Appendix A. 

Response to Comments on 

Draft CCP/EA
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Response

1. Comment noted.2. Given the fact that most other refuges in the Central Valley havesimilar ratios of open to closed habitat, we believe that the primaryreason for Kern Refuge’s better than average hunter success is that,unlike other Central Valley refuges, Kern does not have a Sundayhunt. In general, waterfowl hunters are less successful on the secondof back-to-back hunt days. As a result, the weekly and season-longaverage ducks taken per hunter is usually lower on refuges with aSunday hunt.3. We agree that hunter success may decline slightly with an expandedhunt area and new tour route. Nevertheless, we believe Kern Refugewill still offer a high quality hunt program with a reasonable chance ofsuccess.4. Comment noted.5. The selected plan maintains Wednesdays and Saturdays as the onlyhunt days. As a result, nonhunters will still have a weekend day to visitthe Refuge when hunters are not present. In addition, the selectedplan includes a new tour route on the north end of the Refuge whichwill give nonhunting visitors an opportunity to view wildlife on huntdays at a safe distance from the hunt area.6. Comment noted.7. The selected plan maintains the existing hunt schedule and includesthe same habitat improvements as Alternative D.8. See response to comment 5.9. Comment noted.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Response

1. Comment noted.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Response

1. Condors have never been sighted on the Refuge and are not expected to occur there. The nearest condor foraging habitat is thefoothills of the Coast Range which is more than 20 milles west of theKern Refuge’s hunt area.2. Comment noted.3. Comment noted.4. Comment noted.5. The purpose of the grassland management plan is to improvehabitat management practices for the endangered blunt-nosed leopardlizard and Tipton kangaroo rat. No hunting will be permitted on thegrassland areas of the Refuge.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Response

1. Comment noted.2. Comment noted.3. Comment noted.4. Comment noted.5. Comment noted.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Response

1. The selected plan maintains Wednesdays and Saturdays as the onlyhunt days.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Response

1. Comments noted.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Response

1. Comment noted.2. Comment noted.3. The selected plan (Alternative C) will have more wetlands open tohunting than Alternative A. The map of Alternative A in Figure 4 ofthe Environmental Assessment mistakenly labeled unit 14 as “otherareas closed to hunting” when it should have be labeled as a wetlandclosed to hunting. All alternatives have the same amount of wetlandhabitat.4. Comment noted.5. The Service is concerned about the continued existence of clubs inthe area of Kern Refuge and realizes that hunter success is a significant factor in determining if a club will continue to flood waterfowlhabitat. Rotating the location of a closed area on the Refuge has beenconsidered as a means of dispersing birds from the refuge to local huntclubs. However, there are major drawbacks involved with this type ofmanagement. Rotating a closed area on the Refuge during the seasonwould require constant reprinting of hunt maps and reposting of thehunt area, both contributing significantly to increased labor andoverhead costs to operate the public hunting program. Additionally,frequent changes to the closed area would result in continuous confusion with Refuge hunters. Past efforts to open of the Refuge closedarea on shoot days have not contributed significantly to increasinghunter success on the local duck clubs and may have resulted in theloss of waterfowl use in the southern San Joaquin Valley area.Under the selected plan, the proportion of flooded habitat huntedwould remain the same as in the past. The Service is committed tomonitoring waterfowl use patterns in the Tulare Basin and is open tomaking changes in the hunt program in the future, if necessary.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Response

1. Comment noted.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Response

1. Comment noted.2. Comment noted.3. Comment noted.4. Comment noted.5. The Service agrees that allowing waterfowl hunting on PixleyRefuge could adversely affect crane usage. Under the selected plan,Pixley Refuge remains closed to hunting.6. Most shorebird use occurs during the spring migration whenwetlands are being drawn down for the summer. This is well after theend of the hunting season, which is typically mid January. Someshorebird use occurs throughout the fall and winter hunt season. TheService believes that there is sufficient wetland sanctuary to minimizethe effects of this disturbance on shorebirds. Nevertheless, the Service is committed to monitoring potential impacts on shorebird populations to determine if management changes are necessary.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Response

1. Comment noted.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Response

No comments on this page.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Response

1. The dense cattail marshes of the Kern Refuge have provided habitatfor several species of blackbirds for many years and these birds, mostlyred-winged and Brewer's blackbirds may have contributed to damageto adjacent farmers crops in the past. Current Federal depredationcontrol regulations contained in 50 CFR 21.43 permit a landowner totake direct action to control problematic blackbirds so long as controlmeasures are in accordance with state regulations. The refuge manager is willing to work with you to help resolve the depredation problems that you have experienced in the past. The blackbird protectionwork you referenced from the Bakersfield Californian article is targeting the tricolored blackbird, a species which normally does not occur inlarge numbers on the Refuge and would not normally be associatedwith this type of depredation issue.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Response

1. Comment noted.2. Comment noted.3. Comment noted.4. Comment noted.5. Although the selected plan would increase the size of the hunt area,the ratio of hunt area to sanctuary would remain the same as it has inthe past several years (55 percent closed, 45 percent open). The huntarea was expanded in proportion to the new moist soil unit beingdeveloped in unit 14.6. The selected plan maintains Wednesdays and Saturdays as the onlyhunt days.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Response

1. The Service agrees that Kern and Pixley Refuges should provideSanctuary for restoring and foraging migratory birds. The selectedplan sets aside 55 percent of the wetland habitat on Kern Refuge andall of Pixley Refuge’s wetlands as sanctuary.2. The selected plan maintains Wednesdays and Saturdays as the onlyhunt days on Kern Refuge. The plan also includes the development ofan additional tour route (open on hunt days), two new photo blinds, anda kiosk and boardwalk at Kern Refuge, and a new pullout and interpretive displays at Pixley Refuge. In addition, the selected plan expandsenvironmental education and interpretation programs at both Refuges.3. The Service agrees that visitor days and interpretive programs areexcellent ways to educate the public. Refuge staff are committed tooffering high quality visitor services by partnering with other agenciesand organizations and utilizing volunteers to make the most of tightbudgets.4. The Service agrees that public outreach is critical to the success ofKern and Pixley Refuge’s management programs and should beexpanded. The selected plan substantially expands the number ofoutreach events offered each year to 12. As the commentor suggests, asmall birding festival could be a valuable tool to showcase the Refuges’importance to migratory birds.5. The Service agrees that there is a need to educate local communities about where the Refuges are located and what they have to offer.The Service plans to continue to participate in outreach events gearedtoward the local communities such as the Wasco Rose Festival, theTulare Farm Show, and Kern Refuge’s Waterfowl Expo. The Servicealso plans to coordinate with California Department of Transportationto install additional signs along highways and refuge displays at reststops.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Response

6. Comment noted.7. The selected plan maintains Wednesdays and Saturdays as the onlyhunt days. At current staffing levels, we are not able to staff theRefuge on Sundays. However, we are open to having volunteers staffthe refuge office on weekends, as is the practice at many Refuges.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Response

1. Comment noted.2. The National Environmental Policy Act compliance will be updatedto reflected the current fugitive dust rules. 

e Complex 

nal Wildlife Refuges 

ed Air Pollution Control District (District) has 

vided and has the following comments: 

y is non-attainment for ozone and fine particulate 

 Clean Air Act (CAA) and the California Clean Air 

signated non-attainment to reduce emissions until 

pon the information provided the District concurs 

 does not appear to be a significant air quality 

can be found at www.valleyair.org/rules/1ruleslist.htm. 

tion has been discussed in the Environmental 

escription of District rules 8021 & 8061 on page A-31 

 rules have recently been updated. A synopsis 

nges has been included for your reference. 

g regulation is required: 

ugitive Dust Rules is a series of rules designed to 

enerated by human activity, including construction, 

s storage, landfill operations, etc. A synopsis 

quirements of this regulation has been enclosed. The 

ulletin is not meant to be all-inclusive, but it can be a 

he field and office alike. Please be advised that the 

ding Regulation VIII and anticipates implementing 

Reference: SS20040219
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Response

on or about October 1, 2004. If construction were to 

 October 1, the applicant should contact the District to 

irements may have changed and how rule changes 

 Applicants can find the most current version on the 

 www.valleyair.org. 

unity to comment. If you have any questions or 

e to contact me at (661) 326-6980. 

See response 2 on the previous page.
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 11,249 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, Pixley 

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 North American Waterfowl 

Management Plan. 

 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 refuges, State wildlife areas, and the Grasslands Resources 

Conservation District. 

 Secure CVP power for Refuges, State wildlife areas, Grasslands Resources Conservation District, 

and other public and 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. 

 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 sustained 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. 

 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 tricolored 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) (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 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) will 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 will 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 (CDFG) during the established state waterfowl hunting season 

(USFWS, 1999). This use has occurred annually since the first hunting season on the Refuge in 

1963. The Refuge will 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 only be permitted while hunting waterfowl 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 and 

Pixley Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2004). The Refuge also plans to 

prepare a Visitor Services Plan 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 both 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, 5A and 5B. These units 

represent approximately 2,870 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. Use of hunting dogs will be encouraged to reduce the 

crippling loss of birds, however, as with all dogs on the refuge, retrievers must be under the 

control of their handlers at all times. Failure to control a dog’s activities can result in citation of 

the owner. 

Hunter access to assigned hunt areas 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 much safer and easier and enables more efficient retrieval of birds. Boats used for 

hunting are normally small, less than 10 feet in length, or canoes capable of holding one or two 
D-3

hunters and their gear. These boats are normally launched from the NW corners of Units 1 & 2 

and the trailers used to transport such equipment are then moved either to the main parking area 

or to parking lot 1. Ample space is available in each area to park these vehicles. 

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 possessed or used while in the field. 

Prospective hunters will apply through a statewide CDFG 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 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 

will open no more than 45% of the flooded wetland acreage which will not exceed 2,828 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 will 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 for safety reasons. 
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 a 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 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 restricts 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 hunting, 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, process hunters, and monitor 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 (USFWS 1999). 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 flooded. 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 four species found on Refuge that are 

listed as endangered. The species are San Joaquin kit fox (Vulpes macrotis mutica), Tipton 

kangaroo rat (Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides), blunt-nosed leopard lizard (Gambelia sila), 

and Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus). Use of the hunter access route as well as 

the wetland areas of the refuge are very uncommon for the three upland dwelling species, bluntnosed leopard lizard, Tipton kangaroo rat and San Joaquin kit fox. According to refuge files no 

confirmed sightings of any of these three species has occurred during the hunting season 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 

remote possibility of these animals being on the public use roads before sunrise or after sunset. 

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 hibernating during the cooler months of 

hunting season so conflicts with hunters is not an issue. 

The Buena Vista Lake 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 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 spatial separation of hunting activity and species habitat associations, season of use, as 

well as restrictions on hunter activity, the possibility of conflicts or impacts by hunters on listed 

species is very remote. 

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 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 will be taken by hunters each season, but this is not expected to 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. 
D-6 

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 required to be kept under close control by the hunters themselves. 

Boat hunters have access to the same areas as walk-in hunters within the unit to which they are 

assigned, but the use of boats allows better distribution of hunters within each unit and in this 

context contributes to a safer hunting program. All boats are required to be operated without the 

use of any motors, either gasoline or electric. This restriction greatly reduces the speed of boat 

travel in the units, nearly eliminates the danger of collisions with other boats, hunters or wildlife 

in the hunt area, significantly reduces the potential for contamination of water by fuel or battery 

acid and eliminates the noise and air pollution normally associated with boat motor use. 

Temporary impacts to vegetation in very restricted areas of the boat launch sites is probable but 

no sensitive or listed species of plants or animals are present in these areas. The vegetation in 

these launch areas is primarily limited to annual grasses and forbs with occasional clumps of 

shrubs such as mule fat (Baccharis salicifolius) and salt bush (Atriplex sp.) which rebound 

rapidly following disturbance. The use of boats as permitted on the refuge is not anticipated to 

cause any additional impacts to refuge resources or visitors beyond that of walk-in hunters. 

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. 

Public Review and Comment: During completion of the Kern and Pixley NWR’s Master Plans 

(USFWS 1985), this use underwent public review. A notice of Proposed Action was issued as 

well as five informational news letters and four news releases. Public comment on this use was 
D-7

also solicited throughout the development of the Kern and Pixley Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (USFWS 2004) beginning with public scoping meetings in 1999 and 

continuing through the public review of the Draft CCP and Environmental Assessment. 

Determination (Check one Below) 

 _______ Use is not compatible X Use is compatible with 

stipulations

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 2006, 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 will 

continue to be compatible with the Refuge purpose and the mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System. 
D-8 

VII. Upon final approval of the Kern and Pixley 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. 

VIII. The use of boats will be permitted in free roam hunting units where deep water is present 

but neither gas nor electric motors will be permitted. 

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 

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 will 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):

 2019 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):
D-9

 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 

References Cited:

USFWS, 1999. Cooperative Agreement between U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and California 

Department of Fish & Game 

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.

USFWS. 1985. Master Plan, Kern National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Region I, Portland, Oregon 

USFWS, 2004. Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment. CA/NV Refuge Planning Office, Sacramento, CA. 

D-11

Compatibility Determination

Use: Wildlife observation and photography (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.§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 and photography as well as hunting, 

fishing, interpretation, and environmental education as wildlife dependent public uses for NWR’s. 

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” 

specifically designated for this use. Approximately 15 miles of levee roads, excluding the 6.5 mile 

auto tour route are available for these uses and 1,370 acres of flooded acres are available for these 

uses via non-motorized boats. 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 and 2 (see Figure 13 of the CCP)). An average of 800 people per year participates in these 

uses. 

The use of non-motorized boats access for wildife viewing and photography in deep water areas 

such as Units 1 & 2, and makes access much safer and easier than walking. Boats used for these 

purposes are normally small, less than 10 feet in length, or canoes capable of holding one or two 

people. These boats are normally launched from the corners of Units 1 & 2 and the trailers used 

to transport are then to parking lot 1. Ample space is available in each area to park these vehicles. 
D-12

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 on Wednesdays and Saturdays. This 

prevents philosophical conflicts over the issue of hunting but is also for safety reasons. Wildlife 

observation occurs in all habitat types on the refuge including riparian, alkali scrub, 

marsh/seasonal wetland, alkali playa, moist soil, and valley grassland all of which are accessible 

along the auto tour route and adjacent established levee roads. 

 

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 provides 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. 

Wildlife Photography: Wildlife photography will occur on the refuge and along the self-guided 

auto tour route, established roads and levees, and via non-motorized boats in units 1, and 2. 

Photographers, searching for a more unstudied photo opportunity than wildlife found along the 

auto tour route, will 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 be compatible and contributes to the accomplishment of 

the specific refuge purpose where the use is to take place (50 CFR 29.1). Economic uses on 

national wildlife refuges can include for example, timber removal, grazing of livestock, mineral 

extraction, or uses which facilitate approved programs on national wildlife refuges. Commercial 

photography, while very rare, would require a Special Use Permit. 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 and extending through early October. 

Availability of Resources: Adequate funding and staff exist to meet the maintenance, 

monitoring, 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 $5,000. Additionally, 

$500 is expended to cover personnel costs and supplies for printing, updating, and stocking 

pamphlets. Administrative costs associated with issuing special use permits and monitoring visitor 

compliance and impacts from these uses is anticipated to be low based on past visitor use levels. 

With anticipated increases in these activities, these costs will increase accordingly but should not 

exceed $1,000 per year. Further information regarding resources related to this use can be viewed 

in the Compatibility Determination for Environmental Education and Interpretation. By 2006, 2 

new photography blinds will be constructed at an estimated cost of $1,200 including labor and 

materials. A minimum fee of $100.00 will be assessed to those engaging in commercial 

photography on the Refuge. 
D-13

For information on road maintenance and additional coast analysis regarding these uses, please 

refer to the Environmental Assessment for the 2004 Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(USFWS 2004). 

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 1985) 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 sila), and Buena Vista 

Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus). Impacts to these species are considered non-adverse as San 

Joaquin kit fox and Tipton kangaroo rats are generally not active during the time when the 

general public is 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. When necessary refuge staff remind visitors of 

the posted speed limit as no law enforcement officers are currently employed at the Refuge. 

Immediate habitat where the Buena Vista Lake shrew has been found is open to foot traffic only. 

Due to the sensitivity of the habitat area the public is discouraged from entering the area. Other 

impacts from auto traffic could involve temporary displacement 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 Environmental Assessment for the 2004 Draft CCP (USFWS 2004). 

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 on the refuge include killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), 

black-necked stilt (Himantopus mexicanus), American avocet (Recurvirostra americana), and 

various waterfowl. White-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) and tricolored blackbirds (Agelaius tricolor) 

also breed on the refuge. The use of boats will be prohibited after March 1 to prevent disturbance 

of nesting species. 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 on foot pass by. 

These disturbances are not vastly different than those which result from normal refuge operations 

that include large farm equipment and conducting of biological surveys. 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. Monitoring and 

adjustable management of these uses will be implemented to ensure that impacts remain within 
D-14

acceptable levels. Participation in these uses via non-motorized boat will be allowed between 1 

September and 1 March to avoid impacts and disturbance to breeding and rearing of young. 

Disturbances by the public will be more frequent during 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 primarily the public’s appreciation of the National Wildlife 

Refuge System, a long lasting education and appreciation of natural resources in the Southern 

San Joaquin Valley, and the importance of the Refuge in the Pacific Flyway. 

Other possible adverse impacts due to disturbance of nesting migratory birds could involve nest 

failure, increased chick depredation, nest abandonment (Sowles 1955), and unknown long-term 

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. 

Kern NWR was established and is managed for wintering waterfowl populations in the Southern 

San Joaquin Valley. Continuation of these uses on the Refuge is supported by the mission of the 

Refuge System and purpose for which the Refuge was created. 

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 are 

not restricted to the roads and levees. Impacts could involve the trampling of vegetation and 

displacement of wildlife. Closed area signs along the auto tour route and levee roads, are currently 

posted to prevent adverse impacts to refuge habitats. Visitors are allowed to walk or drive along 

these designated routes provided the area is not posted as closed. 

Use of non-motorized boats gives visitors safer access to deep water areas for better wildlife 

viewing and photography opportunities. All boats are required to be operated without the use of 

any motors, either gasoline or electric. This restriction greatly reduces the speed of boat travel in 

the units and nearly eliminates the danger of collisions with other boats or wildlife, significantly 

reduces the potential for contamination of water by fuel or battery acid and eliminates the noise 

and air pollution normally associated with boat motor use. 

Temporary impacts to vegetation in very restricted areas of the boat launch sites is probable but 

no sensitive or listed species of plants or animals are present in these areas. The vegetation in 

these launch areas is primarily limited to annual grasses and forbs with occasional clumps of 

shrubs such as mule fat (Baccharis salicifolius) and salt bush (Atriplex sp.) which rebound 

rapidly following disturbance. The use of boats as permitted on the refuge is not anticipated to 

cause any additional impacts to refuge resources or visitors beyond that of walk-in visitors. 

Other Biological Resources: Litter discarded by visitors can entangle wildlife or possibly be 

ingested, resulting in death or injury. This has not posed a problem in the past and is not 

expected to increase as visitation increases. Additionally, adequate facilities for garbage disposal 

exist. Garbage disposal cans are found within the boundaries of three public parking areas as well 

as at Refuge headquarters. Restrooms are available for visitor use at Refuge headquarters and at 

the public parking areas along the auto tour route. 
D-15

 

Public Review and Comment: During completion of the Kern and Pixley NWR’s Master Plans 

(USFWS 1985), this use underwent public review. A notice of Proposed Action was issued as 

well as five informational news letters and four news releases. Public comment on this use was 

also solicited throughout the development of the Kern and Pixley Draft Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan (USFWS 2004) beginning with public scoping meetings in 1999 and 

continuing through the public review of the Draft CCP and Environmental Assessment. 

 

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. 

Non-consumptive uses will not be allowed to occur within the hunt area on shoot days, 

Wednesdays and Saturdays, throughout the waterfowl hunting season. 

Use of non-motorized boats for these uses will be allowed between 1 September and 1 March, 

excluding Wednesdays and Saturdays during the waterfowl hunting season. 

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 in these activities by groups of 3 boats or greater will require a Special Use Permit. 

Seasonal closures of specific auxiliary dikes will be posted if necessary. Closures will be in place 

due to rain and muddy road conditions or general refuge maintenance in order to maintain public 

safety and to prevent damage to roads when they are wet. Additional closures to these uses will 

occur on Wednesdays and Saturdays during the waterfowl hunting season. 

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 2006, a new interpretive kiosk will be installed near the refuge demonstration pond to inform 

visitors of habitats and wildlife resources on the refuge and ways to avoid adverse impacts to the 

resources including remaining on existing roads, keeping a respective distance from nesting birds, 

and alternative wildlife viewing opportunities during the waterfowl hunt season. 

A minimum of a $100 fee for commercial photography Special Use Permits will be collected. 

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 that participants in these activities do not comply with refuge rules and regulations and 

impacts associated with this use are observed, adaptive management measures will be taken. 
D-16

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 and 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 while 

reducing long-term adverse impacts to wildlife and habitats on the refuge. 

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, will 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 will be compatible with the refuge 

purpose and the National Wildlife Refuge 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 

 Categorical Exclusion and Environmental Action Statement 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References Cited:

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. 

Korschgen, C.E. and R.B. Dahlgren. 1992. Human Disturbances of Waterfowl: Causes, Effects, 

and Management. USFWS, Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.2.15, pp 1-8. 
D-17

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. 

Sowles, L.K. 1955. “Prairie Ducks.” Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 

USFWS. 1985. Master Plan, Kern National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, 

Region I, Portland, Oregon. 

USFWS, 2004. Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment. CA/NV Refuge Planning Office, Sacramento, California 

Williams, D.F. 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. E-W-R, IV-10.0 48 pp. 

D-19

Compatibility Determination

Use: Environmental Education and Interpretation (Alternative C, Kern 

and Pixley National Wildlife Refuge Complex Draft 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.§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 educator’s 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 will 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 sila), Buena Vista Lake 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 tricolored blackbirds (Agelaius tricolor) and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia). The Refuge is an 

important location on the Pacific Flyway providing habitat for thousands of wintering waterfowl 
D-20

species such as canvasback (Aythya valisineria), mallard (Anas platyrhynchos), and greenwinged 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 will also occur near the refuge 

demonstration pond near the main headquarters building at the site of the proposed refuge kiosk 

to be completed in 2006. 

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 and local elementary schools. 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 educator’s 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 2006, 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. 
D-21

This new kiosk and interpretive signs will be larger than the existing kiosk and will provide 

visitors with information on the various refuge habitats including marsh/seasonal wetland, alkali 

playa, valley grassland, moist soil, alkali scrub, and riparian. Information will 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 will enlighten the visiting public 

concerning migratory waterfowl and localized endangered species, other educational aspects will 

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 will 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 will 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 Environmental Assessment for the 2004 Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan (USFWS 2004). 

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 1985), 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 sila), and the Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus).Impacts to these 

species are not considered adverse as San Joaquin kit fox and Tipton kangaroo rats are generally 

not active during the time when the general public is 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. Additionally, areas along the tour route open to 

auto access are not optimal blunt –nosed leopard lizard habitat. 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. When necessary refuge staff on occasion reminds 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 
D-22

found a minimum of 1000 feet from the auto tour route. Other impacts from auto traffic could 

involve temporary displacement of an animal from it’s living quarters, feeding, or breeding sites. 

For additional information on impacts to threatened and endangered species regarding this use, 

please refer to the Environmental Assessment for the 2004 Draft Kern and Pixley National 

Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2004). 

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) and American avocet (Recurvirostra americana). Various waterfowl 

species 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 yearround. 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. Monitoring and adaptive management of this use will be implemented 

to ensure that impacts remain within acceptable levels. 

These disturbances are not vastly different than those resulting from normal Refuge operations 

that may include movement of large farm equipment, transportation of employees to and from a 

work site, and conducting biological surveys. Disturbances by the public will 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. These 

types of uses generally occur as group participation in environmental education and interpretation 

acitivites, minimizing the impacts to migratory birds and other wildlife by gathering a visiting 

group together, in one area or vehicle. Long-term positive impacts include 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 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. 

The refuge was established and is managed for wintering waterfowl populations in the Southern 

San Joaquin Valley . Continuation of education and interpretation activities on the Refuge is 

supported by the purpose for which the refuge was created 

Refuge Habitats: Impacts to refuge habitats including riparian, alkali scrub, marsh/seasonal 

wetland, alkali playa, moist soil, and valley grassland could be of concern if visitors do 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 will be accomplished by Refuge staff who 

accompany groups while leading interpretive talks. Staff will send the refuge environmental 
D-23

education guide to groups wishing to partake in this use. 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 cans 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 Draft Kern 

NWR Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan. All comments that were received 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 this use thereby allowing visitors to 

engage in environmental education and interpretation on Wednesdays and Saturdays, during the 

waterfowl hunting season. 

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 fact sheet, and auto tour route informational 

brochures. Special Use Permits will not be required for independent groups visiting the Refuge to 

engage in this use. 

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. 

By 2006, 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 
D-24

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 has 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 this 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 priority 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. 

These uses, when conducted in accordance with the stipulations, will 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 including environmental 

education and interpretation conducted in accordance with the stipulations herein will 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 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

References Cited:

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. 

Korschgen, C.E. and R.B. Dahlgren. 1992. Human Disturbances of Waterfowl: Causes, Effects, 

and Management. USFWS, Fish and Wildlife Leaflet 13.2.15, pp 1-8. 

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. 

Sowles, L.K. 1955. “Prairie Ducks.” Wildlife Management Institute, Washington, D.C. 

USFWS. 2004. Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment. CA/NV Refuge Planning Office, Sacramento, CA. 

Williams, D.F. 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. E-W-R, IV-10.0 48 pp. 

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) will 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 Figure 12, Kern CCP). This use has been 

occurring on the refuge since 1962 (USFWS 1962). The refuge will 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 

will allow the refuge to manage non-native grassland habitats on the Refuge. This use will 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 sila), 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 

continue 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 

clipping, drying, and then weighing the amount of RDM in representative samples from the unit 
D-28

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 800 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 will 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 800 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, 

will manage the grazing program. The permittee, working under a Cooperative Land 

Management Agreement, will accomplish certain facility management and improvement projects 

under the direction of the assistant manager. Accomplishments will 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 will be agreed upon before the 

beginning of the grazing season and will directly support the unit being grazed. 

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. 
D-29

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 will 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 will be deducted on the 

permittee’s final bill with proof of receipt or performed labor. Work contributions of this type will 

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 grassland management plan. Annual costs to manage the grazing programs on both Kern and 

Pixley refuges 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. 

Funds provided to the refuge to manage this use are derived from the collection of refuge grazing 

receipts. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: To provide this use, the refuge has adequate staff which 

includes biological, administrative, and managerial personnel. The grazing program results in 

both long and short term effects, both negative and positive. The Amended Biological Opinion 

(USFWS 2004) for Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

identified the following possible 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 ABO 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, nonnative 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 nonnative grasslands. An impact of cattle to existing water supplies is negligible. Water is brought in 

to cattle from a well located off refuge. Water from the well is delivered, through a buried plastic 

pipe to a large, 2,000 gallon water tank then gravity fed to cattle troughs. To minimize negative 

impacts, the location of the plastic pipe will not change as well as the location of cattle troughs. 

Sedimentation and erosion impacts are not an issue as there are no streams or creeks on the 

Refuge to be degraded, the topography is flat and annual rainfall is less than 7 inches. 

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. 

Part of the reason for a lack of strong correlative evidence is placed on an inconsistent annual 
D-30

rainfall, where a consistent average rainfall will support data indicating either positive or negative 

impacts to local species from grazing. 

While cowbirds are present on the Refuge, the potential for their population to increase resulting 

in an increase in nest parasitism on the resident and breeding songbirds, due to this use would not 

be considered adverse for the following reasons: The Refuge is not providing a resource that 

would attract or retain cowbird populations such as food (grains); the nesting substrate in the 

areas grazed are undesirable to many nesting songbird species resulting in a low number of 

nesting songbirds on the Refuge; and this use would occur in an area identified as sink scrub 

habitat and not within or adjacent to riparian habitat where an increase in cowbird numbers and 

an increase in nest parasitism on nesting songbirds is more common (per. Comm. Williams 2004). 

Another endangered species, the Buena Vista Lake shrew (Sorex ornatus relictus), is found in 

riparian habitats on the refuge. On the refuge, riparian habitat areas are not grazed by cattle and 

shrews are not located in the upland areas of the refuge where cattle will graze. Periodic surveys 

will 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 grazed areas are fixed and grazing will not be rotated to area in 

direct view of the public. 

Impacts to known cultural resources from this use are negligible. Arguelles and Moratto (1982) 

identified and reviewed 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. Any 

ground-disturbing activities will be coordinated with the Service’s Regional Archaeologist, in 

order to preserve the Refuge’s archaeological and historic resources. 

The Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2004) 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 generally positive, additional research and evaluation will 

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 1985, the 

grazing program underwent public review. A notice of Proposed Action was issued as well as 

informational news letters and four news releases. Public comment on this use was solicited 

during an August 1999 public scoping workshop as associated with the Environmental Assessment 

for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Several comments were obtained for this use 

during the workshop that suggested that cattle grazing should continue as a management tool on 

the Refuge. 

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 (USFWS 2004), Special Use 

Permit, and a draft 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. 

 All cattle grazing on the Refuge would be removed no later than April 30. 

Monitoring: A monitoring program will be established to provide data on stubble height, residual 

dry matter, and apparent cover density. This data will establish guidelines for making 

management decisions concerning the grazing program. One monitoring site 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 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-out date for stubble height and cover volume. The monitoring of the habitat along 

with close adherence to stocking rates and grazing season will 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 water birds; to maintain populations and habitats for native 

plants and animals; and to preserve and improve habitats that support the endangered bluntnosed leopard lizard, San Joaquin kit fox, and Tipton kangaroo rat. The mission of the National 

Wildlife Refuge System also includes the conservation, management and restoration of wildlife 

resources. The grazing program is designed to enhance habitat for the endangered species which 

inhabit the refuge. The regulated use of grazing to benefit listed species clearly supports both the 

System mission and the purpose for which the refuge was established. 

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). 

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. 
D-32

With the dramatic changes 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 nonnative grasses and 

forbs (Kuchler 1988). The dense growth of exotic plants has replaced the sparse cover of annuals 

and shrubs to which native animal species such as the Tipton kangaroo rat and blunt-nosed 

leopard lizard are adapted. As a result, these animals probably have more difficulty foraging and 

are more vulnerable to predation (Germano et al. 2001). Declines in rodent populations could also 

have a negative effect on San Joaquin kit fox which utilize 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 and Chapin 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. This practice of removing cattle by late spring allows nesting by migratory 

bird species such as western meadow lark (Sturnella neglecta) and horned larks (Eremophila

alpestris) that utilize short –grass uplands. 

Prior to the acquisition of the Refuge, the uplands were altered from their original native 

condition by the introduction of non-native grasses and intensive grazing practices. In order to 

maintain the biological integrity and diversity of the Refuge, the threatened and endangered 

species component must be maintained. The use of moderate grazing to reduce the build-up of 

annual introduced grassland biomass is viewed as beneficial to these listed species. By restricting 

the intensity and duration of grazing, and by adhering to the stipulations for this use, the 

environmental health of the Refuge will be maintained. 

Mandatory Re-evaluation Date (provide month and year):

 Mandatory 15 year Re-evaluation Date (for priority uses) 

2014 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 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Literature Cited

Arguelles, M.R. and M.J. Moratto. 1982. Overview of Cultural Resources, Kern and Pixley 

National Wildlife Refuges, California. Infotec. Kern NWRC files. 
D-33

Engler, J.D. and K. A. Chapin. 1995. Effects of Grazing/Non-grazing/Prescribed Burning on 

Flora Regimes at Pixley National Wildlife Refuge. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kern NWRC 

files. 

Germano, D, G. Rathbun, and L. Saslaw. 2001. Managing exotic grasses and conserving declining 

species. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 29:551-559 

Kuchler, A.W. 1988. 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. 

Menke J. W. 1992. Presentation from USFWS Biodiversity Workshop. Region 1 Refuge 

Biologists Workshop, Corvallis, Oregon. 

O’Farrell, T.P. 1983. San Joaquin Kit Fox Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Sacramento, California. 84p. 

Stechman, J.V. 1995. Periodic Reappraisal of Grazing Fees for the Kern National Wildlife Refuge 

and Recommendations for Grazing Management of the Pixley NWR. Prepared for Kern NWR by 

John V. Stechman, Certified Consultant. Consulting in the Natural Environmental and 

Agricultural Resources, Avila Beach, California. 

Stechman, J.V. 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. 

Tollestrup, K. 1983. The social behavior of two closely related leopard lizards, Gambelia sila and 

Gambelia wislizenii. J. Tierpsychol. 62:307-320pp. 

USFWS. 2004. Amended Biological Opinion, Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment. CA/NV Refuge Planning 

Office, Sacramento, California. 

USFWS. 2004. Cooperative Land Management Agreement between U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

and Eureka Livestock Company. Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex, Delano, CA. 

USFWS. 1985. Master Plan, Kern National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Region I, Portland Oregon. 

USFWS. 2004. Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment . CA/NV Refuge Planning Office, Sacramento, California. 

Williams, D.F. 1985. A Review of the Population Status of the Tipton Kangaroo Rat, Dipodomys 

nitrotoides nitratoides. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Sacramento, Non-game Wildl. Invest., Final 

Rep. E-W-R, IV-10.0 48pp. 

Williams, P. 2004. Personal communication. Biologist, Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

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) will administer a grazing 

program on approximately 4,600 acres on 10 units (see Figure 14, Pixley CCP). This use has been 

occurring on the refuge since 1960 (USFWS 1962). The Refuge will 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 

will allow the Refuge to manage non-native grassland habitats.. This use will 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 sila), and Tipton kangaroo rats 

(Dipodomys nitratoides nitratoides). 
D-36

The optimal time for grazing begins in November and given winter and spring rainfall, may 

continue 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 from 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 800 lbs./acre 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 will 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 

(USFWS 1998). This Interagency Agreement allows NPS to graze Government owned horses and 

mules on the refuge pursuant to the conditions of a special use permit. This SUP is subject to all 

of the conditions and restrictions levied on the other refuge grazing permittees including 

limitations on the grazing period due to poor rainfall induced forage conditions. At the time the 

Horse Pasture ownership was transferred to the Service, NPS was the permittee on this property 

and the subsequent agreement with the Service was negotiated to allow the continued use of this 

land by NPS while still achieving the habitat management goals of the refuge. In exchange for 

grazing privileges, NPS agrees to maintain all fences, gates and water facilities associated with 

their portion of the grazing program. At a later date if it is determined that grazing is not the 

preferred method of maintaining the vegetation in the upland units of the refuge, this agreement 

and associated SUP may be cancelled by FWS. 

Grazing by sheep, goats, or other creatures such as bison will not be considered. During drought 

years or years of low rainfall, horses, mules, and cattle will 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 800 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. From 2000 through 2004, an average of 3,860 AUM’s were removed from the 

grazing units on Pixley. 

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

Although grazing is permitted on all upland units of the refuge, vernal pool areas are fenced to 

prohibit damage by grazing cattle. These areas may contain western spadefoot toads (Spea 

hammondii) and fencing to protect this habitat is recommended for their management (Jennings 

and Hayes 1994). 

 

Availability of Resources: Assistant refuge managers, under the direction of the project leader, 

will manage the grazing program. The permittee, working under a Cooperative Land 

Management Agreement, will accomplish certain facility management and improvement projects 

under the direction of the assistant manager. Accomplishments will 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 will 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 will be deducted on the 

permittee’s final bill with proof of receipt or performed labor. Work contributions of this type will 

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 to manager both the Kern and Pixley grazing programs averages 

$3,000. Management of this use also involves monitoring resource impacts associated with this use 

on the short-grass environments as well as to endangered species. Funds provided to the refuge to 

manage this use are derived from the collection of refuge grazing receipts. 

Anticipated Impacts of the Use: The grazing program results in both long and short term 

effects, both negative and positive. The Amended Biological Opinion (USFWS 2004) for the Draft 

Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges Comprehensive Conservation Plan , identified the 

following possible short and long-term negative impacts to wildlife resources from grazing: 

Trampling of desirable vegetation, disturbances to ground nesting species, trampling of rodent 
D-38

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 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 grasses, forbes, 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. 

Other impacts such as erosion and sedimentation are not considered significant since the 

topography of the area is flat and any limited runoff to the only water course in the area is 

prevented by large levees. While cow birds are present on the Refuge, the potential for this 

population to increase resulting in an increase in nest parasitism on resident and breeding 

songbirds due to this use would not be considered adverse for the following reasons: The Refuge 

is not providing a resource that would attract or retain cowbird populations such as food (grain); 

the nesting substrate in the areas being grazed are undesirable to many nesting songbirds species 

resulting in a low number of nesting songbirds on the Refuge; and this use would occur in an area 

identified as sink scrub habitat and not within or adjacent to riparian habitat where an increase in 

cowbird numbers and an increase in nest parasitism on nesting songbirds is more common (per. 

Comm. Williams 2004). 

Cattle on the various units of the refuge receive water in the following manner: cattle grazing in 

the Los Feliz unit receive water which is piped from a well into cement water troughs, 40 acre unit 

cattle receive water from a water tank located within the grazing unit which is supplied with water 

that is brought in via truck, Dickey Tract cattle have water supplied from a well off refuge 

brought in through a pipeline to a water 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 that is 

piped into a series of cement water troughs. 

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. These 

studies have indicated a benefit to listed species from decreased vegetative cover (Williams 1985) 

and (O’Farrell 1983). However, the duration and timing needed for optimal benefits is poorly 

understood. One reason for a lack of strong correlative evidence is inconsistent annual rainfall. 

Vernal pools are of a special concern on the Refuge, and cattle and horses will be excluded from 

these habitats. 

Cattle are grazed in areas which are 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 and no negative comments from the public have been received. 

Impacts to known cultural resources from this use are negligible. Arguelles and Moratto (1982) 

identified and reviewed known sites containing cultural resources on the refuge. These sites were 

all of minimal importance and contained no human remains. Any ground-disturbing activities will 
D-39

be coordinated with the Service’s Regional Archaeologist, in order to preserve the Refuge’s 

archaeological and historic resources. 

The Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan (USFWS 2004) 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 generally positive, additional research and evaluation will 

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 1985, the 

grazing program underwent public review. A notice of Proposed Action was issued as well as 

informational news letters and four news releases. Public comment on this use was solicited 

during an August 1999 public scoping workshop associated with the Environmental Assessment 

for the Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan. Several comments were obtained for this use 

during the workshop that suggested that cattle grazing should continue as a management tool on 

the refuge. 

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 a draft 

Refuge Grazing Plan. These documents provide the necessary information and assistance for the 

refuge manager 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 

to sensitive species, such as western spadefoot toads (Spea hammondii), that may be present in 

these areas. 

All livestock grazing on the Refuge will be removed no later than April 30. 

 
D-40

Monitoring. A monitoring program will be established to provide data on stubble height, residual 

dry matter, and apparent cover density. This data will establish guidelines for making 

management decisions concerning the grazing program. 

Depending on the total acreage of each grazing unit, a 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-out date 

for stubble height and cover volume. 

The monitoring of the habitat along with close adherence to stocking rates and grazing season will 

provide a sound management program to benefit the species of concern. 

Justification: Two of the purposes for the Refuge are defined “as a refuge for migratory birds 

and other wildlife” and “to conserve fish, wildlife and plants including those which are listed as 

endangered species or threatened species.” The mission of the National Wildlife Refuge System 

also includes the conservation, management and restoration of wildlife resources. The grazing 

program is designed to enhance habitat for the endangered species which inhabit the refuge. The 

use of grazing to benefit listed species clearly supports both the System mission and the purpose 

for which the refuge was established. 

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 

habitat requirements of Tipton kangaroo rats 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 consisting of annual 

grasses 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 changes 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 nonnative grasses and forbes (Kuchler 1988). The dense growth 

of exotic plants has replaced the sparse cover of annuals and shrubs to which native animal species 

such as the Tipton kangaroo rat and blunt-nosed leopard lizard are adapted. As a result, these 

animals probably have more difficulty foraging and are more vulnerable to predation (Germano et 

al. 2001). Declines in rodent populations could also have a negative effect on San Joaquin kit fox 

which utilize them as a source of 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 
D-41

limited grazing season (less than 6 months) may also benefit the recovery of native perennials. 

The benefits of grazing to reduce exotic plant biomass as well as increase seed production and 

stimulate native perennial production is well documented (Engler and Chapin 1995). Stechman 

(2003) recommends removing cattle no latter than April 30 to reduce selective grazing on the 

native perennials and annuals during the seed development stage. 

Mandatory Re-evaluation Date (provide month and year):

 Mandatory 15 year Re-evaluation Date (for priority uses) 

2014 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 

 Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Literature Cited

Arguelles, M.R. and M.J. Moratto. 1982. Overview of Cultural Resources, Kern and Pixley 

National Wildlife Refuges, California. Infotec. Kern NWRC files. 

Engler, J.D. and K. A. Chapin. 1995. Effects of Grazing/Non-grazing/Prescribed Burning on 

Flora Regimes at Pixley National Wildlife Refuge. U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kern NWRC 

files. 

Germano, D, G. Rathbun, and L. Saslaw. 2001. Managing exotic grasses and conserving declining 

species. Wildlife Society Bulletin. 29:551-559 

Jennings, M.A. and Hayes, M.P. 1994. Amphibians and Reptile Species of Special Concern in 

California. 96 pp. Final report submitted to California Department of Fish & Game, Rancho 

Cordova, California. Contract number 8023. 

Kuchler, A.W. 1988. 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. 

Menke J. W. 1992. Presentation from USFWS Biodiversity Workshop. Region 1 Refuge 

Biologists Workshop, Corvallis, Oregon. 
D-42

O’Farrell, T.P. 1983. San Joaquin Kit Fox Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Sacramento, California. 84p. 

Stechman, J.V. 1995. Periodic Reappraisal of Grazing Fees for the Kern National Wildlife Refuge 

and Recommendations for Grazing Management of the Pixley NWR. Prepared for Kern NWR by 

John V. Stechman, Certified Consultant. Consulting in the Natural Environmental and 

Agricultural Resources, Avila Beach, California. 

Stechman, J.V. 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. 

Tollestrup, K. 1983. The social behavior of two closely related leopard lizards, Gambelia sila and 

Gambelia wislizenii. J. Tierpsychol. 62:307-320pp. 

USFWS. 2004. Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment. CA/NV Refuge Planning Office, Sacramento, California 

USFWS. 1962. Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex Annual Narrative. Kern NWRC files. 

USFWS, 1998. Interagency Agreement between U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service and National Park 

Service. 

USFWS, 2004. Amended Biological Opinion, Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges Draft 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Assessment, CA/NV Refuge Planning 

Office, Sacramento, California. 

USFWS. 2004. Cooperative Land Management Agreement between U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service 

and Marion Howard, Bayou Vista Farms and Stanley White. Kern National Wildlife Refuge 

Complex, Delano, CA 

Williams, D.F. 1985. A Review of the Population Status of the Tipton Kangaroo Rat, Dipodomys 

nitrotoides nitratoides. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Sacramento, Non-game Wildl. Invest., Final 

Rep. E-W-R, IV-10.0 48pp. 

Williams, P. 2004. Personal Communication. Biologist, Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex. 

D-44
D-45

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 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 will 

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. 
D-46

Research activities will occur on the refuge throughout the year and during daylight and night 

time hours. All habitat types of the refuge will be open to research including uplands, moist soil, 

seasonal wetland, and riparian areas. The duration of research studies will vary as length of 

investigations will be dependant upon the type of question being posed and impacts to areas 

resulting in extended human traffic. 

All research applicants will 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 the study design to avoid and 

minimize these impacts: 

5. Type and number of 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 will be reviewed by refuge staff and others, as appropriate. The following 

criteria will be used to assess research proposals: 

1. Research that will contribute to enhancing refuge management will have higher priority 

than other requests. 

2. Research that will conflict with other ongoing research, monitoring, or management 

programs will not be approved. 

3. Research projects that can be carried out elsewhere (off-refuge) will be less likely to be 

approved. 

4. Research that causes undue disturbance or is intrusive will not be approved. The degree 

and type of disturbance will 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 shrew, are sensitive to disturbance which 

must be considered when considering a project. 

5. Evaluation of research requests will determine whether any effort has been made to 

minimize disturbance through study design (for example, by considering adjustments in 
D-47

the location, timing, or scope of the study; the number of participants, study methods, the 

number of study sites, etc.). 

6. If it will 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 will be considered and agreed upon before approval. All 

projects will 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 will 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 less than $1,000. 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 et al. 1998, 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 by a small number of humans working near areas of endangered 

species, as will be the case pertaining to this use, should be inconsequential if all stipulations and 

conditions of SUP’s are followed. 

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 will 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 activity 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. 
D-48

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 

will possibly be entering areas that are normally closed to the public and likely collecting samples 

or handling plants or wildlife. Special Use Permits will include conditions to ensure that impacts 

on wildlife and habitats are reduced as much as possible. Impacts to vegetation will be minimal 

and will not involve earthwork or cutting associated with reducing obstacles that impedes 

movement to and from data collection sites. Access routes to and from data collection sites will 

remain the constant throughout the study period. 

Cultural Resources: Research studies are not likely to impact cultural resources on the refuge. 

Arguelles and Moratto (1982) identified and reviewed known sites containing cultural resources on 

the refuge. The presence of any known sites will be considered prior to issuance of an SUP for 

research activities. Any ground-disturbing activities will be coordinated with the Service’s 

Regional Archaeologist, in order to preserve the Refuge’s archaeological and historic resources. 

Public Review and Comment: During completion of the Kern NWR Master Plan (USFWS 

1985), this use underwent public review. A notice of Proposed Action was issued as well as five 

informational news letters and four news releases. Public comment on this use was also solicited 

throughout the development of the Kern and Pixley Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(USFWS 2004) beginning with public scoping meetings in 1999 and continuing through the 

public review of the Draft CCP and Environmental Assessment. 

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 detailed 

study proposal. 

All work will be coordinated with the project leader, or designated refuge staff, and researcher. 

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 or species to be studied. 

Proposed research methods which will adversely affect, or will 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. 
D-49

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 and/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 process. 

All research studies undertaken will provide current biological information on the needs and 

limitations of refuge resources (wildlife or habitats). 

All research activities conducted on the refuge will conform to the applicable provisions of 

Directors Orders 109 and 149 which govern the use of samples collected on refuge lands and 

conduct during the course of research activities. 

Justification: Research activities conducted on the refuge will only be approved when the study 

results will be directly applicable to management and recovery of threatened and endangered 

species of the Southern San Joaquin Valley or management of other flora or fauna of concern to 

the refuge management. The anticipated level of research to be conducted on the Refuge at any 

given time will be compatible because the refuge will 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 

 X Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact 

 

________ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 
D-50

Literature Cited:

 

Arguelles, M.R. and M.J. Moratto. 1982. Overview of Cultural Resources, Kern and Pixley 

National Wildlife Refuges, California. Infotec. Kern NWRC files. 

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. 

Korschgen, C.E. and R. B. Dahlgren. 1992. Human Disturbances of Waterfowl: Causes, Effects, 

and Management. 

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. 

USFWS. 1985. Master Plan, Kern National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Region I, Portland Oregon. 

USFWS. 2004. Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment . CA/NV Refuge Planning Office, Sacramento, California. 

Williams, D.F., E.A. Cypher, P.A. Kelly, K.J. Miller, N. Norvell, S.E. Phillips, C.D. Johnson, and 

G.W. Colliver. 1998. Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Region I, Portland, Oregon. 319 p. 

D-52
D-53

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-54

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 will 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 will occur on the Refuge throughout the year and during daylight and night 

time hours. All habitat types of the Refuge will be open to research including upland areas, moist 

soil, seasonal wetland, and riparian. The duration of research studies will vary as length of 

investigations will be dependant upon the type of question being posed and impacts to areas 

resulting in extended human traffic. 

All research applicants will 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 the study design to avoid and 

minimize these impacts: 

5. Number and type of 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 will be reviewed by refuge staff or others, as appropriate. The following 

criteria will be used to assess research proposals: 
D-55

1. Research that will contribute to enhancing refuge management will have higher priority 

than other requests. 

2. Research that will conflict with other ongoing research, monitoring, or management 

programs will not be approved. 

3. Research projects that can be carried out elsewhere (off-refuge) will be less likely to be 

approved. 

4. Research that causes undue disturbance or is intrusive will not be approved. The degree 

and type of disturbance will 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 

will require special attention. 

5. Evaluation of research requests will 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 will 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 will be considered and agreed upon before approval. All 

projects will 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 will 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 less than $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 et al. 1998, 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 by a small number of humans working near areas of endangered 
D-56

species, as will be the case pertaining to this use, should be inconsequential if all stipulations and 

conditions of SUP’s are followed. 

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 

will be considered minimal. 

Vernal Pools: The potential for researchers to trample and destroy vernal pool habitats is of 

concern, particularly during the wet season, when vernal pools are at their most productive stage. 

Due to the sensitive nature of this habitat and the possible presence of special status species such 

as the spadefoot toad (Spea hammondii), access to vernal pool sites for research purposes will 

receive special scrutiny. 

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 

will possibly be entering areas that are normally closed to the public and likely collecting samples 

or handling plants or wildlife. Special Use Permits will include conditions to ensure that impacts 

on wildlife and habitats are reduces as much as possible. Impacts to vegetation will be minimal 

and will not involve earthwork or cutting associated with reducing obstacles that impedes 

movement to and from data collection sites. Access routes to and from data collection sites will 

remain the constant throughout the study period. 

Cultural Resources: Research studies are not likely to impact cultural resources on the refuge. 

Arguelles and Moratto (1982) identified and reviewed known sites containing cultural resources on 

the refuge. The presence of any known sites will be considered prior to issuance of an SUP for 

research activities. Any ground-disturbing activities will be coordinated with the Service’s 

Regional Archaeologist, in order to preserve the Refuge’s archaeological and historic resources. 

Public Review and Comment: During completion of the Pixley NWR Master Plan (USFWS 

1985), this use underwent public review. A notice of Proposed Action was issued as well as five 

informational news letters and four news releases. Public comment on this use was also solicited 

throughout the development of the Kern and Pixley Draft Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

(USFWS 2004) beginning with public scoping meetings in 1999 and continuing through the 

public review of the Draft CCP and Environmental Assessment. 
D-57

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 detailed study plan. 

All work will be coordinated with the project leader, or designated refuge staff, and researcher. 

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 and species to be studied. 

Proposed research methods which will adversely affect, or will 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 exempted, 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 and/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 process. 

All research studies undertaken will provide current biological information on the needs and 

limitations of refuge resources (wildlife or habitats). 

All research activities conducted on the refuge will conform to the applicable provisions of 

Directors Orders 109 and 149 which govern the use of samples collected on refuge lands and 

conduct during the course of research activities. 

Justification: Research activities conducted on the refuge will only be approved when the study 

results will be directly applicable to management and recovery of threatened and endangered 

species of the Southern San Joaquin Valley or management of other flora or fauna of concern to 

the refuge management. The anticipated level of research to be conducted on the Refuge at any 

given time will be compatible because the Refuge will 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. 
D-58

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 

_______ Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision 

Literature Cited:

 

Arguelles, Marcus R. and Michael J. Moratto. 1982. Overview of Cultural Resources, Kern and 

Pixley National Wildlife Refuges, California.Kern NWRC files. 

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. 

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. 

USFWS. 1985. Master Plan, Pixley National Wildlife Refuge. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Portland Oregon. 

USFWS. 2004. Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuges Draft Comprehensive Conservation 

Plan and Environmental Assessment . CA/NV Refuge Planning Office, Sacramento, California. 

Williams, D.F., E.A. Cypher, P.A. Kelly, K.J. Miller, N. Norvell, S.E. Phillips, C.D. Johnson, and 

G.W. Colliver. 1998. Recovery Plan for Upland Species of the San Joaquin Valley, California. U.S. 

Fish and Wildlife Service, Region I, Portland, Oregon. 319 p. 

D-60
D-61

Compatibility Determination

Use: Monitor and control mosquitoes (Alternative C, Kern and Pixley 

 National Wildlife Refuge Complex Comprehensive Conservation Plan 

 Environmental Assessment) 

Refuge Name: Kern National Wildlife Refuge (Established November 18, 1960) 

Establishing and The Kern National Wildlife Refuge, located in Kern County, California 

Acquisition 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. 
D-62

erythrothorax, Ochlerotatus melanimon, Oc. dorsalis, and Aedes vexans may also contribute to 

disease transmission (Goddard 2002). 

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 will 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 will 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 will be targeted. Target areas 

will 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 

will 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-63

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 will 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 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 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-64

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 

will average 20 minutes, but will vary given the size of the treatment area. Aerial pass distance 

will vary depending on the treatment area, but will average 70 feet. The pilot will 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 (see Figure 12 in the CCP). 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-65

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 will be required. Monitoring of treatments will include observations of sprayed 

areas before and after treatment and coordination of permitting, documentation, and record 

keeping. Additional funding will 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 crustaceans (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-66

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 
D-67

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, 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 will not be an issue, since 
D-68

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 will 

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-69

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. 
D-70

5. KMVCD will provide the Refuge with interim and final reports regarding the arbovirus 

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 will 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-71

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 will be re-analyzed on the basis on new 

evidence. 
D-72

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. 

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. 
D-73

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 

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. 
D-74

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. 

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. 
D-75

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-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 
D-76

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 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-78
D-79

Compatibility Determination

Use: Monitor and control mosquitoes mosquitoes (Alternative C, 

Kern and Pixley National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

Comprehensive Conservation Plan Environmental Assessment) 

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 Purposes: Bankhead-Jones Farm Tenant Act (7 U.S.C. ‘ 1101) 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 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. 
D-80

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 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 will 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 midAugust to March for waterfowl habitat. Sampling will 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 will 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 will be identified taxonomically by skilled 

technicians and, could also be tested for WEE, SLE, and WN. 
D-81

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 will 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 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. 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. Treatment duration 

will average 20 minutes, but will vary given the size of the treatment area. Aerial pass distance 

will vary depending on the treatment area, but will average 70 feet. The pilot will use a map of 

units to be treated as well as utilizing a GPS system as an additional guide. 
D-82

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 midAugust 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 non-systemic, 

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 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. 
D-83

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 ultralow 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 will be required. Monitoring of treatments will 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 will need to be funded by another source. Additional funding will 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 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 
D-84

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). 

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 
D-85

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 will require more than an ounce 

and perhaps as much as a pint to 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. 
D-86

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 will 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 will 

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 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 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 
D-87

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 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 
D-88

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 will 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 will be made with the Refuge and 

TMAD along with the appropriate health authorities. Notification will 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 will 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. 

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 will 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 
D-89

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 will 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 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 will 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-90

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, 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 
D-91

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. 

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. 
D-92

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. 

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. 
D-93

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-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. 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.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) 

___2014_ 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 

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) 

Stellula calliope (calliope 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) 
E-2 

Limosa fedoa (marbled godwit) 

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) 
E-3

Myiarchus cinerascens (ash-throated flycatcher) 

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 (RACCOON FAMILY ) 

Procyon lotor (raccoon) 

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 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 

SCIURIDAE (SQUIRREL FAMILY) 

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) 

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) kingsnake) 

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 (GROUND BEETLES) 

Carabidae (ground beetle) 

DRYOPIDAE (LONG-TOED WATER 

BEETLES)

CURCULIONIDAE (WEEVILS) 

Curculionidae spp. (weevils) 

DYTISCIDAE (PREDACEOUS DIVING 

BEETLES) 

Agabus disintegratus 

Hygrotus spp. 

Laccophilus decipiens 

Rhantus gutticollis 

Thermonectus basillaris (yellow-spotted water 

beetle) 

HYDROPHILIDAE (WATER SCAVENGER 

BEETLES) 

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) 

CORIXIDAE 

Corisella inscripta

 

NOTONECTIDAE (WATER BOATMAN) 

Notonecta unifasciata (single-banded back 

swimmer) 

HOMOPTERA (TREEHOPPERS, APHIDS, SCALE 

INSECTS) 

APHIDAE (aphids) 

CIXIIDAE (cixiid planthoppers) 

DELPHACIDAE (delphacid planthoppers) 

CICADELIIDAE 

Draeculacephala mollipes (leafhopper) 

ORDER LEPIDOPTERA (BUTTERLIES & MOTHS) 

ARCTIIDAE (TIGER MOTHS) 

Apantesis proxima (Mewxican 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 

Homoeosoma 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 

Amphipyyra brunneatra 

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 concors 

Proxenus mindara 

Pseudaletia unipuncta 

Rynchagrotis exertistigma 

Schinia mortua 

Scotogramma deffessa 

Spaelotis havilae 

Spodoptera exigua 

Spodoptera praefica 

Stibadium spumosum 

Trichocosmia inornata 

Trichocosmia drasteroides 

Trichoclea antica 

Trichoclea decepta 

Tridepia nova 

Trichoplusia ni (cabbage looper) 

SPHINGIDAE (HAWKMOTH FAMILY) 

Hyles lineata (white-lined sphinx)

Manduca sexta (Carolina sphinx

Pachysphinx occidentalis (big poplar sphinx) 

ORDER ODONATA (DRAGONFLIES AND 

DAMSELFLIES) 

AESHNIDAE (DARNER DRAGONFLIES) 

Aeshna interrupta (variable darner) 

Anax junius (common green darner) 

COENAGRIONIDAE (NARROWWINGED 

DAMSELFLIES) 

Ischnura perparva 

LIBELLULIDAE (SKIMMER DRAGONFLIES) 

Libellula comanche (Comanche skimmer) 

Sympetrum (Tarnetrum) corruptum (variegated 

meadowhawk) 

 

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. 
E-9

CLASS OSTRACODA

ORDER PODOCOPIDA 

CYLINDROLEBERIDAE 

Cypridopsis spp. (seed shrimp) 

CLASS GASTROPODA

ORDER LIMNOPHILA 

PLANORBIDAE 

Gyraulus spp. (orb snail) 

Physa spp. (pouch snail) 
E-10 

Plants 

AIZOACEAE (ICE PLANT FAMILY) 

Sesuvium verrucosum (western 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) 

Cirsium vulgare (bull thistle) 

Gnaphalium palustre (everlasting, cudweed) 

Grindelia camporum (gumplant) 

Helianthus annuus (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) 

Silybum marianum (sow thistle) 

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 lentiformis (quail bush) 

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) 
E-11

HYDROPHYLLACEAE (WATERLEAF FAMILY) 

Phacelia ciliata (blue flower) 

JUNCACEAE (RUSH FAMILY) 

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) 

Ludwigia peploides (water 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 ssp. gussoneanum

(Mediterranean barley) 

Hordeum vulgare (common barley) 

Leptochloa fascicularis (bearded sprangletop) 

Leymus triticoides (alkali rye) 

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) 

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) 

PORTULACACEAE (PURSLANE FAMILY) 

Calandrinia ciliata (red maids) 

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) 

Mimulus guttatus (common monkeyflower) 

Triphysaria eriantha (butter ‘n’ eggs) 

Verbascum thapsus (wooly mullein) 

Veronica peregrina (purslane speedwell) 

SOLANACEAE (NIGHTSHADE FAMILY) 

Physalis lanceifolia (lance-leafed ground cherry) 

Solanum americanum (small flowered nightshade) 
E-12 

Solanum elaeagnifolium (silverleaf-nettle, bull 

nettle) 

Solanum sarrachoides (nightshade) 

TAMARICACEAE (TAMARISK FAMILY) 

Tamarix aphylla (athel) 

Tamarix chinensis (salt cedar) 

Tamarix gallica (summer tamarisk) 

TYPHACEAE (CATTAIL FAMILY) 

Typha angustifolia (narrow-leaved cattail) 

URITICACEAE (NETTLES) 

Urtica dioica ssp. holosericea (stinging nettle) 

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 clypeata (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 CUCULIFORMES (ANIS, CUCKOOS, & 

ROADRUNNERS) 

CUCULIDAE 

Geococcyx californianus (greater roadrunner) 

 
E-14 

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) 

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) 

Guiraca caerulea (blue grosbeak) 

Passerina amoena (Lazuli bunting)

Pheucticus melanocephalus (black-headed 

grosbeak) 
E-15

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) 

FRINGILLIDAE (FINCH FAMILY) 

Carduelis lawrencei (Lawrence’s goldfinch) 

Carduelis psaltria (lesser goldfinch) 

Carduelis tristis (American goldfinch) 

Carpodacus mexicanus (house finch) 

ORDER PELECANIFORMES (TROPICBIRDS, 

BOOBIES, PELICANS, CORMORANTS, ANHINGA 

& FRIGATEBIRDS) 

PELECANIDAE (PELICANS) 

Pelecanus erythrorhynchos (white pelican) 

 

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 (RACCOON FAMILY) 

Procyon lotor (raccoon) 

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 DIPTERA (GNATS, MOSQUITOES, & 

TRUE FLIES) 

CULICIDAE (MOSQUITOES) 

Culex erythrothorax 

Culex pipiens 

Culex tarsalis 

Ochlerotatus dorsalis 

Ochlerotatus nigromaculis 

Aedes vexans 

ORDER LEPIDOPTERA (BUTTERFLIES & MOTHS)

ARCTIIDAE (TIGER MOTH FAMILY) 

Apantesis proxima (harnessed tiger moth)

Tetanolita palligera 

 

GEOMETRIDAE (INCH WORM AND 

LOOPER MOTH FAMILY) 

Lobocleta 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 (cabbage lopper)

Tridepia nova 

Xestia adela 

SPHINGIDAE (HAWKMOTH FAMILY) 

Manduca sexta (tobacco hornworm moth)

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 dictyotum (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) 

Lupinus microcarpus var. densiflorus (chick 

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) 
E-20 

LAMIACEAE (MINT FAMILY) 

Trichostema lanceolatum (vinegar weed) 

Trichostema ovatum (San Joaquin bluecurls) 

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 ramosissima (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 440 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 visitor 

services 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 Ecological Reserve 

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 and 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. 1983. 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. 

Caudill, J. 2003. 2001 National and State Economic Impacts of Wildlife Watching: Addendum to the 2001 

National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation. U.S. Department of the Interior, 

Fish & Wildlife Service, Division of Economics, Arlington, Virginia. 

Caudill, J and E. Henderson. 2003. Banking on Nature 2002: The Economic Benefits to Local Communities of 

National Wildlife Refuge Visitation. 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. 
G-2 

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. 

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. 1986. 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. 

Kelly, P.A., E. Cypher, D.F. Williams, and C.E. Uptain. 2000. Habitat management plan: San Joaquin kangaroo 

rats (Dipodomys nitratoides) on Naval Air Station, Lemoore. Prepared for Naval Air Station, Lemoore, 

CA. 

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. 

Lovich, J.E. and R.G. de Gouvenain. 1998. Salt cedar invasion in desert wetlands of the southwestern United 

States: ecological and political implications. Pp. 447-467 in Majumdar, S.K. et al., eds. Ecology of 

wetlands and associated systems. Pennsylvania Academy of Sciences. 

Martin, D.C. 1973. Selected aspects of burrowing owl ecology and behavior. Condor 75: 446-456. 
G-3

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. 

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. 

Riparian Habitat Joint Venture. 2000. Riparian bird conservation plan. 

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. 
G-4 

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. 

------1982. Migratory bird disease contingency plan. Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex. Delano, CA. 

 

-----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. Proves 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 

Jeanne Clark Editor, Classic Communications 

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. 

Updated Land Protection Plan: 

Pixley National Wildlife Refuge 

 
 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-2

Willing Seller Policy........................................................................................................................................... J-3

Habitat Protection Methods ............................................................................................................................. J-3

Conservation Easements.............................................................................................................................. J-3

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-11 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. 

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. 
J-2 

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. 

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. 
 J-3

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. 

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 
J-4 

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

322-020-008

322-020-004

322-040-015

322-220-005

322-220-001

322-220-010

322-200-002

322-040-012

322-040-001

322-040-011

322-050-010

322-200-004

322-120-014

322-120-012

322-070-003

322-070-001

322-150-008

322-140-003

322-090-001

322-170-011

322-180-008

322-180-007

322-080-001

322-080-003

322-080-004

322-080-013

322-080-011

322-080-007

322-080-010

322-170-008

CALIF STATE OF UNIVERSITY

322-170-003

322-050-001

TULARE COUNTY OF

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

313-090-012

313-090-015

PIXLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT

313-150-007

313-090-023

313-090-022

293-250-011

293-230-001

293-240-003

293-220-007

293-270-011

293-270-018

293-270-015

ANGIOLA WATER DIST

293-270-009

293-270-008

293-270-010

293-270-012

293-280-022

293-280-017

293-270-003

293-270-005

293-280-028

293-280-026

293-280-029

293-280-032

293-280-005

293-280-003

293-280-016

293-280-014

291-060-020

293-030-005

293-030-004

293-280-004

322-020-011

LOWER TULE RIVER IRRIGATION DISTRIC

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

293-280-006

322-070-012

322-010-016

TEXAS CO

293-280-002

N R L L INC

293-280-001

313-190-009

313-190-029

BOSMAN DAIRY

293-030-001

293-030-006

293-030-003

M CURTI & SONS A CALIF CORP

291-050-007

LANTINO GEORGE K & MARILYN J (CO-TR

291-060-021

291-040-008

291-050-024

KNEVELBAARD DAIRIES

293-040-035

322-090-009

BAYOU VISTA FARMS WEST

291-050-018

291-050-020

313-090-005

DEER CREEK STORM WATER DIST

322-080-017

322-090-004

313-090-019

313-090-025

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

MAIER MARIE AUBREY (EST OF)

293-280-020

CHILDS JAMES C JR

JCH FAMILY LIMITED PTNSHP

293-280-024

NOONAN DANIEL T (TR)

293-280-023

CONCORDIA COLLEGE CORP

293-280-030

MC KINNEN MALCOLM A

293-280-031

293-280-008

293-280-011

SARVAK KENNETH E

293-280-012

293-280-013

293-280-010

293-270-016

KVILHAUG RONALD & CHARLOTTE (CO-TRS

293-270-017

293-270-014

HAURY MARION E (EST OF)

293-280-007

293-280-021

293-280-019

293-270-004

293-270-007

293-280-009

293-280-015

293-280-027

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

293-010-003

PACHECO & ASSOCIATES

293-270-013

WESTRA RICHARD D & MARY

293-260-003

293-260-004

322-210-001

WHEAT DAVID B

293-270-019

CHIER RICHARD C ET AL

313-090-026

322-170-012

322-050-004

322-050-014

313-100-007

313-100-009

313-100-011

313-090-003

JOHNSTON DAVID R

293-270-006

313-190-021

313-180-003

CRAVEN TED

293-270-022

NICHOLSON LILLIAN

293-270-021

MOLINE WILLIAM G & JOANN M

293-270-001

VIERA ANGEL H

293-270-023

293-280-018

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

313-180-044

313-180-009

313-180-011

313-190-006

313-190-001

313-190-025

313-180-012

313-190-018

313-190-030

313-180-030

313-180-045

313-190-026

HOWARD MARION O

313-190-003

313-190-022

CURL E D & LILLIE M

313-190-019

313-190-024

313-180-032

MUELLER MARGARET (EST OF)

313-190-012

KAPETAN MARC N

313-190-016

313-190-011

313-190-014

MANLOVE WILLIE M

313-190-017

293-200-004

BISHOP MARTHA ELIZABETH

313-190-010

BAKER BETTYE C

WEGER HOWARD O & M JANE (CO-TRS)

293-200-003

293-220-006

CORCORAN MOTOR TRANSPORT INC

293-010-009

293-010-008

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

322-050-011 1.25

313-100-015

PACIFIC COAST LAND CO LTD

313-180-017

322-100-009

313-190-028

ELY WILMA E (TR)

313-190-027

313-180-001

313-190-005

ALLEN LOUISE H

313-190-004

HIRATA AILEEN A

313-090-011

ATLEY MAE E

313-190-023

CHENOWETH DOROTHY M ET AL

BENNETT WILLIS W

313-190-002

313-180-031

313-180-046

RINGGOLD REGINA

313-190-013

BENSON KESIAH

313-190-007

313-180-004

313-180-047

THE WHEELER TRUST

313-190-008

313-180-020

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

313-180-005

MILLER M M TR ET AL

313-180-006

SMITH DONNIE L & SANDRA M (CO-TRS)

322-130-006

FRASER JOYCIE E

313-180-028

WELLS GLEN R

ATOR MARK L & KATHY D

313-180-022

WALDRON ROBERT C JR

313-180-029

BAILEY ROBERT T & PHYLLIDA C (TRS)

313-180-015

HERBERT DORIS

313-180-021

ABILA CRESPIN & HELEN

313-180-013

LARSEN NEILS C ET AL

313-180-016

313-100-014

HARVEY GEORGE C & ETHEL L

313-180-023

313-090-013

313-180-037

313-180-035

DARETTE ALFRED & THELMA

313-180-019

CALLAN JOHN T

313-180-018

313-180-033

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

313-090-010

313-090-018

313-090-008

313-100-004

313-100-010

BETTENCOURT MARY L

313-100-005

313-100-001

313-100-002

313-100-008

GONZALEZ PEDRO & ROGELIA

313-180-036

PARKER RANDALL J & AUDREY

313-100-003

THE SAMUEL A WHITE & ESTHER M WHITE

313-180-042

WRIGHT ED

313-180-043

KIDD EDYTHE (EST OF)

RUIZ REBECA

313-180-002

322-140-012

TANAKA DEE ANN KEIKO

313-180-034

BERTRAM RUDOLPH F JR

313-180-007

313-180-008

313-180-040

GRAHAM CHARLOTTE

313-180-041

RODENBORN W A ET AL

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

CAREY HELEN J (TR)

313-090-024

MC FARLANE CLIFFORD S

313-090-001

ALMA INVESTMENT COMPANY

313-090-031

322-010-008

322-090-002

322-060-007

322-140-001

HAYES GLENNA S (TR)

TOROSIAN DERON P & ISABEL

313-090-021

OLIVER LEO

313-090-020

313-090-034

313-090-009

313-090-037

313-090-036

HUBER LARRY D

313-090-016

WHITE SAM A & ESTHER M

313-090-035

CALLAN THOMAS J & GLADYS ANN (TR)

313-100-013

MILLER IRVIN J & AFTON F (TRS)

313-090-014

VELASCO RICHARD & JANET

313-100-006

RAMSEY DONALD F (TR)

313-100-012

313-090-030

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

322-010-006

322-010-002

322-020-023

322-210-004

322-210-003

322-220-013

322-030-003

322-120-003

322-130-010

322-040-016

322-010-020

322-220-008

322-210-007

322-200-014

322-200-013

322-080-005

322-090-003

322-120-011

322-130-014

313-090-032

SCHMOKER LAVON ELBERT & NYO ROMA (T

313-090-028

BECK NANCY I

COSTA ANDREW & RENE

313-090-002

313-090-029

THOMAS EVANGELINE

313-090-004

313-090-033

RIPPY LOIS N

313-090-007

313-090-006

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

DE MONTE LEO & VIVIAN (TR)

322-080-008

322-090-010

322-080-002

322-060-013

322-060-010

322-050-007

322-120-008

322-060-014

322-110-003

322-140-005

322-190-009

322-180-010

322-070-013

322-070-011

322-100-010

322-100-008

322-150-002

322-150-004

322-180-015

322-080-015

322-170-009

322-070-005

322-100-012

322-090-008

322-090-011

322-160-005

322-170-007

322-020-022

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

322-170-004 1.25

RUNDQUIST ARLENE (HEIR JAKE MODEL)

322-160-004

BERGER IRVING & ADELE ET AL

322-170-005

EELLS ERNEST ROBERT

322-020-019

322-020-020

KIENTZ FRANCIS J & GENEVIEVE B

322-160-002

322-020-013

322-020-012

322-020-018

322-020-001

322-150-001

COCHRAN DONALD W & IVA L

322-160-003

322-060-004

CHAMBERLAIN ORA N

322-090-007

BIMAT ROBERT E

322-160-001

UPTEGROVE JOHN

322-080-012

ALFORD MARTHA JUNE

322-090-015

322-010-009

322-040-003

DUNLAP JOSEPH PHILIP

322-080-009

322-070-010

322-100-004

322-130-005

322-200-007

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

322-100-007 2.50

322-070-007

ARMSTRONG NETTIE

322-100-005

SMITH MABEL WREN (EST OF)

322-070-004

EMERSON JON S

322-070-008

DRIGGERS MICHAEL A & MARY

322-170-001

HAMBURGER VICTOR & ESTHER

322-170-010

JONES WILHELMINA B

CH-FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH

322-170-002

322-050-013

DARETTE ALFRED & THELMA

322-090-013

WALKENHORST JOHN W & RENEE

322-160-006

322-070-006

JOHNSON ROBERT L & JUDIE B

322-090-012

322-140-011

MAYER DIETER

322-080-014

LIEBEL LEO W SR (TR)

322-090-014

322-070-009

322-170-006

PALMER BEN H

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

322-180-012 1.25

322-180-013

CLEMENS CHARLES E

322-180-011

DAWSON WILLIE T

322-180-003

JONES JAMES H & ISABELLE

322-180-014

TURNER CHARLES A (TR)

322-150-007

CAVETTE SUSAN (EST OF)

322-150-006

WERNLI EMIL W

322-100-005

POWELL KATHLEEN C

322-100-011

ALSING RUDI A

FINOCHIO ANTHONY & MAXINE C

322-100-003

AAGAARD PAUL M & MARJORIE A (TRS)

322-100-002

322-180-009

STALLINGS HAROLD L SR & ELENORA K

322-070-002

322-130-012

322-150-005

O'BRIEN LINDA KAY

322-180-006

MOORE OSCAR W (TR)

WOOD JAMES D

322-150-003

DIX THOMAS H

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

COVEY W L DR

SWARTZ A

322-110-001

CORK MARY L

322-140-004

322-060-009

GODKIN CECIL E & BEATRICE

322-110-002

322-050-005

322-060-001

SPRINGER LUCY E

322-060-011

POPE F W

322-040-014

CH-HEBREW EVANGELIZATION SOCIETY IN

322-190-006

MALLET KATHERINE A

322-140-009

322-190-005

WALTON KRIS J

322-190-007

322-140-008

MC DOUGALL FLORENCE L

322-140-007

ABERNATHY DAVID P & NANCY S (TRS)

322-110-004

ELMORE JOHN E JR (TR)

322-140-006

DYER NELL & GEO (ESTS OF)

KOOP VICTORY MARIE

322-060-008

DUNLAP JOSEPH P ET AL

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

THOMPSON M IRENE & SARAH L

EASTER SEALS SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA IN

322-130-004

BREWER CLAUD C & LILLIE M

322-130-009

TUTEUR THERESA

322-120-009

BARNHART THOMAS M & L S

322-120-010

322-120-006

322-040-002

SATCHELL NORMAN H & LOIS A (TRS)

322-120-005

BENTON MAX D & JUDITH L

322-050-009

322-120-007

MANZ KATHERINE J

BRIDGES JAN MICHAEL (TR)

322-050-006

KROSSCHELL THOMAS D

322-050-008

WELTY CHRISTOPHER D

322-190-003

AESPURO RICARDO LUIS

322-190-002

BAHN WILLIAM E

322-140-010

WARD EMMA K

322-190-004

322-140-002

KOONS WILMA R

322-140-013

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

322-130-011

HORTON BARBARA C

322-200-001

GREIN GORDON M

322-130-001

GRANT JOHN

322-130-013

MONDRAGON JOAN M

322-130-003

SMALDINO LOUIS & MARGARET I (TRS)

322-130-002

ROBERTS JACK D

322-120-002

JENKINS EVA E

322-120-013

WELLS RUTH D

322-120-004

PETERS HAROLD

322-120-001

DREW ANNIE ET AL

322-050-002

VAN SICKLE GARFIELD

322-050-012

FISCHER BESSIE

322-030-002

HERRMANN RUSSELL

322-050-003

WALKER RUSSELL F & MARY

322-200-003

KENDALL MARGARET

322-200-005

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

322-010-005

MACK C E

322-010-001

EAQUINTA ANN (TR)

322-210-002

DUNCAN JUNE

322-030-001

MOORE TOM

322-210-006

CONNER ROBERT LOUIS

322-040-004

HARPER ALTA

GREIN GEORGE ARTHUR

322-210-005

322-220-007

COWAN RALPH & RUBY

322-010-012

BARBIAN WILBUR L & VIRGINIA L (TR B

322-010-014

322-010-013

322-040-013

LINDGREN EDNA MAE (TR)

322-010-007

FREDRICKSON ADA B (SUCCESSOR TRUSTE

322-040-007

AHMED IQBAL

322-040-006

DE LORETO EDWARD & JILL (TRS)

322-200-010

KISER STEVEN WILLIAM

322-040-005

WANDREI EARL L

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

322-020-007 2.50

322-020-015

VAN ELSWYK EVELYN BECK

322-020-024

ALKURDI MOHAMED & DIANE

322-020-009

NEWHOUSE ROBERT M (TR)

322-020-010

GUILFORD ELSIE H

322-220-011

RAMIREZ JOSE & MERCEDES

322-240-006

NEAT ANNA

322-220-002

CRIDER ELMER GORDON

322-220-012

KALLSEM MAVIS CORKERY

322-010-004

HORN FRED W & MARY L

322-010-003

PICHLER AVANELL

322-220-006

MC LAIN GARY

322-220-009

HANNAKER ETHEL B

322-010-018

BUS & PROF EX INC SALT LAKE CI

322-010-019

KELLER & HOLT (TRS)

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 provides guidance on 

preparedness, prescribed fire, wildland fire, and prevention. Values 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. 

Major components of the Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex’s Fire Management 

Plan include: 

 Updated policy for prescribed fires at the Kern National Wildlife Refuge Complex 

(NWRC). 

 Implementation of Complex objectives identified in the Final Comprehensive 

Conservation Plan. 

 Format changes under the direction of Fire Management Handbook (Release Date 

6/1/00). 

The FMP was 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.