles and 

Amphibians

LIZARDS

Gambelia sila (blunt-nosed leopard lizard) 

Phrynosoma coronatum (coast horned lizard) 

Uta stansburiana elegans (California side-blotched 

lizard)

Cnemidophorus tigris (western (California) 

whiptail) 

SKINKS

Eumeces gilberti (Gilbert’s skink) 

SNAKES

Pituophis catenifer catenifer (Pacific gopher 

snake)

Lampropeltis getula californiae (California 

(common) kingsnakes) 

Rhinocheilus lecontei lecontei (western long-nosed 

snake) 

Tantilla hobartsmithi (southwestern black-headed 

snake)

Crotalus viridis oreganus (western (northern 

Pacific) rattlesnake) 

AMPHIBIANS

Pseudacris regilla (Pacific treefrog) 

Bufo boreas halophilus (western (California) toad) 

Spea hammondii (western spadefoot toad) 

Rana catesbeiana (bullfrog) 
E-18 

Invertebrates

CLASS INSECTA

ORDER LEPIDOPTERA (BUTTERFLIES & MOTHS)

ARCTIIDAE (TIGER MOTH FAMILY) 

Apantesis proxima (harnessed tiger moth)

Tetanolita palligera 

CULICIDAE (Mosquitoes) 

Culex erythrothorax 

Culex pipiens 

Culex tarsalis 

Ochlerotatus dorsalis 

Ochlerotatus nigromaculis 

Aedes vexans 

GEOMETRIDAE (INCH WORM AND 

LOOPER MOTH FAMILY) 

Lobocelta lanceoltata 

Orthonama obstipata 

Perizoma custodiata 

Pero meskaria 

Pero modesta 

Semiothisa neptaria neptaria 

MICROLEPIDOPTERA (SMALL MOTH 

FAMILY)

Achyra occidentalis 

Agriphila attenuata 

Bactra verutana chrysea 

Comadia suaedivora 

Diasticitis fracturalis 

Euchromius ocelleus 

Eucosma biplagata 

Homoeosoma electellum 

Lipographis truncatella 

Mimoschinia rufofascialis 

Nomophila nearctica 

Phycitodes albatella mucidella 

Plutella xylostella (diamond back or cabbage 

moth)

Platynota stultana (omnivorous leaf roller)

Suleima baracana 

Tinea pallescentella 

NOCTUIDAE (CUTWORM MOTH FAMILY) 

Acontia coquillettii 

Agrotis ipsilon 

Agrotis venerabilis arida 

Amphipoea lunata 

Apamea cinefacta cinefacta 

Autographa californica (alfalfa looper)

Caenurgina crassiuscula 

Chorizagrotis auxiliaris 

Copibryophila angelica 

Euxoa pallipennis 

Euxoa olivia 

Euxoa serricornis 

Heliothodes fasciatus 

Heliothis zea (corn earworm)

Homoglaea californica 

Peridroma saucia 

Proxenus mindara 

Pseudaletia unipuncta 

Pseudorthosia variabilis

Rynchagrotis exertistigma

Scotogramma deffessa

Spodoptera exigua 

Spodoptera praefica 

Trichoclea antica 

Trichoclea decepta 

Trichocosmia inornata 

Trichoplusia ni 

Tridepia nova 

Xestia adela

SPHINGIDAE (HAWKMOTH FAMILY) 

Manduca sexta (Carolina sphinx)

Hyles lineata (white-lined sphinx) 

CLASS BRANCHIOPODA (FAIRY SHRIMP AND 

WATER FLEAS)

ORDER ANOSTRACA 

BRANCHINECTIDAE (FAIRY SHRIMP 

FAMILY)

Branchinecta lindahli (versatile fairy shrimp) 

Branchinecta lynchi (vernal pool fairy shrimp) 

Branchinecta mackini (alkali fairy shrimp) 
E-19

Plants

APIACEAE (CARROT FAMILY) 

Eryngium vaseyi (coyote thistle) 

ASCLEPIADACEAE (MILKWEED FAMILY) 

Asclepias fascicularis (narrow-leaf milkweed) 

ASTERACEAE (SUNFLOWER FAMILY) 

Chaenactis sp. (pincushion) 

Chamomilla suaveolens (pineapple weed) 

Hemizonia pallida (Kern tarweed) 

Hemizonia pungens (common spikeweed) 

Heterotheca grandiflora (telegraph weed) 

Isocoma acradenia (pale-leaf golden bush) 

Lasthenia californica (California goldfields) 

Lasthenia chrysantha (alkali goldfields) 

Lasthenia fremontii (Fremont’s goldfileds) 

Lasthenia minor (goldfields) 

Psilocarphus brevissimus (woolly-heads) 

Senecio vulgaris (common groundsel) 

BORAGINACEAE (BORAGE FAMILY) 

Amsinckia menziesii (fiddleneck) 

Amsinckia tessellata (checker fiddleneck) 

Heliotropium curassavicum (wild heliotrope) 

Plagiobothrys leptocladus (alkai plagiobothrys) 

Plagiobothrys stipitatus (common vernal pool 

allocary)

BRASSICACEAE (MUSTARD FAMILY)

Capsella bursa-pastoris (shepherd’s purse)

Lepidium acutidens (alkali pepperwort)

Lepidium dictyota (alkali pepper-grass)

Tropidocarpum gracile (slender tropidocarpum) 

CALLITRICHACEAE (WATER-STARWORT 

FAMILY)

Callitriche marginata (water-starwort) 

CARYOPHYLLACEAE (PINK FAMILY) 

Herniaria cinerea (grey herniaria) 

Spergularia atrosperma (sand-spurrey) 

Spergularia marina (salt sand-spurrey) 

CHENOPODIACEAE (GOOSEFOOT FAMILY) 

Allenrolfea occidentalis (idoine bush) 

Atriplex lentiformis (big saltbush)

Atriplex polycarpa (allscale) 

Atriplex rosea (redscale) 

Chenopodium sp. (goosefoot) 

Salsola tragus (Russian-thistle) 

Suaedea moquinii (sea-blite) 

CONVOLVULACEAE (MORNING-GLORY FAMILY) 

Cressa truxillensis (alkali weed) 

CRASSULACEAE (STONECROP FAMILY)

Crassula aquatica (water pigmy-weed)

Crassula connata (pigmy-weed) 

CUCURBITACEAE (GOURD FAMILY) 

Cucurbita sp. (gourd) 

CUSCUTACEAE (DODDER FAMILY) 

Cuscuta spp. (dodder) 

CYPERACEAE (SEDGE FAMILY) 

Eleocharis macrostachya (commmon spike-rush) 

EUPHORBIACEAE (SPURGE FAMILY) 

Chamaesyce ocellata (Contura Creek spurge) 

Ermocarpus setigerus (turkey mullein) 

FABACEAE (LEGUME FAMILY) 

Astragalus didymocarpus (two-seeded milk-vetch) 

Lotus wrangelianus (calf lotus) 

Lupinus bicolor (bicolor lupine) 

Medicago polymorpha (California burclover) 

Trifolium depauperatum var. amplectens (pale 

sackclover)

Trifolium gracilentum (pinpoint clover) 

Trifolium oliganthum (few flower clover) 

FRANKENIACEAE (FRANKENIA FAMILY) 

Frankenia salina (alkali heath) 

GERANIACEAE (GERANIUM FAMILY) 

Erodium brachycarpum (filaree)

Erodium cicutarium (red-stemmed filaree) 

HYDROPHYLLACEAE (WATERLEAF FAMILY) 

Nemophila menziesii (baby blue eyes) 

JUNCAGINACEAE (ARROWGRASS FAMILY) 

Lilaea scilloides (flowering quillwort) 

LAMIACEAE (MINT FAMILY) 

Trichostema lanceolatum (vinegar weed) 

Trichostema ovatum (San Joaquin bluecurls) 
E-20 

LILIACEAE (LILY FAMILY) 

Dichelostemma capitatum (blue dick or wild 

hyacinth)

MALVACEAE (MALLOW FAMILY)

Eremalche parryi (Parry’s mallow)

Malvella leprosa (alkali mallow) 

 MARSILEACEAE (MARSILEA OR WATER 

CLOVER FAMILY) 

Pilularia americana (American pillwort) 

ONAGRACEAE (EVENING PRIMROSE FAMILY) 

Camissonia campestris (field primrose) 

PAPAVERACEAE (POPPY FAMILY) 

Eschscholzia californica (California poppy) 

Platystemon californicus (cream cups) 

PLANTAGINACEAE (PLANTAIN FAMILY) 

Plantago elongata (coast plantain) 

POACEAE (GRASS FAMILY) 

Avena (oats) 

Bromus diandrus (ripgut brome) 

Bromus hordeaceus (soft brome) 

Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens (foxtail brome)

Cynodon dactylon (Bermuda grass) 

Deschampsia danthonioides (hairgrass) 

Distichlis spicata (salt grass) 

Hordeum depressum (low barley) 

Hordeum marinum ssp. gussoneanum 

(mediterranean barley) 

Hordeum murinum ssp. glaucum (glaucous 

barley) 

Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum (farmer’s 

foxtail, hare barley) 

Lolium multiflorum (Italian ryegrass) 

Poa annua (annual bluegrass) 

Polypogon monspeliensis (annual beardgrass) 

Puccinellia simplex (alkali grass) 

Schismus arabicus (Mediterranean grass) 

Sporobolus airoides (alkali sacaton) 

Vulpia microstachys (few flowered fescue) 

Vulpia myuros (foxtail fescue) 

POLEMONIACEAE (PHLOX FAMILY) 

Gilia tricolor (birds’s eye gilia) 

Linanthus liniflorus (flax-flowered linanthus) 

Linanthus dichotomus (evening snow) 

PORTULACACEAE (PURSLANE FAMILY) 

Calandrinia ciliata (red maids) 

POLYGONACEAE (BUCKWHEAT FAMILY) 

Hollisteria lanta (false spikeflower) 

Polygonum sp. (knotweed) 

RANUNCULACEAE (BUTTERCUP OR CROWFOOT 

FAMILY)

Delphinium parryi (San Bernardino larkspur) 

Delphinium recurvatum (recurved larkspur) 

Myosorus minimus (commmon mousetail) 

Myosorus sessilis (tiny mousetail) 

SALICACEAE (WILLOW FAMILY) 

Salix laevigata (red willow) 

SCROPHULARIACEAE (FIGWORT FAMILY) 

Castilleja attenuata (valley tassels) 

Castilleja exserta (purple owl’s-clover) 

Collinsia bartsiifolia (white blue eyed mary) 

Triphysaria eriantha (butter ‘n’ eggs) 

Veronica peregrina (purslane speedwell) 

TAMARICACEAE (TAMARISK FAMILY) 

Tamarix chinensis (salt cedar) 
Appendix F. 

 Budget Proposal 

F-1

Budget Proposal for Kern Refuge 

Project Title Priority

Start

Year

Completion 

Year

Duration 

(years)

Operational

Cost for 

Startup

(thousands)

Average 

Annual Cost 

(thousands)

15-year 

Total Cost 

(thousands)

Staffing 

(FTE/

Grade) RONS

Projects Using Existing Staff and Funding 

Plant 15 acres of riparian 

vegetation along canals 

surrounding unit 14 

M 2004 2008 4 3.0 3.0 15.0 .05/GS-9 n/a

Restore 400 acres of valley sink 

scrub vegetation in unit 13. 

L 2008 2012 4 31.0 35.0 171.0 .04/GS-9 

.04/WG-9

n/a

Prepare a grassland 

management plan 

M 2006 2006 1 - 6.0 6.0 .10/GS-11 n/a

Prepare land protection plan 

which evaluates alternatives for 

protecting , enhancing, and 

linking southern San Joaquin 

Valley wetlands and associated 

uplands

H 2002 2005 2 n/a 5.0 15.0 .07/GS-12 n/a 

Construct or rehabilitate 9 new 

blinds in units 5 and 6. 

M 2005 2006 2 1.0 4.5 10.0 .06/GS-7

.04/WG-9

n/a

Construct and maintain two 

photo blinds 

L 2005 2018 13 2.0 .3 6.0 - - 

Develop and implement a public 

use plan 

M 2008 2009 2 1.0 2.0 5.0 .03/GS-11 n/a

Conduct habitat management 

studies to determine how best to 

manage natural lands to 

enhance habitat for Buena Vista 

Lake shrew. 

L 2008 2011 4 2.0 15.0 62.0 .25/GS-9 n/a 

Establish partnerships with 

educational institutions and 

local organizations 

L 2006 2018 12 2.0 2.0 26.0 .04/GS-9 n/a

Develop educational materials M 2008 2018 11 3.0 2.0 25.0 .07/GS-11 n/a 

Develop new interpretive signs 

and displays and new refuge 

brochure 

M 2008 2013 6 21.0 3.0 39.0 .05/GS-9 n/a

Develop kiosk, boardwalk, and 

enhance pond at refuge 

entrance

M 2004 2006 2 13.0 2.0 17.0 .08/WG-9 

.05/GS-9

n/a

Rehabilitate units 7,7b and 8 

and manage as seasonal wetland 

 M 2004 2018 15 78.0 1.0 93.0 .04/WG-6 n/a 

Encourage and provide 

opportunities for research by 

other agencies, universities, and 

institutions 

L 2006 2018 13 - 3.2 41.6 .05/GS-11 n/a 

Develop a friends group for the 

refuge

L 2007 2015 9 8.0 3.0 37.0 .05/GS-9 n/a
F-2

Project Title Priority

Start

Year

Completion 

Year

Duration 

(years)

Operational

Cost for 

Startup

(thousands)

Average 

Annual Cost 

(thousands)

15-year 

Total Cost 

(thousands)

Staffing 

(FTE/

Grade) RONS

Purchase general and refuge 

specific displays for use at fairs, 

shows, and festivals 

M 2004 2018 15 5.0 1.0 20.0 - n/a 

Implement a pro-active cultural 

resource management program 

that focuses on meeting the 

requirements of the National 

Historic Preservation Act, 

including consultation, 

identification, inventory, 

evaluation, and protection of 

cultural resources. 

L 2009 2018 10 20.0 5.0 70.0 .25/GS-11 n/a

Develop, in partnership with the 

Tribes and other preservation 

partners, a program for the 

interpretation of cultural 

resources of the Refuge. 

L 2009 2018 10 10.0 1.0 20.0 .25/GS-11 n/a 

Create and utilize a 

Memorandum of Agreement 

with Native American groups to 

implement the inadvertent 

discovery clause of the Native 

American Graves Protection 

and Repatriation Act 

(NAGPRA). 

L 2009 2010 2 3.0 3.0 9.0 .05/GS-11 n/a

Projects that Require New Staff and/or Funding 

Reduce salt cedar cover on the 

Refuge by 90 percent over the 

next 10 years 

M 2005 2014 10 120.0 50.0 620.0 0.7/WG-9

0.7/WG-6

97012

Rehabilitate unit 14 and manage 

as new 1,200 acre moist soil unit 

H 2004 2018 15 300.0 18.0 570.0 .35/WG-9 97007 

97004

Expand aerial surveys of 

waterfowl and ground surveys 

of shorebirds, waterbirds, and 

raptors

H 2005 2018 14 25.0 45.0 655.0 .5/GS-7 98004

Hire a full time outdoor 

recreation planner (shared with 

Pixley Refuge) 

M 2008 2018 11 15.0 27.0 317.0 0.5/GS-9 00004 

Implement Poso Creek flood 

water management agreement 

developed with adjacent land 

owners 

M 2007 2018 12 207.0 10.0 337.0 .10/GS-13 98001

Construct and maintain a new 

tour route around unit 7 

M 2006 2018 13 183.0 6.0 261.0 .01/WG-9 97013 
F-3

Budget Proposal for Pixley Refuge 

Project Title Priority

Start

Year

Completion 

Year

Duration 

(years)

Operational

Cost for 

Startup

(thousands)

Average 

Annual Cost 

(thousands)

15-year 

Total Cost 

(thousands)

Staffing 

(FTE/

Grade) RONS

Projects Using Existing Staff and Funding

Conduct habitat management 

studies to determine how best to 

manage natural lands for 

Tipton’s kangaroo rat and bluntnosed leopard lizard 

M 2007 2010 4 13.0 15.0 63.0 .25/GS-9 n/a 

Seek approval for and prepare a 

land protection plan which 

evaluates opportunities for 

protection of blocks of habitat 

for Tipton kangaroo rat between 

and around Pixley Refuge and 

Allensworth Natural Area 

H 2006 2008 2 n/a 5.0 10.0 .07/GS-12 n/a

Maintain and enhance riparian 

area.

M 2005 2018 14 3.0 3.0 45.0 .05/WG-8 n/a 

Plant and maintain 10 acres of 

riparian habitat along the 

service ditch and Deer Creek 

L 2006 2008 3 3.0 1.0 6.0 .02/WG-9 n/a

Prepare grassland management 

plan 

M 2006 2006 1 1.0 6.0 7.0 .10/GS-11 n/a 

Develop 272-acre Turkey Tract 

into grain and pasture unit 

H 2007 2018 12 86.0 2.0 110.0 .02/WG-9 n/a

Expand aerial surveys of 

waterfowl and ground surveys 

of shorebirds, waterbirds, and 

raptors

H 2005 2018 14 1.0 8.0 113.0 .06/GS-9 n/a 

Develop an implement a visitor 

services plan 

 L 2006 2007 2 1.0 2.0 5.0 .03/GS-9 n/a 

Develop and maintain a pullout 

and interpretive displays at the 

Turkey Tract grain and pasture 

unit

L 2006 2018 13 40.0 3.0 79.0 .01/GS-9 n/a 

Establish partnerships with 

educational institutions and 

local organizations 

L 2007 2018 12 1.0 2.0 25.0 .04/GS-9 n/a

Develop educational materials L 2007 2018 12 3.0 2.0 23.0 .07/GS-11 n/a 

Develop new interpretive signs 

and displays and new refuge 

brochure 

L 2006 2012 7 21.0 3.0 42.0 .05/GS-9 n/a

Develop a friends group for the 

refuge

M 2006 2015 10 7.0 3.0 37.0 .05/GS-9 n/a 

Encourage and provide 

opportunities for research by 

other agencies, universities, and 

institutions 

L 2005 2018 14 - 3.2 44.8 .05/GS-11 n/a
F-4

Project Title Priority

Start

Year

Completion 

Year

Duration 

(years)

Operational

Cost for 

Startup

(thousands)

Average 

Annual Cost 

(thousands)

15-year 

Total Cost 

(thousands)

Staffing 

(FTE/

Grade) RONS

Conduct archeological surveys 

prior to initiating projects that 

may disturb historic or 

archeological sites 

H 2004 2018 15 5.0 2.0 35.0 .03/GS-11 n/a 

Work with the State Historic 

Preservation Office and 

universities to document and 

interpret any discovered sites 

M 2005 2018 14 2.0 2.0 30.0 .05/GS-9 n/a

Projects that Require New Staff and/or Funding 

Hire a full time outdoor 

recreation planner (shared with 

Kern Refuge)

M 2008 2018 11 15.0 27.5 317.0 0.5/GS-9 00004 

Expand surveying and 

monitoring for special status 

species. Prepare an inventory 

and monitoring plan 

H 2008 2018 11 25.0 53.0 608.0 1.0/GS-7 97002

Conduct law enforcement 

patrols of known cultural 

resources sites 

M 2005 2018 14 1.0 1.0 15.0 .02/GS-9 03003 
Appendix G. 

References

G-1

Arguelles, M.R. 1982. Overview of Cultural Resources, Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges, California. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Barbour, M.B. Pavlik, F. Drysdale, and S. Lindstrom. 1991. California vegetation: diversity and change. Fremontia

19(1):3-12. 

Barnum, D.A. and N.H. Euliss. 1991. Impacts of changing irrigation practices on waterfowl habitat use in the 

southern San Joaquin Valley, California. California Fish and Game. 77:10-21. 

Beedy, E.C. 1989. Draft habitat suitability index model, Tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor). Prepared by 

Jones & Stokes Associates for U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, CA. 

Beedy, E.C. and W.J. Hamilton III. 1997. Tricolored blackbird status update and management guidelines. 

September. (Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc 97-099). Sacramento, CA. Prepared for U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 

Bloom, P.H. 1980. The status of the Swainson’s hawk in California. 1979. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau 

of Land Management, Sacramento. Proj. W-54-R-12, Job II-8. Final Report. 42pp. 

Brown, L., and D. Amadon. 1968. Eagles, hawks, and falcons of the world, 2 vols. Country Life Books, London. 

945pp. 

California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG). 2001. The status of rare, threatened, and endangered animals 

and plants of California, Annual report for 2000. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, 

CA. 226pp. 

California Department of Food and Agriculture. 2002. Resource Directory. Sacramento, California. 

Claudill, James, and Andrew Laughland. 1998. 1996 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching: 

Based on the 1996 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. U.S. 

Department of the Interior, Fish & Wildlife Service, Division of Economics, Arlington, Virginia 

Cook, Sherburne F. 1960. Colonial Expeditions to the Interior of California: Central Valley. 1800-1820.

University of California Anthropological Records. 16(4):131-292. Berkeley. 

Craighead, J.J., and F.C. Craighead, Jr. 1956. Hawks, owls, and wildlife. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, PA. 443pp. 

DeLong, A. K. 2002. Managing visitor use and disturbance of waterbirds — a literature review of impacts and 

mitigation measures — prepared for Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge. Appendix L (114 pp.) in 

Stillwater National Wildlife Refuge Complex final environmental impact statement for the comprehensive 

conservation plan and boundary revision (Vol. II). Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Region 1, Portland, OR. 

Dunkle, S.W. 1977. Swainson’s hawk on the Laramie Plains, Wyoming. Auk 94:65-71. 

Ehrlich, P.R., D.S. Dobkin, and D. Wheye. 1988. The birder’s handbook: a field guide to the natural history of 

North American birds. Simon and Schuster, New York, NY. 785pp. 

Eldridge, J. 1992. Management of habitat for breeding and migrating shorebirds in the Midwest. Fish and 

Wildlife Leaflet 13.2.14. Washington, DC. 

Elliott, W.W. (1883). History of Tulare County, California; with illustrations. San Francisco, CA: Wallace W. 

Elliott & Company. 

Engler, J. 1993. Letter to Dr. Denton Belk regarding samples of invertebrates taken from Pixley NWR. 
G-2 

Euliss, N.H. and S.W. Harris. 1987. Feeding ecology of northern pintails and green-winged teal wintering in 

California. J. Wildl. Manage. 51:724-732. 

Fages, Pedro. 1937. A historical, Political, and Natural Description of California, by Pedro Fages, Soldier of 

Spain [1774]. Translated by Herbert I. Priestley. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Reprinted: 

Ballena Press, Ramona, Calif., 1972.) 

Fredrickson, L. and F. Reid. 1988. Waterfowl Use of Wetland Complexes. Fish and Wildlife Leaflet No. 13.2.1 

Garrett, K., and J. Dunn. 1981. Birds of southern California. Los Angeles Audubon Society. 408pp. 

Germano, D, G. Rathbun, and L. Saslaw. 2001. Managing exotic grasses and conserving declining species. 

Wildlife Society Bulletin. 29:551-559. 

Grayson, D.K.1985. Identification of Mineralized Bone. Appendix 2 in Breschini, G.S., T. Haversat, and M.J. 

Moratto;1985 Archaeological Survey and Testing for the Kern Tile Drain Research Project. Kern National 

Wildlife Refuge, Northern Kern County, California. Infotec Research, Inc. 

Grinnel, J., and A.H. Miller. 1944. The distribution of the birds of California. Pacific Coast Avifauna, 27. 608pp. 

Hamilton, J.G. 1997. Changing perceptions of pre-European grasslands in California. Madroño 44:311-333. 

Holland, R. 1993. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. California 

Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 

Hoover, R.F. 1938. New Californian plants. Leaf. West. Bot. 2:130-131. 

Howard, A.D. 1979. Geological History of California. Berkeley, California. University of California Press. 

Hunter, L. 1997. Swainson’s hawk gains new protection. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C., 

Endangered Species Bulletin, Volume XXII, No. 6. 

Katibah, E. F. 1984. A brief history of riparian forests in the Central Valley of California. In: California riparian 

systems: ecology, conservation, and productive management. R. E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix (eds). 

University of California Press Ltd. London, England. 

Kerpez, T.A. and Smith, N.S. 1987. Saltcedar control for wildlife habitat improvement in the Southwestern United 

States. USFWS Res. Publ. 169. 

Latta, Frank. 1949. Handbook of Yokuts Indians. Bakersfield, Calif.: Kern County Muesum. 

Martin, D.C. 1973. Selected aspects of burrowing owl ecology and behavior. Condor 75: 446-456. 

MBCC (Migratory Bird Conservation Commission) 1958. Minutes of March 11, 1958 meeting. Washington, D.C. 

The Nature Conservancy. 2001. Element Steward Abstract for Salt Cedar. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, 

VA.

PG&E Progress. (1970). Lakes of California. (October), 8. Pacific Gas and Electric 

Polite, C. 2000a. Burrowing Owl, (Athene cunicularia), California’s Wildlife, Volume II: Birds, Report B269 

(Updates from Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., and M. White, Eds., 1988 - 1990), California 

Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 
G-3

Polite, C. 2000b. Swainson’s Hawk, (Buteo swainsoni), California’s Wildlife, Volume II: Birds, Report B121 

(Updates from Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., and M. White, Eds., 1988 - 1990), California 

Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 

Polite, C. and J. Pratt. 2000. Peregrine Falcon (Falco peregrinus), California’s Wildlife, Volume II: Birds, Report 

B129 (Updates from Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., and M. White, Eds., 1988 - 1990), California 

Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento. 

Preston, W.L. 1981. Vanishing landscapes; land and life in the Tulare Basin. Berkeley, California: University of 

California Press. 

Remsen, J.V., Jr. 1978. Bird species of special concern in California. California Department of Fish and Game, 

Sacramento. Wildlife Management Administration. Report No. 78-1. 54pp. 

Riddel, Francis A., and William H. Olsen. 1969. An Early Man Site in the San Joaquin Valley, California. 

American Antiquity 34(2):121-130. 

Robertson, J.M. 1929. Some observations on the feeding habits of the burrowing owl. Condor 31:38-39. 

Rosenberg, K.V., R.D. Ohmart, W.C. Hunter, and B.W. Anderson. 1991. Birds of the lower Colorado River Valley.

University of Arizona Press, Tucson. 

Ryder, R.A., and D.E. Manry. 1994. White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi). In The Birds of North America, No. 130 (A. 

Poole and F. Gill, Eds.). Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.: The 

American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. 

Scott, Shirley L., Editor. 1987. Field Guide to the Birds of North America, Second Edition, National Geographic 

Society. The National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. 

San Joaquin Valley Drainage Program. 1990. Fish and Wildlife Resources and Agricultural Drainage in the San 

Joaquin Valley, California: Volume II. Sacramento, CA. 

Souza, M. 1998. In brochure entitled Burrowing Owl, Natural History and Conservation in California. San Luis 

Obispo Fish and Game Fines Commission. National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. 

Taylor, D., and D.H. Wilken. 1993. Atriplex. Pp. 501-505, in The Jepson Manual: higher plants of California (J.C. 

Hickman, ed.). Univ. California Press, Berkeley, 1400pp. 

Thomsen, L. 1971. Behavior and ecology of burrowing owls on the Oakland municipal airport. Condor 73:177-

192. 

Trask, M.M. 1989. Plant communities of the Pixley National Wildlife Refuge. Prepared for the U.S. Fish & 

Wildlife Service. California Polytechnic State University. San Luis Obispo, CA. 

Uptain, C., W.A. Clark, and S.M. Juarez. 1985. Mark-recapture population estimates and visitation indices for the 

blunt-nosed leopard, Gambelia silus, at Pixley National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Delano, CA, Contract Nos. 10181-9810-3(js) and 10181-4672-4, 34 pp. + Appendices. 

U.S. Census Bureau. 2003. Census 2000 Summary File 3. Washington, DC. 

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service). 1961. Kern National Wildlife Refuge Master Plan. Delano, CA. 

-----1978. Concept plan for waterfowl wintering habitat preservation, Central Valley California, Priority Category 

4. USFWS, Portland, OR. 116 pages. 

----- 1991. Annual narrative report, calendar year 1991. Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Delano, CA. 
G-4 

-----1994. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; determination of endangered status for the Conservancy 

Fairy Shrimp, Longhorn Fairy Shrimp, and the Vernal Pool Tadpole Shrimp; and threatened status for the 

Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp. 59 FR 48136. 

-----1995. Fish and Wildlife Species: Wildlife Fact Sheets. Bald Eagle, http://species.fws.gov.

-----1998. Recovery plan for upland species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. Region 1, Portland, OR. 319 pp. 

-----1999a. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: proposed threatened status for the mountain plover. 60 

FR 30. 

-----1999b. Fish and Wildlife Species: Wildlife Fact Sheets. Peregrine Falcon, http://species.fws.gov. 

-----2000. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants: proposed endangered status for the Buena Vista Lake 

Shrew. 65 FR 106. 

Wallace, W.J. (1978). “Northern Valley Yokuts,” in California, vol. 8 of Handbook of North American Indians; pp 

462-470. 

Werschkull, G.D., F.T. Griggs, and J.M. Zaninovich. 1984. Tulare Basin Protection Plan. The California Nature 

Conservency. 

Zarn, M. 1974. Burrowing owl (Speotyto cunicularia hypugaea). U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land 

Management, Washington, D.C. Technical Note No. 250. 25pp. 
Appendix H. 

Glossary

H-1

Acre-feet (AF). An acre-foot of water is the amount of water required to cover 1 acre of land to a 

depth of 1 foot; it is the equivalent of 325,851 gallons. 

Adaptive Management. The rigorous application of management, research, and monitoring to gain 

information and experience necessary to assess and modify management activities. A process that 

uses feedback from refuge research and monitoring and evaluation of management actions to support 

or modify objectives and strategies at all planning levels. 

Alkalinity. Refers to the extent to which water or soils contain soluble mineral salts. Waters with a 

pH greater than 7.4 are considered alkaline. 

Alluvium. Clay, sand, or other sediment that is gradually deposited by moving water (see also alluvialfan).

Alternatives. Different sets of objectives and strategies or means of achieving refuge purposes and 

goals, helping fulfill the Refuge System mission, and resolving issues. (1) A reasonable way to fix the 

identified problem or satisfy the stated need. (40 CFR 150.2) (2) Alternatives are different means of 

accomplishing refuge purposes and goals and contributing to the System mission (Draft Service 

Manual 602 FW 1.5). 

Animal Unit Month (AUM). The amount of forage necessary to maintain one 1,000-pound animal for 

one month.

Aquatic. Pertaining to water, in contrast to land. Living in or upon water. 

Aquatic Habitat. The physical, chemical, and vegetative features that occur within the water of lakes, 

ponds, reservoirs, rivers, irrigation canals, and other bodies of water. 

Aquifer. An underground layer of porous rock, sand, or gravel containing large amounts of water. 

Artifact. An object made by humans; usually in reference to primitive tools, vessels, weapons, etc. 

Basin. A depressed area with little or no surface water; an area where water flows in, but where 

surface water does not flow out. 

Biodiversity (biological diversity). Refers to the full range of variability within and among biological 

communities, including genetic diversity, and the variety of living organisms, assemblages of living 

organisms, and biological processes. Diversity can be measured in terms of the number of different 

items (species, communities) and their relative abundance, and it can include horizontal and vertical 

variability. The variety of life, including the variety of living organisms, the genetic differences among 

them, and the communities in which they occur. 

Biological Control. The use of organisms or viruses to control weeds or other pests. 

Biological Integrity. Biotic composition, structure, and functioning at the genetic, organism, and 

community levels consistent with natural conditions, including the natural biological processes that 

shape genomes, organisms, and communities. 
H-2 

Carcinogenic. Any substance that produces or causes cancer. 

Carnivore. An animal that kills and eats other animals. 

Categorical Exclusion (CE, CX, CATEX, CATX). A category of actions that do not individually or 

cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment and have been found to have no such 

effect in procedures adopted by a Federal agency pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act 

(40 CFR 1508.4). 

CFR. Code of Federal Regulations.

Community: The combined populations of all organisms in a given area, and their interactions. For 

example, the frogs, fish, algae, cattails, and lily pads in a backyard pond make up a community. 

Compatible Use. A wildlife-dependent recreational use or any other use of a refuge that, in the sound 

professional judgment of the Director, will not materially interfere with or detract from the fulfillment 

of the Mission of the System or the purposes of the refuge (Draft Service Manual 603 FW 3.6). 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan (CCP). A document that describes the desired future conditions 

of the refuge or planning unit; and provides long-range guidance and management direction to 

accomplish the purposes of the refuge, helps fulfill the mission of the Refuge System; maintains and, 

where appropriate, restores the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge System; helps 

achieve the goals of the National Wilderness Preservation System; and meets other mandates. 

Concern. See Issue. 

Cultural Resource. The physical remains of human activity (artifacts, ruins, burial mounds, 

petroglyphs, etc.) and conceptual content or context (as a setting for legendary, historic, or prehistoric 

events, such as a sacred area of native peoples) of an area. It includes historical, archaeological and 

architectural significant resources.

Cultural Resource Inventory. A professionally conducted study designed to locate and evaluate 

evidence of cultural resources present within a defined geographic area. Inventories may involve 

various levels, including background literature search, comprehensive field examination to identify all 

exposed physical manifestations of cultural resources, or sample inventory to project site distribution 

and density over a larger area. Evaluation of identified cultural resources to determine eligibility for 

the National Register follows the criteria found in 36 CFR 60.4 (Service Manual 614 FW 1.7). 

Cultural Resource Overview. A comprehensive document prepared for a field office that discusses, 

among other things, its prehistory and cultural history, the nature and extent of known cultural 

resources, previous research, management objectives, resource management conflicts or issues, and a 

general statement on how program objectives should be met and conflicts resolved. An overview 

should reference or incorporate information from a field offices background or literature search 

described in Section VIII of the Cultural Resource Management Handbook (Service Manual 614 FW 

1.7).

Easement. A privilege or right that is held by one person or other entity in land owned by another. 
H-3

Ecological Integrity. The integration of biological integrity, natural biological diversity, and 

environmental health; the replication of natural conditions. 

Ecosystem. The sum of all interacting parts of the environment and associated ecological communities 

within a particular area; an ecological system. Many levels of ecosystems have been recognized. Very 

few, if any ecosystems are self-contained; most influence, or are influenced by, components or forces 

outside the system. For administrative purposes, we have designated 53 ecosystems covering the 

United States and its possessions. These ecosystems generally correspond with watershed boundaries, 

and their sizes and ecological complexity vary. 

Effect. A change in a resource, caused by a variety of events including project attributes acting on a 

resource attribute (direct), not directly acting on a resource attribute (indirect), another project 

attributes acting on a resource attribute (cumulative), and those caused by natural events (e.g., 

seasonal change). 

Emergent Vegetation. Rooted, aquatic plants that have most of their vegetative (nonroot) parts above 

water.

Endemic Species. Plants or animals that occur naturally in a certain region and whose distribution is 

relatively limited to a particular locality. 

Endangered Species. Any species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant 

portion of its range and listed as such by the Secretary of the Interior in accordance with the 

Endangered Species Act of 1973. Endangered species are afforded protection under the Act as 

amended and under various State laws for State-listed species. 

Environmental Assessment (EA). A concise public document, prepared in compliance with the 

National Environmental Policy Act, that briefly discusses the purpose and need for an action, 

alternatives to such action, and provides sufficient evidence and analysis of impacts to determine 

whether to prepare an environmental impact statement or finding of no significant impact (40 CFR 

1508.9). 

Environmental Health. Abiotic composition, structure, and functioning of the environment consistent 

with natural conditions, including the natural abiotic processes that shape the environment 

Ethnography. The branch of anthropology that deals descriptively with specific cultures, especially 

those of non-literate peoples. 

Evapotranspiration. The collective processes by which water is transferred from the surface of the 

earth, including from the soil and the surface of water-bodies (through evaporation) and from plants 

(through transpiration).

Exotic and Invading Species.(Noxious Weeds). Plant species designated by Federal or State law as 

generally possessing one or more of the following characteristics: aggressive or difficult to manage; 

parasitic; a carrier or host of serious insects or disease; or nonnative, new, or not common to the 

United States, according to the Federal Noxious Weed Act (PL 93-639), a noxious weed is one that 

causes disease or has adverse effects on man or his environment and therefore is detrimental to the 

agriculture and commerce of the Unite States and to the public health.
H-4 

Fallow. Allowing land that normally is used for crop production to lie idle. 

Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). A document prepared in compliance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act, supported by an environmental assessment, that briefly presents why a 

Federal action will have no significant effect on the human environment and for which an 

environmental impact statement, therefore, will not be prepared (40 CFR 1508.13). 

Flyway. A route taken by migratory birds between their breeding grounds and their wintering 

grounds. Four primary migration routes have been identified for birds breeding in North America: 

the Pacific, Central, Mississippi, and Atlantic Flyways. 

Foraging. The act of feeding; another word for feeding. 

Forbs. Herbaceous dicotyledonous plants. 

Fragmentation. The process of reducing the size and connectivity of habitat patches.

GIS. Geographic Information System. Refers to such computer mapping programs as ArcView, 

ArcInfo, ERDAS, etc. 

Goal. Descriptive, open-ended, and often broad statement of desired future conditions that conveys a 

purpose but does not define measurable units (Draft Service Manual 620 FW 1.5). 

Grain. A single, hard seed of a cereal grass. 

Habitat. Suite of existing environmental conditions required by an organism for survival and 

reproduction. The place where an organism typically lives. 

Integrated Pest Management (IPM). Methods of managing undesirable species, such as weeds, 

including education; prevention, physical or mechanical methods or control; biological control; 

responsible chemical use; and cultural methods. 

Invertebrate. Animals that do not have backbones. Included are insects, spiders, mollusks (clams, 

snails, etc.), and crustaceans (shrimp, crayfish, etc.). 

Irrigation Drainwater. Ideally, subsurface water which flows from irrigated land and generally 

transports higher concentrations of dissolved salts than the water applied to the land. 

Irrigation Return Flow. Water which reaches surface drainage by overland flow or through 

groundwater discharge as a result of applied or natural irrigation. 

Issue. Any unsettled matter that requires a management decision, e.g., an initiative, opportunity, 

resource management problem, threat to the resources of the unit, conflict in uses, public concern, or 

the presence of an undesirable resource condition. 
H-5

Migratory Bird. A bird that seasonally moves between geographic areas. Birds that migrate south of 

Mexico for the winter are considered neotropical migrants.

Mitigation. To avoid or minimize impacts of an action by limiting the degree or magnitude of the 

action; to rectify the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment; to 

reduce or eliminate the impact by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the 

action.

Moist-Soil. A process where water is drawn down intentionally or naturally to produce mudflats (i.e., 

moist soil) that are required for germination of many desirable plants. 

National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). An act which encourages productive and enjoyable 

harmony between humans and their environment, to promote efforts that will prevent or eliminate 

damage to the environment and atmosphere, to stimulate the health and welfare of humans. The act 

also established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ). Requires all agencies, including the 

Service, to examine the environmental impacts of their actions, incorporate environmental information, 

and use public participation in the planning and implementation of all actions. Federal agencies must 

integrate NEPA with other planning requirements, and prepare appropriate NEPA documents to 

facilitate better environmental decision making (from 40 CFR 1500). 

National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge or NWR). A designated area of land or water or an interest in land 

or water within the system, including national wildlife refuges, wildlife ranges, wildlife management 

areas, waterfowl production areas, and other areas (except coordination areas) under the Service 

jurisdiction for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife. A complete listing of all units of the 

Refuge System may be found in the current “Report of Lands Under Control of the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service.”

National Wildlife Refuge System, Refuge System, or System. Various categories of areas that are 

administered by the Secretary for the conservation of fish and wildlife, including species that are 

threatened with extinction; all lands, waters, and interest therein administered by the Secretary as 

wildlife refuges; areas for the protection and conservation of fish and wildlife that are threatened with 

extinction; wildlife ranges; game ranges; wildlife management or waterfowl production areas.

Native Species. Species that normally live and thrive in a particular ecosystem. 

NEPA. National Environmental Pollicy Act of 1969.

No Action Alternative. An alternative under which existing management would be continued.

Objective. A concise statement of what we want to achieve, how much we want to achieve, when and 

where we want to achieve it, and who is responsible for the work. Objectives derive from goals and 

provide the basis for determining strategies, monitoring refuge accomplishments, and evaluating the 

success of strategies. Make objectives attainable, time-specific, and measurable. 

Plant Community. An assemblage of plant species of a particular composition. The term can also be 

used in reference to a group of one or more populations of plants in a particular area at a particular 

point in time; the plant community of an area can change over time due to disturbance (e.g., fire) and 

succession. 
H-6 

Playa. A shallow basin where water collects and is evaporated. 

Population: All the members of a single species coexisting in one ecosystem at a given time. 

Preferred Alternative. This is the alternative determined (by the decision maker) to best achieve the 

Refuge purpose, vision, and goals; contributes to the Refuge System mission, addresses the significant 

issues; and is consistent with principles of sound fish and wildlife management. The Service’s selected 

alternative at the Draft CCP stage.

Prescribed Fire. The skillful application of fire to natural fuels under conditions of weather, fuel 

moisture, soil moisture, , etc., that allows confinement of the fire to a predetermined area and produces 

the intensity of heat and rate of spread to accomplish planned benefits to one or more objectives of 

habitat management, wildlife management, or hazard reduction. 

Priority Public Uses. Compatible wildlife-dependent recreation uses (hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, and environmental education and interpretation).

Proposed Action. The Service’s proposed action for Comprehensive Conservation Plans is to prepare 

and implement the CCP.

Public Involvement. A process that offers impacted and interested individuals and organizations an 

opportunity to become informed about, and to express their opinions on Service actions and policies. 

In the process, these views are studied thoroughly and thoughtful consideration of public views is given 

in shaping decisions for refuge management. 

Public Scoping. See public involvement.

Purposes of the Refuge. "The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive 

order, agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, 

authorizing, or expanding a refuge, refuge unit, or refuge subunit." For refuges that encompass 

congressionally designated wilderness, the purposes of the Wilderness Act are additional purposes of 

the refuge. 

Raptor. A bird of prey, such as a hawk, eagle, or owl. 

Refuge. Short of National Wildlife Refuge. 

Refuge Operating Needs System (RONS). The Refuge Operating Needs System is a national 

database that contains the unfunded operational needs of each refuge. We include projects required to 

implement approved plans and meet goals, objectives, and legal mandates. 

Refuge Purposes. The purposes specified in or derived from the law, proclamation, executive order, 

agreement, public land order, donation document, or administrative memorandum establishing, 

authorizing, or expanding a refuge, a refuge unit, or refuge subunit (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 

1.5).
H-7

Refuge Revenue Sharing Program or RRSP. Provides payments to counties in lieu of taxes using 

revenues derived from the sale of products from refuges.

Salinity. An expression of the amount of dissolved solids in water. 

Shorebirds. Long-legged birds, also known as waders, belonging to the Order Charadriiformes that 

use shallow wetlands and mud flats for foraging and nesting. 

Sound Professional Judgement. A finding, determination, or decision that is consistent with 

principles of sound fish and wildlife management and administration, available science and resources, 

and adherence to the requirements of the Refuge Administration Act and other applicable laws. 

Species. A distinctive kind of plant or animal having distinguishable characteristics, and that can 

interbreed and produce young. A category of biological classification. 

Step-Down Management Plan. A plan that provides specific guidance on management subjects (e.g., 

habitat, public use, fire, safety) or groups of related subjects. It describes strategies and 

implementation schedules for meeting CCP goals and objectives. 

Strategy. A specific action, tool, or technique or combination of actions, tools, and techniques used to 

meet unit objectives (Draft Service Manual 602 FW 1.5).

Threatened Species. Any species that is likely to become an endangered species within the 

foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, and one that has been designated 

as a threatened species in the Federal Register by the Secretary of the Interior. Threatened species 

are afforded protection under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. 

Upland. An area where water normally does not collect and where water does not flow on an extended 

basis. Uplands are non-wetland areas. 

Vernal Pool. Seasonally flooded depressions found on ancient soils with an impermeable layer such as 

a hardpan, claypan, or volcanic basalt. The impermeable layer allows the pools to retain water much 

longer then the surrounding uplands; nonetheless, the pools are shallow enough to dry up each season. 

Vernal pools often fill and empty several times during the rainy season. Only plants and animals that 

are adapted to this cycle of wetting and drying can survive in vernal pools over time.

Vision Statement. A concise statement of what the planning unit should be, or what we hope to do, 

based primarily upon the Refuge System mission and specific refuge purposes, and other mandates. 

We will tie the vision statement for the refuge to the mission of the Refuge System; the purpose(s) of 

the refuge; the maintenance or restoration of the ecological integrity of each refuge and the Refuge 

System; and other mandates. 

Waterfowl. A group of birds that include ducks, geese, and swans (belonging to the order 

Anseriformes).

Watershed. The entire land area that collects and drains water into a river or river system. 
H-8 

Wilderness Review. The process we use to determine if we should recommend Refuge System lands 

and waters to Congress for wilderness designation. The wilderness review process consists of three 

phases: inventory, study, and recommendation. The inventory is a broad look at the refuge to identify 

lands and waters that meet the minimum criteria for wilderness. The study evaluates all values 

(ecological, recreational, cultural), resources (e.g., wildlife, water, vegetation, minerals, soils), and uses 

(management and public) within the Wilderness Study Area. The findings of the study determine 

whether or not we will recommend the area for designation as wilderness. 

Wildfire. A free-burning fire requiring a suppression response; all fire other than prescribed fire that 

occurs on wildlands (Service Manual 621 FW 1.7). 

Wildlife. All nondomesticated animal life; included are vertebrates and invertebrates. 

Wildlife-Dependent Recreational Use. "A use of a refuge involving hunting, fishing, wildlife 

observation and photography, or environmental education and interpretation." These are the six 

priority public uses of the Refuge System as established in the National Wildlife Refuge System 

Administration Act, as amended. Wildlife-dependent recreational uses, other than the six priority 

public uses, are those that depend on the presence of wildlife. We also will consider these other uses in 

the preparation of refuge CCPs; however, the six priority public uses always will take precedence. 
Appendix I. 

List of Preparers 

I-1

List of Planning Team 

Members and Persons 

Responsible for Preparing 

this Document 

Jack Allen Former Wildlife Biologist, Kern Refuge Complex 

Jihadda Govan Deputy Project Leader, Kern Refuge Complex 

David Hardt Project Leader, Kern Refuge Complex 

Charles Houghten Chief, Division of Refuge Planning, Region 1 

Kay KierHaggenjos Writer/Editor, Division of Refuge Planning, Region 1 

Leslie Lew Refuge Planner, CA/NV Refuge Planning Office 

Loretta McCorkle Former Writer/Editor, CA/NV Refuge Planning Office 

Mark Pelz Refuge Planner / GIS Analyst, CA/NV Refuge 

Planning Office 

Mike Ritter Former Deputy Project Leader, Kern Refuge Complex 

Richard Smith Conservation Planner, CA/NV Refuge Planning Office 

Nick Stanley Assistant Refuge Manager, Pixley Refuge 

Pam Williams, PhD. Wildlife Biologist, Kern Refuge Complex 

Appendix J. 

Land Protection Plan 

Land Protection Plan 

Pixley National Wildlife Refuge 

Tulare County, California 

Approved by:

 ________________________________ _____________ 

 Manager, California/Nevada Operations Date 

 Sacramento, California 

J-i

Table of Contents 

Pixley National Wildlife Refuge....................................................................................................................... J-1

Tulare County, California ................................................................................................................................. J-1

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ J-1

Project Description............................................................................................................................................ J-1

Purpose and Goals of the Pixley NWR ........................................................................................................... J-2

Endangered Species...................................................................................................................................... J-2

Migratory Birds............................................................................................................................................. J-2

Biodiversity .................................................................................................................................................... J-2

Visitor Services .............................................................................................................................................. J-2

Proposed Action and Objectives ...................................................................................................................... J-2

Threats to and Status of the Resource to be Protected................................................................................ J-3

Willing Seller Policy........................................................................................................................................... J-3

Habitat Protection Methods ............................................................................................................................. J-3

Conservation Easements.............................................................................................................................. J-4

Fee Title Acquisition..................................................................................................................................... J-4

Land Protection Priorities within the Approved Refuge Boundary........................................................... J-4

Map Sheets 1 – 5...................................................................................................................................... J-5 to J-9 

Table 1. Pixley NWR Tracts............................................................................................................ J-10 to J-28 
J-ii
J-1

Land Protection Plan 

Pixley National Wildlife Refuge 

Tulare County, California 

Introduction

This draft Land Protection Plan outlines resource protection needs and priorities, and habitat 

protection methods the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) would use for acquiring land within the 

approved refuge boundary of the Pixley National Wildlife Refuge (Refuge) in Tulare County, 

California. The Pixley Master Plan developed in 1984 evaluated the environmental effects of an 

approved Refuge boundary of 10,308 acres. Of these 10,308 acres, 6,389 acres are owned in fee title by 

the Service. This land protection plan identifies fee title, conservation and agricultural easements, 

cooperative agreements, or memorandum of understanding as means of acquiring appropriate native 

or naturalized lands out of the approximate remaining 3,919 acres within the approved Refuge 

boundary. The purposes of the Refuge include conservation and protection of migratory birds and 

threatened and endangered species. 

There are numerous landowners within the approved Refuge boundary. Nothing in this plan 

constitutes an offer to purchase private property, or an usurpation of the authority of the State of 

California, Tulare County or any other jurisdiction to regulate land use within the approved Refuge 

boundary. This plan is intended to guide subsequent land protection activities to the availability of 

funds and other constraints. To complement this plan, the Comprehensive Conservation Plan includes 

management objectives, goals, and strategies for the Refuge.

Project Description 

Pixley Refuge is surrounded by agricultural lands that support a growing dairy industry. Interstate 99 

is 9 miles to the east and State 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. Approximately 30 miles north of Pixley Refuge on Interstate 99 are the cities of 

Tulare, Visalia, and Hanford, which have a combined population of approximately 167,750.

Historically, the southern San Joaquin Valley was a vast sea that as recently as one hundred years ago 

covered at least 800 square miles in Tulare, Kings, and Kern Counties. Rivers and streams flowed 

from the Sierra Nevada Mountains to the east of the valley and lush wetlands, riparian corridors, and 

lake basins were common. The largest lake basin, Tulare Lake, served as an endpoint and lowest point 

in the valley for this system and outflow to the ocean via the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta to the 

north occurred in flood years.

The Refuge is located in the southern San Joaquin Valley, with portions of the Refuge lying within the 

historic Tulare Lake Bed. Vegetation is of the Valley grassland association, with some riparian plants 

along Deer Creek. The Refuge ranges from 200 feet msl to 260 feet msl. About 950 acres of the 

Refuge have been developed for wintering and migrating waterfowl. Agriculture, including grazing 

and intensely managed water, primarily for irrigating crops the valley have altered the area . 

The southern San Joaquin Valley is now characterized by a patchwork of agricultural fields, orchards, 

and vineyards connected to, and dependent on, a network of water districts and water delivery canals.
J-2

Native wetlands are virtually nonexistent because the water has been diverted for agricultural 

purposes. When flooding occurs, historic lake basins, marshes, streams, and rivers, although 

converted to agricultural lands, carry the majority of the water through the valley. However, sheet 

flooding across urban and upland areas is common. 

From 1976 to 1980, 70 percent of habitat used by the endangered blunt-nosed leopard lizard had been 

lost to urbanization and agriculture. Other species dependent on upland habitat such as the San 

Joaquin kit fox and Tipton kangaroo rat, both endangered species, have suffered fates similar to the 

blunt-nosed leopard lizard. Range contraction, lack of corridors, and competition with introduced 

species continue to adversely impact these animals. 

Today, the Refuge represents one of the largest blocks of contiguous uplands in the southern San 

Joaquin 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 also occur on and use 

private property, their last stronghold in the southern San Joaquin Valley may be the Refuge.

Purpose and Goals of the Pixley NWR 

The purpose for Refuge is to provide wintering habitat for migratory birds and protect and provide 

habitat for the threatened and endangered species that are found on the Refuge. Threatened and 

endangered species found on the Refuge include the blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Tipton kangaroo rat, 

San Joaquin kit fox, and the vernal pool fairy shrimp. 

The following goals of the Refuge reflect the core mission of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to 

protect wildlife resources of national importance while providing opportunities for the public to 

appreciate and enjoy the natural heritage of the area.

Endangered Species

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.

Migratory Birds

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. 

Biodiversity

Restore and maintain a representative example of Tulare Basin grassland and riparian habitat on 

Pixley Refuge.

Visitor Services

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. 

Proposed Action and Objectives 

The Service approved the 1984 Pixley Master Plan, which allowed for an expanded 10,308 acre Refuge 

boundary. The Service is updating this Land Protection Plan as part of the Comprehensive 

Conservation Planning process in order to clarify our acquisition priorities. This Land Protection Plan 

identifies different ways to protect and provide habitat and secure corridors between the refuge and 

other conservation areas within the valley.
J-3

Threats to and Status of the Resource to be Protected 

Native or naturalized lands in the Southern San Joaquin Valley very often provide good wildlife habitat 

and may support endangered species including the blunt-nosed leopard lizard, Tipton kangaroo rat, 

San Joaquin kit fox, and the threatened vernal pool fairy shrimp. Not only will native or naturalized 

lands provide habitat for threatened and endangered species it will also provide habitat for other 

native wildlife as well. Much of the habitat in the Southern San Joaquin Valley including land within 

and adjacent to the approved Refuge boundary has been converted for intensive agricultural use.

These uses include row crops, orchards, and vineyards, but currently the largest threat to native 

habitat in the area is dairies. 

These operations require large tracts of land to support the primary dairy facility as well as additional 

land to provide feed. Presently, there are at least nine dairies and supporting agricultural lands 

located either within or adjacent to the existing refuge and the approved Refuge boundary. With large 

tracts of land currently for sale within and adjacent to the approved Refuge boundary, conversion of 

additional native and naturalized lands to dairies is likely. 

Willing Seller Policy 

Service policy is to acquire lands only from willing participants under general authorities such as the 

Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, the Endangered Species Act, the Migratory Bird Conservation Act, and 

the Refuge Recreation Act. Landowners within the approved Refuge boundary who do not wish to sell 

their property or any other interest in their property are under no obligation to enter into negotiations 

or to sell to the Service.

The Service, like other federal agencies, has been given the power of eminent domain, which allows the 

use of condemnation to acquire lands and other interest in land for the public good. This power, 

however, is rarely used and is not expected to be used in this project. The Service usually acquires 

land from willing participants and is not often compelled to buy specific habitats within a specific time 

frame.

In all cases the Service is required by law to offer 100 percent of fair-market value for lands to be 

purchased as determined by an approved appraisal that meets professional standards and federal 

requirements.

Under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, landowners who 

sell their property to the Service are eligible for certain benefits and payments which include:

 Reimbursement of reasonable moving and related expenses or certain substitute payments. 

 Replacement housing payment under certain conditions. 

 Relocation assistance services to help locate replacement housing/farm/or business. 

 Reimbursement of certain necessary and reasonable expenses incurred in selling real property to 

the Federal Government. 

Habitat Protection Methods 

A variety of habitat protection methods can be used to conserve the natural resources of the Pixley 

NWR within its approved refuge boundary. These methods range form the acquisition of land by the 

Service in fee title, conservation and agricultural easements, cooperative agreements, or memorandum 

of understanding. Using these efforts to protect native habitats within the approved refuge boundary 

will assist in the recovery of native plant and wildlife population in the Southern San Joaquin Valley. 
J-4

On lands owned and managed by public agencies, cooperative agreements and coordinated 

planning/management efforts, including shared resources could be used to conserve natural resources 

within the approved refuge boundary. The Service could also acquire fee title, conservation or 

agricultural easements, long-term leases, and/or cooperative agreements with willing public agencies 

and willing landowners through purchase, donation, transfer, exchange, or written agreement.

Conservation Easements

Conservation easements provide the Service the opportunity to manage lands for their fish and wildlife 

habitat values. The easement would preclude uses inconsistent with the Refuges management 

objectives. In effect, the landowner transfers certain development and management rights the Service 

for management purposes as specified in the easement. Property taxes would remain the 

responsibility of the landowner.

Easement would likely be useful when (1) most, but not all, of the private landowner=s uses are 

compatible with the Refuge=s management objectives, and (2) the current owner desires to retain 

ownership of the land and continue compatible uses under the terms mutually agreed to in the 

easement.

Land uses that are normally restricted under the terms of a conservation easement include, but are not 

limited to: 

 Development rights (residential, industrial, etc.) 

 Alteration of the area=s natural topography 

 Uses adversely affecting the area=s flora and fauna 

 Private hunting and fishing leases 

 Public access rights 

 Alteration on natural water regime

Fee Title Acquisition

The Services acquires land by outright purchase (fee title) when (1) the land=s fish and wildlife 

resources require permanent protection that is not otherwise available, (2) the land is needed for 

development associated with public use, (3) a pending land use could otherwise harm fish and wildlife 

resources, or (4) purchased is the most practical and economical way to assemble small tracts into a 

manageable unit. Fee title acquisition transfers all property rights owned by the landowner, including 

mineral and water rights, to the Federal government. A fee title interest may be acquired by 

purchased, donation, exchange, or transfer. 

Land Protection Priorities within the Approved Refuge Boundary 

Map Sheets 1 through 5 show the tracts within the approved acquisition boundary. The Service has 

prepared a table (see Table 1) that lists landowners, assessor parcel numbers, acreage and priority for 

acquisition should the property owner be willing to sell and funding become available. The Service 

would seek acquisition by fee title or conservation easements of all or part of the lands within the 

approved Refuge boundary. 

Each tract is assigned a priority for land protection/acquisitions varying from high to low priority. 

High priority is designated with a 1, identifying lands that are native upland habitat and connect 

existing endangered species habitats. Lowest in priority are lands designated with a 3 within the 

approved refuge boundary that have been developed for some type of agricultural use such as a dairy, 

row crops, and orchards. 
J-5

Central Valley Hwy

Central Valley Hwy

Rd 96

Ave 120

Ave 56

Rd 104

Rd 40

Ave 128

Ave 144

Rd 72

Ave 104

Rd 88

Ave 152

Ave 96

Ave 68

Rd 64

Ave 72

Rd 120

Ave 112

Ave 64

Rd 64

Rd 80

Ave 88

Rd 112 Rd 112

Rd 64

·|}þ99

Sheet 5

Sheet 4

Sheet 3

Sheet 2

5

300 

6

301 

303 

323 

324 

4

325 

302 

326 

Tipton

Pixley

Angiola

Alpaugh

Allensworth

Central Valley Hwy

Central Valley Hwy

Ave 144 Ave 144 Pixley National Wildlife Refuge

Land Protection Plan

Approved Acquisition Boundary

Private Land Tracts

Fish & Wildlife Service Lands (fee title)

I

012 0.5

Miles

Sheet 1
J-6

303 

4a

304 

4k

304a

4e

4i

321 

322 

306 4b

306e

4

4h

306j

305 

306h

4m

315 

306g

310 

307a

323 

4n

308 

306i

4j

4f

307 

4d

4g

316 

306b

306c

4c

307c

313 

314 

311 312 

320 

309 

317 318 319 

306f

307b

306d

308a

306a

Ave 120

Pixley National Wildlife Refuge

Land Protection Plan

Approved Acquisition Boundary

Private Land Tracts

Fish & Wildlife Service Lands (fee title)

I

0 500 250

Feet

Sheet 2
J-7

333 

333b

358 

332b

333e

344c

344a

335 

351 

343 

364 

305b

337b

336 

334 

338 

328 

333a

329 

332a

347 

345 

359 

337 

346 

361 

330 

348 

362 

332 

356 

352 

341 

357 

350 

354 

331 

355 

349 

340 

344 

327 

342 

353 

363 

333c

333d

320b

320a

360 

337a

328a

339 

342a 344b

305a

Rd 96

Pixley National Wildlife Refuge

Land Protection Plan

Approved Acquisition Boundary

Private Land Tracts

Fish & Wildlife Service Lands (fee title)

I

0 500 250

Feet

Sheet 3
J-8

366 

374 

6a

320d

345a

367a

374b

373 

6b

320c

375 

384 

372 

320g

376 

367 

368 

381 

377 

380 

382a 6d

6e 320f

370 

380b

369 

365 

342b

382 383 

378 

6c

379 

320e

368c

337c 368b

368d 374a

368a

346a

380a

371 

Pixley National Wildlife Refuge

Land Protection Plan

Approved Acquisition Boundary

Private Land Tracts

Fish & Wildlife Service Lands (fee title)

I

0 500 250

Feet

Sheet 4
J-9

493 

391 

476 

392c

385Ac

385v

475 

481 

3e

3

3f

385Ag

385Ak

385Ai

3u

3k

3b

385Ah

485 

385m

7

3a

385i

455 

430 

401 

483 

474 

482 

3q

3d

3t

455a

392a 416 

385s

3j

3i

385w

2

392b

389 

385Af

450 

396 

3r

452 385Ab

385j

470 478 

403 

427 

419 

409 

398 

497 

445 

436 

465 

385e

437 

3s

385f

498 3v

3c

385u

3g

3p

2a

3n

386c

386e 436a

378a

376a

401a 398a

488 

7a

3h

7b

484 

385r

3m

385 385a

451 

386a 392 394 

496 

393a

320i 320j

456 

404 

413 

423 

424 

491 

468 

453 

448 

432 

420 

441 

467 

439 

442 

395 

454 

421 

406 

480 

486 

434 444 

411 

422 

431 

402 

410 

418 

399 

390 

447 

440 

428 

400 

414 

429 

426 

412 

477 

462 

473 

433 

471 

457 

495 

461 

466 

464 

459 

472 

494 

463 

449 

446 

479 

443 

460 

408 

425 

458 

387 388 

397 

386 

435 

393 

417 

415 

407 

447a

469 

405 

438 

487 

386f

385t

385z

385g

385n

305c

385x

376c

385c

320k

352a

361a

477a

414a

385d

385k

320h

448a

376b

431a

343a

385q

385p

399a

386d

386b

386g

385h

489 

385Aj

490 492 

305d

385Ae

385Aa

385Ad

385Am

343b

385y

402a

385b

Ave 56

Deer Creek Ave

Ave 64

Pixley National Wildlife Refuge

Land Protection Plan

Approved Acquisition Boundary

Private Land Tracts

Fish & Wildlife Service Lands (fee title)

I

0 500 1,000 250

Feet

Sheet 5
J-10
Table 1. Pixley NWR Tracts.

Owner / Tract # APN # Acreage Priority

2 1

1.25

2a 1

1.25

3 1

1.25

0.50

1.25

3a 1

2.50

3b 1

1.25

1.25

1.25

3c 1

1.25

3d 1

2.50

3e 1

1.25

1.25

2.50

3f 1

2.50

1.25

3g 1

1.25

3h 1

1.25

3i 1

1.25

3j 1

1.25

3k 1

1.25

2.50

3m 1

1.25

3n 1

1.25

3p 1

1.25

3q 1

1.25

1.25

3r 1

1.25

3s 1

1.25

3t 1

2.50

3u 1

2.50

1.25

CALIF STATE OF UNIVERSITY

322-170-003

322-050-001

TULARE COUNTY OF

322-080-011

322-080-007

322-080-010

322-170-008

322-080-001

322-080-003

322-080-004

322-080-013

322-090-001

322-170-011

322-180-008

322-180-007

322-070-003

322-070-001

322-150-008

322-140-003

322-050-010

322-200-004

322-120-014

322-120-012

322-200-002

322-040-012

322-040-001

322-040-011

322-040-015

322-220-005

322-220-001

322-220-010

322-020-008

322-020-004

J-11
Table 1. Pixley NWR Tracts.

Owner / Tract # APN # Acreage Priority

3v 1

1.25

4 1

93.15

4a 1

26.66

26.70

4b 1

1.84

1.92

1.00

4c 1

0.75

4d 1

1.00

4e 1

1.91

1.92

5.59

4f 1

1.00

4g 1

1.00

4h 1

3.65

4i 1

5.50

4j 1

1.00

4k 1

9.34

1.00

1.87

1.70

1.00

4m 1

3.34

4n 1

1.69

5 1

211.38

320.96

161.26

38.93

6 1

158.18

6a 1

1.00

4.91

6b 1

1.00

1.00

322-020-011

LOWER TULE RIVER IRRIGATION DISTRIC

291-060-020

293-030-005

293-030-004

293-280-004

293-280-005

293-280-003

293-280-016

293-280-014

293-280-028

293-280-026

293-280-029

293-280-032

293-280-022

293-280-017

293-270-003

293-270-005

293-270-009

293-270-008

293-270-010

293-270-012

293-270-011

293-270-018

293-270-015

ANGIOLA WATER DIST

293-250-011

293-230-001

293-240-003

293-220-007

PIXLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT

313-150-007

313-090-023

313-090-022

313-090-012

313-090-015

J-12
Table 1. Pixley NWR Tracts.

Owner / Tract # APN # Acreage Priority

6c 1

0.50

6d 1

1.00

6e 1

1.00

7 1

1.52

7a 1

0.75

7b 1

0.75

300 1

26.65

3.30

315.30

233.91

301 3

317.88

302 1

62.22

303 3

243.39

304 1

26.66

26.66

304a 1

26.66

305 1

5.27

305a 1

1.25

305b 1

2.50

305c 1

1.25

305d 1

1.00

306 1

9.40

306a 1

1.00

306b 1

313-090-019

313-090-025

313-090-005

DEER CREEK STORM WATER DIST

322-080-017

322-090-004

322-090-009

BAYOU VISTA FARMS WEST

291-050-018

291-050-020

291-040-008

291-050-024

KNEVELBAARD DAIRIES

293-040-035

M CURTI & SONS A CALIF CORP

291-050-007

LANTINO GEORGE K & MARILYN J (CO-TR

291-060-021

BOSMAN DAIRY

293-030-001

293-030-006

293-030-003

N R L L INC

293-280-001

313-190-009

313-190-029

322-070-012

322-010-016

TEXAS CO

293-280-002

293-280-006

J-13
Table 1. Pixley NWR Tracts.

Owner / Tract # APN # Acreage Priority

1.85

306c 1

1.71

306d 1

0.95

306e 1

8.68

306f 1

1.00

306g 1

4.69

306h 1

5.66

306i 1

2.44

306j 1

5.51

307 1

1.84

307a 1

3.67

307b 1

1.00

307c 1

1.50

308 1

2.87

308a 1

1.00

309 1

1.00

310 1

3.63

311 1

1.00

312 1

1.00

313 1

1.00

314 1

1.00

315 1

293-280-009

293-280-015

293-280-027

293-280-021

293-280-019

293-270-004

293-270-007

293-270-017

293-270-014

HAURY MARION E (EST OF)

293-280-007

293-280-013

293-280-010

293-270-016

KVILHAUG RONALD & CHARLOTTE (CO-TRS

293-280-008

293-280-011

SARVAK KENNETH E

293-280-012

CONCORDIA COLLEGE CORP

293-280-030

MC KINNEN MALCOLM A

293-280-031

JCH FAMILY LIMITED PTNSHP

293-280-024

NOONAN DANIEL T (TR)

293-280-023

MAIER MARIE AUBREY (EST OF)

293-280-020

CHILDS JAMES C JR

J-14
Table 1. Pixley NWR Tracts.

Owner / Tract # APN # Acreage Priority

4.61

316 1

1.71

317 1

1.00

318 1

1.00

319 1

1.00

320 1

1.00

320a 1

1.25

320b 1

1.25

320c 1

3.75

320d 1

10.00

320e 1

1.25

320f 1

2.00

320g 1

3.00

320h 1

1.25

320i 1

1.25

320j 1

1.25

320k 1

1.25

321 1

12.50

322 1

10.85

323 3

82.91

80.00

79.32

324 1

293-280-018

MOLINE WILLIAM G & JOANN M

293-270-001

VIERA ANGEL H

293-270-023

CRAVEN TED

293-270-022

NICHOLSON LILLIAN

293-270-021

JOHNSTON DAVID R

293-270-006

313-190-021

313-180-003

313-100-007

313-100-009

313-100-011

313-090-003

313-090-026

322-170-012

322-050-004

322-050-014

322-210-001

WHEAT DAVID B

293-270-019

CHIER RICHARD C ET AL

293-270-013

WESTRA RICHARD D & MARY

293-260-003

293-260-004

293-010-003

PACHECO & ASSOCIATES

J-15
Table 1. Pixley NWR Tracts.

Owner / Tract # APN # Acreage Priority

160.17

79.30

325 1

60.00

122.31

326 1

20.00

327 1

1.25

328 1

1.25

328a 1

1.25

329 1

1.25

330 1

1.25

331 1

1.25

332 1

1.25

332a 1

1.25

332b 1

2.50

1.25

333 1

2.50

20.00

1.25

2.50

1.25

3.66

1.25

20.00

333a 1

1.25

333b 1

2.50

6.25

5.00

5.00

293-010-009

293-010-008

WEGER HOWARD O & M JANE (CO-TRS)

293-200-003

293-220-006

CORCORAN MOTOR TRANSPORT INC

293-200-004

BISHOP MARTHA ELIZABETH

313-190-010

BAKER BETTYE C

313-190-011

313-190-014

MANLOVE WILLIE M

313-190-017

MUELLER MARGARET (EST OF)

313-190-012

KAPETAN MARC N

313-190-016

CURL E D & LILLIE M

313-190-019

313-190-024

313-180-032

313-190-026

HOWARD MARION O

313-190-003

313-190-022

313-190-018

313-190-030

313-180-030

313-180-045

313-190-006

313-190-001

313-190-025

313-180-012

313-180-044

313-180-009

313-180-011

J-16
Table 1. Pixley NWR Tracts.

Owner / Tract # APN # Acreage Priority

333c 1

1.25

333d 1

1.25

333e 1

3.75

334 1

2.50

335 1

2.50

336 1

2.50

337 1

1.25

337a 1

1.25

337b 1

2.50

337c 1

1.00

338 1

1.25

339 1

1.25

340 1

1.25

341 1

1.25

342 1

1.25

342a 1

1.25

342b 1

1.25

343 1

2.50

343a 1

1.25

343b 1

1.25

313-180-020

313-180-004

313-180-047

THE WHEELER TRUST

313-190-008

RINGGOLD REGINA

313-190-013

BENSON KESIAH

313-190-007

BENNETT WILLIS W

313-190-002

313-180-031

313-180-046

313-090-011

ATLEY MAE E

313-190-023

CHENOWETH DOROTHY M ET AL

313-190-005

ALLEN LOUISE H

313-190-004

HIRATA AILEEN A

313-190-028

ELY WILMA E (TR)

313-190-027

313-180-001

313-100-015

PACIFIC COAST LAND CO LTD

313-180-017

322-100-009

322-050-011

J-17
Table 1. Pixley NWR Tracts.

Owner / Tract # APN # Acreage Priority

344 1

1.25

344a 1

2.50

344b 1

1.25

344c 1

2.50

345 1

1.25

345a 1

8.75

346 1

1.25

346a 1

1.00

347 1

1.25

348 1

1.25

349 1

1.25

350 1

1.25

351 1

2.50

352 1

1.25

352a 1

2.50

353 1

1.25

354 1

1.25

355 1

1.25

356 1

CALLAN JOHN T

313-180-018

313-180-033

313-180-037

313-180-035

DARETTE ALFRED & THELMA

313-180-019

313-100-014

HARVEY GEORGE C & ETHEL L

313-180-023

313-090-013

ABILA CRESPIN & HELEN

313-180-013

LARSEN NEILS C ET AL

313-180-016

BAILEY ROBERT T & PHYLLIDA C (TRS)

313-180-015

HERBERT DORIS

313-180-021

ATOR MARK L & KATHY D

313-180-022

WALDRON ROBERT C JR

313-180-029

322-130-006

FRASER JOYCIE E

313-180-028

WELLS GLEN R

313-180-005

MILLER M M TR ET AL

313-180-006

SMITH DONNIE L & SANDRA M (CO-TRS)

J-18
Table 1. Pixley NWR Tracts.

Owner / Tract # APN # Acreage Priority

1.25

357 1

1.25

358 1

5.00

359 1

1.25

ASHLOCK ANNA

360 1

1.25

361 1

1.25

361a 1

1.25

362 1

1.25

363 1

1.25

364 1

2.50

365 1

1.25

366 1

25.00

8.75

5.00

367 1

2.50

367a 1

6.25

368 1

2.50

368a 1

1.00

368b 1

1.00

368c 1

1.00

368d 1

313-180-040

GRAHAM CHARLOTTE

313-180-041

RODENBORN W A ET AL

313-180-034

BERTRAM RUDOLPH F JR

313-180-007

313-180-008

RUIZ REBECA

313-180-002

322-140-012

TANAKA DEE ANN KEIKO

313-180-042

WRIGHT ED

313-180-043

KIDD EDYTHE (EST OF)

313-180-036

PARKER RANDALL J & AUDREY

313-100-003

THE SAMUEL A WHITE & ESTHER M WHITE

313-100-001

313-100-002

313-100-008

GONZALEZ PEDRO & ROGELIA

313-100-004

313-100-010

BETTENCOURT MARY L

313-100-005

313-090-010

313-090-018

313-090-008

J-19
Table 1. Pixley NWR Tracts.

Owner / Tract # APN # Acreage Priority

1.00

369 1

1.25

370 1

2.00

371 1

0.62

372 1

2.92

373 1

2.82

374 1

2.00

19.73

374a 1

1.00

374b 1

4.00

1.00

375 1

2.91

376 1

2.50

376a 1

2.50

376b 1

1.25

376c 1

1.25

377 1

2.00

378 1

1.00

378a 1

2.50

379 1

1.00

380 1

313-090-030

VELASCO RICHARD & JANET

313-100-006

RAMSEY DONALD F (TR)

313-100-012

CALLAN THOMAS J & GLADYS ANN (TR)

313-100-013

MILLER IRVIN J & AFTON F (TRS)

313-090-014

HUBER LARRY D

313-090-016

WHITE SAM A & ESTHER M

313-090-035

313-090-034

313-090-009

313-090-037

313-090-036

TOROSIAN DERON P & ISABEL

313-090-021

OLIVER LEO

313-090-020

322-090-002

322-060-007

322-140-001

HAYES GLENNA S (TR)

313-090-001

ALMA INVESTMENT COMPANY

313-090-031

322-010-008

CAREY HELEN J (TR)

313-090-024

MC FARLANE CLIFFORD S

J-20
Table 1. Pixley NWR Tracts.

Owner / Tract # APN # Acreage Priority

2.00

380a 1

1.00

380b 1

2.00

381 1

2.00

382 1

1.00

382a 1

2.00

383 1

1.00

384 1

3.00

385 1

1.75

385a 1

1.75

385Aa 1

1.25

385Ab 1

3.75

385Ac 1

1.25

10.00

1.25

5.00

385Ad 1

1.25

385Ae 1

1.25

385Af 1

3.75

385Ag 1

11.25

385Ah 1

1.25

2.50

6.25

385Ai 1

5.00

5.00

385Aj 1

1.25

385Ak 1

11.25

385Am 1

313-090-006

313-090-004

313-090-033

RIPPY LOIS N

313-090-007

COSTA ANDREW & RENE

313-090-002

313-090-029

THOMAS EVANGELINE

313-090-032

SCHMOKER LAVON ELBERT & NYO ROMA (T

313-090-028

BECK NANCY I

322-080-005

322-090-003

322-120-011

322-130-014

322-220-008

322-210-007

322-200-014

322-200-013

322-120-003

322-130-010

322-040-016

322-010-020

322-210-004

322-210-003

322-220-013

322-030-003

322-010-006

322-010-002

322-020-023

J-21
Table 1. Pixley NWR Tracts.

Owner / Tract # APN # Acreage Priority

26.25

385b 1

0.50

385c 1

1.25

385d 1

1.25

385e 1

2.50

385f 1

2.50

385g 1

1.25

385h 1

1.25

385i 1

5.00

385j 1

2.50

385k 1

1.25

385m 1

1.25

6.25

385n 1

1.25

385p 1

1.25

385q 1

1.25

385r 1

2.50

385s 1

3.75

385t 1

1.25

385u 1

2.50

385v 1

11.25

385w 1

3.75

385x 1

1.25

385y 1

1.25

385z 1

1.25

386 1

1.25

386a 1

1.25

386b 1

1.25

386c 1

322-020-022

322-090-008

322-090-011

322-160-005

322-170-007

322-080-015

322-170-009

322-070-005

322-100-012

322-100-008

322-150-002

322-150-004

322-180-015

322-180-010

322-070-013

322-070-011

322-100-010

322-060-014

322-110-003

322-140-005

322-190-009

322-060-013

322-060-010

322-050-007

322-120-008

DE MONTE LEO & VIVIAN (TR)

322-080-008

322-090-010

322-080-002

J-22
Table 1. Pixley NWR Tracts.

Owner / Tract # APN # Acreage Priority

1.25

1.25

386d 1

1.25

386e 1

2.50

386f 1

1.25

386g 1

1.25

387 1

1.25

388 1

1.25

389 1

2.50

390 1

1.25

391 1

10.00

10.00

392 1

1.25

392a 1

5.00

392b 1

2.50

1.25

392c 1

5.00

10.00

2.50

2.50

393 1

1.25

393a 1

1.25

394 1

1.25

395 1

1.25

322-070-010

322-100-004

322-130-005

322-200-007

322-010-009

322-040-003

DUNLAP JOSEPH PHILIP

322-080-009

UPTEGROVE JOHN

322-080-012

ALFORD MARTHA JUNE

322-090-015

CHAMBERLAIN ORA N

322-090-007

BIMAT ROBERT E

322-160-001

322-150-001

COCHRAN DONALD W & IVA L

322-160-003

322-060-004

322-020-013

322-020-012

322-020-018

322-020-001

322-020-019

322-020-020

KIENTZ FRANCIS J & GENEVIEVE B

322-160-002

322-160-004

BERGER IRVING & ADELE ET AL

322-170-005

EELLS ERNEST ROBERT

322-170-004

RUNDQUIST ARLENE (HEIR JAKE MODEL)

J-23
Table 1. Pixley NWR Tracts.

Owner / Tract # APN # Acreage Priority

396 1

2.50

397 1

1.25

398 1

2.50

398a 1

2.50

399 1

1.25

399a 1

1.25

400 1

1.25

401 1

5.00

401a 1

2.50

402 1

1.25

402a 1

1.25

403 1

2.50

404 1

1.25

405 1

1.25

406 1

1.25

407 1

1.25

408 1

1.25

409 1

2.50

322-170-006

PALMER BEN H

322-080-014

LIEBEL LEO W SR (TR)

322-090-014

322-070-009

JOHNSON ROBERT L & JUDIE B

322-090-012

322-140-011

MAYER DIETER

322-090-013

WALKENHORST JOHN W & RENEE

322-160-006

322-070-006

CH-FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH

322-170-002

322-050-013

DARETTE ALFRED & THELMA

322-170-001

HAMBURGER VICTOR & ESTHER

322-170-010

JONES WILHELMINA B

322-070-004

EMERSON JON S

322-070-008

DRIGGERS MICHAEL A & MARY

322-070-007

ARMSTRONG NETTIE

322-100-005

SMITH MABEL WREN (EST OF)

322-100-007

J-24
Table 1. Pixley NWR Tracts.

Owner / Tract # APN # Acreage Priority

410 1

1.25

411 1

1.25

412 1

1.25

413 1

1.25

414 1

1.25

414a 1

1.25

415 1

1.25

416 1

1.25

1.25

417 1

1.25

418 1

1.25

419 1

2.50

420 1

1.25

421 1

1.25

422 1

1.25

423 1

1.25

424 1

1.25

WOOD JAMES D

322-150-003

DIX THOMAS H

322-150-005

O'BRIEN LINDA KAY

322-180-006

MOORE OSCAR W (TR)

322-180-009

STALLINGS HAROLD L SR & ELENORA K

322-070-002

322-130-012

FINOCHIO ANTHONY & MAXINE C

322-100-003

AAGAARD PAUL M & MARJORIE A (TRS)

322-100-002

322-100-005

POWELL KATHLEEN C

322-100-011

ALSING RUDI A

322-150-007

CAVETTE SUSAN (EST OF)

322-150-006

WERNLI EMIL W

322-180-003

JONES JAMES H & ISABELLE

322-180-014

TURNER CHARLES A (TR)

322-180-013

CLEMENS CHARLES E

322-180-011

DAWSON WILLIE T

322-180-012

J-25
Table 1. Pixley NWR Tracts.

Owner / Tract # APN # Acreage Priority

425 1

1.25

426 1

1.25

427 1

2.50

428 1

1.25

429 1

1.25

430 1

2.50

2.50

431 1

1.25

431a 1

1.25

432 1

1.25

433 1

1.25

434 1

1.25

435 1

1.25

436 1

2.50

436a 1

2.50

437 1

2.50

438 1

1.25

439 1

KOOP VICTORY MARIE

322-060-008

DUNLAP JOSEPH P ET AL

322-110-004

ELMORE JOHN E JR (TR)

322-140-006

DYER NELL & GEO (ESTS OF)

322-140-008

MC DOUGALL FLORENCE L

322-140-007

ABERNATHY DAVID P & NANCY S (TRS)

322-140-009

322-190-005

WALTON KRIS J

322-190-007

322-040-014

CH-HEBREW EVANGELIZATION SOCIETY IN

322-190-006

MALLET KATHERINE A

322-060-001

SPRINGER LUCY E

322-060-011

POPE F W

322-060-009

GODKIN CECIL E & BEATRICE

322-110-002

322-050-005

SWARTZ A

322-110-001

CORK MARY L

322-140-004

COVEY W L DR

J-26
Table 1. Pixley NWR Tracts.

Owner / Tract # APN # Acreage Priority

1.25

440 1

1.25

441 1

1.25

442 1

1.25

443 1

1.25

444 1

1.25

445 1

2.50

446 1

1.25

447 1

1.25

447a 1

1.25

448 1

1.25

448a 1

1.25

449 1

1.25

450 1

2.50

451 1

1.25

452 1

2.50

453 1

1.25

322-140-002

KOONS WILMA R

322-140-013

BAHN WILLIAM E

322-140-010

WARD EMMA K

322-190-004

WELTY CHRISTOPHER D

322-190-003

AESPURO RICARDO LUIS

322-190-002

BRIDGES JAN MICHAEL (TR)

322-050-006

KROSSCHELL THOMAS D

322-050-008

BENTON MAX D & JUDITH L

322-050-009

322-120-007

MANZ KATHERINE J

322-120-006

322-040-002

SATCHELL NORMAN H & LOIS A (TRS)

322-120-005

TUTEUR THERESA

322-120-009

BARNHART THOMAS M & L S

322-120-010

EASTER SEALS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IN

322-130-004

BREWER CLAUD C & LILLIE M

322-130-009

THOMPSON M IRENE & SARAH L

J-27
Table 1. Pixley NWR Tracts.

Owner / Tract # APN # Acreage Priority

454 1

1.25

455 1

5.00

455a 1

5.00

456 1

1.25

457 1

1.25

458 1

1.25

459 1

1.25

460 1

1.25

461 1

1.25

462 1

1.25

463 1

1.25

464 1

1.25

465 1

2.50

466 1

1.25

467 1

1.25

468 1

1.25

469 1

322-200-003

KENDALL MARGARET

322-200-005

322-030-002

HERRMANN RUSSELL

322-050-003

WALKER RUSSELL F & MARY

322-050-002

VAN SICKLE GARFIELD

322-050-012

FISCHER BESSIE

322-120-004

PETERS HAROLD

322-120-001

DREW ANNIE ET AL

322-120-002

JENKINS EVA E

322-120-013

WELLS RUTH D

322-130-003

SMALDINO LOUIS & MARGARET I (TRS)

322-130-002

ROBERTS JACK D

322-130-001

GRANT JOHN

322-130-013

MONDRAGON JOAN M

322-130-011

HORTON BARBARA C

322-200-001

GREIN GORDON M

J-28
Table 1. Pixley NWR Tracts.

Owner / Tract # APN # Acreage Priority

1.25

470 1

2.50

471 1

1.25

472 1

1.25

473 1

1.25

474 1

5.00

475 1

10.00

476 1

10.00

10.00

477 1

1.25

477a 1

1.25

478 1

2.50

479 1

1.25

480 1

1.25

481 1

10.00

482 1

5.00

483 1

5.00

484 1

322-200-010

KISER STEVEN WILLIAM

322-040-005

WANDREI EARL L

322-040-007

AHMED IQBAL

322-040-006

DE LORETO EDWARD & JILL (TRS)

322-040-013

LINDGREN EDNA MAE (TR)

322-010-007

FREDRICKSON ADA B (SUCCESSOR TRUSTE

322-010-012

BARBIAN WILBUR L & VIRGINIA L (TR B

322-010-014

322-010-013

GREIN GEORGE ARTHUR

322-210-005

322-220-007

COWAN RALPH & RUBY

322-210-006

CONNER ROBERT LOUIS

322-040-004

HARPER ALTA

322-210-002

DUNCAN JUNE

322-030-001

MOORE TOM

322-010-005

MACK C E

322-010-001

EAQUINTA ANN (TR)

J-29
Table 1. Pixley NWR Tracts.

Owner / Tract # APN # Acreage Priority

2.00

485 1

7.00

486 1

1.25

487 1

1.25

488 1

2.50

489 1

1.25

490 1

1.25

491 1

1.25

492 1

1.25

493 1

40.00

494 1

1.25

495 1

1.25

496 1

1.25

497 1

2.50

498 1

2.50

322-010-018

BUS & PROF EX INC SALT LAKE CI

322-010-019

KELLER & HOLT (TRS)

322-220-006

MC LAIN GARY

322-220-009

HANNAKER ETHEL B

322-010-004

HORN FRED W & MARY L

322-010-003

PICHLER AVANELL

322-220-002

CRIDER ELMER GORDON

322-220-012

KALLSEM MAVIS CORKERY

322-220-011

RAMIREZ JOSE & MERCEDES

322-240-006

NEAT ANNA

322-020-009

NEWHOUSE ROBERT M (TR)

322-020-010

GUILFORD ELSIE H

322-020-007

322-020-015

VAN ELSWYK EVELYN BECK

322-020-024

ALKURDI MOHAMED & DIANE

J-30
Appendix K. 

Fire Management Plan

K-1

The Department of the Interior (DOI) fire management policy requires that all refuges 

with vegetation that can sustain fire must have a Fire Management Plan that details fire 

management guidelines for operational procedures and values to be protected/enhanced. 

The Fire Management Plan (FMP) for the Kern NWRC will provide guidance on 

preparedness, prescribed fire, wildland fire, and prevention. Values to be considered in 

the Fire Management Plan include protection of Refuge resources and neighboring 

private properties, effects of burning on refuge habitats/biota, and firefighter safety. 

Refuge resources include properties, structures, cultural resources, trust species including 

endangered, threatened, and species of special concern, and their associated habitats. The 

Fire Management Plan will be reviewed periodically to ensure that the fire program is 

conducted in accordance and evolves with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 

mission and the Kern NWRC’s goals and objectives. 

When approved, this document will become the Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex’s 

Fire Management Plan. Major components include: 

 Updated policy for prescribed fires at the Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(NWRC). 

 Implementation of Complex objectives identified in the 1984 Master Plan and Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan. 

 Format changes under the direction of Fire Management Handbook (Release Date 

6/1/00). 

This plan is written to provide guidelines for appropriate suppression and prescribed fire 

programs at the Kern NWRC, which includes the Kern and Pixley National Wildlife 

Refuges. Prescribed fire may be used to reduce fuels, restore the natural processes and 

vitality of ecosystems, improve wildlife habitat, remove or reduce non-native species and 

noxious weeds and /or conduct research. 

This Fire Management Plan addresses the use of prescribed fire to manage wetland 

vegetation in seasonal marshes and moist soil wetlands. Prescribed fire will not occur in 

upland habitats used by threatened and endangered species and therefore is not 

addressed in this plan. 

Wildland fires that may threaten or occur in upland habitats will be contained/controlled 

from existing roads and levees. New firebreaks will not be created through upland 

habitat.

There are no year-round fire-funded personnel located at Kern NWRC. The Zone Fire 

Management Officer, located at San Luis NWRC, provides fire management oversight for 

the Complex. A seasonal engine crew based at Kern NWR is funded cooperatively 

through the Service and the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Initial attack 

operations may be conducted in cooperation with the Lost Hills Fire Station, Kern County 

Fire Department, Tulare County Fire Department, and Bakersfield BLM. 

Copies of the plan are available for review at the Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex, 

10811 Corcoran Road, Delano, California, 93215.